Coronavirus - the killer flu that will wipe us out? (Vol. 5)

[markyb_lcy]

Sounds like WHO/UN could become the “new EU” from what some on here sound like

The UN and it’s organisations are clubs run by their members (nation states).

Sure, it’s not perfect, but a world with a UN is better than a world without. It’s a forum through which countries can engage with each other. If individual countries don’t engage through it, that’s entirely on them.

Taiwan isn’t a recognised country in many quarters. That’s about international diplomacy though I agree it does look and sound a bit strange.

[Welshbeef]

Sambucket said:

Ultra Sound Guy said:

Just out of interest, is there anywhere to get figures for...
Total Uk deaths in January to April 2019.
Total UK deaths (including CV19) for 2020?

Just interested in the real impact.

The ONS data is too laggy right now, to mean anything at such an early stage in the curve. as soon as the data is meaninful, it will be all over the news you won't have to look. (same happened in italy)

The sky news analyst last night had such a graph showing actual deaths Dec19 to now and then a dotted line showing the years my average death rate.
Up until the very last part of the graph we are significantly below the yearly average. However recently C19 deaths have pushed the below average to be a step ahead of the average.

[hotchy]

Sambucket said:

Ultra Sound Guy said:

Just out of interest, is there anywhere to get figures for...
Total Uk deaths in January to April 2019.
Total UK deaths (including CV19) for 2020?

Just interested in the real impact.

The ONS data is too laggy right now, to mean anything at such an early stage in the curve. as soon as the data is meaninful, it will be all over the news you won't have to look. (same happened in italy)

What was the real terms impact shown on italy?

[anonymous-user]

jsf said:

Have you been sitting in the cabinet?

Well he was told to self isolate!

[pneumothorax]

Matty3 said:

Good gracious what an absolutely horrible nights work - what an awful situation to be faced with, I really find it rather difficult to contemplate how you guys and gals on the front line are coping with this tragedy, you all have my utmost admiration.

thanks, thoughts are appreciated. I have lots of Patients who have recovered though, even 80+ year olds, some have even survived being in hospital. Companies such as those that usually supply 02 to my Patients have stepped up and are going in to sort them. Patients have suddenly become VERY grateful for the help I can offer them. It's an interesting time to be alive and do what I do. It's also, generally very rewarding, and I can pay the mortgage, roads are clear on way in and so I am using various interesting machines to get there.

However, these facilities are like perfect incubators for this virus and it is certainly very infectious and very virulent in this group of people. Cannot believe that this isn't front page news.

[pghstochaj]

EddieSteadyGo said:

If the current rate of transmission (R) during lockdown is 1, the number of infectious people will be about the same in 6 weeks as it is now.

I don't even know whether you're joking now, or simply don't understand.

With the same level of interaction between households, neighbours and communities, obviously the transmission rate drops as the available population for the virus drops. At the moment, we are still dealing with household transmissions keeping the transmission rate high. Once that drops off (because either the infected recovers or dies, or because the household is all infected) then the virus has nobody new to infect.

Literally the entire reason for a lockdown is to reduce the transmission rate, but to your understanding, it won't go any further down between end of March 2020 and mid-May 2020 despite a prolonged lockdown. What is it that you think we are all doing by staying at home if it isn't to reduce R0?

[Tootles the Taxi]

Thesprucegoose said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

Going for a strategy to let the virus burn out is completely legitimate. However, you can't do that with the current version of lockdown.

You need to restrict people to their own neighbourhood. You would need to close all businesses. You need to do that for around 3 months. And once you have done that you need to close the borders until there is an effective vaccine in place.

It could be done - but it isn't what Germany are going for.

Agree with all of this except the vaccine. I don't think there will be one, and it is likely it will have a second surge as Sars 2 or even Sars 3, but i hope I am wrong. Imagine a country in a far flung country, the virus going on for months, one person take a fight, boom outbreak again.

If lockdown "works" and the virus fizzles out as a result of having no new hosts to infect, we still won't know the percentage of the population who have been infected and might be immune. So, it will be impossible to reinstate international travel & tourism for the foreseeable future (I'm talking years) as Covid19 will become endemic in the Indian subcontinent, Africa, South America and probably USA. As soon as someone lands in the UK from any of those areas with the virus is likely to be able to find receptive hosts in the UK population and we'll be back where we started.

We need to realise this before we go pressuring the Government into getting back to business as usual. Without a vaccine there might never be a return to business as usual.

[TheJimi]

markyb_lcy said:

TheJimi said:

markyb_lcy said:

Trump, a man who continued to downplay the crisis including after WHO declared it a pandemic has now said the USA will stop giving WHO money because they didn’t make the call on the pandemic early enough. This is a man whose stupidity knows no bounds and continues to surprise.

President Trump said:

They missed the call. They could’ve called it months earlier.”

Sure, he's an idiotic hypocrit, but on the single point made here about the WHO, he's not wrong.

Edited by TheJimi on Wednesday 8th April 00:20

That they could have called it earlier? How so? It can only be called a pandemic when it demonstrably is one.

Do you think he is right to pull US funding?

They absolutely could have called it earlier, imo. It was an obvious pandemic weeks before the WHO came out and announced it as one. That's not just my layman's opinion, do some digging and you'll find it's opinion of many others far better informed than I am.


As for Trump removing funding, I think that's a fairly childish gesture from a hypocritical muppet. He's more or less trying to vindicate his own downplaying of the situation by virtue of pointing at the WHO and saying "but they didn't tell me..."

[Pan Pan Pan]

EddieSteadyGo said:

Thesprucegoose said:

You don't have to, the virus only can survive for so long with active hosts.

t That is why you lockdown and test, so you isolate control and trace. I think in Germany one of the early cases they traced and tested hundreds of people he came into contact with. This makes a massive difference in death rates because you starve the virus of hosts.

Going for a strategy to let the virus burn out is completely legitimate. However, you can't do that with the current version of lockdown.

You need to restrict people to their own neighbourhood. You would need to close all businesses. You need to do that for around 3 months. And once you have done that you need to close the borders until there is an effective vaccine in place.

It could be done - but it isn't what Germany are going for.

Different people have different ideas on this, which is perfectly OK. Only time will prove who had the right strategy.
It seems the government have given people broadly 3 options, which was:
Go out if you cannot work from home.
Go out if you need food or medicines.
Go out for 1 hours exercise..

For some option 1 might be non negotiable.They either go to work, or they lose their job, Or they are in an occupation such as an NHS worker whose efforts are vital.
For some option 2 would be a must, since not eating, and / or not taking medicines for a pre existing health issue will not do them any good.
For some option 3. might also be a must, but would be the one I don't actually need to do, because it would not adversely affect me, since I have been doing exercise indoors for years.
Since I want to limit the chances of picking up CV19 to the absolute minimum, taking up 2 out of the 3 available options `might' cut my chances of getting CV19 by around a third.
No one can see CV19, no one knows if a person near them has it,(some don't even know if the have it themselves) No one has a cure for CV19, No one really knows how it is spread, No one knows if they can survive it, regardless of whether they are young, old, ill or in good health.
On the basis of all those don't knows, the ONLY thing I can do to protect myself and my family members is to limit the chances of coming into contact with CV19 to the absolute minimum that `I' can.

[pghstochaj]

Welshbeef said:

Sambucket said:

Ultra Sound Guy said:

Just out of interest, is there anywhere to get figures for...
Total Uk deaths in January to April 2019.
Total UK deaths (including CV19) for 2020?

Just interested in the real impact.

The ONS data is too laggy right now, to mean anything at such an early stage in the curve. as soon as the data is meaninful, it will be all over the news you won't have to look. (same happened in italy)

The sky news analyst last night had such a graph showing actual deaths Dec19 to now and then a dotted line showing the years my average death rate.
Up until the very last part of the graph we are significantly below the yearly average. However recently C19 deaths have pushed the below average to be a step ahead of the average.

It's worth pointing out that those results are obviously with our considerable level of lockdown. That is, if the deaths stay as "low" as they are, that doesn't mean it was an overreaction, it probably means that they are low as a consequence of the control measures put in place.

[Ultra Sound Guy]

Welshbeef said:

Sambucket said:

Ultra Sound Guy said:

Just out of interest, is there anywhere to get figures for...
Total Uk deaths in January to April 2019.
Total UK deaths (including CV19) for 2020?

Just interested in the real impact.

The ONS data is too laggy right now, to mean anything at such an early stage in the curve. as soon as the data is meaninful, it will be all over the news you won't have to look. (same happened in italy)

The sky news analyst last night had such a graph showing actual deaths Dec19 to now and then a dotted line showing the years my average death rate.
Up until the very last part of the graph we are significantly below the yearly average. However recently C19 deaths have pushed the below average to be a step ahead of the average.

Thanks for that!

[otolith]

pneumothorax said:

It is the stuff of nightmares, staff are leaving, agency ones coming in to partially fill the gaps. If I had a sentient relative in one of these places I would have removed them weeks ago. This was predictable. You would have to actually see what I do to actually believe it.
I have a thing where I talk to any other residents as I am walking through these places en route to whoever I am seeing, there are always folk sitting around in the communal areas and they like to see a new face and have a chat. Last night I clocked one chap in the tv room, actually watching the news channel, said hello and then realised there was another resident (clearly dying) slumped in one of the other chairs, not watching anything....I suspect she will die in that chair.

It's a new reality and it is getting slightly dystopian.

That's horrific.

[markyb_lcy]

TheJimi said:

markyb_lcy said:

TheJimi said:

markyb_lcy said:

Trump, a man who continued to downplay the crisis including after WHO declared it a pandemic has now said the USA will stop giving WHO money because they didn’t make the call on the pandemic early enough. This is a man whose stupidity knows no bounds and continues to surprise.

President Trump said:

They missed the call. They could’ve called it months earlier.”

Sure, he's an idiotic hypocrit, but on the single point made here about the WHO, he's not wrong.

Edited by TheJimi on Wednesday 8th April 00:20

That they could have called it earlier? How so? It can only be called a pandemic when it demonstrably is one.

Do you think he is right to pull US funding?

They absolutely could have called it earlier, imo. It was an obvious pandemic weeks before the WHO came out and announced it as one. That's not just my layman's opinion, do some digging and you'll find it's opinion of many others far better informed than I am.


As for Trump removing funding, I think that's a fairly childish gesture from a hypocritical muppet. He's more or less trying to vindicate his own downplaying of the situation by virtue of pointing at the WHO and saying "but they didn't tell me..."

Was an obvious pandemic or was obvious it was going to be a pandemic? Not exactly the same thing.

I don’t know what the WHO criteria for a pandemic actually is (and I may go and look), but are you saying WHO could have called it a pandemic based on their own criteria and data and held off on doing so?

Totally agree on the Trump funding thing, once again he’s sounding like a childish brat. Not fit for the office he holds.

Edited by markyb_lcy on Wednesday 8th April 10:05

[anonymous-user]

hotchy said:

Sambucket said:

Ultra Sound Guy said:

Just out of interest, is there anywhere to get figures for...
Total Uk deaths in January to April 2019.
Total UK deaths (including CV19) for 2020?

Just interested in the real impact.

The ONS data is too laggy right now, to mean anything at such an early stage in the curve. as soon as the data is meaninful, it will be all over the news you won't have to look. (same happened in italy)

What was the real terms impact shown on italy?

The data is regionally patchy (pay close attention to date range of teh data vs the date of peak in the regions, they don't always overlap) and there are tons of caveats and it's perhaps too early to judge, but the data certainly points at undercounting.

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 8th April 10:05

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 8th April 10:05

[JagLover]

m3jappa said:

We are being told (understandably) that if we all follow the rules then infections will drop and death rates will drop, we are also told hospitals are still within capacity.

At the same time the government are building several new hospitals over the country while at the same time cancelling as much other stuff they can freeing up other beds and staff, they have also recruited several thousand retired staff and volunteers.

But why do all that if infections will drop during a lockdown?

Imo the plan is to set everything up and send everyone back to work, social distancing will have to be a massive part of the plan where possible, pubs, clubs, schools and anything which will make it spread like wildfire to remain closed, vulnerable people will still be told to isolate.

Surely this is one of the only options to allow the economy to function and at the same time having as much care as possible for people who might need it.

The media has recently gone into another level of overdrive recently, talking about deaths of younger people and while its obviously terrible i do think its a level of propaganda to make the younger generation sit up but the fact is most people who get it will be ok and generally the older people and vulnerable are the ones likely to have issues.

Let us hope so.

The stated purpose of the lockdown was to flatten the curve and protect the NHS. It has never been claimed that the lockdown itself will somehow "defeat" the virus.

[jagnet]

Previous advice from WHO on the subject of masks for the public:

From a WHO publication dated 2019 on "Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza"



Under severity: high, alongside school closures.

Measures under "not recommended under any circumstances" seem to have been recategorised by most countries.



From the ministry of the bleeding obvious. No country is suggesting mask wearing as the sole measure to fight covid-19.

[Graveworm]

Thesprucegoose said:

zarjaz_ said:

You can't just lock down indefinitely.

You don't have to, the virus only can survive for so long with active hosts.

t That is why you lockdown and test, so you isolate control and trace. I think in Germany one of the early cases they traced and tested hundreds of people he came into contact with. This makes a massive difference in death rates because you starve the virus of hosts.

Track and trace yes, lockdown not so much. No matter how strict the lockdown we would still need the population of a small country circulating to survive, then (Unless we get some very difficult out of the box restrictions) going home to their households. That's every day and then occasional essential trips by most other households.
So the virus wouldn't die out. It would still be worse than in that small country if they imposed no restrictions.

[EddieSteadyGo]

jsf said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

The ironic thing is that, in 6 weeks time, the risks of infection are going to be pretty much exactly the same as they are now, and the government is going to tell you that it is absolutely fine.

How do you know?

Have you been sitting in the cabinet?

I've explained my reasoning previously.

The current rate of infection (R) estimated by Neil Fergusen at Imperial is around 1.0. This is based on the current UK lockdown.

Which means the number of actual current infectious people will continue at around the same level.

[JagLover]

markyb_lcy said:

Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) in Seattle Is predicting that the UK will be the worst-hit European country (based on their projected death figures)...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-w...

They’re predicting a peak of just under 3000 daily deaths on 17 April.

If this (the general assertion rather than the numbers) turns out to be true (I’m not saying it will) then there will be major pressure on the govt after what has been a period of relative goodwill by their usual politician opponents.

Guardian said:

By August the UK is projected to have recorded more Covid-19 deaths than Italy, Spain, France and Germany combined

We will see, but from what I have seen it is more likely the Imperial model is overstating hospitalisations and deaths not understating them.

[pneumothorax]

catweasle said:

Words fail me..........Other than to say you have my utmost respect.

Thank you again. The people I doff all of my caps to are the carers that are in these homes and still come to work, they are not earning much but many really care about the people they are attempting to look out for, and I suspect many of them will looking for other work in 2 months time..