Coronavirus - the killer flu that will wipe us out? (Vol. 7)
Discussion
EddieSteadyGo said:
You are effectively describing a containment strategy designed to burn the virus out through careful and diligent public health policies. And if not burn it out, at least drive it down to a very low level, after which contact tracing can mop up the rest or keep it under control.
But you haven't taken account of the fact schools are going to soon start opening, businesses are opening back up. We are at the lowest level of transmission currently, after several weeks of lockdown. It doesn't go down from here - it goes up.
The good news is that it seems like it won't go up for long. Stockholm tested their population at ~10% with antibodies at the end of March. Their R value was around 1. They currently have around 25% with antibodies, but they R is now slowing right down - this is because it looks like they are getting to the 'herd immunity thresshold' which is the point the virus stops being able to find new hosts. This is evident as the number of cases entering hospital in Stockholm is now below those being discharged, despite as we know their schools being open for this period of time, bars open etc.
On the basis "we're all going to get it" eventually, and we also need to protect the NHS so as to ensure the hospitals aren't overrun, I'd like to see it all done and dusted as quickly as possible. So release the 20 and 30 year olds back to normality now, no social distancing or any other restriction amongst their own, and see how the NHS fares for two weeks. If not overrun, release the 40 year olds and wait another two weeks, and continue.But you haven't taken account of the fact schools are going to soon start opening, businesses are opening back up. We are at the lowest level of transmission currently, after several weeks of lockdown. It doesn't go down from here - it goes up.
The good news is that it seems like it won't go up for long. Stockholm tested their population at ~10% with antibodies at the end of March. Their R value was around 1. They currently have around 25% with antibodies, but they R is now slowing right down - this is because it looks like they are getting to the 'herd immunity thresshold' which is the point the virus stops being able to find new hosts. This is evident as the number of cases entering hospital in Stockholm is now below those being discharged, despite as we know their schools being open for this period of time, bars open etc.
Unless every single person stays in for 14 days or so the virus won't go away so let's get it over and done with. Those who will catch it and die will do so at some point so why wait on the green mile, why not get it over and done with.
Those 60 and up who may catch it and die are the same risk group, to a lesser degree, who may catch flu and die so what's the big deal?
Munter said:
No it doesn't. Because if it did, we'd lockdown again to make it go down. That is the Gov strategy as described. Keep R below 1 and the numbers constantly reduce. The speed of the reduction will vary based on the measures and could drag out for a long time.
Given that strategy. (To consistently keep R below 1). Part of the strategy it'd make sense to have, is a quarantine system up and running before imported cases become significant to the overall numbers. Otherwise it'll be too late and people will b
h about it.
The economic cost of lockdown has been far worse than initially forecast and short of a likely widespread hospital meltdown situation happening (and it never really got that close to that situation here) we are not imo going to see a lockdown happen again, R > 1 or otherwise. Especially not while it's becoming clearer by the day that covid19 is for the very large proportion of cases extremly mild. Given that strategy. (To consistently keep R below 1). Part of the strategy it'd make sense to have, is a quarantine system up and running before imported cases become significant to the overall numbers. Otherwise it'll be too late and people will b
h about it.Longterm keeping R below 1 is simply not going to be a viable strategy no matter what the politicians say if you want to reopen up the economy in any meaningful way. And in any case transmission amongst most of the population isn't going to be the issue. Where it actually matters is in the vulnerable groups. The whole mincing about R <1/track/trace/quarantine is just some farce for the politicians to point to them doing something to 'save lives'.
bodhi said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
Thought this tweet was a nice riposte to those pretending they don't understand the idea behind "Stay alert".
Found a slightly more wordy version on the Spectator: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-are-some-p...
And a good read on The Critic also: https://thecritic.co.uk/stay-alert-because-we-fear...
Spectatorcomments said:
Fortunately we have already achieved herd immunity to our virulent media
bodhi said:
Found a slightly more wordy version on the Spectator: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-are-some-p...
And a good read on The Critic also: https://thecritic.co.uk/stay-alert-because-we-fear...
isaldiri said:
The economic cost of lockdown has been far worse than initially forecast and short of a likely widespread hospital meltdown situation happening (and it never really got that close to that situation here) we are not imo going to see a lockdown happen again, R > 1 or otherwise. Especially not while it's becoming clearer by the day that covid19 is for the very large proportion of cases extremly mild.
Longterm keeping R below 1 is simply not going to be a viable strategy no matter what the politicians say if you want to reopen up the economy in any meaningful way. And in any case transmission amongst most of the population isn't going to be the issue. Where it actually matters is in the vulnerable groups. The whole mincing about R <1/track/trace/quarantine is just some farce for the politicians to point to them doing something to 'save lives'.
Well. You're so far away from my view that this isn't a question about when should quarantine be implemented. But rather "who's prepared to make up stuff to support a position".Longterm keeping R below 1 is simply not going to be a viable strategy no matter what the politicians say if you want to reopen up the economy in any meaningful way. And in any case transmission amongst most of the population isn't going to be the issue. Where it actually matters is in the vulnerable groups. The whole mincing about R <1/track/trace/quarantine is just some farce for the politicians to point to them doing something to 'save lives'.
"The economic cost of lockdown has been far worse than initially forecast". Not really. It's better than I thought it would be so far.
"it's becoming clearer by the day that covid19 is for the very large proportion of cases extremly mild. " That was the starting point in January. Since then it's become clear it can take serious medical intervention on people outside of risk groups to keep them alive. Which wasn't really expected at the start. So...sort of the opposite of your point really. It's worse than we originally thought, not better.
"Longterm keeping R below 1 is simply not going to be a viable strategy" nor is keeping it above 1. Because if it's above 1 we overwhelm the NHS, which we avoided by moving into lockdown (very successfully given the capacity unused). So given neither option is viable. Gives a bit of a quandary really. Seems more likely we'd keep the number under 1 and reduce the numbers, than the alternative.
andymadmak said:
bodhi said:
Found a slightly more wordy version on the Spectator: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-are-some-p...
And a good read on The Critic also: https://thecritic.co.uk/stay-alert-because-we-fear...
"Why are some pretending to be baffled by Boris’s announcement?"
It could be because they voted Labour and lost badly, or voted Remain and became bad losers, or indeed both. Boris was the winner in both cases.
Before anybody self-identifies, correlation isn't causation.
andymadmak said:
bodhi said:
Found a slightly more wordy version on the Spectator: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-are-some-p...
And a good read on The Critic also: https://thecritic.co.uk/stay-alert-because-we-fear...
EddieSteadyGo said:
The good news is that it seems like it won't go up for long. Stockholm tested their population at ~10% with antibodies at the end of March. Their R value was around 1. They currently have around 25% with antibodies , but they R is now slowing right down - .
Do we actually know this yet?andymadmak said:
bodhi said:
Found a slightly more wordy version on the Spectator: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-are-some-p...
And a good read on The Critic also: https://thecritic.co.uk/stay-alert-because-we-fear...
"don't be a dick!"
FiF said:
andymadmak said:
bodhi said:
Found a slightly more wordy version on the Spectator: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-are-some-p...
And a good read on The Critic also: https://thecritic.co.uk/stay-alert-because-we-fear...
edh said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
The good news is that it seems like it won't go up for long. Stockholm tested their population at ~10% with antibodies at the end of March. Their R value was around 1. They currently have around 25% with antibodies , but they R is now slowing right down - .
Do we actually know this yet?I haven't seen the tests results which underpin the statistic, but then neither we have for figures given by Patrick Vallance.
turbobloke said:
FiF said:
andymadmak said:
bodhi said:
Found a slightly more wordy version on the Spectator: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-are-some-p...
And a good read on The Critic also: https://thecritic.co.uk/stay-alert-because-we-fear...
It’s just the tweets you disagree with that are part of the echo chamber and the media and comments you don’t like that are part of the vexation problem.
If Twitter was dominated by people you agreed with you’d be lauding it as representing public opinion with graphs and everything.
Munter said:
Well. You're so far away from my view that this isn't a question about when should quarantine be implemented. But rather "who's prepared to make up stuff to support a position".
"The economic cost of lockdown has been far worse than initially forecast". Not really. It's better than I thought it would be so far.
"it's becoming clearer by the day that covid19 is for the very large proportion of cases extremly mild. " That was the starting point in January. Since then it's become clear it can take serious medical intervention on people outside of risk groups to keep them alive. Which wasn't really expected at the start. So...sort of the opposite of your point really. It's worse than we originally thought, not better.
"Longterm keeping R below 1 is simply not going to be a viable strategy" nor is keeping it above 1. Because if it's above 1 we overwhelm the NHS, which we avoided by moving into lockdown (very successfully given the capacity unused). So given neither option is viable. Gives a bit of a quandary really. Seems more likely we'd keep the number under 1 and reduce the numbers, than the alternative.
Well fair enough it's very clear we see things very very differently. "The economic cost of lockdown has been far worse than initially forecast". Not really. It's better than I thought it would be so far.
"it's becoming clearer by the day that covid19 is for the very large proportion of cases extremly mild. " That was the starting point in January. Since then it's become clear it can take serious medical intervention on people outside of risk groups to keep them alive. Which wasn't really expected at the start. So...sort of the opposite of your point really. It's worse than we originally thought, not better.
"Longterm keeping R below 1 is simply not going to be a viable strategy" nor is keeping it above 1. Because if it's above 1 we overwhelm the NHS, which we avoided by moving into lockdown (very successfully given the capacity unused). So given neither option is viable. Gives a bit of a quandary really. Seems more likely we'd keep the number under 1 and reduce the numbers, than the alternative.
I don't believe any government is going to be able to afford a full lockdown again irrespective of R unless the hospitals are imminently facing meltdown and I think R >1 can be sustained without overwhelming the hospitals if there are some decent efforts made to keep it out of the vulnerable part of the population and ultimately imo we're going to have to live with it through herd immunity rather than try to maintain R < 1 until a vaccine or viable treatment appears. ymmv.
turbobloke said:
"Why are some pretending to be baffled by Boris’s announcement?"
It could be because they voted Labour and lost badly, or voted Remain and became bad losers, or indeed both. Boris was the winner in both cases.
Jeez, give it a rest.It could be because they voted Labour and lost badly, or voted Remain and became bad losers, or indeed both. Boris was the winner in both cases.
You are coming across as a fanatical Tory apologist on this thread and all the others.
People are baffled by Boris' speech because large elements of it do not make sense.
This government are the masters of mixed messages. They do not do clarity.
Try to keep up.
Head of the IFS on R5 this morning saying that he estimates the furlough take-up was twice the number of people that the Government expected.
When asked how yesterday's advice changed things about going to work, he said that they actually weren't any different "but they'd just been said with a different tone".
When asked how yesterday's advice changed things about going to work, he said that they actually weren't any different "but they'd just been said with a different tone".
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff