CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 3)
Discussion
isaldiri said:
Not sure it's any use trying to discuss this with you who want to alcatraz the whole UK and go full on wuhan and sealing people in their homes but I'll try.
Because a single large, even if fairly vicious wave of infections (attentuated as best as we can by keeping the over 70s away) is considerably preferable to the death by a thousand cuts of keeping the population permanently living in fear of 'the next wave' by way of suppression. My personal belief since the whole thing came up was that sars-cov2 will in time join the other 4 hcovs as an endemic virus that we can live with. It's simply not something like easily transmissible MERS or airborne ebola that would warrant wholesale long term changes to our life.
You are ignoring the bigger picture, and the larger impact of the virus on economic and health systems. Because a single large, even if fairly vicious wave of infections (attentuated as best as we can by keeping the over 70s away) is considerably preferable to the death by a thousand cuts of keeping the population permanently living in fear of 'the next wave' by way of suppression. My personal belief since the whole thing came up was that sars-cov2 will in time join the other 4 hcovs as an endemic virus that we can live with. It's simply not something like easily transmissible MERS or airborne ebola that would warrant wholesale long term changes to our life.
As someone else said winter flue doesn’t kill many but it’s the ongoing pressure that is the disruptive thing.
Are you not concerned about the company you keep, trump and bolsonaro etc?
sambucket said:
isaldiri said:
But so is freaking out about relatively small spikes of a virus that is pretty targeted in who it affects seriously and constantly ordering lockdowns causing very considerable disruption.
As much as some might want, you can't order an insanely stringent lockdown until the virus is eradicated then shut your borders permanently till a vaccine appears or a more general lockdown to keep cases down again until a vaccine appears. herd immunity by natural infection isn't ideal and probably isn't an entirely desired target but it's the natural consequence of living with a virus that isn't in the grand scheme of things terribly virulent and imo anyway, not obviously one we should be considering wholesale changes to our life to manage.
You are talking like this a crackpot idea, rather than the primary strategy of most nations on earth?As much as some might want, you can't order an insanely stringent lockdown until the virus is eradicated then shut your borders permanently till a vaccine appears or a more general lockdown to keep cases down again until a vaccine appears. herd immunity by natural infection isn't ideal and probably isn't an entirely desired target but it's the natural consequence of living with a virus that isn't in the grand scheme of things terribly virulent and imo anyway, not obviously one we should be considering wholesale changes to our life to manage.
Similarly, most health experts don’t share your opinion re the threat.
Leicester looks under control. Scotland 2 cases a day. It’s not that hard if everyone pulls together.
Why do you want to let rip so much? Do you think it would actually achieve anything positive from this point in the game?
Sage think R was less than 1 prior to the lockdown. And still around 1 when they started to lift it. So what did the lockdown achieve?
Scotland is an odd one. Only 2 cases a day. Can't remember what number your peak was?Whilst I can see elimination is possible (ish) for Scotland, surely you can see that elimination isn't possible for England, from where we are now? What are the plans for lifting restrictions in terms of "risk of a second wave". Do you simply live in fear forever? I assume cancer treatments etc have fully resumed?
WinstonWolf said:
Elysium said:
This is an updated analysis of the risk from COVID in England and Wales based on the ONS data published yesterday. I am using deaths based on date of occurence, which is the most pessimistic view:
As the prevalence remains uncertain, I have included IFRs based on 10% and 20% spread of infection. The Govts estimate of 0.6% lies somewhere between the two.
The latest ONS report shows zero excess deaths under 40 for the entire SARS-CoV-2 epidemic.
84% of total deaths have occured in the 14% of people over 70
61% of total deaths have occured in the 5% of people aged over 80.
10,920 people aged over 90 have died compared to 8,140 under 70.
This data also includes all people with underlying health conditions...As the prevalence remains uncertain, I have included IFRs based on 10% and 20% spread of infection. The Govts estimate of 0.6% lies somewhere between the two.
The latest ONS report shows zero excess deaths under 40 for the entire SARS-CoV-2 epidemic.
84% of total deaths have occured in the 14% of people over 70
61% of total deaths have occured in the 5% of people aged over 80.
10,920 people aged over 90 have died compared to 8,140 under 70.
Your analysis would make lockdown appear even more nonsensical if you could separate out those with underlying conditions.
This suggests 1,746 deaths of people with no underlying conditions, resulting in a total population fatality rate of 0.003%.
The population fatality rate for those under 50 is 0.000%, which aligns with the ONS finding that there have been zero excess deaths under 40 during the entire pandemic.
sambucket said:
Elysium said:
Eradication through lockdown and border control is not the primary strategy of 'most nations' and it is a crackpot idea.
I can defeat your '2 cases per day in Scotland lets lockdown until it is zero' plan with one question:
What if the virus is seasonal?
If you are serious I can supply a list and pie chart of all the nations that are aiming for zero covid? Let me knowI can defeat your '2 cases per day in Scotland lets lockdown until it is zero' plan with one question:
What if the virus is seasonal?
Elysium said:
If you were serious you would respond to the question I asked.
If the virus is seasonal? NHS is assuming it is hence all the preparation for winter. The higher the cases we go in with,the higher the chance of lockdown measures? The lower cases the better chance we can TTI and maintain normality.
Not sure what your question is.
sambucket said:
Elysium said:
If you were serious you would respond to the question I asked.
If the virus is seasonal? NHS is assuming it is hence all the preparation for winter. The higher the cases the higher the chance of lockdown measures? The lower cases the better chance we can TTI and maintain normality.
Not sure what your question is.
sambucket said:
You are ignoring the bigger picture, and the larger impact of the virus on economic and health systems.
As someone else said winter flue doesn’t kill many but it’s the ongoing pressure that is the disruptive thing.
Are you not concerned about the company you keep, trump and bolsonaro etc?
And you're also ignoring the bigger picture of having the population living in fear for an extended period of time for the next covid outbreak.As someone else said winter flue doesn’t kill many but it’s the ongoing pressure that is the disruptive thing.
Are you not concerned about the company you keep, trump and bolsonaro etc?
Yes it does strike me as rather concerning that it's the belarus chap, bolsonaro and trump that I seem to be aligned with but on the other hand the Scandis now in general seem to have been quite sensible about things without going full on nuts whether Denmark or Sweden (no masks for starters thank bloody goodness) and are trying to live with the virus without freaking out.
I admit I am not in any way as certain I am correct as you are or Elysium but for the moment I still don't particularly see very good reasons why we should be massively and it seems long term be changing our lifestyle for covid. We should probably save that kind of thing for a really serious virus that is killing a hell of a lot more of the population than sars-cov2 to ensure sufficient compliance when we actually need it.
johnboy1975 said:
sambucket said:
isaldiri said:
But so is freaking out about relatively small spikes of a virus that is pretty targeted in who it affects seriously and constantly ordering lockdowns causing very considerable disruption.
As much as some might want, you can't order an insanely stringent lockdown until the virus is eradicated then shut your borders permanently till a vaccine appears or a more general lockdown to keep cases down again until a vaccine appears. herd immunity by natural infection isn't ideal and probably isn't an entirely desired target but it's the natural consequence of living with a virus that isn't in the grand scheme of things terribly virulent and imo anyway, not obviously one we should be considering wholesale changes to our life to manage.
You are talking like this a crackpot idea, rather than the primary strategy of most nations on earth?As much as some might want, you can't order an insanely stringent lockdown until the virus is eradicated then shut your borders permanently till a vaccine appears or a more general lockdown to keep cases down again until a vaccine appears. herd immunity by natural infection isn't ideal and probably isn't an entirely desired target but it's the natural consequence of living with a virus that isn't in the grand scheme of things terribly virulent and imo anyway, not obviously one we should be considering wholesale changes to our life to manage.
Similarly, most health experts don’t share your opinion re the threat.
Leicester looks under control. Scotland 2 cases a day. It’s not that hard if everyone pulls together.
Why do you want to let rip so much? Do you think it would actually achieve anything positive from this point in the game?
Sage think R was less than 1 prior to the lockdown. And still around 1 when they started to lift it. So what did the lockdown achieve?
Scotland is an odd one. Only 2 cases a day. Can't remember what number your peak was?Whilst I can see elimination is possible (ish) for Scotland, surely you can see that elimination isn't possible for England, from where we are now? What are the plans for lifting restrictions in terms of "risk of a second wave". Do you simply live in fear forever? I assume cancer treatments etc have fully resumed?
I don't post too many personal details but I had a non-cancerous tumour in my ear, it ate the bones in that ear and left me with a hole in my skull
and no hearing that side. It was attached to the facial nerve, the carotid artery and the lining of my brain. I've had four surgeries to get rid of the bugger, the MRI hopefully gives me the all clear and I can have surgery that may restore my hearing. If it's back it needs prompt intervention but obviously that's been delayed. Do I think the 'cure' for Covid is worse than the disease? Too f
king right I do.TheJimi said:
sambucket said:
The higher the cases we go in with,the higher the chance of lockdown measures? The lower cases the better chance we can TTI and maintain normality.
I would agree with that logic.It is worth noting that we do not know if lockdown or TTI achieve anything. They are totally unproven.
My personal view is that effective TTI is a myth.
Elysium said:
Why would locking down now help defeat a seasonal virus?
That’s the same point the sage guy made in response to hunt yesterday, and I admit i found the logic compelling. However he also said it’s no reason not to try to keep virus low as possible. We are bribing people to go to Wagamamas. It’s not like the economic upside is overwhelming for putting the tables slightly closer together.
I think keeping r very slightly below 1 is probably not a terrible plan for England. And probably the most sensible plan.
My idealistic plan is to shut borders and hunker down for the winter but I don’t have the knowledge or data to know it’s best.
I trust the sage guy.
Edit you don’t believe in TTI. That’s pretty nuts!!
Elysium said:
WinstonWolf said:
Elysium said:
This is an updated analysis of the risk from COVID in England and Wales based on the ONS data published yesterday. I am using deaths based on date of occurence, which is the most pessimistic view:
As the prevalence remains uncertain, I have included IFRs based on 10% and 20% spread of infection. The Govts estimate of 0.6% lies somewhere between the two.
The latest ONS report shows zero excess deaths under 40 for the entire SARS-CoV-2 epidemic.
84% of total deaths have occured in the 14% of people over 70
61% of total deaths have occured in the 5% of people aged over 80.
10,920 people aged over 90 have died compared to 8,140 under 70.
This data also includes all people with underlying health conditions...As the prevalence remains uncertain, I have included IFRs based on 10% and 20% spread of infection. The Govts estimate of 0.6% lies somewhere between the two.
The latest ONS report shows zero excess deaths under 40 for the entire SARS-CoV-2 epidemic.
84% of total deaths have occured in the 14% of people over 70
61% of total deaths have occured in the 5% of people aged over 80.
10,920 people aged over 90 have died compared to 8,140 under 70.
Your analysis would make lockdown appear even more nonsensical if you could separate out those with underlying conditions.
This suggests 1,746 deaths of people with no underlying conditions, resulting in a total population fatality rate of 0.003%.
The population fatality rate for those under 50 is 0.000%, which aligns with the ONS finding that there have been zero excess deaths under 40 during the entire pandemic.
sambucket said:
Elysium said:
Why would locking down now help defeat a seasonal virus?
That’s the same point the sage guy made in response to hunt yesterday, and I admit i found the logic compelling. However he also said it’s no reason not to try to keep virus low as possible. We are bribing people to go to Wagamamas. It’s not like the economic upside is overwhelming for putting the tables slightly closer together.
I think keeping r very slightly below 1 is probably not a terrible plan for England. And probably the most sensible plan.
My idealistic plan is to shut borders and hunker down for the winter but I don’t have the knowledge or data to know it’s best.
I trust the sage guy.
Edit you don’t believe in TTI. That’s pretty nuts!!
If the virus is seasonal it will not be a threat for the next couple of months. So rather than using all of our fire power now to achieve very little. It would make much more sense to get everything battened down for the storm to come.
I don’t think we are going to lockdown again. Several countries have said as much publicly. So we have 4-5 months to strengthen our health service., rebuild the economy and work out how we will respond to another seasonal wave.
Oh .. and I don’t think it’s odd to be sceptical about an effective track, trace and isolate programme for a virus that appears to be largely asymptomatic. There is no evidence this can be made to work, so I would rather not bet my children’s future on it.
WinstonWolf said:
Things in hospital are starting up again. I had an MRI scheduled for March, lockdown screwed that up. I've just had a letter rescheduling it for 25th July
I don't post too many personal details but I had a non-cancerous tumour in my ear, it ate the bones in that ear and left me with a hole in my skull and no hearing that side. It was attached to the facial nerve, the carotid artery and the lining of my brain. I've had four surgeries to get rid of the bugger, the MRI hopefully gives me the all clear and I can have surgery that may restore my hearing. If it's back it needs prompt intervention but obviously that's been delayed.
Do I think the 'cure' for Covid is worse than the disease? Too fking right I do.
That sounds a little bit grim! Glad you are getting treatment. I don't post too many personal details but I had a non-cancerous tumour in my ear, it ate the bones in that ear and left me with a hole in my skull
and no hearing that side. It was attached to the facial nerve, the carotid artery and the lining of my brain. I've had four surgeries to get rid of the bugger, the MRI hopefully gives me the all clear and I can have surgery that may restore my hearing. If it's back it needs prompt intervention but obviously that's been delayed. Do I think the 'cure' for Covid is worse than the disease? Too f
king right I do.sambucket said:
My idealistic plan is to shut borders and hunker down for the winter but I don’t have the knowledge or data to know it’s best.
I think I skipped over this in my earlier reply. You are right, you lack the data and knowledge to know if this is a good idea.
On that basis you should probably stop trying to convince us that it us the way forward.
Elysium said:
I think I skipped over this in my earlier reply.
You are right, you lack the data and knowledge to know if this is a good idea.
On that basis you should probably stop trying to convince us that it us the way forward.
I’m not. I’m discussing the UK’s strategy and the reality. And just mentioned my idealism in passing. Kind of the opposite of what you tend to do. You are right, you lack the data and knowledge to know if this is a good idea.
On that basis you should probably stop trying to convince us that it us the way forward.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff