The new "rule of six" -- and the absence of an SI
Discussion
unident said:
The problem there is that it’s a new virus, with new discoveries on a regular basis. If we have to wait for significant numbers before considering that significant numbers may be affected then it’s a bit reactive. Whatever the numbers are there is evidence that it is affecting some. Those affected will be a far bigger drain on the NHS and economy than those who die, so there’s an economic aspect to worry those of you who only know the price of things and the value of nothing
What do you propose is done about this though , in the shortish to medium term (let's say 2 years). It's very likely that the initial vaccines may not be effective enough to curtail the virus' transmission; the front runner from Oxford and AZ has a stated completion date of October 2022 for phase III trials and as far has been communicated (by the head of the UK vaccine taskforce) the UK has no intention of offering a vaccine to otherwise healthy people, it will be provided to those most at risk either medically due to conditions/age or exposure. Joining those together then, it will probably continue to circulate and most people will not be vaccinated. I acknowledge your points of the ways this effects people other than outright death but other than a a period of years where we redesign how we live as a society it seems quite unavoidable?
deebs said:
What do you propose is done about this though , in the shortish to medium term (let's say 2 years). It's very likely that the initial vaccines may not be effective enough to curtail the virus' transmission; the front runner from Oxford and AZ has a stated completion date of October 2022 for phase III trials and as far has been communicated (by the head of the UK vaccine taskforce) the UK has no intention of offering a vaccine to otherwise healthy people, it will be provided to those most at risk either medically due to conditions/age or exposure.
Joining those together then, it will probably continue to circulate and most people will not be vaccinated. I acknowledge your points of the ways this effects people other than outright death but other than a a period of years where we redesign how we live as a society it seems quite unavoidable?
The simple answer is that I’m not proposing anything spectacular. In fact I’m not sure I’ve even got a a proposal. One thing is for certain, no matter what I could propose some would get very angry about it, others who would just get a bit angry and that would be those on both sides of the arguments. Joining those together then, it will probably continue to circulate and most people will not be vaccinated. I acknowledge your points of the ways this effects people other than outright death but other than a a period of years where we redesign how we live as a society it seems quite unavoidable?
As it stands we don’t know much about this virus. As such, taking precautions, behaving reasonably and considering others is probably the best way to approach it. History has taught us one thing though pandemics lead to permanent change in the way we act. The most recent pandemic that impacted us was HIV. From that, safe(r) sex became more prevalent, even now 30+ years on many people take a bit more care in the way they behave sexually. There is nothing to say that we will ever be able to go back to how life was. We’ve just become conditioned to the fact that change is always for the better in the past generation.
If a vaccine is found then in the short term it will go where needed most, as all vaccines in history have. The comments about distribution are to describe the immediate first round of vaccinations, not the end state, in time it will be available to all.
The irony is that those who are proposing letting it run riot and chasing the herd immunity argument are to some extent getting their wish. Confirmed cases are rising at exponential rates across the country, and the lag measures are starting to follow as they did previously. At the rate it’s going we could (to use another posters phrase) “run out of stock” ie have everyone infected. It’ll be interesting to see what happens over the coming weeks.
Here is some more stuff for the Government and the media to ignore -
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/22268/
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/22268/
unident said:
The simple answer is that I’m not proposing anything spectacular. In fact I’m not sure I’ve even got a a proposal. One thing is for certain, no matter what I could propose some would get very angry about it, others who would just get a bit angry and that would be those on both sides of the arguments.
As it stands we don’t know much about this virus. As such, taking precautions, behaving reasonably and considering others is probably the best way to approach it. History has taught us one thing though pandemics lead to permanent change in the way we act. The most recent pandemic that impacted us was HIV. From that, safe(r) sex became more prevalent, even now 30+ years on many people take a bit more care in the way they behave sexually. There is nothing to say that we will ever be able to go back to how life was. We’ve just become conditioned to the fact that change is always for the better in the past generation.
If a vaccine is found then in the short term it will go where needed most, as all vaccines in history have. The comments about distribution are to describe the immediate first round of vaccinations, not the end state, in time it will be available to all.
