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

[EddieSteadyGo]

Thesprucegoose said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

Immunity once infected is a critical assumption I agree. If that wasn't the case, "option 1" (strict lockdown until burn out, borders closed until vaccine) or "option 2" (partial lockdown until vaccine) would be potentially better options.

Immunity uncertain, no vaccine for SARS 1, so the likelihood for SARS 2 is slim. Therapeutics likely to take months or a year, so a strategy based on herd immunity is very wrong.

Testing and isolation works and lock downs. That is not herd immunity.

Let's watch what happens across Europe. I believe they will have lots of cases over the summer. There won't be general lockdowns. There will be lots of testing, basically to slow the rate of spread down (rather than stop it entirely).

It will become a normal risk of life, until a vaccine has been implemented, or a sufficient proportion of the population is immune.

[Oakey]

Puggit said:

Alucidnation said:

Linda Lusardi has had it, and said she had symptoms of CV plus vomiting & the squits, so it appears she also had Norovirus at the same time but blaming it fully on CV.

Unless they are also symptoms of CV?

When the original WHO symptom guidance came out, they were listed as symptoms in very rare occurances (likes a couple of %)

Anyway, glad she's better

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/covid-19-digestive-symptoms-are-common

I read another article somewhere that those who had the sts at the onset of covid-19 also had a worse outlook if they ended up in hospital

[CoolHands]

Ultra Sound Guy said:

CoolHands said:

How has China now got no infections if they don’t have herd immunity (which they haven’t as population so massive). And it is so infectious, how has it now stopped?

????

By isolation?

no as we know true isolation doesn’t occur. If just 1 person still had it it would set it off again. Yet it isn’t.

[anonymous-user]

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.

[psi310398]

Interesting news:

EU science chief resigns with blast at coronavirus response

https://www.ft.com/content/f94725c8-e038-4841-a5f6...

[turbobloke]

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.

It's starving until the lockdown is released at which point (no vaccine) there's a large population of hosts ready and waiting. Obvious, really.

Obvious as per testing. If we had hundreds of thousands more tests, we too could be portrayed as having a falsely low death rate like Germany. This is a good thing, right?

[EddieSteadyGo]

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.

[EddieSteadyGo]

psi310398 said:

Interesting news:

EU science chief resigns with blast at coronavirus response

https://www.ft.com/content/f94725c8-e038-4841-a5f6...

Alternative link in case people don't have a subscription to the FT.

https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/fwsq7i/eu...

[anonymous-user]

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.

[turbobloke]

EddieSteadyGo said:

psi310398 said:

Interesting news:

EU science chief resigns with blast at coronavirus response

https://www.ft.com/content/f94725c8-e038-4841-a5f6...

Alternative link in case people don't have a subscription to the FT.

https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/fwsq7i/eu...

The FT link says that Ferrari resigned after failing to persuade EU HQ to establish a large-scale scientific programme to fight Covid-19.

Prof Ferrari not the FT editorial team said:

I arrived at the ERC a fervent supporter of the EU but the Covid-19 crisis completely changed my views,

Clearly he's not an associate reporter for Sky, BBC or C4

[pghstochaj]

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.

Why do you think that’s true? Probability of infection relates to:

Your immunity (natural or artificial)
The number of people you are exposed to that have the infection.
The closeness of that interaction etc

Presumably when the lockdown is lifted, 2 will be considerably lower. That only comes with time.

[Coolbananas]

andy_s said:

There is no 'perfect' solution. Best end state is that 80% of normal people have had it, 20% never get it, and it's over in 4 weeks or the economy will end up killing more by another 10 years of 'austerity'. Work your way out of that one.

[There have been cases of 're-infection' in China, but that was the place that used testing kits that were 30% accurate and gave many false positives...]

I'd agree that there is no perfect solution, it is why the strategies are adapting, they are evidence/data-based and subject to change to meet an ongoing challenge against an enemy not fully understood.

Are you are claiming the economy will end up killing more by another 10 years of austerity if this is not over in 4 weeks? Demonstrate your evidence, show us what measures the Government and Bank of England will do in the future that will fail to address this and the death ratio between the current rolling strategy and your statement.

I think those worrying about the economy tanking badly if this is not over soon are fear-mongering and guessing based upon a past that has no bearing in this situation where Governments are acting in unprecedented ways. Sure, there will be some damage, inevitable, happened already. But I'm not convinced by the doom and deaths ratios.

However, it may offer a glimmer of hope too that there is talk of the lockdowns in their stricter form coming down in May. A gradual process, with some restrictions applying of course but businesses will be resuming if all goes well. I'm referring specifically to where I live and what our PM is saying but I imagine similar for the UK.

[turbobloke]

pghstochaj 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.

Why do you think that’s true? Probability of infection relates to:

Your immunity (natural or artificial)
The number of people you are exposed to that have the infection.
The closeness of that interaction etc

Presumably when the lockdown is lifted, 2 will be considerably lower. That only comes with time.

ESG's post is inaccurate in the first waffly part ('pretty much exactly' the same risk, shoefixers to that) with wild crystal balling in the second part (six weeks, what the gov't will say). Kay Burley would appreciate a call on the 6 weeks bit.

[hyphen]

JPJPJP said:

Wuhan is unlocked today - 76 days of lockdown and now people are out about again

Many people will be watching with interest to see if there are (m)any new cases...

Fingers crossed there aren't

Unlocked? I heard on the radio they are having celebration and skyscrapers have been lit up

[EddieSteadyGo]

pghstochaj 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.

Why do you think that’s true? Probability of infection relates to:

Your immunity (natural or artificial)
The number of people you are exposed to that have the infection.
The closeness of that interaction etc

Presumably when the lockdown is lifted, 2 will be considerably lower. That only comes with time.

I was being a little simplistic to try and make the point that the narrative is going is going to switch for most people from "STAY AT HOME!!!!" to "carry on as normal" when the objective risks won't really have changed much.

If we take the best Imperial estimate for the current rate of transmission, it is about 1. So the lockdown has stopped an overwhelming healthcare surge, but there will be still lots of cases, many of which will be undetected.

So in 6 weeks time, we will probably have a similar total number of active infections (could be a bit lower in reality). Except we will be told to carry on pretty much as normal. There will be lots more testing though, which will help prevent infection rate running away again. But there will also be more closer interactions again as lockdown is lifted. Hence why roughly the objective risk of catching covid will be about the same as it is now.

[anonymous-user]

What does unlocked mean.

you can take a train to leave the city, to go back home to your house in shanghai?

Or they have reopened wagamamas?

[EddieSteadyGo]

turbobloke said:

ESG's post is inaccurate in the first waffly part ('pretty much exactly' the same risk, shoefixers to that) with wild crystal balling in the second part (six weeks, what the gov't will say). Kay Burley would appreciate a call on the 6 weeks bit.

Back in your box please turbobloke

I've already picked you up on your misunderstanding of the "death rate" and why it was a legitimate form of questioning.

[pghstochaj]

EddieSteadyGo said:

I was being a little simplistic to try and make the point that the narrative is going is going to switch for most people from "STAY AT HOME!!!!" to "carry on as normal" when the objective risks won't really have changed much.

If we take the best Imperial estimate for the current rate of transmission, it is about 1. So the lockdown has stopped an overwhelming healthcare surge, but there will be still lots of cases, many of which will be undetected.

So in 6 weeks time, we will probably have a similar total number of active infections (could be a bit lower in reality). Except we will be told to carry on pretty much as normal. There will be lots more testing though, which will help prevent infection rate running away again. But there will also be more closer interactions again as lockdown is lifted.

You’re not correct though. You can be as close as you want to as many people as you wish, but if barely any have corona, you’re not going to catch it. The rate of rise will be quicker however which is what I think you’re confusing with risk.

[m3jappa]

J4CKO said:

Alucidnation said:

Linda Lusardi has had it, and said she had symptoms of CV plus vomiting & the squits

Not one of her best photo shoots then.

Even at the age of 39 i am still struggling to come to terms with the fact that woman also poo and having 'the squits' is something i am years off accepting

[anonymous-user]

i think the strategy for most countries is that in the summer, the virus tends to fall straight to the ground, so this will reduce infections. The squeky bum time will be as winter starts later in the year.