CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 3)

[TheJimi]

sambucket said:

If you watched the Indy sage Hunt vid, the speaker after Hunt was quite interesting. He is on real SAGE and caveated some of the enthusiasm on the panel for elimination. One being to work well it really needs a consistent continent wide approach.

And if Sweden is stuck between countries pursuing low covid strategies, then what then?

Yep, being in Scotland, I've thought that for a while.

If Scotland is pursuing elimination but England isn't - how TF does that work?

[Bullett]

Not seen any discussion of this - Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported having symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for National Statistics. It was on the BBC news last night. Of course it was spun as a bad thing and that the Asymptomatic people are 'spreaders' but this feels positive in the overall picture to me that the huge majority don't even get sick let alone die.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53320155

I also spotted a lot of Karen's now posting facemask memes yesterday. Seems to be a new thing.

[grumbledoak]

Elysium said:

As the evidence comes out, we are seeing lockdown advocates make desperate efforts to justify their original decisions. That is why the narrative moved away from 'flattening the curve' to the need to reduce deaths. As deaths have reduced they have started to talk about cases being the problem, despite the reality that the disease is very mild for most people. As that becomes unarguable, they are shifting the narrative to the imagined long term harm caused to COVID-19 survivors, wildly extrapolating from edge cases.

The story keeps changing, but the pro- lockdown narrative rumbles on.

I wonder when they will have what they want. Is it lockdown 'til tracking app? lockdown 'til vaccine? lockdown 'til the big reset? lockdown 'til November 4th?

[Elysium]

ruggedscotty said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/business/sweden...

Happy reading.....

and can we stop holding up sweden as the exempler case ? it is a bit twee.....

The opening paragraph of that article is breathtaking:

New York Times said:

Ever since the coronavirus emerged in Europe, Sweden has captured international attention by conducting an unorthodox, open-air experiment.

The measures Sweden have adopted are tried and tested. Good epidemiological practice that has worked positively in previous epidemics. Things that can be maintained for many months, without massive disruption to activity and freedom.

Of course their economy will be affected. A deadly infectious virus is not going to drive consumer confidence.

In contrast, lockdowns are entirely new. We have no idea of the extent to which they are an effective means of disease control, no idea of the collateral damage they will cause, no idea what the trigger should be to end them and no idea what a post lockdown world looks like.

The author has it absolutely the wrong way round. Lockdowns are the unorthodox uncontrolled experiment.

[JagLover]

Another of the early lockdown countries has problems when it tries to go back to normal

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newslondon/thousand...

Long term I think we all get to the same place, just taking different paths to get there.

[Elysium]

sambucket said:

Re Sweden article in NYT, Doesn't this highlight that there is a limited economic upside for countries like Sweden pursuing different strategies in a global pandemic. Any upside is limited by the actions of their trading partners?

If you watched the Indy sage Hunt vid, the speaker after Hunt was quite interesting. He is on real SAGE and caveated some of the enthusiasm on the panel for elimination. One being to work well it really needs a consistent continent wide approach.
And if Sweden is stuck between countries pursuing low covid strategies, then what then?

Another caveat he made is, quite ominously, the problem with low covid strategy in summer, is that it makes lock down over winter, if required, more difficult to achieve, from a stamina point of view. If we are resigned to a long fight, then it might make sense to parry in the early rounds, tread water in the summer and go hard in the winter, if the fight lasts that long.

One of the frustrating things about UK approach is the lack of clarity over the strategy. If UK is really going for low/zero covid approach, then they should just come out and declare this, as it doesn't help keeping people in the dark. Or maybe it does help, who knows.

The rest of the world have decided to experiment with lockdowns. Several countries have said that they will never repeat it (e.g. France, Norway and Ireland).

Sweden did not adopt their strategy for economic expedience, they did it because they believe it to be the only sensible long term route. They are not looking for 'upside', only to minimise the damage.

You always seem to believe that there are options here. I don't think there is a 'low Covid strategy'. Our tests do not have the accuracy to track low levels of infection, we don't understand the mode of transmission, the role of asymptomatics, the potential for herd immunity. Strategy choices only make sense when you actually know enough to consider the possible impact of your decisions. Otherwise it is nothing more than guesswork.

I agree with your final line. I don't think anyone, including the Govt, has any idea what we are trying to achieve at the moment. It is an omnishambles.

[JagLover]

Bullett said:

Not seen any discussion of this - Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported having symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for National Statistics. It was on the BBC news last night. Of course it was spun as a bad thing and that the Asymptomatic people are 'spreaders' but this feels positive in the overall picture to me that the huge majority don't even get sick let alone die.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53320155

Yep, positive development.

Previously estimated at around 50% asymptomatic (from memory). Of course the season might have some impact on that.

[Elysium]

JagLover said:

Bullett said:

Not seen any discussion of this - Only 22% of people testing positive for coronavirus reported having symptoms on the day of their test, according to the Office for National Statistics. It was on the BBC news last night. Of course it was spun as a bad thing and that the Asymptomatic people are 'spreaders' but this feels positive in the overall picture to me that the huge majority don't even get sick let alone die.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53320155

Yep, positive development.

Previously estimated at around 50% asymptomatic (from memory). Of course the season might have some impact on that.

We have known this for some time though. Johan Gisecke wrote in the Lancet in May of the 'Invisible Pandemic'

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/...

Johan Giesecke said:

98–99% of these people are probably unaware or uncertain of having had the infection

Bookmark this comment for review in May 2021. I think he will be proven right:

Johan Giesecke said:

Everyone will be exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and most people will become infected. COVID-19 is spreading like wildfire in all countries, but we do not see it—it almost always spreads from younger people with no or weak symptoms to other people who will also have mild symptoms. This is the real pandemic, but it goes on beneath the surface, and is probably at its peak now in many European countries. There is very little we can do to prevent this spread: a lockdown might delay severe cases for a while, but once restrictions are eased, cases will reappear. I expect that when we count the number of deaths from COVID-19 in each country in 1 year from now, the figures will be similar, regardless of measures taken.

[ORD]

ant1973 said:

Suddenly SAGE don't feel that bad:-

https://www.independentsage.org/wp-content/uploads...

Basically, 12 months of misery with no real explanation of what would happen at the end of that period. No mention of the economy, other deaths caused by their strategy, etc.

It's a chilling outlook.

Utterly lunatic. Monomania.

I looked for a calculation of the extra deaths that would be CAUSED by an elimination strategy. No such calculation. Not even any qualitative assessment. As I said before, these people are blisteringly stupid.

[ORD]

Indie SAGE also posits that elimination would allow a return to "normal" without even beginning to explain how that can be right. It would inevitably involve retaining forever the measures used to reduce cases to zero, given that we are not a closed system.

[MikeT66]

Elysium said:

ruggedscotty said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/business/sweden...

Happy reading.....

and can we stop holding up sweden as the exempler case ? it is a bit twee.....

The opening paragraph of that article is breathtaking:

New York Times said:

Ever since the coronavirus emerged in Europe, Sweden has captured international attention by conducting an unorthodox, open-air experiment.

The measures Sweden have adopted are tried and tested. Good epidemiological practice that has worked positively in previous epidemics. Things that can be maintained for many months, without massive disruption to activity and freedom.

Of course their economy will be affected. A deadly infectious virus is not going to drive consumer confidence.

In contrast, lockdowns are entirely new. We have no idea of the extent to which they are an effective means of disease control, no idea of the collateral damage they will cause, no idea what the trigger should be to end them and no idea what a post lockdown world looks like.

The author has it absolutely the wrong way round. Lockdowns are the unorthodox uncontrolled experiment.

I get the impression that there are governments/scientists/advisors/lockdown supporters that are desperate to see Sweden fail massively. Even if the Swedes only end up with a similar death ratio it will be a PR disaster for the lockdown brigade.

[anonymous-user]

Elysium said:

I agree with your final line. I don't think anyone, including the Govt, has any idea what we are trying to achieve at the moment. It is an omnishambles.

graham medley's comments were quite illuminating in this regard. My guess is that govt stratgy is resigned to further action/drama in the winter, and is taking a bit of a breather during the summer, and getting it's ducks in a row for a winter fight. Be that tackling a proper wave if we are unlucky enough to have one, or driving down to zero otherwise.

Clues to this are, trace app postponed until winter. The curious mix of intolerance (Leicester) and tolerance (pubs). The reluctance to complete re-orientate the NHS back to normal. The odd setup of systems that are not being used at all. Eg quarantine...

And of course, there is always the possibility that it just burns our mysteriously or there are other breakthroughs.

I personally would prefer a knockout in the first round. But that's how I see England's strategy.

You keep hammering the line that the virus isn't dangerous enough to warrant special action or suppression. But this is an argument you have consistently made since I can remember, and I don't think it's anymore true now as it was then. the pandemic is still very much a problem

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 8th July 10:26

[ORD]

sambucket said:

graham medley's comments were quite illuminating in this regard. My guess is that govt stratgy is resigned to further action/drama in the winter, and is taking a bit of a breather during the summer, and getting it's ducks in a row for a winter fight. Be that tackling a proper wave if we are unlucky enough to have one, or driving down to zero otherwise.

Clues to this are, trace app postponed until winter. The curious mix of intolerance (Leicester) and tolerance (pubs). The reluctance to complete re-orientate the NHS back to normal. The odd setup of systems that are not being used at all. Eg quarantine...

And of course, there is always the possibility that it just burns our mysteriously or there are other breakthroughs.

You keep hammering the line that the virus isn't dangerous enough to warrant special action or suppression. But this is an argument you have consistently made since I can remember, and I don't think it's anymore true now as it was then. the pandemic is still very much a problem

The pandemic is a much smaller problem than the measures used to address it.

We are spending billions of pounds and millions of lives to save thousands of lives. It is utterly irrational and despicable.

[NerveAgent]

MikeT66 said:

I get the impression that there are governments/scientists/advisors/lockdown supporters that are desperate to see Sweden fail massively. Even if the Swedes only end up with a similar death ratio it will be a PR disaster for the lockdown brigade.

I jokingly expect Swedens “death graph” on Worldometers to be blurred out every time I click on it

[Twinfan]

sambucket said:

the pandemic is still very much a problem

In what way is it currently a problem here in the UK, or a problem greater than any other out there? Levels are low, deaths are low, healthcare facilities have more than enough capacity to cope etc.

The problem we have at the moment is the crippled state of peoples livelihoods and freedoms IMHO.

[Byker28i]

ORD said:

The pandemic is a much smaller problem than the measures used to address it.

We are spending billions of pounds and millions of lives to save thousands of lives. It is utterly irrational and despicable.

Until you or your loved one gets it? Where do you draw the line? £650m on Cancer research?

[isaldiri]

sambucket said:

You keep hammering the line that the virus isn't dangerous enough to warrant special action or suppression. But this is an argument you have consistently made since I can remember, and I don't think it's anymore true now as it was then. the pandemic is still very much a problem

But it's a problem because we are making it a problem. It's a very serious illness for the over 70s who would be sensibly advised to social distance etc more. It isn't for most other people. It's unclear why we are reacting quite so strongly for example compared to the complete lack of action even on relatively severe winter flu years.

[Newc]

Elysium said:

sambucket said:

<nonsense>

You always seem to believe that there are options here.

The traditional nursery rhyme might help:

'Words by Bucket ?
Just say *uckit
And move on'

grumbledoak said:

Elysium said:

As the evidence comes out, we are seeing lockdown advocates make desperate efforts to justify their original decisions. That is why the narrative moved away from 'flattening the curve' to the need to reduce deaths.

The story keeps changing, but the pro- lockdown narrative rumbles on.

I wonder when they will have what they want.

Furlough support needs to be withdrawn immediately, and schools re-opened through summer with mandatory attendance and two weeks off in August. Then let's see how much lockdown enthusiasm remains.

[Elysium]

sambucket said:

Elysium said:

I agree with your final line. I don't think anyone, including the Govt, has any idea what we are trying to achieve at the moment. It is an omnishambles.

graham medley's comments were quite illuminating in this regard. My guess is that govt stratgy is resigned to further action/drama in the winter, and is taking a bit of a breather during the summer, and getting it's ducks in a row for a winter fight. Be that tackling a proper wave if we are unlucky enough to have one, or driving down to zero otherwise.

Clues to this are, trace app postponed until winter. The curious mix of intolerance (Leicester) and tolerance (pubs). The reluctance to complete re-orientate the NHS back to normal. The odd setup of systems that are not being used at all. Eg quarantine...

And of course, there is always the possibility that it just burns our mysteriously or there are other breakthroughs.

I personally would prefer a knockout in the first round. But that's how I see England's strategy.

You keep hammering the line that the virus isn't dangerous enough to warrant special action or suppression. But this is an argument you have consistently made since I can remember, and I don't think it's anymore true now as it was then. the pandemic is still very much a problem

The rest of my post, which you did not quote, clearly set out the view that we don't know enough to come up with a clever strategy. You have just skipped over that like a stone skimming over a lake.

I have never said that this virus does not warrant special action. Not once.

What I have argued is that it is not dangerous enough to justify the wholesale changes we are making to society or to take the incredible, unprecedented and untested risk of lockdowns. If you are going to disagree, then you should probably have some sort of counter argument to explain why?

[ORD]

Byker28i said:

Until you or your loved one gets it? Where do you draw the line? £650m on Cancer research?

My brother had it. My sister-in-law had it. 2 of my brother-in-laws had it. I am pretty certain my wife and I had it in February.

My father-in-law has Covid on his death certificate. Maybe it killed him -someone I have been close to for 20 years. I don't know.

Is that enough for you?

I am tired of this idiotic allegation that anyone who thinks Covid deaths shouldn't be treated as more important that all other deaths does not care about people dying of Covid.

I care about deaths. I care about health. I don't think we should pretend there is only one cause of death or misery in the world. Lockdown lovers have monomania.