CV19 - Cure worse than the disease?
Discussion
What about children with underlying health conditions, how affected are they likely to be in the scenario we do nothing? I presume some children suffer from illnesses that impact their respiratory systems and they would be at risk? Or kids who are immunosuppressed as they are having cancer treatment etc?
Maybe I'm getting confused. Is the argument that those people and their families should be in lockdown while the rest of us carry on?
Maybe I'm getting confused. Is the argument that those people and their families should be in lockdown while the rest of us carry on?
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Of course I'm open to advice from people with more knowledge and experience than myself. The using your brain part applies to applying that advice.
To go with the misfire thread analogy, it seems as if someone had told me that the safest way was a complete engine rebuild, someone else had told me that the car would never be worth the repair, and someone else that I should take the opportunity to bolt on twin turbos etc etc.
Those people may all be technically brilliant and may be sincerely offering the best advice they can. It doesn't mean they should be blindly followed.
There are no experts on the implications of such policies nor on the perils of this disease because it hasn't happened like this before.
With the time frame and the spread of the illness it's quite unlikely that those with a good idea of these things have accurate information or have had the time to fully digest and model the impacts of various courses of action.
In such circumstances I am quite capable of looking at the numbers I posted above and saying that I believe the reaction will be more damaging than the virus itself.
This , I'm also thinking overreaction , a fairly serious virus but could've be much worse with something really nasty like Ebola ...To go with the misfire thread analogy, it seems as if someone had told me that the safest way was a complete engine rebuild, someone else had told me that the car would never be worth the repair, and someone else that I should take the opportunity to bolt on twin turbos etc etc.
Those people may all be technically brilliant and may be sincerely offering the best advice they can. It doesn't mean they should be blindly followed.
There are no experts on the implications of such policies nor on the perils of this disease because it hasn't happened like this before.
With the time frame and the spread of the illness it's quite unlikely that those with a good idea of these things have accurate information or have had the time to fully digest and model the impacts of various courses of action.
In such circumstances I am quite capable of looking at the numbers I posted above and saying that I believe the reaction will be more damaging than the virus itself.
peterperkins said:
Survival of the fittest has served nature and evolution fairly well over the years.
Although it did lead eventually to us!?
If your older, with underlying health issues like me etc etc you know the answer.
Harsh but fair and probably in our own and our species at large's best interests.
Sorry Peter,Although it did lead eventually to us!?
If your older, with underlying health issues like me etc etc you know the answer.
Harsh but fair and probably in our own and our species at large's best interests.
Edited by peterperkins on Saturday 21st March 21:48
I've never met you or spoken to you, but I'd rather retain your wisdom and knowledge on this planet. I'm not prepared to let it happen.
Esceptico said:
Daughter’s assessment was very pragmatic but also focused on her and her peers. She questioned whether the damage being done to the global economy and the potential for a long recession or even depression like the 1930s was a price worth paying to defer the death of lots of old people with existing health problems (yes the virus doesn’t just kill old people but the mortality rates increase dramatically with age from 0.006% of 10-20 year olds to almost 10% of those over 80.)
Hmm. There's no doubt that some of the views expressed on here are bringing out yet another generation gap and an unhealthy dose of "I'm all right Jack"Perhaps you could say that the generation that she (and others) appear to want to kill off were around when;
1. there was no NHS. They and subsequent generations created the organisation which we all benefit from. (started in 1948 IIRC) There's even a train of thought that says if we hadn't started the NHS she might not be here now.
2. some of the oldest generation you want to kill off lived through that 1930s depression that she wants to avoid and yet they didn't create it either.
3. the same generation lived through a world war and only in the last couple of years did we finally complete on that war debt.
4. the older generations (60+) are the ones who created the world she now lives in. Computers, internet, international travel (my father's international travel was being sent to North Africa to get shot at), mobile phones, etc.
We've a lot to be grateful for from the older generations and frankly I find it sickening that (some) folks on here are so quick to say "they're old, let 'em die because otherwise I can't get the next iPhone".
[/rant]
I don't think some get how bad this could end up getting economically and socially. This is going to go on for 12-18 month lockdown after lockdown. It's just not going to be affordable.
This 80% of your wage ok if you keep your job millions won't, business still have bills to pay, rent, insurance with no money coming in they will go bump.
Bast case scenario is that we come out of this with a debt we will be paying for, for the rest of our lives and our public sector will need to be cut back beyond almost all recognition.
Worse case scenario after a few months with massive job losses people's life savings running out. People struggling to even afford food. The bank's will start to crumble, Crime will skyrocket and society itself could start to fall apart. We may see some form of martial law but there just isn't enough police, military to really enforce it. It becomes every man for themselves.
This is worse case but it really isn't that far fetched now things could get bad.
This 80% of your wage ok if you keep your job millions won't, business still have bills to pay, rent, insurance with no money coming in they will go bump.
Bast case scenario is that we come out of this with a debt we will be paying for, for the rest of our lives and our public sector will need to be cut back beyond almost all recognition.
Worse case scenario after a few months with massive job losses people's life savings running out. People struggling to even afford food. The bank's will start to crumble, Crime will skyrocket and society itself could start to fall apart. We may see some form of martial law but there just isn't enough police, military to really enforce it. It becomes every man for themselves.
This is worse case but it really isn't that far fetched now things could get bad.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
There are no experts on the implications of such policies nor on the perils of this disease because it hasn't happened like this before.
With the time frame and the spread of the illness it's quite unlikely that those with a good idea of these things have accurate information or have had the time to fully digest and model the impacts of various courses of action.
In such circumstances I am quite capable of looking at the numbers I posted above and saying that I believe the reaction will be more damaging than the virus itself.
There are experts, not least the chief medical adviser. epidemiologists, virologists and many other ologists and researchers have been studying epidemics and pandemics for decades. Look at the Spanish flu a century ago - they study it and everything since to look at treatment/lack of treatment/spread etc.With the time frame and the spread of the illness it's quite unlikely that those with a good idea of these things have accurate information or have had the time to fully digest and model the impacts of various courses of action.
In such circumstances I am quite capable of looking at the numbers I posted above and saying that I believe the reaction will be more damaging than the virus itself.
The only way that a health system could withstand an outbreak like this, other than the 'flattening the curve' philosophy would be to pre-filter the CV19 cases and turn them away.... because if they don't the hospitals get overwhelmed by CV19 cases and have to turn away heart attacks, car crash victims, stroke victims, kids that bash their heads after falling over... everything and anything that could mean a rapid trip to hospital. Therefore the death rate from 'do nothing' is far higher than the statistics on surviving/dying getting infected by CV19.
If one country was 'over reacting' then you could point fingers and suggest the reaction is excessive, with the vast majority of the world on the same page, if not exactly at the same paragraph, there are enough experts in agreement that it is necessary. What is missing is ~100% of the population listening and doing what is asked of them!
One of the target demo will also be GP's, registrars, medical specialists, nurses etc. What happens if one of them are ill? Do you leave them to perish and lose years of experience and knowledge and the millions we've spent over their career training them? Or do you segregate even more? Unemployed, drug addicts, criminals...
Not-The-Messiah said:
This is going to go on for 12-18 month lockdown after lockdown.
Crime will skyrocket and society itself could start to fall apart. We may see some form of martial law but there just isn't enough police, military to really enforce it. It becomes every man for themselves.
This is worse case but it really isn't that far fetched now things could get bad.
Not sure I agree with the former point - I think lockdowns will be targeted at specific areas & will be a matter of weeks, not months. I don't believe the British psyche will put up with total lockdown - Anglo Saxons are a strange breed, but many of us would prefer to take our chances than be under house arrest for much more than 2 weeks....Crime will skyrocket and society itself could start to fall apart. We may see some form of martial law but there just isn't enough police, military to really enforce it. It becomes every man for themselves.
This is worse case but it really isn't that far fetched now things could get bad.
As for your latter point: my biggest concern is the w
kers taking advantage of the situation, & includes anybody panic buying, & anecdotal evidence to suggest that our travelling friends are ramping up their activity.....Now stop being so negative!!!!
llewop said:
There are experts, not least the chief medical adviser. epidemiologists, virologists and many other ologists and researchers have been studying epidemics and pandemics for decades. Look at the Spanish flu a century ago - they study it and everything since to look at treatment/lack of treatment/spread etc.
The only way that a health system could withstand an outbreak like this, other than the 'flattening the curve' philosophy would be to pre-filter the CV19 cases and turn them away.... because if they don't the hospitals get overwhelmed by CV19 cases and have to turn away heart attacks, car crash victims, stroke victims, kids that bash their heads after falling over... everything and anything that could mean a rapid trip to hospital. Therefore the death rate from 'do nothing' is far higher than the statistics on surviving/dying getting infected by CV19.
If one country was 'over reacting' then you could point fingers and suggest the reaction is excessive, with the vast majority of the world on the same page, if not exactly at the same paragraph, there are enough experts in agreement that it is necessary. What is missing is ~100% of the population listening and doing what is asked of them!
The entire global response to the pandemic is increasingly based on this paper from Imperial College (https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf). It makes some gross, rash and (it turns out) incorrect assumptions, but has not been revised. The most important incorrect assumption is that nCovd19 has a similar lethality profile to the 1918 H1N1 "Spanish" flu. It doesn't. It is only killing the old and infirm. It's doing that aggressively, but appears to have a vanishingly low CFR for anyone not in those groups. There's a recent Italian study where they looked at 355 deaths. Of those only 3 had no underlying conditions. Many had more than one.The only way that a health system could withstand an outbreak like this, other than the 'flattening the curve' philosophy would be to pre-filter the CV19 cases and turn them away.... because if they don't the hospitals get overwhelmed by CV19 cases and have to turn away heart attacks, car crash victims, stroke victims, kids that bash their heads after falling over... everything and anything that could mean a rapid trip to hospital. Therefore the death rate from 'do nothing' is far higher than the statistics on surviving/dying getting infected by CV19.
If one country was 'over reacting' then you could point fingers and suggest the reaction is excessive, with the vast majority of the world on the same page, if not exactly at the same paragraph, there are enough experts in agreement that it is necessary. What is missing is ~100% of the population listening and doing what is asked of them!
We have not revised our approach either, despite it becoming apparent that isolating the old and very ill, and leaving everyone else to get on with their lives would be cheaper, more effective (because of herd immunity) and easier to enforce and deliver.
964Cup said:
The entire global response to the pandemic is increasingly based on this paper from Imperial College (https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf). It makes some gross, rash and (it turns out) incorrect assumptions, but has not been revised. The most important incorrect assumption is that nCovd19 has a similar lethality profile to the 1918 H1N1 "Spanish" flu.
That paper is a summary/review from a week ago - it is dated 16th March so can't be the basis for the UK response, let alone the response of other countries. It also references 18 papers: half of which predate the covid-19 period including reviews of other pandemics (not just Spanish flu). I don't doubt since they are mostly from peer reviewed scientific journals that they in turn reference many other papers by many other researchers. In the things I've looked at, including pre-Covid-19, it is widely acknowledged that particularly during the outbreak mortality rates etc are evolving data and that different virus will transmit and mutate in different ways.I don’t know how much can be read into the numbers. If they start testing a lot more people then the infected numbers will go up considerably. As has already been said the number of infected is likely to be tens of thousands higher than reported.
Deaths, you’d assume, are accurate, although is everyone who dies getting tested for it? Pneumonia kills ~30k a year, is every pneumonia death being treated as suspicious?
