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

[ChocolateFrog]

EddieSteadyGo said:

I'm not sure if they are behind, but this table from 2016/17 shows the relative contributions quite neatly. It seems the money paid in is divided into general subscription fees and then additional money presumably to fund specific programmes.

The stop foreign aid types would have a field day over that graph.

[anonymous-user]

In other news, I was called a nut job for implying that cyling 30 miles was taking the piss, the Gardai are stopping cylists travel more than 2km, similar to France.

https://extra.ie/2020/04/07/news/irish-news/gardai...

''DMR Roads Policing, patrolling the Wicklow border, turned back a number of cyclists who were between 30-50km from their homes. Please exercise responsibly. We are all in this together so lets follow the guidelines set out on essential travel, exercise & #SocialDistancing.''

[anonymous-user]

If a nation tests more, it'll find more cases. If a nation tightly defines when a death is attributed to coronavirus, it'll show less deaths. The published coronavirus death rate in any given country will depend on those factors and won't necessarily be comparable with other nations.

[Garvin]

Vipers said:

On the subject of herd strategy.

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-pr...

To me, this is the key issue. If a vaccine doesn’t pitch up in the short term then an exit route from this pandemic is a difficult one to deploy and is possibly why the UK government is being so coy about it.

Locking down hard may well keep the death toll down initially but it may well mean an exit route will be extremely difficult. Letting the infections run through the population at a controllable rate may well be the only rational way out of this mess.

Therefore, those countries keeping the death rate low now may well be storing up a big problem for later on.

[turbobloke]

Better viewing of late, though Sky is generally dire.

Kay Burley has just been put back in her box by the Mayor of London (which feat takes some naff journalism) and an emergency medicine doc (President of Royal College of Emergency Medicine) based at St Thomas' Hospital.

The latter is to be expected, she was dealing with a formidable and highly talented woman out of Burley's reach i.e. far and away above potted plant in a potty level.

[WindyCommon]

EddieSteadyGo said:

Thesprucegoose said:

The whole herd strategy was the biggest mistake and has lead to deaths that most likely wouldn't have happened with a strategy similar to Germany.

Think you will find that is exactly what they are going for. Just coupled with significant testing to try and minimise the pace of any new outbreak.

I agree. It’s by far the “least worst” option.

I think the major challenge ahead for our government (in fact all governments) is going to be explaining this, and eliciting sustainable support. The phrase “herd immunity” already has negative connotations for many; a rebrand will be necessary. Great skill in messaging is going to be required as we’ll need broad acceptance of three points:

1. Saving lives means saving the economy. There isn’t a choice between in the two.
2. Data shows us that the stats for those not in vulnerable groups (pre-existing conditions + over 70s) are much better than we have understood. Yes there are exceptions, but there are comparatively few deaths among the young/healthy population.
3. The NHS has the resources to treat those for whom Covid-19 requires hospitalisation

These messages aren’t going to be in place by Monday, let alone broadly accepted. I think another fortnight of the existing lockdown arrangements will be required. During this period we’ll see the narrative being rebuilt. Only then will we see restrictions being lifted for the “less vulnerable”.

Edited by WindyCommon on Wednesday 8th April 08:09

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

There was no herd strategy, it was inferred by journalists not implied by ministers. .

I guess the ''UK's Chief Scientific Adviser has said a degree of herd immunity is required'', was inferred

[pghstochaj]

turbobloke said:

There was no herd strategy, it was inferred by journalists not implied by ministers. Then leapt on by those wanting something to leap on.

A population in which a significant number of recovered cases, without necessarily being any particular number, is helpful when considering whether a nation's health service would be overwhelmed after any form of lockdown release. The proportion at whatever level will be a key refined data input to modelling.

The two types of testing that matter now are testing NHS and other care/front line workers for the presence of the virus, and wider testing to get to know what proportion oif the population has had the virus. See above. The latter can and will be much wider than the former, given it deals with the entire uk population not a subgroup of workers.

I know you keep saying this but haven’t you read or seen what Sir Patrick Vallance has said about it? It contradicts what you’re saying.

I do think they were going for it (in a slow way) until they corrected the death rate assumption in the model. From that Thursday to Tuesday, a lot of damage was caused.

[motco]

If this Scientific American piece is correct, herd immunity (involving millions being infected) could leave the country (world) with a 'herd' of invalids. Scientific American

I cannot recall where the link came from so if it is a repost I apologise. It is important however.

[anonymous-user]

WindyCommon said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

Thesprucegoose said:

The whole herd strategy was the biggest mistake and has lead to deaths that most likely wouldn't have happened with a strategy similar to Germany.

Think you will find that is exactly what they are going for. Just coupled with significant testing to try and minimise the pace of any new outbreak.

I agree. It’s by far the “least worst” option.

I think the major challenge ahead for our government (in fact all governments) is going to be explaining this, and eliciting sustainable support. The phrase “herd immunity” already has negative connotations for many; a rebrand will be necessary. Great skill in messaging is going to be required as we’ll need broad acceptance of three points:

1. Saving lives means saving the economy. There isn’t a choice between in the two.
2. Data shows us that the stats for those not in vulnerable groups (pre-existing conditions + over 70s) are much better than we have understood. Yes there are exceptions, but there are very few deaths among the young/healthy population.
3. The NHS has the resources to treat those for whom Covid-19 requires hospitalisation

These messages aren’t going to be in place by Monday, let alone broadly accepted. I think another fortnight of the existing lockdown arrangements will be required. During this period we’ll see the narrative being rebuilt.

Depending entirely on how the U.K.s numbers go from here though.

The critics of the U.K. strategy regarding herd immunity are based around U.K. delays in establishing lockdowns and social distancing. Germany etc with less deaths per million were much quicker.

There’s some pretty bad modelling predictions for the U.K. coming from the states based on the uk’s recent trajectory and when we started our lockdowns and how severe they’ve been once started, this is the basis for building all the new hospitals and the NHS all talking about preparing for the wave.

We also haven’t done enough testing and the delay in lockdowns and their severity have been a bit of a gamble.

[hyphen]

Bloke comes into a crowded mini Sainsbury's this morning and buys 1 newspaper.

Why would you risk getting the virus, for a newspaper.

Mind boggles.

[Alucidnation]

Why is a supermarket crowded though?

I assumed they were all practising SD with one in one out and minimal people inside?

The few that i have frequented are.

[anonymous-user]

AIUI hed immunity was under consideration, until we discovered the virus was much more dangerous and tricky to treat than anticipated in the original flu plans. After this discovery, herd immunity has been pretty much abdondoned by every nation on earth bar belarus.

So quoting medics from before this discovery was made (which is still a best guess and could be wrong) is not cricket.

[Nickgnome]

hyphen said:

Bloke comes into a crowded mini Sainsbury's this morning and buys 1 newspaper.

Why would you risk getting the virus, for a newspaper.

Mind boggles.

More to the point is why would anyone go into any crowded shop. It would be in direct contravention of the instructions from government.

Our local shops are limiting throughout. Shopping in our Tesco Extra is almost a pleasure now and minimal wait to get in.

[98elise]

Thesprucegoose said:

turbobloke said:

There was no herd strategy, it was inferred by journalists not implied by ministers. .

I guess the ''UK's Chief Scientific Adviser has said a degree of herd immunity is required'', was inferred

Herd immunity is the goal regardless of the strategy, be that by infection and recovery or vaccination.

[anonymous-user]

pghstochaj said:

turbobloke said:

There was no herd strategy, it was inferred by journalists not implied by ministers. Then leapt on by those wanting something to leap on.

A population in which a significant number of recovered cases, without necessarily being any particular number, is helpful when considering whether a nation's health service would be overwhelmed after any form of lockdown release. The proportion at whatever level will be a key refined data input to modelling.

The two types of testing that matter now are testing NHS and other care/front line workers for the presence of the virus, and wider testing to get to know what proportion oif the population has had the virus. See above. The latter can and will be much wider than the former, given it deals with the entire uk population not a subgroup of workers.

I know you keep saying this but haven’t you read or seen what Sir Patrick Vallance has said about it? It contradicts what you’re saying.

I do think they were going for it (in a slow way) until they corrected the death rate assumption in the model. From that Thursday to Tuesday, a lot of damage was caused.

Exactly, the U.K. messed around with herd immunity delaying more strict social distancing rules. Hopefully it will work but it’s not what other countries did.

[EddieSteadyGo]

Nickgnome said:

hyphen said:

Bloke comes into a crowded mini Sainsbury's this morning and buys 1 newspaper.

Why would you risk getting the virus, for a newspaper.

Mind boggles.

More to the point is why would anyone go into any crowded shop. It would be in direct contravention of the instructions from government.

Our local shops are limiting throughout. Shopping in our Tesco Extra is almost a pleasure now and minimal wait to get in.

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.

[mick987]

Garvin said:

Vipers said:

On the subject of herd strategy.

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-pr...

To me, this is the key issue. If a vaccine doesn’t pitch up in the short term then an exit route from this pandemic is a difficult one to deploy and is possibly why the UK government is being so coy about it.

Locking down hard may well keep the death toll down initially but it may well mean an exit route will be extremely difficult. Letting the infections run through the population at a controllable rate may well be the only rational way out of this mess.

Therefore, those countries keeping the death rate low now may well be storing up a big problem for later on.

I have always thought that was the governments plan, take the pain early and then have less of a problem later on

[EddieSteadyGo]

El stovey said:

Exactly, the U.K. messed around with herd immunity delaying more strict social distancing rules. Hopefully it will work but it’s not what other countries did.

Worth being clear, whether you delay a lockdown or implement it more quickly, you are not changing the proportion of people in the long term who are going to be infected.

All you change is the size of any initial surge of cases.

[pghstochaj]

Sambucket said:

AIUI hed immunity was under consideration, until we discovered the virus was much more dangerous and tricky to treat than anticipated in the original flu plans. After this discovery, herd immunity has been pretty much abdondoned by every nation on earth bar belarus.

So quoting medics from before this discovery was made (which is still a best guess and could be wrong) is not cricket.

Not really, that was also their mistake. Two wrongs do not make a right. It just changes the root cause of the mistake. It was their assumption that led to the herd immunity approach to begin with. The data was already available.

As I posted before:

I do think they were going for it (in a slow way) until they corrected the death rate assumption in the model. From that Thursday to Tuesday, a lot of damage was caused.