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

[Elysium]

Byker28i said:

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?

I am happy to spend money to find a cure, develop a vaccine and bolster our health service. Exactly as we do with cancer research.

165k people die of cancer every year. So on some rough maths, we should be spending about 30% as much on COVID as we do on cancer.

I draw the line at the implementation of uncontrolled experiments to close industry, stop treatment for other conditions, imprison the healthy population, constrain rights of free movement, protest religious assembly and family life. I draw the line at policies which lead to additional non-COVID deaths from cancer and heart disease. That cause poverty, mental illness and suicide.

I draw the line at ill conceived non-scientific measures that threaten to permanently alter our way of life to combat a totally disproportionate threat.

[ORD]

Byker28i said:

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

One further thought - I would spend much more than we do on cancer research.

[MikeT66]

isaldiri said:

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.

And that rather succinct statement is exactly the point and argument of this thread.

The flu stuff is interesting - when I was talking to a nurse over the weekend I was informed that it was quite common (here in Manchester, anyway) for lots of 'non-urgent' operations to get cancelled during bad flu outbreaks. Not one mention in the MSM about this, of course, nor special action from the government required - the NHS just get on with it and handle it... like the professionals they were being clapped for being just a few weeks ago.

[croyde]

There are countries in the world where Malaria is rife.

Do their citizens hide indoors?

Horrible illnesses come and go but in this risk averse society it is no longer acceptable to be a victim of a new disease. Wearing hi viz won't help in this case.

It's just crazy that all our other, many of which treatable, illnesses are now being ignored.

[anonymous-user]

isaldiri said:

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.

This is an example of prevention paradox? Winter flu is a big problem. Every year, we expend resources preventing winter flu from spreading out of control, some years more successfully than others. Reproduction number for 'winter flu' is lower, and has lower hospitalisation rate. If COVID is not contained, and joins the rounds of winter flu, then average characteristic of 'winter flu' becomes a much more serious prospect to manage over the long term.

Winter flu also has a knock on effect on cancer survival rates and all that stuff. It's not like, if we tolerate covid, cancer just goes back to normal.

[Kiribati268]

croyde said:

There are countries in the world where Malaria is rife.

Do their citizens hide indoors?

Horrible illnesses come and go but in this risk averse society it is no longer acceptable to be a victim of a new disease. Wearing hi viz won't help in this case.

It's just crazy that all our other, many of which treatable, illnesses are now being ignored.

HIV is most commonly spread by gay men, but we don't ban sex between men. There are lots of things that kill, but we do nothing about, it's an accepted risk.

There are risks to things, and life brings risks. We can't just stop the world when a new virus appears that lets be honest, isn't that deadly.

[Elysium]

Ignore the weird username. This is a well considered logical walkthrough of the pandemic situation:

https://twitter.com/gummibear737/status/1280547634...

The author believes that the most likely hypothesis at this point is that the early social distancing measures implemented pre-lockdown and maintained in Sweden are effective enough to cause the virus to 'burn out' at 15-20% spread. Significantly, this also seems to cause fatalities to peak at much lower prevalence analogous to the idea of a 'herd immunity threshold'

What is particularly interesting is the suggestion that the difference in severity between regions could be related to this point. Wuhan was hit far harder than the rest of China. Italy was hit harder than the rest of mainland Europe. New York was hit harder than the rest of the USA.

All three locations were the first to suffer the infection. They did not see what was coming and so did not benefit from early behaviour change. This suggests that the argument that the UK has suffered because it was slow to act could have some merit. Not because of lockdown, but because we tried to continue broadly as normal until the 1st week of March.

Micheal Levitt agrees based on his analysis of multiple countries.

[Byker28i]

ORD said:

One further thought - I would spend much more than we do on cancer research.

We agree there

[anonymous-user]

Byker28i said:

ORD said:

One further thought - I would spend much more than we do on cancer research.

We agree there

Which cancer, there are more than 200 different types of cancer, all requiring different cures. Plus cancer is not contagious so requires a different kind of response.

[Elysium]

sambucket said:

isaldiri said:

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.

This is an example of prevention paradox? Winter flu is a big problem. Every year, we expend resources preventing winter flu from spreading out of control, some years more successfully than others. Reproduction number for 'winter flu' is lower, and has lower hospitalisation rate. If COVID is not contained, and joins the rounds of winter flu, then average characteristic of 'winter flu' becomes a much more serious prospect to manage over the long term.

Winter flu also has a knock on effect on cancer survival rates and all that stuff. It's not like, if we tolerate covid, cancer just goes back to normal.

No. It's nothing to do with the prevention paradox. Population based interventions are fine if they have some scientific merits and result in an overall benefit.

Applying that thinking to lockdown is incredibly dangerous, because we have no idea if we are doing any good.

[Elysium]

sambucket said:

Byker28i said:

ORD said:

One further thought - I would spend much more than we do on cancer research.

We agree there

Which cancer, there are more than 200 different types of cancer, all requiring different cures. Plus cancer is not contagious so requires a different kind of response.

Only you could disagree that we should spend more money on cancer research.

[anonymous-user]

Elysium said:

Only you could disagree that we should spend more money on cancer research.

I know a few people who work in cancer research. And have it in my family. I wholly support increasing funding and have fund raised myself.

At the same time, it's not so simple. And tolerating covid is counter productive to the cause.

[RSTurboPaul]

sambucket said:

isaldiri said:

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.

This is an example of prevention paradox? Winter flu is a big problem. Every year, we expend resources preventing winter flu from spreading out of control, some years more successfully than others. Reproduction number for 'winter flu' is lower, and has lower hospitalisation rate. If COVID is not contained, and joins the rounds of winter flu, then average characteristic of 'winter flu' becomes a much more serious prospect to manage over the long term.

Winter flu also has a knock on effect on cancer survival rates and all that stuff. It's not like, if we tolerate covid, cancer just goes back to normal.

Until / unless we know the true scale of C19 cases, including asymptomatic cases and those with no obvious evidence in serology tests (for whatever reason), we cannot say flu has a lower hospitalisation rate.

[isaldiri]

[redacted]

[RSTurboPaul]

Yesterdays C19-related nonsense:


I walked in to pay (cash) in a petrol station shop, which is approximately 600 square feet in size - larger than my flat was.

There were two staff members behind screens at the other end of the shop. There were no other customers in the shop.

There were arrows to my left, pointing at me and leading away from the payment counter, and arrows pointing ahead, guiding me round the central aisle and to the 'correct' point to wait to pay.

Having assessed that there was no-one else in the shop and therefore no-one to avoid 'infecting' by passing face-to-face for 0.5 seconds I walked left and against the arrows on the floor.

I was subsequently told 'you have to follow the arrows' by the person on the till


What was more annoying was that I felt I had to justify my actions with words along the lines of 'if there had been anyone else in the shop then I would have'.


A world where common sense is treated as 'against the rules', and one is shamed for using it, is not a world that I really want to interact with.

And if mask wearing becomes compulsory in public spaces, I won't be going to any shops full-stop.

[Byker28i]

Elysium said:

What is particularly interesting is the suggestion that the difference in severity between regions could be related to this point. Wuhan was hit far harder than the rest of China. Italy was hit harder than the rest of mainland Europe. New York was hit harder than the rest of the USA.

All three locations were the first to suffer the infection. They did not see what was coming and so did not benefit from early behaviour change. This suggests that the argument that the UK has suffered because it was slow to act could have some merit. Not because of lockdown, but because we tried to continue broadly as normal until the 1st week of March.

New York is interesting as it was a major transport hub, probably the reason London was the major point in the UK as well at the start.
Having flown into Heathrow in March and had 5 or 6 planes disgorge it's passengers into the long queues at passport control without any seperation, you can possible see why.

There had been previous countries with experience of SARS, who responded better, but it appears other countries didn't learn from this. Is it true our pandemic planning was based on Flu, rather than something more infectious? Was this why the suggestion was for Herd Immunity?

You can see why some decisions were taken early on, there was a real lack of knowledge here, and a lack of leadership with the new team.

[Vanden Saab]

sambucket said:

isaldiri said:

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.

This is an example of prevention paradox? Winter flu is a big problem. Every year, we expend resources preventing winter flu from spreading out of control, some years more successfully than others. Reproduction number for 'winter flu' is lower, and has lower hospitalisation rate. If COVID is not contained, and joins the rounds of winter flu, then average characteristic of 'winter flu' becomes a much more serious prospect to manage over the long term.

Winter flu also has a knock on effect on cancer survival rates and all that stuff. It's not like, if we tolerate covid, cancer just goes back to normal.

Winter flu accounts for only around 3% of yearly deaths, almost all in the 65+ age group...That is not a big problem from a deaths point of view. The problem with flu is that it tends to come during a three month period in winter which needs more facilities over a short period. Ideally the NHS should do many more routine non-urgent operations in the summer months with staff able to transfer
at short notice to 'flu' duties during the winter peaks. Rather than the regimented only working on one discipline we have now. This could be extended to include Covid treatment too.

[Byker28i]

RSTurboPaul said:

And if mask wearing becomes compulsory in public spaces, I won't be going to any shops full-stop.

Is it really such a big issue. Put it on where required, take it off where not? Masks are heavily used in other countries already
I can see it becoming a fashion accessory, matching outfits etc...

[Elysium]

sambucket said:

Elysium said:

Only you could disagree that we should spend more money on cancer research.

I know a few people who work in cancer research. And have it in my family. I wholly support increasing funding and have fund raised myself.

At the same time, it's not so simple. And tolerating covid is counter productive to the cause.

It is that simple. The exchange you commented on was not saying anything about SARS-CoV-2.

What does 'tolerating covid' mean in your world? Until we have a vaccine we have no choice other than to tolerate it.

You seem to think you have found another way. That we can lockdown so hard and so long that we can wink it out of existence. But you have absolutely no idea if it will actually work and you are deliberately ignoring the obvious downsides. That is not a balanced outlook. It is dangerous.

[Elysium]

Byker28i said:

RSTurboPaul said:

And if mask wearing becomes compulsory in public spaces, I won't be going to any shops full-stop.

Is it really such a big issue. Put it on where required, take it off where not? Masks are heavily used in other countries already
I can see it becoming a fashion accessory, matching outfits etc...

They are not masks, they are uncomfortabe, they have no purpose, they are ineffective.

That's the issue.

Mask wearing is about other peoples fear. It is irrational, but oddly compelling to the human psyche. It is a visual signal that many are willing to believe in, with or without any evidence.