Regardless of all of this the fact there are still many people out there flouting the social distancing instructions means there are probably going to be more draconian measures and/or it’ll get out of control. We’re barely a month in to this and people are already selfishly doing what they want, imagine trying to keep things locked down for 3-6+ months as they need to. It’s not going to happen.
Almost everyone is going to get this, we just need to be able to keep the health service above water.
Deaths, you’d assume, are accurate, although is everyone who dies getting tested for it? Pneumonia kills ~30k a year, is every pneumonia death being treated as suspicious?
Regardless of all of this the fact there are still many people out there flouting the social distancing instructions means there are probably going to be more draconian measures and/or it’ll get out of control. We’re barely a month in to this and people are already selfishly doing what they want, imagine trying to keep things locked down for 3-6+ months as they need to. It’s not going to happen.
Almost everyone is going to get this, we just need to be able to keep the health service above water.
Scotty2 said:
Why are they not telling us the normal number of deaths per day to give an indication of how many more are being caused by covid19?
May re-assure us that it is not that bad. Say last year 3000 per day, now 3100 for example.
Average deaths per day in UK is around 1400May re-assure us that it is not that bad. Say last year 3000 per day, now 3100 for example.
The Covid 19 death figures are peopl who have died after testing positive.
My own view on this is what was the point of building a masive rich economy in the first place if we can't even look after our own in a crisis?
964Cup said:
The entire global response to the pandemic is increasingly based on this paper from Imperial College (https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf). It makes some gross, rash and (it turns out) incorrect assumptions, but has not been revised. The most important incorrect assumption is that nCovd19 has a similar lethality profile to the 1918 H1N1 "Spanish" flu. It doesn't. It is only killing the old and infirm. It's doing that aggressively, but appears to have a vanishingly low CFR for anyone not in those groups. There's a recent Italian study where they looked at 355 deaths. Of those only 3 had no underlying conditions. Many had more than one.
We have not revised our approach either, despite it becoming apparent that isolating the old and very ill, and leaving everyone else to get on with their lives would be cheaper, more effective (because of herd immunity) and easier to enforce and deliver.
This point is reasonable. The Imperial modelling was shared with HMG and others before publication. A more nuanced analysis would be interesting to see.We have not revised our approach either, despite it becoming apparent that isolating the old and very ill, and leaving everyone else to get on with their lives would be cheaper, more effective (because of herd immunity) and easier to enforce and deliver.
Smiler. said:
lord trumpton said:
jakesmith said:
Esceptico said:
Over dinner last night I was discussing CV19 with wife and teenage daughter.
Daughter’s assessment was very pragmatic but also focused on her and her peers. She questioned whether the damage being done to the global economy and the potential for a long recession or even depression like the 1930s was a price worth paying to defer the death of lots of old people with existing health problems
I'd ask her how she would feel if she was 70 and her children had just had their first babies.Daughter’s assessment was very pragmatic but also focused on her and her peers. She questioned whether the damage being done to the global economy and the potential for a long recession or even depression like the 1930s was a price worth paying to defer the death of lots of old people with existing health problems
Let's be blunt - the NHS was on its knees before all this due to the lingering old corpses clinging on in hospital beds or taking up all the social reserves.
They have had a good innings and a great reduction in all the numbers wouldn't go amiss
Id also say that going forward free NHS treatment should end after 80.
k me, what a charmer you are. Of course, you've got all the facts to hand.
Edit: unless this is satire, in which case, f
k you. t! Lives up to his ageist name! Incidentally, the NHS is on it's knees because of the amount of money it wastes, not what it receives.
Biker 1 said:
Not-The-Messiah said:
This is going to go on for 12-18 month lockdown after lockdown.
Crime will skyrocket and society itself could start to fall apart. We may see some form of martial law but there just isn't enough police, military to really enforce it. It becomes every man for themselves.
This is worse case but it really isn't that far fetched now things could get bad.
Not sure I agree with the former point - I think lockdowns will be targeted at specific areas & will be a matter of weeks, not months. I don't believe the British psyche will put up with total lockdown - Anglo Saxons are a strange breed, but many of us would prefer to take our chances than be under house arrest for much more than 2 weeks....Crime will skyrocket and society itself could start to fall apart. We may see some form of martial law but there just isn't enough police, military to really enforce it. It becomes every man for themselves.
This is worse case but it really isn't that far fetched now things could get bad.
As for your latter point: my biggest concern is the w
kers taking advantage of the situation, & includes anybody panic buying, & anecdotal evidence to suggest that our travelling friends are ramping up their activity.....Now stop being so negative!!!!
This is the plan the government is now working to. They have already said that it will be months of on off restrictions. It's going to last month until in their plan a vaccine arrives and let's hope it's not a virus like HIV where we have never been able to find a vaccine.
The blue boxes are what we have now no schools, no bars, pubs, cinemas, gyms, no social or sporting events. People working from home, but work for almost everyone will dry up other than the food industry no one is going to be spending money on anything other than essentials.
And throughout all of this other restrictions will still be in place the old and vulnerable self isolating.
It's hard not to be so negative, I hope this information changes as we get more information about the virus. Things like how many people are asymptomatic or have very mild symptoms. If this is higher, than it could be over sooner. And a policy of strictly only isolating the vulnerable but allowing more freedom to others.
My prediction is still we will eventually just need to let it run but not before we have bankrupted ourselves in the process. We will just need to do our best at saving as many as we can or at least reducing the suffering, but lots and lots of people will die.
llewop said:
There are experts, not least the chief medical adviser. epidemiologists, virologists and many other ologists and researchers have been studying epidemics and pandemics for decades. Look at the Spanish flu a century ago - they study it and everything since to look at treatment/lack of treatment/spread etc.
The only way that a health system could withstand an outbreak like this, other than the 'flattening the curve' philosophy would be to pre-filter the CV19 cases and turn them away.... because if they don't the hospitals get overwhelmed by CV19 cases and have to turn away heart attacks, car crash victims, stroke victims, kids that bash their heads after falling over... everything and anything that could mean a rapid trip to hospital. Therefore the death rate from 'do nothing' is far higher than the statistics on surviving/dying getting infected by CV19.
If one country was 'over reacting' then you could point fingers and suggest the reaction is excessive, with the vast majority of the world on the same page, if not exactly at the same paragraph, there are enough experts in agreement that it is necessary. What is missing is ~100% of the population listening and doing what is asked of them!
I’m somewhat jaundiced on the capacity issue, having seen the NHS fight the wishes of elderly relatives who wanted to die, but weren’t allowed to. My cousin died 7 years before his body actually packed it in, but was aggressively treated for everything because by the time it became important, he was not in a mentally fit state to make a decision. He stopped eating, but they fed him with a tube. Presumably someone got a hard on keeping him alive, none of his relatives did. The only way that a health system could withstand an outbreak like this, other than the 'flattening the curve' philosophy would be to pre-filter the CV19 cases and turn them away.... because if they don't the hospitals get overwhelmed by CV19 cases and have to turn away heart attacks, car crash victims, stroke victims, kids that bash their heads after falling over... everything and anything that could mean a rapid trip to hospital. Therefore the death rate from 'do nothing' is far higher than the statistics on surviving/dying getting infected by CV19.
If one country was 'over reacting' then you could point fingers and suggest the reaction is excessive, with the vast majority of the world on the same page, if not exactly at the same paragraph, there are enough experts in agreement that it is necessary. What is missing is ~100% of the population listening and doing what is asked of them!
My neighbour is hoping that this get into the care home where her father is. He’s also dead, but dementia and Parkinson’s has turned him into a violent thug who has no idea what he is doing on earth. But still thousands a week is spent keeping him alive, and all of the rest of the people there who are in a similar condition.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff