The big Coronavirus thread

rick_chasey

Pross said:

@rick_chasey Do you genuinely think any country is capable of satisfying that first criteria? If everyone follows the WHO guidance no-one is coming out of lockdown until there's a vaccination rolled out. They are looking at it purely from a health perspective as you'd expect without taking account of the economic and political implications.

Transmission should be controlled

Health system capacities are in place to detect, test, isolate and treat every case and trace every contact

So 1 is mainly around social distancing. Have that for long enough and you will have it under control. It is easier to get it under control when the numbers are lower, which is why earlier lockdowns help. Longer term it is a different story as you get fewer infections recovered but the advantage is you can do the cycle of tighter restrictions and lighter restrictions depending on where you are.

2 is all about number of tests vs amount of people who currently have it. Once you get the number of people infected down to a level where it is less than the tests available, then you can start to trace and track. Obviously the better the testing capability, the less long you have to wait.

That's the reasoning behind me banging on about locking down sooner and sorting testing out sooner. The reason why I'm so angry with the UK gov't is there is cast iron proof they deliberately did the opposite on both options and are now playing catch up; the deaths are running away from them.

As a result they will have a bigger pile of bodies and a longer lockdown because there are fewer tests and you’ve had more people die whilst you’re waiting for the social distancing to bring the infection rate lower enough to be able to test and track.

rick_chasey

morstar said:

Pross said:

@rick_chasey Do you genuinely think any country is capable of satisfying that first criteria? If everyone follows the WHO guidance no-one is coming out of lockdown until there's a vaccination rolled out. They are looking at it purely from a health perspective as you'd expect without taking account of the economic and political implications.

Succinctly put.
These are perfect world criteria.
It also steps into that dividing line between being an expert and a decision maker.
Experts offer clear, advice based on criteria. Decision makers have to absorb perfect world advice and then consider all of the other conflicting demands that they face.

I think it's fair to say WHO has experience in dealing with epidemics (*recently*) and know what they are talking about.

kingstongraham

I'd assume Singapore has much the same issues of scale, and they have implemented a bluetooth tracking app https://www.tech.gov.sg/media/technews/geeky-myth-busting-facts-you-need-to-know-about-tracetogether

Obviously location based would not work particularly well for those on a lot of public transport in London.

morstar

Isn’t the reality of this situation that a whole load more people are going to die and all we can do is mitigate as best we can?

The only people who have a very high probability of survival are those who are young and those who are wealthy enough to be able to hide from it for as long as necessary.
The harsh reality is that if the lifecycle of this pandemic is 18months, very few individuals or nations are fortunate enough to be able to withdraw from societal interactions for that long.
Every single action taken by any leader is balancing mitigation tactics against mortality.
That is a cold hard truth. An absolute 100% focus on minimising mortality is simply not sustainable. It absolutely sucks but we can acknowledge that without being portrayed as pro-death.

rick_chasey

morstar said:

Isn’t the reality of this situation that a whole load more people are going to die and all we can do is mitigate as best we can?

Don't accept mediocrity. It might make you feel better about your own sitch but it's not what nations ought to be aiming for when thousands of lives can be saved or lost.

rick_chasey

morstar said:

An absolute 100% focus on minimising mortality is simply not sustainable.

It is more economically sustainable than the alternative. Remember the mantra - the fewer the deaths, the better the recovery.
The fewer the deaths, the better the recovery.
The fewer the deaths, the better the recovery.
The fewer the deaths, the better the recovery.
The fewer the deaths, the better the recovery.
The fewer the deaths, the better the recovery.
The fewer the deaths, the better the recovery.

etc

morstar

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:

Pross said:

@rick_chasey Do you genuinely think any country is capable of satisfying that first criteria? If everyone follows the WHO guidance no-one is coming out of lockdown until there's a vaccination rolled out. They are looking at it purely from a health perspective as you'd expect without taking account of the economic and political implications.

Succinctly put.
These are perfect world criteria.
It also steps into that dividing line between being an expert and a decision maker.
Experts offer clear, advice based on criteria. Decision makers have to absorb perfect world advice and then consider all of the other conflicting demands that they face.

I think it's fair to say WHO has experience in dealing with epidemics (*recently*) and know what they are talking about.

Never said they didn’t. Pross’s well made point is that their criteria is 1 dimensional. Minimise mortality. It’s critical that an organisation clearly defines and pushes that agenda.
Leaders have slightly broader sets of Conflicting considerations.

kingstongraham

morstar said:

Isn’t the reality of this situation that a whole load more people are going to die and all we can do is mitigate as best we can?

The only people who have a very high probability of survival are those who are young and those who are wealthy enough to be able to hide from it for as long as necessary.
The harsh reality is that if the lifecycle of this pandemic is 18months, very few individuals or nations are fortunate enough to be able to withdraw from societal interactions for that long.
Every single action taken by any leader is balancing mitigation tactics against mortality.
That is a cold hard truth. An absolute 100% focus on minimising mortality is simply not sustainable. It absolutely sucks but we can acknowledge that without being portrayed as pro-death.

We're currently buying time. That time is being used to learn about the best way to treat patients, whether there are treatments that could reduce symptoms, and (longer term) develop a vaccine. It isn't as simple as wait 18 months for a vaccine and nothing will improve before then.

But it's clearly a balancing act, and I fully expect restrictions to be lifted for some areas before others. I work for a retailer, and no idea when it's going to open again or what restrictions there will be, but if I worked in a theatre/pub/venue/nightclub/conference centre, I'd be even more worried. I can't see them opening in anything like the form they were at any time in the next 6 months.

Wheelspinner

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:

Pross said:

@rick_chasey Do you genuinely think any country is capable of satisfying that first criteria? If everyone follows the WHO guidance no-one is coming out of lockdown until there's a vaccination rolled out. They are looking at it purely from a health perspective as you'd expect without taking account of the economic and political implications.

Succinctly put.
These are perfect world criteria.
It also steps into that dividing line between being an expert and a decision maker.
Experts offer clear, advice based on criteria. Decision makers have to absorb perfect world advice and then consider all of the other conflicting demands that they face.

I think it's fair to say WHO has experience in dealing with epidemics (*recently*) and know what they are talking about.

This the same WHO that supported China's decision to re-open the notorious "wet markets" because they are an "important source of food and income"?

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

@rick_chasey Do you genuinely think any country is capable of satisfying that first criteria? If everyone follows the WHO guidance no-one is coming out of lockdown until there's a vaccination rolled out. They are looking at it purely from a health perspective as you'd expect without taking account of the economic and political implications.

Transmission should be controlled

Health system capacities are in place to detect, test, isolate and treat every case and trace every contact

So 1 is mainly around social distancing. Have that for long enough and you will have it under control. It is easier to get it under control when the numbers are lower, which is why earlier lockdowns help. Longer term it is a different story as you get fewer infections recovered but the advantage is you can do the cycle of tighter restrictions and lighter restrictions depending on where you are.

2 is all about number of tests vs amount of people who currently have it. Once you get the number of people infected down to a level where it is less than the tests available, then you can start to trace and track. Obviously the better the testing capability, the less long you have to wait.

That's the reasoning behind me banging on about locking down sooner and sorting testing out sooner. The reason why I'm so angry with the UK gov't is there is cast iron proof they deliberately did the opposite on both options and are now playing catch up; the deaths are running away from them.

As a result they will have a bigger pile of bodies and a longer lockdown because there are fewer tests and you’ve had more people die whilst you’re waiting for the social distancing to bring the infection rate lower enough to be able to test and track.

It's the 'test, treat and isolate every case and trace every contact' bit that just seems pie in the sky, especially the trace every contact part. If Governments opted to work with that criteria we'll be in lockdown until enough people are vaccinated to eliminate the threat.

rick_chasey

Wheelspinner said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:

Pross said:

@rick_chasey Do you genuinely think any country is capable of satisfying that first criteria? If everyone follows the WHO guidance no-one is coming out of lockdown until there's a vaccination rolled out. They are looking at it purely from a health perspective as you'd expect without taking account of the economic and political implications.

Succinctly put.
These are perfect world criteria.
It also steps into that dividing line between being an expert and a decision maker.
Experts offer clear, advice based on criteria. Decision makers have to absorb perfect world advice and then consider all of the other conflicting demands that they face.

I think it's fair to say WHO has experience in dealing with epidemics (*recently*) and know what they are talking about.

This the same WHO that supported China's decision to re-open the notorious "wet markets" because they are an "important source of food and income"?

So you don't think they house most of the global expertise on dealing with pandemics because of that decision? Fair enough.

coopster_the_1st

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:

Pross said:

@rick_chasey Do you genuinely think any country is capable of satisfying that first criteria? If everyone follows the WHO guidance no-one is coming out of lockdown until there's a vaccination rolled out. They are looking at it purely from a health perspective as you'd expect without taking account of the economic and political implications.

Succinctly put.
These are perfect world criteria.
It also steps into that dividing line between being an expert and a decision maker.
Experts offer clear, advice based on criteria. Decision makers have to absorb perfect world advice and then consider all of the other conflicting demands that they face.

I think it's fair to say WHO has experience in dealing with epidemics (*recently*) and know what they are talking about.

Never said they didn’t. Pross’s well made point is that their criteria is 1 dimensional. Minimise mortality. It’s critical that an organisation clearly defines and pushes that agenda.
Leaders have slightly broader sets of Conflicting considerations.

and the WHO are only looking at the short term. They are not considering the long term in this as when it happens they will just demand the it is the governments that are at fault for not dealing with the issue.

One of the changes out of this will be how the WHO works and is run. They are now trying to justify their existence.

To think the WHO have better knowledge than our own scientists and how to deal with this in the UK is insulting to the UK.

rick_chasey

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

@rick_chasey Do you genuinely think any country is capable of satisfying that first criteria? If everyone follows the WHO guidance no-one is coming out of lockdown until there's a vaccination rolled out. They are looking at it purely from a health perspective as you'd expect without taking account of the economic and political implications.

Transmission should be controlled

Health system capacities are in place to detect, test, isolate and treat every case and trace every contact

So 1 is mainly around social distancing. Have that for long enough and you will have it under control. It is easier to get it under control when the numbers are lower, which is why earlier lockdowns help. Longer term it is a different story as you get fewer infections recovered but the advantage is you can do the cycle of tighter restrictions and lighter restrictions depending on where you are.

2 is all about number of tests vs amount of people who currently have it. Once you get the number of people infected down to a level where it is less than the tests available, then you can start to trace and track. Obviously the better the testing capability, the less long you have to wait.

That's the reasoning behind me banging on about locking down sooner and sorting testing out sooner. The reason why I'm so angry with the UK gov't is there is cast iron proof they deliberately did the opposite on both options and are now playing catch up; the deaths are running away from them.

As a result they will have a bigger pile of bodies and a longer lockdown because there are fewer tests and you’ve had more people die whilst you’re waiting for the social distancing to bring the infection rate lower enough to be able to test and track.

It's the 'test, treat and isolate every case and trace every contact' bit that just seems pie in the sky, especially the trace every contact part. If Governments opted to work with that criteria we'll be in lockdown until enough people are vaccinated to eliminate the threat.

How else ya gonna do it? Just hope people don't start getting it again?

People have gone on at me for being critical and not providing an alternative. The only alternative most of you are pedalling is accept loads of people will die and pray you're not one of them, for the good of the 'economy'.

Well screw that, I think that's a bad idea.

coopster_the_1st

kingstongraham said:

OBR says UK GDP could fall by 35% in second quarter assuming 3 month lockdown. They predict strong recovery in GDP once lockdown ends.

https://twitter.com/OBR_UK/status/1250022597892485124

They don't have a clue about the recovery.

We've seen plenty of evidence on this board alone that it will take a long time for people to resume normal activities e.g. going out for a meal so how can that recovery take place.

The whole hospitality & travel sector is very unlikely to start coming online again this year. Absolute stupidity from the OBR and this incorrect information will be influencing governnent policy.

rjsterry

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

@rick_chasey Do you genuinely think any country is capable of satisfying that first criteria? If everyone follows the WHO guidance no-one is coming out of lockdown until there's a vaccination rolled out. They are looking at it purely from a health perspective as you'd expect without taking account of the economic and political implications.

Transmission should be controlled

Health system capacities are in place to detect, test, isolate and treat every case and trace every contact

So 1 is mainly around social distancing. Have that for long enough and you will have it under control. It is easier to get it under control when the numbers are lower, which is why earlier lockdowns help. Longer term it is a different story as you get fewer infections recovered but the advantage is you can do the cycle of tighter restrictions and lighter restrictions depending on where you are.

2 is all about number of tests vs amount of people who currently have it. Once you get the number of people infected down to a level where it is less than the tests available, then you can start to trace and track. Obviously the better the testing capability, the less long you have to wait.

That's the reasoning behind me banging on about locking down sooner and sorting testing out sooner. The reason why I'm so angry with the UK gov't is there is cast iron proof they deliberately did the opposite on both options and are now playing catch up; the deaths are running away from them.

As a result they will have a bigger pile of bodies and a longer lockdown because there are fewer tests and you’ve had more people die whilst you’re waiting for the social distancing to bring the infection rate lower enough to be able to test and track.

It's the 'test, treat and isolate every case and trace every contact' bit that just seems pie in the sky, especially the trace every contact part. If Governments opted to work with that criteria we'll be in lockdown until enough people are vaccinated to eliminate the threat.

I'd settle for test, treat and isolate as many as is humanly possible. I suspect they use more absolute language to emphasise the point. It will be difficult and take some time to get there but it's not impossible.

rjsterry

Wheelspinner said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:

Pross said:

@rick_chasey Do you genuinely think any country is capable of satisfying that first criteria? If everyone follows the WHO guidance no-one is coming out of lockdown until there's a vaccination rolled out. They are looking at it purely from a health perspective as you'd expect without taking account of the economic and political implications.

Succinctly put.
These are perfect world criteria.
It also steps into that dividing line between being an expert and a decision maker.
Experts offer clear, advice based on criteria. Decision makers have to absorb perfect world advice and then consider all of the other conflicting demands that they face.

I think it's fair to say WHO has experience in dealing with epidemics (*recently*) and know what they are talking about.

This the same WHO that supported China's decision to re-open the notorious "wet markets" because they are an "important source of food and income"?

1 bad bit of advice shouldn't invalidate everything else they say. The comment on wet markets was really daft as it is well known that keeping lots of different species together in unsanitary conditions is how diseases jump species. On the other hand it's only balancing the health and economic considerations, which is what everyone seems to want.

kingstongraham

coopster_the_1st said:

kingstongraham said:

OBR says UK GDP could fall by 35% in second quarter assuming 3 month lockdown. They predict strong recovery in GDP once lockdown ends.

https://twitter.com/OBR_UK/status/1250022597892485124

They don't have a clue about the recovery.

We've seen plenty of evidence on this board alone that it will take a long time for people to resume normal activities e.g. going out for a meal so how can that recover take place.

The whole hospitality & travel sector is very unlikely to start coming online again this year. Absolute stupidity from the OBR and this incorrect information will be influencing governnent policy.

Given their assumption "to illustrate some of the potential fiscal effects, we assume a three-month lockdown due to public health restrictions followed by another three month period when they are partially lifted", I also can't work out where the massive rise in GDP year on year in Q4 is coming from.

Jeremy.89

coopster_the_1st said:

kingstongraham said:

OBR says UK GDP could fall by 35% in second quarter assuming 3 month lockdown. They predict strong recovery in GDP once lockdown ends.

https://twitter.com/OBR_UK/status/1250022597892485124

They don't have a clue about the recovery.

We've seen plenty of evidence on this board alone that it will take a long time for people to resume normal activities e.g. going out for a meal so how can that recover take place.

The whole hospitality & travel sector is very unlikely to start coming online again this year. Absolute stupidity from the OBR and this incorrect information will be influencing governnent policy.

We saw plenty of evidence that a lockdown wouldn't work in a Western democracy, yet here we are.

Predicting the future is always a bit of a mugs game, but I think that's the case now more than ever.

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

@rick_chasey Do you genuinely think any country is capable of satisfying that first criteria? If everyone follows the WHO guidance no-one is coming out of lockdown until there's a vaccination rolled out. They are looking at it purely from a health perspective as you'd expect without taking account of the economic and political implications.

Transmission should be controlled

Health system capacities are in place to detect, test, isolate and treat every case and trace every contact

So 1 is mainly around social distancing. Have that for long enough and you will have it under control. It is easier to get it under control when the numbers are lower, which is why earlier lockdowns help. Longer term it is a different story as you get fewer infections recovered but the advantage is you can do the cycle of tighter restrictions and lighter restrictions depending on where you are.

2 is all about number of tests vs amount of people who currently have it. Once you get the number of people infected down to a level where it is less than the tests available, then you can start to trace and track. Obviously the better the testing capability, the less long you have to wait.

That's the reasoning behind me banging on about locking down sooner and sorting testing out sooner. The reason why I'm so angry with the UK gov't is there is cast iron proof they deliberately did the opposite on both options and are now playing catch up; the deaths are running away from them.

As a result they will have a bigger pile of bodies and a longer lockdown because there are fewer tests and you’ve had more people die whilst you’re waiting for the social distancing to bring the infection rate lower enough to be able to test and track.

It's the 'test, treat and isolate every case and trace every contact' bit that just seems pie in the sky, especially the trace every contact part. If Governments opted to work with that criteria we'll be in lockdown until enough people are vaccinated to eliminate the threat.

How else ya gonna do it? Just hope people don't start getting it again?

People have gone on at me for being critical and not providing an alternative. The only alternative most of you are pedalling is accept loads of people will die and pray you're not one of them, for the good of the 'economy'.

Well screw that, I think that's a bad idea.

You really think any country, no matter how much they try to do so, can trace every contact made by someone who gets infected? The train I used to commute on was so crammed people would be left behind on some stations - if I had the virus and travelled on that train before I got ill how on earth do you expect anyone to determine who I was in contact with whether directly on the train or who touch the same luggage rack, opened the same door etc. etc.? You might be able to get the majority of them through technology but if the civil liberty brigade see that level of tracking taking place they'll probably turn their phones off to prevent it happening. I'm not saying we shouldn't aim to trace as many people as possible who've been in contact with confirmed cases just that aiming to trace every contact as the WHO sets as a criteria is not going to be achievable.

There was a road safety project a few years back called Vision Zero that said countries should set a target of zero fatalities or serious injuries involving road traffic. I think there is a similar concept of Destination Zero in terms of H&S at Work. They're laudable aims and the reality is that you aim for the stars and you might reach the moon i.e. you'll create a safer environment but no-one really expects to achieve the stated aim. I assume that's the WHO aim here but anyone thinking we should keep lockdown until we are able to deliver on all those criteria needs to accept they're not going anywhere until we have a cure or vaccination.

pangolin

coopster_the_1st said:

kingstongraham said:

OBR says UK GDP could fall by 35% in second quarter assuming 3 month lockdown. They predict strong recovery in GDP once lockdown ends.

https://twitter.com/OBR_UK/status/1250022597892485124

They don't have a clue about the recovery.

We've seen plenty of evidence on this board alone that it will take a long time for people to resume normal activities e.g. going out for a meal so how can that recovery take place.

The whole hospitality & travel sector is very unlikely to start coming online again this year. Absolute stupidity from the OBR and this incorrect information will be influencing governnent policy.

They also say:

"At midday today we’ll publish results of a coronavirus scenario illustrating the possible effects on the economy and public finances of a 3-month shutdown and the Government’s policy responses. This is *not* a forecast, just 1 scenario of many that could unfold"

Pross

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

@rick_chasey Do you genuinely think any country is capable of satisfying that first criteria? If everyone follows the WHO guidance no-one is coming out of lockdown until there's a vaccination rolled out. They are looking at it purely from a health perspective as you'd expect without taking account of the economic and political implications.

Transmission should be controlled

Health system capacities are in place to detect, test, isolate and treat every case and trace every contact

So 1 is mainly around social distancing. Have that for long enough and you will have it under control. It is easier to get it under control when the numbers are lower, which is why earlier lockdowns help. Longer term it is a different story as you get fewer infections recovered but the advantage is you can do the cycle of tighter restrictions and lighter restrictions depending on where you are.

2 is all about number of tests vs amount of people who currently have it. Once you get the number of people infected down to a level where it is less than the tests available, then you can start to trace and track. Obviously the better the testing capability, the less long you have to wait.

That's the reasoning behind me banging on about locking down sooner and sorting testing out sooner. The reason why I'm so angry with the UK gov't is there is cast iron proof they deliberately did the opposite on both options and are now playing catch up; the deaths are running away from them.

As a result they will have a bigger pile of bodies and a longer lockdown because there are fewer tests and you’ve had more people die whilst you’re waiting for the social distancing to bring the infection rate lower enough to be able to test and track.

It's the 'test, treat and isolate every case and trace every contact' bit that just seems pie in the sky, especially the trace every contact part. If Governments opted to work with that criteria we'll be in lockdown until enough people are vaccinated to eliminate the threat.

I'd settle for test, treat and isolate as many as is humanly possible. I suspect they use more absolute language to emphasise the point. It will be difficult and take some time to get there but it's not impossible.

That apparently equates to a policy of 'accept loads of people will die and pray you're not one of them, for the good of the 'economy' to our resident hysteric.

sungod

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Do you genuinely think any country is capable of satisfying that first criteria? If everyone follows the WHO guidance no-one is coming out of lockdown until there's a vaccination rolled out. They are looking at it purely from a health perspective as you'd expect without taking account of the economic and political implications.

Depends what they mean by 'controlled'. If it is keeping the level of infections such that the health system can deliver care to those who need it, then quite a few countries are there or getting there.

A full vaccine roll out is more than 'controlled', it's pretty much game over for the virus.

my assumption is that this is with us long term, years

even when vaccine candidates make it through testing and into mass delivery, not all vaccines are for life, catching the virus and recovering is no guarantee of long term immunity

immune system effectiveness can naturally reduce over time (i.e. needing boosters as long at the virus is circulating), and the virus will continue to mutate

if the virus is well enough established to survive and mutate then we face successive waves of it 'forever' (as with colds, flu, norovirus etc.), the primary hope then would be that it becomes more benign

unfortunately work on vaccines for sars and mers (seemingly similar coronaviruses) slowed/halted as not commercially viable, otherwise we might by now have much better understanding of behaviour, but at least they gave a starting point for current efforts

the rational strategy may be to let it burn at the highest rate that doesn't overwhelm the healthcare system, otherwise economies degrade until they can no longer maintain basic services - there's a limit to how long governments can spend money they don't have, let alone keep the lid on populations gradually stripped of everything they have as people continue to die anyway

rick_chasey

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

@rick_chasey Do you genuinely think any country is capable of satisfying that first criteria? If everyone follows the WHO guidance no-one is coming out of lockdown until there's a vaccination rolled out. They are looking at it purely from a health perspective as you'd expect without taking account of the economic and political implications.

Transmission should be controlled

Health system capacities are in place to detect, test, isolate and treat every case and trace every contact

So 1 is mainly around social distancing. Have that for long enough and you will have it under control. It is easier to get it under control when the numbers are lower, which is why earlier lockdowns help. Longer term it is a different story as you get fewer infections recovered but the advantage is you can do the cycle of tighter restrictions and lighter restrictions depending on where you are.

2 is all about number of tests vs amount of people who currently have it. Once you get the number of people infected down to a level where it is less than the tests available, then you can start to trace and track. Obviously the better the testing capability, the less long you have to wait.

That's the reasoning behind me banging on about locking down sooner and sorting testing out sooner. The reason why I'm so angry with the UK gov't is there is cast iron proof they deliberately did the opposite on both options and are now playing catch up; the deaths are running away from them.

As a result they will have a bigger pile of bodies and a longer lockdown because there are fewer tests and you’ve had more people die whilst you’re waiting for the social distancing to bring the infection rate lower enough to be able to test and track.

It's the 'test, treat and isolate every case and trace every contact' bit that just seems pie in the sky, especially the trace every contact part. If Governments opted to work with that criteria we'll be in lockdown until enough people are vaccinated to eliminate the threat.

I'd settle for test, treat and isolate as many as is humanly possible. I suspect they use more absolute language to emphasise the point. It will be difficult and take some time to get there but it's not impossible.

That apparently equates to a policy of 'accept loads of people will die and pray you're not one of them, for the good of the 'economy' to our resident hysteric.

Eh? RJS is proposing what I am proposing.

rick_chasey

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1249821717641531392

a thread on lockdown timings and the correlation or not between different factors

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1249821828891250688

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

@rick_chasey Do you genuinely think any country is capable of satisfying that first criteria? If everyone follows the WHO guidance no-one is coming out of lockdown until there's a vaccination rolled out. They are looking at it purely from a health perspective as you'd expect without taking account of the economic and political implications.

Transmission should be controlled

Health system capacities are in place to detect, test, isolate and treat every case and trace every contact

So 1 is mainly around social distancing. Have that for long enough and you will have it under control. It is easier to get it under control when the numbers are lower, which is why earlier lockdowns help. Longer term it is a different story as you get fewer infections recovered but the advantage is you can do the cycle of tighter restrictions and lighter restrictions depending on where you are.

2 is all about number of tests vs amount of people who currently have it. Once you get the number of people infected down to a level where it is less than the tests available, then you can start to trace and track. Obviously the better the testing capability, the less long you have to wait.

That's the reasoning behind me banging on about locking down sooner and sorting testing out sooner. The reason why I'm so angry with the UK gov't is there is cast iron proof they deliberately did the opposite on both options and are now playing catch up; the deaths are running away from them.

As a result they will have a bigger pile of bodies and a longer lockdown because there are fewer tests and you’ve had more people die whilst you’re waiting for the social distancing to bring the infection rate lower enough to be able to test and track.

It's the 'test, treat and isolate every case and trace every contact' bit that just seems pie in the sky, especially the trace every contact part. If Governments opted to work with that criteria we'll be in lockdown until enough people are vaccinated to eliminate the threat.

I'd settle for test, treat and isolate as many as is humanly possible. I suspect they use more absolute language to emphasise the point. It will be difficult and take some time to get there but it's not impossible.

That apparently equates to a policy of 'accept loads of people will die and pray you're not one of them, for the good of the 'economy' to our resident hysteric.

Eh? RJS is proposing what I am proposing.

Weird, because when I said it was impossible to trace everyone you replied quoting me with that exact phrase. So are you now accepting that it isn't possible to trace everyone as the WHO set as a criteria?

rick_chasey

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:

An absolute 100% focus on minimising mortality is simply not sustainable.

It is more economically sustainable than the alternative. Remember the mantra - the fewer the deaths, the better the recovery.
The fewer the deaths, the better the recovery.
The fewer the deaths, the better the recovery.
The fewer the deaths, the better the recovery.
The fewer the deaths, the better the recovery.
The fewer the deaths, the better the recovery.
The fewer the deaths, the better the recovery.

etc

Another thread

https://twitter.com/JustinWolfers/status/1249723344297103360

pangolin

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

@rick_chasey Do you genuinely think any country is capable of satisfying that first criteria? If everyone follows the WHO guidance no-one is coming out of lockdown until there's a vaccination rolled out. They are looking at it purely from a health perspective as you'd expect without taking account of the economic and political implications.

Transmission should be controlled

Health system capacities are in place to detect, test, isolate and treat every case and trace every contact

So 1 is mainly around social distancing. Have that for long enough and you will have it under control. It is easier to get it under control when the numbers are lower, which is why earlier lockdowns help. Longer term it is a different story as you get fewer infections recovered but the advantage is you can do the cycle of tighter restrictions and lighter restrictions depending on where you are.

2 is all about number of tests vs amount of people who currently have it. Once you get the number of people infected down to a level where it is less than the tests available, then you can start to trace and track. Obviously the better the testing capability, the less long you have to wait.

That's the reasoning behind me banging on about locking down sooner and sorting testing out sooner. The reason why I'm so angry with the UK gov't is there is cast iron proof they deliberately did the opposite on both options and are now playing catch up; the deaths are running away from them.

As a result they will have a bigger pile of bodies and a longer lockdown because there are fewer tests and you’ve had more people die whilst you’re waiting for the social distancing to bring the infection rate lower enough to be able to test and track.

It's the 'test, treat and isolate every case and trace every contact' bit that just seems pie in the sky, especially the trace every contact part. If Governments opted to work with that criteria we'll be in lockdown until enough people are vaccinated to eliminate the threat.

I'd settle for test, treat and isolate as many as is humanly possible. I suspect they use more absolute language to emphasise the point. It will be difficult and take some time to get there but it's not impossible.

That apparently equates to a policy of 'accept loads of people will die and pray you're not one of them, for the good of the 'economy' to our resident hysteric.

Eh? RJS is proposing what I am proposing.

Are you? RJS sounds like he is saying something a little more nuanced - test and trace as much as you can. You sound like you're saying test and trace everyone or... else.

What is to be gained by continuing to go on about lock down timings? It happened 3 weeks ago.

Pross

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

@rick_chasey Do you genuinely think any country is capable of satisfying that first criteria? If everyone follows the WHO guidance no-one is coming out of lockdown until there's a vaccination rolled out. They are looking at it purely from a health perspective as you'd expect without taking account of the economic and political implications.

Transmission should be controlled

Health system capacities are in place to detect, test, isolate and treat every case and trace every contact

So 1 is mainly around social distancing. Have that for long enough and you will have it under control. It is easier to get it under control when the numbers are lower, which is why earlier lockdowns help. Longer term it is a different story as you get fewer infections recovered but the advantage is you can do the cycle of tighter restrictions and lighter restrictions depending on where you are.

2 is all about number of tests vs amount of people who currently have it. Once you get the number of people infected down to a level where it is less than the tests available, then you can start to trace and track. Obviously the better the testing capability, the less long you have to wait.

That's the reasoning behind me banging on about locking down sooner and sorting testing out sooner. The reason why I'm so angry with the UK gov't is there is cast iron proof they deliberately did the opposite on both options and are now playing catch up; the deaths are running away from them.

As a result they will have a bigger pile of bodies and a longer lockdown because there are fewer tests and you’ve had more people die whilst you’re waiting for the social distancing to bring the infection rate lower enough to be able to test and track.

It's the 'test, treat and isolate every case and trace every contact' bit that just seems pie in the sky, especially the trace every contact part. If Governments opted to work with that criteria we'll be in lockdown until enough people are vaccinated to eliminate the threat.

I'd settle for test, treat and isolate as many as is humanly possible. I suspect they use more absolute language to emphasise the point. It will be difficult and take some time to get there but it's not impossible.

That apparently equates to a policy of 'accept loads of people will die and pray you're not one of them, for the good of the 'economy' to our resident hysteric.

Eh? RJS is proposing what I am proposing.

Are you? RJS sounds like he is saying something a little more nuanced - test and trace as much as you can. You sound like you're saying test and trace everyone or... else.

What is to be gained by continuing to go on about lock down timings? It happened 3 weeks ago.

Thank you, I thought I was misreading something!

rjsterry

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

@rick_chasey Do you genuinely think any country is capable of satisfying that first criteria? If everyone follows the WHO guidance no-one is coming out of lockdown until there's a vaccination rolled out. They are looking at it purely from a health perspective as you'd expect without taking account of the economic and political implications.

Transmission should be controlled

Health system capacities are in place to detect, test, isolate and treat every case and trace every contact

So 1 is mainly around social distancing. Have that for long enough and you will have it under control. It is easier to get it under control when the numbers are lower, which is why earlier lockdowns help. Longer term it is a different story as you get fewer infections recovered but the advantage is you can do the cycle of tighter restrictions and lighter restrictions depending on where you are.

2 is all about number of tests vs amount of people who currently have it. Once you get the number of people infected down to a level where it is less than the tests available, then you can start to trace and track. Obviously the better the testing capability, the less long you have to wait.

That's the reasoning behind me banging on about locking down sooner and sorting testing out sooner. The reason why I'm so angry with the UK gov't is there is cast iron proof they deliberately did the opposite on both options and are now playing catch up; the deaths are running away from them.

As a result they will have a bigger pile of bodies and a longer lockdown because there are fewer tests and you’ve had more people die whilst you’re waiting for the social distancing to bring the infection rate lower enough to be able to test and track.

It's the 'test, treat and isolate every case and trace every contact' bit that just seems pie in the sky, especially the trace every contact part. If Governments opted to work with that criteria we'll be in lockdown until enough people are vaccinated to eliminate the threat.

I'd settle for test, treat and isolate as many as is humanly possible. I suspect they use more absolute language to emphasise the point. It will be difficult and take some time to get there but it's not impossible.

That apparently equates to a policy of 'accept loads of people will die and pray you're not one of them, for the good of the 'economy' to our resident hysteric.

I think it's somewhere in the middle. We are only testing a minority of those showing symptoms and not bothering with tracing contacts at all. That's quite a bit of ground to make up.

rick_chasey

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

@rick_chasey Do you genuinely think any country is capable of satisfying that first criteria? If everyone follows the WHO guidance no-one is coming out of lockdown until there's a vaccination rolled out. They are looking at it purely from a health perspective as you'd expect without taking account of the economic and political implications.

Transmission should be controlled

Health system capacities are in place to detect, test, isolate and treat every case and trace every contact

So 1 is mainly around social distancing. Have that for long enough and you will have it under control. It is easier to get it under control when the numbers are lower, which is why earlier lockdowns help. Longer term it is a different story as you get fewer infections recovered but the advantage is you can do the cycle of tighter restrictions and lighter restrictions depending on where you are.

2 is all about number of tests vs amount of people who currently have it. Once you get the number of people infected down to a level where it is less than the tests available, then you can start to trace and track. Obviously the better the testing capability, the less long you have to wait.

That's the reasoning behind me banging on about locking down sooner and sorting testing out sooner. The reason why I'm so angry with the UK gov't is there is cast iron proof they deliberately did the opposite on both options and are now playing catch up; the deaths are running away from them.

As a result they will have a bigger pile of bodies and a longer lockdown because there are fewer tests and you’ve had more people die whilst you’re waiting for the social distancing to bring the infection rate lower enough to be able to test and track.

It's the 'test, treat and isolate every case and trace every contact' bit that just seems pie in the sky, especially the trace every contact part. If Governments opted to work with that criteria we'll be in lockdown until enough people are vaccinated to eliminate the threat.

I'd settle for test, treat and isolate as many as is humanly possible. I suspect they use more absolute language to emphasise the point. It will be difficult and take some time to get there but it's not impossible.

That apparently equates to a policy of 'accept loads of people will die and pray you're not one of them, for the good of the 'economy' to our resident hysteric.

Eh? RJS is proposing what I am proposing.

Weird, because when I said it was impossible to trace everyone you replied quoting me with that exact phrase. So are you now accepting that it isn't possible to trace everyone as the WHO set as a criteria?

Maybe I misunderstood but I thought the point he was making was to say “just because you can’t cover it 100% doesn’t mean you shouldn’t bother”