The irony is that those who are proposing letting it run riot and chasing the herd immunity argument are to some extent getting their wish. Confirmed cases are rising at exponential rates across the country, and the lag measures are starting to follow as they did previously. At the rate it’s going we could (to use another posters phrase) “run out of stock” ie have everyone infected. It’ll be interesting to see what happens over the coming weeks.
Good points there. Within my post that you quoted, I asked what you thought could be done to tackle the issue of the other effects of covid in the shortish to medium term (2 years) given the double hit of vaccines probably not being effective enough to end transmission and the very targeted [initial] roll out. I understand that the roll out and even the vaccine effectiveness its self will evolve and the end state will look different from the first rolls outs. However, hypothetically I'm saying this could take 2+ years, during which time people will continue to suffer the non-deadly impacts of covid. As it stands we don’t know much about this virus. As such, taking precautions, behaving reasonably and considering others is probably the best way to approach it. History has taught us one thing though pandemics lead to permanent change in the way we act. The most recent pandemic that impacted us was HIV. From that, safe(r) sex became more prevalent, even now 30+ years on many people take a bit more care in the way they behave sexually. There is nothing to say that we will ever be able to go back to how life was. We’ve just become conditioned to the fact that change is always for the better in the past generation.
If a vaccine is found then in the short term it will go where needed most, as all vaccines in history have. The comments about distribution are to describe the immediate first round of vaccinations, not the end state, in time it will be available to all.
The irony is that those who are proposing letting it run riot and chasing the herd immunity argument are to some extent getting their wish. Confirmed cases are rising at exponential rates across the country, and the lag measures are starting to follow as they did previously. At the rate it’s going we could (to use another posters phrase) “run out of stock” ie have everyone infected. It’ll be interesting to see what happens over the coming weeks.
Implicit within my post was a question, do you believe we can or should continue to re-configure how we live for this time, or longer to avoid this? Your point that '....There is nothing to say that we will ever be able to go back to how life was' may answer this, in a (to me) very scary way. If I can, I'd like to point out 3 very small consequences of our current restrictions, not the kind of stuff that'll ever make the news, but have an impact on the overall life chances of children:
My local authority ranks highly in the deprivation index, 1 in 5 children live in poverty.
i) Up until covid, very young children (mine is 6) were sent home with reading books which were to be read as 'homework' three times a week. This is no longer happening because they do not want materials going between home and school. The school and local authority are yet to respond to my question as to how this gap is being made up, given the amount of reading going on at home was over 50% of the reading done for the school week. They have also yet to answer what impact they expect this to have on the reading ability of children.
ii) The schools in my local authority provided hot school meals over a balanced menu to all children (free) up to the age of 7. This is in an area were 7,000 families are provided with food bank packages in the last 12 months. This has been replaced with sandwiches only, very likely meaning some children go hungry at home and then 5 days a week only have sandwiches at school. The local authority action plan to tackle food poverty includes the provision of a nutritious and balanced school meals as a key component of their plan. This isn’t now happening and the authority have no plan to re-start it, nor are they willing to tell me if they have forecast what impact they expect this to have.
iii) The school are now working to government guidelines (scotland) that all PE must take place outside, despite having done PE in doors since August. Again, this is against a backdrop that 30% of children are not of healthy weight, and the school have said if the weather is sufficiently poor, now that we re going into winter then PE will not take place. This breaks the target of having 2 hours of physical education a week within school and one suspects combined with the meals point above will have a negative impact, either directly on weight or indirectly in not creating the good habits of exercise that carry forward into adulthood.
I suspect these are amongst hundreds of small, individual decisions that I don't want to see as part of a semi- permanent 'state', but are so far off the agenda that things that were seen to previously "matter" no longer do. When I describe the idea that '....we may never return to life as before' as scary, it's these small things that are being disregarded that worry me most.
Sorry for the long post.
Edited by deebs on Friday 30th October 10:08
I agree that it’s a scary thought, but change (especially enforced adverse change) often is.
Personally, I think that we’ll all have to accept some change, for some it will be significant, for others a minor inconvenience. However, that’s the way things are. I know I’ve mentioned HIV before but for many the change to wearing a condom became a permanent one and is still with them today. The flip side was for others it allowed Manhattan to tidy up its image and get rid of the seedy red light area around Times Square, so there were arguably gains too for some.
The three examples you’ve given are frustrating on the face of it, but for me at least two can be dealt with by you as a parent by choosing to read with your child for a few hours a week and also having a kick about down the park, or playing hide and seek indoors or the like. I know that may come across as simplistic, but there is a responsibility in being a parent too. I know not all will do this, but would their kids get what’s needed anyway from education? All children are losing education currently, your child isn’t being singled out.
The school meals is a classic example where you’d be ridiculed on here. Marcus Rashford is doing a great job of highlighting this and sooner or later Buffoon Johnson will perform another U turn on this.
Personally, I think that we’ll all have to accept some change, for some it will be significant, for others a minor inconvenience. However, that’s the way things are. I know I’ve mentioned HIV before but for many the change to wearing a condom became a permanent one and is still with them today. The flip side was for others it allowed Manhattan to tidy up its image and get rid of the seedy red light area around Times Square, so there were arguably gains too for some.
The three examples you’ve given are frustrating on the face of it, but for me at least two can be dealt with by you as a parent by choosing to read with your child for a few hours a week and also having a kick about down the park, or playing hide and seek indoors or the like. I know that may come across as simplistic, but there is a responsibility in being a parent too. I know not all will do this, but would their kids get what’s needed anyway from education? All children are losing education currently, your child isn’t being singled out.
The school meals is a classic example where you’d be ridiculed on here. Marcus Rashford is doing a great job of highlighting this and sooner or later Buffoon Johnson will perform another U turn on this.
unident said:
I agree that it’s a scary thought, but change (especially enforced adverse change) often is.
Personally, I think that we’ll all have to accept some change, for some it will be significant, for others a minor inconvenience. However, that’s the way things are. I know I’ve mentioned HIV before but for many the change to wearing a condom became a permanent one and is still with them today. The flip side was for others it allowed Manhattan to tidy up its image and get rid of the seedy red light area around Times Square, so there were arguably gains too for some.
The three examples you’ve given are frustrating on the face of it, but for me at least two can be dealt with by you as a parent by choosing to read with your child for a few hours a week and also having a kick about down the park, or playing hide and seek indoors or the like. I know that may come across as simplistic, but there is a responsibility in being a parent too. I know not all will do this, but would their kids get what’s needed anyway from education? All children are losing education currently, your child isn’t being singled out.
The school meals is a classic example where you’d be ridiculed on here. Marcus Rashford is doing a great job of highlighting this and sooner or later Buffoon Johnson will perform another U turn on this.
You are intelligent enough in your responses to interpret my post and see that the concern is not for my child. Personally, I think that we’ll all have to accept some change, for some it will be significant, for others a minor inconvenience. However, that’s the way things are. I know I’ve mentioned HIV before but for many the change to wearing a condom became a permanent one and is still with them today. The flip side was for others it allowed Manhattan to tidy up its image and get rid of the seedy red light area around Times Square, so there were arguably gains too for some.
The three examples you’ve given are frustrating on the face of it, but for me at least two can be dealt with by you as a parent by choosing to read with your child for a few hours a week and also having a kick about down the park, or playing hide and seek indoors or the like. I know that may come across as simplistic, but there is a responsibility in being a parent too. I know not all will do this, but would their kids get what’s needed anyway from education? All children are losing education currently, your child isn’t being singled out.
The school meals is a classic example where you’d be ridiculed on here. Marcus Rashford is doing a great job of highlighting this and sooner or later Buffoon Johnson will perform another U turn on this.
deebs said:
You are intelligent enough in your responses to interpret my post and see that the concern is not for my child.
You did mention your child, but I was trying to use the generic “you”, rather than aim it directly at you personally. The points you make highlight wider social issues around child poverty, adult poverty, parent responsibilities and so on. Covid has crystallised these and more will no doubt follow as the inevitable financial recession kicks in alongside the culling of more of the welfare state. The reality is that we are in unique times for us. Virtually nobody alive has faced any sort of national hardship, so we’ve got a mish mash of all sorts of opinions going on. Parents failing in their responsibilities has always and will always happen, sadly Covid will be a catalyst for this, rather than a root cause IMO. I stand by what I said earlier though in that we may be facing some permanent changes to the way we live our lives. We could all show a bit more thought for others.
RSTurboPaul said:
Thank you for the link, I have seen similar on the 'potentially four syndromes' discussion.
Still no firm figures available, though, and 'lots' does not really stand up to scrutiny.
Is 52.3% lots?Still no firm figures available, though, and 'lots' does not really stand up to scrutiny.
Edited by RSTurboPaul on Thursday 29th October 20:40
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.29...
Graveworm said:
RSTurboPaul said:
Thank you for the link, I have seen similar on the 'potentially four syndromes' discussion.
Still no firm figures available, though, and 'lots' does not really stand up to scrutiny.
Is 52.3% lots?Still no firm figures available, though, and 'lots' does not really stand up to scrutiny.
Edited by RSTurboPaul on Thursday 29th October 20:40
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.29...
50%+ would seem, intuitively, to be massively high - unrealistically so.
If we're saying that, what, 5m people have had it now? Then 2.5 million people are suffering ongoing fatigue issues? I can't believe we wouldn't have heard more about it, given how keen the BBC are to highlight any negative impacts as being 100% definitely going to happen if you get Covid.
To ask a dumb question, though:
paper said:
Of 128 participants (49.5 ± 15 years; 54% female), more than half reported persistent fatigue (52.3%; 45/128) at 10 weeks (median) after initial COVID-19 symptoms.
How is 45 out of 128 people 52.3%?vaud said:
Pretty small “N”
And to be fair post viral fatigue is pretty common after many viruses?
We also have 78 percent with heart issues .. And to be fair post viral fatigue is pretty common after many viruses?
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fu...
Graveworm said:
vaud said:
Pretty small “N”
And to be fair post viral fatigue is pretty common after many viruses?
We also have 78 percent with heart issues .. And to be fair post viral fatigue is pretty common after many viruses?
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fu...
paper said:
In this prospective observational cohort study, 100 patients recently recovered from COVID-19 illness were identified from the University Hospital Frankfurt COVID-19 Registry between April and June 2020.
...
Of the 100 patients recently recovered from COVID-19, 67 (67%) recovered at home, while 33 (33%) required hospitalization.
So the entire population was derived from hospital records, indicating they were on the more severe end of the spectrum if they needed to go to hospital at all, and 33% needed to actually be hospitalised?...
Of the 100 patients recently recovered from COVID-19, 67 (67%) recovered at home, while 33 (33%) required hospitalization.
Hardly a representative sample of the wider population.
RSTurboPaul said:
So the entire population was derived from hospital records, indicating they were on the more severe end of the spectrum if they needed to go to hospital at all, and 33% needed to actually be hospitalised?
Hardly a representative sample of the wider population.
So it's OK then? 78 percent of people ill enough to come to notice of a hospital of which a third were admitted {So 2/3rds were not) had heart issues. Nothing we should trouble ourselves trying to do something about? These were not the usual vulnerable groups. Hardly a representative sample of the wider population.
For perspective, if that's the same here, that's just under 400000 based on hospital admissions alone so, unless those are the only ones who have any issues, it's likely significantly more than that. Shouldn't there at least be some work done before assuming that it's nothing to worry about?
Edited by Graveworm on Friday 30th October 18:00
My nephew observed today that attitudes to curbs on liberty in relation to C19 are strikingly authoritarian amongst young people who identify as left wing or even woke. My niece is one of those people who gets very agitated about the subject of personal pronouns, and she also gets very agitated if someone does not wear a mask. Her views on these things compliment one another, because she does not really believe in freedom. Her former distrust of the police has been replaced by clamour for the police to be more repressive. I am an old lefty, but I am anti-authoritarian, and am opposed to the illiberal variant of leftism practised by Momentum, the Corbyn cultists (currently back on their foolish barricades), and the woke in general.
It is also notable that people who defend the Government and its so called "science" become very shrill when they do so, and in effect argue from a faith position. Lockdownism has almost become a cult.
Sadly, on the far right, loons who believe in a crazed form of libertarianism damage the credibility of the rational sceptical approach to the Government's handling of the virus, and give a platform for the arguments put forward in bad faith by those who cynically pretend that everyone who questions the policy is arguing for total inaction in relation to the disease. Thus rational debate is replaced by people yelling from faith positions.
I do not see that we will see any return to reason, or to evidence-based risk evaluation. The Government, lacking in talent and led by a fundamentally weak man, has been captured by doomsayers. We might as well be governed by Mystic Meg, or by Roman style auguries, or consultations with the Sybil. Another lockdown now looks very likely. As usual it will be rushed in without any democratic process. Don't any of you dare complain about this.
It is also notable that people who defend the Government and its so called "science" become very shrill when they do so, and in effect argue from a faith position. Lockdownism has almost become a cult.
Sadly, on the far right, loons who believe in a crazed form of libertarianism damage the credibility of the rational sceptical approach to the Government's handling of the virus, and give a platform for the arguments put forward in bad faith by those who cynically pretend that everyone who questions the policy is arguing for total inaction in relation to the disease. Thus rational debate is replaced by people yelling from faith positions.
I do not see that we will see any return to reason, or to evidence-based risk evaluation. The Government, lacking in talent and led by a fundamentally weak man, has been captured by doomsayers. We might as well be governed by Mystic Meg, or by Roman style auguries, or consultations with the Sybil. Another lockdown now looks very likely. As usual it will be rushed in without any democratic process. Don't any of you dare complain about this.
Interesting chart from Carl Henegan's friends in Oxford:
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-florence-ni...
Question. If we had by some miracle of history had a time machine whereby we could have known in February what the picture in late March and April was going to look like, what would YOU have done differently if you had been Boris? Or do you think our lockdown response was appropriate?
Because unfortunately that picture is something of a time machine; thanks to social distancing and the other measures that are now in place and that some (but clearly not enough) people are following, the rise in cases this time is slower. But do nothing and it will sooner or later surpass the daily totals in March and we'll be needing even more body bags this time round. What are you going to change this time around to make sure that doesn't happen?
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-florence-ni...
Question. If we had by some miracle of history had a time machine whereby we could have known in February what the picture in late March and April was going to look like, what would YOU have done differently if you had been Boris? Or do you think our lockdown response was appropriate?
Because unfortunately that picture is something of a time machine; thanks to social distancing and the other measures that are now in place and that some (but clearly not enough) people are following, the rise in cases this time is slower. But do nothing and it will sooner or later surpass the daily totals in March and we'll be needing even more body bags this time round. What are you going to change this time around to make sure that doesn't happen?
Chromegrill said:
thanks to social distancing and the other measures that are now in place and that some (but clearly not enough) people are following, the rise in cases this time is slower.
I would invite you to go and do a little more research as to how a virus works in the real world..... And that may tell you why we have a slower rise in cases and also show you why the lockdowns were fundamentally wrong and frankly stupid. I have been incredulous at hearing some "top scientists" taking and positing views that do not accord with the entire scientific understanding of "virus" (I use a generic reference for ease) and even human immune system responses to beating an infection... Remarkable really. One has to of course consider Cui Bono.Klaus Schwab: "The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world"
Far less money to be made from that than pharmaceutical manufacture. Especially if vaccination is made compulsory.
This represents a much bigger long term problem than SARS-CoV-2 - https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/wor...
The WEF said:
During the COVID-19 crisis, companies, universities, and others have joined forces to develop diagnostics, therapeutics, and possible vaccines; establish testing centers; create mechanisms for tracing infections; and deliver telemedicine.
Not a word about helping humanity's inbuilt immune system by adopting a healthy diet and lifestyle. You are what you eat.Far less money to be made from that than pharmaceutical manufacture. Especially if vaccination is made compulsory.
This represents a much bigger long term problem than SARS-CoV-2 - https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/wor...
This morning on R4 the usual complicit BBC interview with a modeller who was producing scary numbers from his hat. Unreason and hysteria have taken over and a month of lockdown is now a certainty.
One line that I hear from journo friends is that Johnson is now a prisoner King: sick, tired, depressed, and not in charge. Who is in charge is not clear.
One line that I hear from journo friends is that Johnson is now a prisoner King: sick, tired, depressed, and not in charge. Who is in charge is not clear.
Professor Gupta now being given a hostile XX by the same journo who let the modeller say whatever b
ks he liked, unchallenged. In court, objections to the XX as being based on false premises would be upheld, as would objections based on interrupting the witness, but there is no Judge to moderate the process.
ks he liked, unchallenged. In court, objections to the XX as being based on false premises would be upheld, as would objections based on interrupting the witness, but there is no Judge to moderate the process. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff