The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
Perhaps they do, I genuinely don't know, and "most" of the expertise might be a stretch in any case. Happy to be proved wrong. They claim about 7000 people as "staff" working in 150 countries. I'm sure they do have some real experts in amongst that lot, but how many are epidemiologists, pandemic experts, or whatever the correct term is seems unclear.rick_chasey said:
So you don't think they house most of the global expertise on dealing with pandemics because of that decision? Fair enough.Wheelspinner said:
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"?rick_chasey said:
I think it's fair to say WHO has experience in dealing with epidemics (*recently*) and know what they are talking about.morstar said:
Succinctly put.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.
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.
But like a few other such "global leadership" organisations, my cynic's view is they are also just another massive bureaucracy filled with people who love the money, the lifestyle and the "influence" [they think] it gives them.
If you reckon they're the ducks guts, why are you so critical then of your own Government for their lack of earlier action in response to the CV spread, when the WHO repeatedly failed to declare a pandemic, as late as February this year?
They complained that some places (Australia included) implemented travel bans to and from China early on because it was "unnecessary" and there really wasn't anything to worry about. Great expertise there, thanks fellas. Really helped.
The current head of the WHO, just months after he won the gig, appointed Robert Mugabe as a "Goodwill Ambassador". FFS.
If that doesn't ring alarm bells for you in terms of whether they are a politically driven organisation rather than one with "world health" as their primary - let alone sole - focus, I dunno what might.
They may well have expertise in pandemics, or at least, they do now. In any case they appear to be the best available.
That's not a ringing endorsement by the way.
Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS1 -
Useful for round 2 (or round 1.1)rick_chasey said:
a thread on lockdown timings and the correlation or not between different factors1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Of course but I think we've missed the boat in the current wave so the best we can reasonably do is wait until the curve drops right back down and then have all the possible procedures and measures ready for the second wave. It's going to rely on a reliable antibody test though.rjsterry said:
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.Pross said:
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.rjsterry said:
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.Pross said:
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 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.0 -
That's a fair point, if we end up going down the relax, tighten, repeat route.rjsterry said:
Useful for round 2 (or round 1.1)rick_chasey said:
a thread on lockdown timings and the correlation or not between different factors- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I see that by taking that comment so out of context, that you have a potential career in journalism.Jeremy.89 said:
Someone said yesterday that anyone looking at a track and trace scheme was an idiot.mrfpb said:From the BBC website
Some countries have said they are passing their peak of infections and deaths, and are considering lifting restrictions.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has issued six criteria for countries considering relaxing their lockdowns.
Transmission should be controlled
Health system capacities are in place to detect, test, isolate and treat every case and trace every contact
Outbreak risks are minimised in special settings like health facilities and nursing homes
Preventive measures are in place in workplaces, schools and other places where it’s essential for people to go
Importation risks are managed
Communities are fully educated, engaged and empowered to adjust to the “new norm”.
If nothing else, the second point excludes the UK from ending lockdown.
Good to know that the WHO are idiots.
The context of the discussion was that track and trace would not be effective in stamping this out, nor, in the absence of effective drug treatment or vaccine in the next 2-3 years, change the number who will get it.
The context of the WHO advice is to help to avoid large outbreaks that overwhelm health services and necessitate further lockdowns.
I know it's complicated.0 -
I know I am very annoying but my proposal was not as idiotic as you made out, wouldn't you say?First.Aspect said:
I see that by taking that comment so out of context, that you have a potential career in journalism.Jeremy.89 said:
Someone said yesterday that anyone looking at a track and trace scheme was an idiot.mrfpb said:From the BBC website
Some countries have said they are passing their peak of infections and deaths, and are considering lifting restrictions.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has issued six criteria for countries considering relaxing their lockdowns.
Transmission should be controlled
Health system capacities are in place to detect, test, isolate and treat every case and trace every contact
Outbreak risks are minimised in special settings like health facilities and nursing homes
Preventive measures are in place in workplaces, schools and other places where it’s essential for people to go
Importation risks are managed
Communities are fully educated, engaged and empowered to adjust to the “new norm”.
If nothing else, the second point excludes the UK from ending lockdown.
Good to know that the WHO are idiots.
The context of the discussion was that track and trace would not be effective in stamping this out, nor, in the absence of effective drug treatment or vaccine in the next 2-3 years, change the number who will get it.
The context of the WHO advice is to help to avoid large outbreaks that overwhelm health services and necessitate further lockdowns.
I know it's complicated.0 -
Yes, which I agree with but my reading of your position (and, it appears, Pangolin's reading too) was that we have to hit the WHO target of trace everyone which I was pointing out was impossible and would result in lockdown not getting lifted until there was a treatment or vaccine.rick_chasey said:
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”Pross said:
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 said:
Eh? RJS is proposing what I am proposing.Pross said:
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.rjsterry said:
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.Pross said:
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 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.0 -
Well I think you shouldn't really attempt lift lockdown for any long period of time, and prepare people to re-lockdown very quickly, until you can get a handle on the testing afterwards, and even then....Pross said:
Yes, which I agree with but my reading of your position (and, it appears, Pangolin's reading too) was that we have to hit the WHO target of trace everyone which I was pointing out was impossible and would result in lockdown not getting lifted until there was a treatment or vaccine.rick_chasey said:
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”Pross said:
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 said:
Eh? RJS is proposing what I am proposing.Pross said:
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.rjsterry said:
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.Pross said:
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 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.0 -
Is it? I'm not sure my view has changed much since it emerged in China. It was immediately apparent that it spread easily and killed. You only needed to look at the spread of Swine flu to see how quickly and easily that would happen. Of course, Swine flu wasn't as deadly, but most of the preventive measures that were initially proposed were the same.rjsterry said:
The motto for everything to do with C19 should be:
It's more complicated than we first thought.
If there were any doubt the WHO's first report on the subject just backed this up and said the rest of the world would need to adopt China's strategies.
I have learnt why it is hard to make vaccines. I assumed that China might skip a few ethical considerations and jump straight into the deployment of a vaccine.
I have also learnt that there was a western feeling of superiority about their health care - one that is probably not so rock solid any more.
Otherwise, we are waiting for a treatment or a vaccine, and playing the Dead Body Olympics with Germany and Korea the current front runners.
0 -
Let's put some basic figures around track and trace and then raise questions about the numbers involved?
Using 500 deaths a day and a very high mortality rate of 1% (to keep the number of positive test lower)
That means 50,000 confirmed cases a day and these will need to be confirmed via testing. How many people are these 50k people going to be in contact with throughout a day?
How many people are you going to need to perform the trace part of strategy? Say 5k of these people visit a supermarket. How much work is going to be needed to trace all those who could have been in contact with that person at the time they were in the supermarket?(the best logical way is credit card/loyalty card usage 15 minutes either side of the time the 1 confirmed case used their credit card)
How many tests are they going to have to perform on a daily basis to run a track and trace strategy?
The above highlights the real world compared to the theority world that many seem to live in.0 -
Sure
Are you sure you haven't been "Trumped" here? He has shares in a generics manufacturer with a hydroxychloroquinine product and pushed the benefits very hard and very wrongly (causing a few deaths and an acute shortage for lupus sufferers).Pross said:
BCG vaccination is also appearing to provide a benefit but no-one seems sure why as that is designed to treat a bacterial infection rather than a virus. Apparently there has been some testing that supported anecdotal reports but it hasn't been peer reviewed yet.nickice said:
Some countries with notably good outcomes have been using chloroquine or hydoxychloroquine. I remember reading something about it being used in Germany but I can't be sure. There is a French professor who did two clinical trials on it but I believe neither had a proper control group. His argument was that it was unethical to do so.surrey_commuter said:DeVlaeminck said:Yes there are two possible explanations for Germany's low death rate - one that they have successfully limited the spread and two that they treat those infected more effectively. Ok maybe a third that their population is somehow more resilient than ours (age, ethnicity, general health etc).
I'm assuming their apparent success (leaving aside questions of whether that is just delaying the inevitable and whether that success is down to accident or design) is primarily down to the first reason but it's certainly possible 2 and 3 play a part - and the second possibly a major part.
I am really not sure what treatment helps. The suggestion is that BoJo went into ICU earlier than a standard punter so maybe early access to oxygen helps.
Germany does have a lot of recoveries but we don’t even bother to record them. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
I'd understood that there are indications that these drugs showed some potential to disrupt the virus particles in vitro, but that there hasn't been any evidence of this being the case in vivo.0 -
Sure
Are you sure you haven't been "Trumped" here? He has shares in a generics manufacturer with a hydroxychloroquinine product and pushed the benefits very hard and very wrongly (causing a few deaths and an acute shortage for lupus sufferers).Pross said:
BCG vaccination is also appearing to provide a benefit but no-one seems sure why as that is designed to treat a bacterial infection rather than a virus. Apparently there has been some testing that supported anecdotal reports but it hasn't been peer reviewed yet.nickice said:
Some countries with notably good outcomes have been using chloroquine or hydoxychloroquine. I remember reading something about it being used in Germany but I can't be sure. There is a French professor who did two clinical trials on it but I believe neither had a proper control group. His argument was that it was unethical to do so.surrey_commuter said:DeVlaeminck said:Yes there are two possible explanations for Germany's low death rate - one that they have successfully limited the spread and two that they treat those infected more effectively. Ok maybe a third that their population is somehow more resilient than ours (age, ethnicity, general health etc).
I'm assuming their apparent success (leaving aside questions of whether that is just delaying the inevitable and whether that success is down to accident or design) is primarily down to the first reason but it's certainly possible 2 and 3 play a part - and the second possibly a major part.
I am really not sure what treatment helps. The suggestion is that BoJo went into ICU earlier than a standard punter so maybe early access to oxygen helps.
Germany does have a lot of recoveries but we don’t even bother to record them. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
I'd understood that there are indications that these drugs showed some potential to disrupt the virus particles in vitro, but that there hasn't been any evidence of this being the case in vivo.0 -
Pretty sure most of us are stuck at home with our families. Tracing would amount to half a dozen people for me in the last month.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Lots. Lots and lots. Lots and lots and lots. Test test test. We need to test as many as possible, as often as possible. Get the facilities set up to make and administer millions and millions and millions of tests. The amount of money that is being spent/lost on this, even a few billion thrown at that would not be wasted.coopster_the_1st said:Let's put some basic figures around track and trace and then raise questions about the numbers involved?
Using 500 deaths a day and a very high mortality rate of 1% (to keep the number of positive test lower)
That means 50,000 confirmed cases a day and these will need to be confirmed via testing. How many people are these 50k people going to be in contact with throughout a day?
How many people are you going to need to perform the trace part of strategy? Say 5k of these people visit a supermarket. How much work is going to be needed to trace all those who could have been in contact with that person at the time they were in the supermarket?(the best logical way is credit card/loyalty card usage 15 minutes either side of the time the 1 confirmed case used their credit card)
How many tests are they going to have to perform on a daily basis to run a track and trace strategy?
The above highlights the real world compared to the theority world that many seem to live in.
Also, to your point about there being 500 deaths meaning 50k confirmed cases meaning huge numbers of tests being needed - maybe the answer is to get the number of deaths down, which means the number of cases is lower, which means that it is somewhat under control before reopening.
Or we should have shut down when we only had 8 deaths, and then we'd be able to do it easier, but it's a bit late for that.
Also, your point about how to trace them is valid - raising the use of payment cards is interesting, and means that there are many ways that data could be used, in addition to an app like the Singapore one.
There's no 100% certain way, but if you keep testing, then you find people who have been missed.0 -
Fair comment, my fear is that the Government will lift it too soon as they get pressure from the media to give a deadline and they think that's what the public want (which it maybe but they need to do what is best based on both the scientific and economic advice). However, I don't think we can realistically stay in the current version of lockdown for more than another month or so even though it's relatively light touch or, if the Government think we do need to, then they're going to have to look at ever increasing levels of state aid to prevent millions falling into hardship.rick_chasey said:
Well I think you shouldn't really attempt lift lockdown for any long period of time, and prepare people to re-lockdown very quickly, until you can get a handle on the testing afterwards, and even then....Pross said:
Yes, which I agree with but my reading of your position (and, it appears, Pangolin's reading too) was that we have to hit the WHO target of trace everyone which I was pointing out was impossible and would result in lockdown not getting lifted until there was a treatment or vaccine.rick_chasey said:
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”Pross said:
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 said:
Eh? RJS is proposing what I am proposing.Pross said:
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.rjsterry said:
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.Pross said:
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 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.0 -
Yes, they know how to treat this from a purely medical perspective. But there are more angles to this than just the medical angle.rick_chasey said:
I think it's fair to say WHO has experience in dealing with epidemics (*recently*) and know what they are talking about.morstar said:
Succinctly put.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.
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.
One example - most countries will have locked down their country for between 6 - 10 weeks by the time they start lifting restrictions. From a purely medical perspective, their governments almost certainly knew that would be the necessary length of the restrictions, but communicated shorter increments because social psychologists advised that approach would be better received and more adhered to by the general population. Same outcome, but achieved a different way by not following a purely medical perspective.0 -
This was a good interview yesterday.0 -
It was discussed on a BBC Q&A on BBC1 yesterday afternoon with a Virologist. From memory he acknowledged that there appeared to be lower incidences in countries (I remember South Africa being one that got named) where the BCG vaccination is more common and that there was research from Johns Hopkins suggesting that it could help though with the caveat I mentioned that it hadn't been peer reviewed.First.Aspect said:Sure
Are you sure you haven't been "Trumped" here? He has shares in a generics manufacturer with a hydroxychloroquinine product and pushed the benefits very hard and very wrongly (causing a few deaths and an acute shortage for lupus sufferers).Pross said:
BCG vaccination is also appearing to provide a benefit but no-one seems sure why as that is designed to treat a bacterial infection rather than a virus. Apparently there has been some testing that supported anecdotal reports but it hasn't been peer reviewed yet.nickice said:
Some countries with notably good outcomes have been using chloroquine or hydoxychloroquine. I remember reading something about it being used in Germany but I can't be sure. There is a French professor who did two clinical trials on it but I believe neither had a proper control group. His argument was that it was unethical to do so.surrey_commuter said:DeVlaeminck said:Yes there are two possible explanations for Germany's low death rate - one that they have successfully limited the spread and two that they treat those infected more effectively. Ok maybe a third that their population is somehow more resilient than ours (age, ethnicity, general health etc).
I'm assuming their apparent success (leaving aside questions of whether that is just delaying the inevitable and whether that success is down to accident or design) is primarily down to the first reason but it's certainly possible 2 and 3 play a part - and the second possibly a major part.
I am really not sure what treatment helps. The suggestion is that BoJo went into ICU earlier than a standard punter so maybe early access to oxygen helps.
Germany does have a lot of recoveries but we don’t even bother to record them. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
I'd understood that there are indications that these drugs showed some potential to disrupt the virus particles in vitro, but that there hasn't been any evidence of this being the case in vivo.
It's worth trying to find as he covered quite a lot of issues (he covered the use of masks quite a bit) though at the end of the day his answers are only his opinion and others in the field may not agree.0 -
How is this different to any other recent pandemic? Like, for example, the Ebola outbreak?kingstonian said:
Yes, they know how to treat this from a purely medical perspective. But there are more angles to this than just the medical angle.rick_chasey said:
I think it's fair to say WHO has experience in dealing with epidemics (*recently*) and know what they are talking about.morstar said:
Succinctly put.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.
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.
One example - most countries will have locked down their country for between 6 - 10 weeks by the time they start lifting restrictions. From a purely medical perspective, their governments almost certainly knew that would be the necessary length of the restrictions, but communicated shorter increments because social psychologists advised that approach would be better received and more adhered to by the general population. Same outcome, but achieved a different way by not following a purely medical perspective.
I think it's a little condescending on the WHO, who have led multiple responses to epidemics, to assume they have not had to deal with other matters like the economic and other social costs until now.0 -
The extent of spread is massively different and it is widespread in countries which have a huge amount of global interaction including all of the world's biggest economies. The economic impact of a pandemic in the likes of the EU, US and China is going to be felt significantly more than one impacting on some of the poorest countries on earth.rick_chasey said:
How is this different to any other recent pandemic? Like, for example, the Ebola outbreak?kingstonian said:
Yes, they know how to treat this from a purely medical perspective. But there are more angles to this than just the medical angle.rick_chasey said:
I think it's fair to say WHO has experience in dealing with epidemics (*recently*) and know what they are talking about.morstar said:
Succinctly put.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.
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.
One example - most countries will have locked down their country for between 6 - 10 weeks by the time they start lifting restrictions. From a purely medical perspective, their governments almost certainly knew that would be the necessary length of the restrictions, but communicated shorter increments because social psychologists advised that approach would be better received and more adhered to by the general population. Same outcome, but achieved a different way by not following a purely medical perspective.
I think it's a little condescending on the WHO, who have led multiple responses to epidemics, to assume they have not had to deal with other matters like the economic and other social costs until now.0 -
What are your thoughts on the recent overall deaths statistics for the UK. Record numbers. Only about half of increase associated with Covid-19?rick_chasey said:
How is this different to any other recent pandemic? Like, for example, the Ebola outbreak?kingstonian said:
Yes, they know how to treat this from a purely medical perspective. But there are more angles to this than just the medical angle.rick_chasey said:
I think it's fair to say WHO has experience in dealing with epidemics (*recently*) and know what they are talking about.morstar said:
Succinctly put.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.
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.
One example - most countries will have locked down their country for between 6 - 10 weeks by the time they start lifting restrictions. From a purely medical perspective, their governments almost certainly knew that would be the necessary length of the restrictions, but communicated shorter increments because social psychologists advised that approach would be better received and more adhered to by the general population. Same outcome, but achieved a different way by not following a purely medical perspective.
I think it's a little condescending on the WHO, who have led multiple responses to epidemics, to assume they have not had to deal with other matters like the economic and other social costs until now.
There is tunnel vision going on - not least from the WHO - about the collateral damage here.
Hopefully this particular datum is a blip and we aren't just treading water here.0 -
That'll be Chris Smith. Giant brain.Pross said:
It was discussed on a BBC Q&A on BBC1 yesterday afternoon with a Virologist. From memory he acknowledged that there appeared to be lower incidences in countries (I remember South Africa being one that got named) where the BCG vaccination is more common and that there was research from Johns Hopkins suggesting that it could help though with the caveat I mentioned that it hadn't been peer reviewed.First.Aspect said:Sure
Are you sure you haven't been "Trumped" here? He has shares in a generics manufacturer with a hydroxychloroquinine product and pushed the benefits very hard and very wrongly (causing a few deaths and an acute shortage for lupus sufferers).Pross said:
BCG vaccination is also appearing to provide a benefit but no-one seems sure why as that is designed to treat a bacterial infection rather than a virus. Apparently there has been some testing that supported anecdotal reports but it hasn't been peer reviewed yet.nickice said:
Some countries with notably good outcomes have been using chloroquine or hydoxychloroquine. I remember reading something about it being used in Germany but I can't be sure. There is a French professor who did two clinical trials on it but I believe neither had a proper control group. His argument was that it was unethical to do so.surrey_commuter said:DeVlaeminck said:Yes there are two possible explanations for Germany's low death rate - one that they have successfully limited the spread and two that they treat those infected more effectively. Ok maybe a third that their population is somehow more resilient than ours (age, ethnicity, general health etc).
I'm assuming their apparent success (leaving aside questions of whether that is just delaying the inevitable and whether that success is down to accident or design) is primarily down to the first reason but it's certainly possible 2 and 3 play a part - and the second possibly a major part.
I am really not sure what treatment helps. The suggestion is that BoJo went into ICU earlier than a standard punter so maybe early access to oxygen helps.
Germany does have a lot of recoveries but we don’t even bother to record them. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
I'd understood that there are indications that these drugs showed some potential to disrupt the virus particles in vitro, but that there hasn't been any evidence of this being the case in vivo.
It's worth trying to find as he covered quite a lot of issues (he covered the use of masks quite a bit) though at the end of the day his answers are only his opinion and others in the field may not agree.
I've heard him talk about those anti-malarials before, a couple of weeks ago when it was first mooted. I think there have been some early / weak indicators about those malaria drugs, with some anecdotal evidence of effectiveness in some patients, but if it is a magic bullet we should probably have heard more about it by now.
In the meantime Trump has made a bit of money and killed / seriously traumatised some innocent people, by plugging it.0 -
The use of chloroquine (anti-malarial) is not a new idea. This was one of the early successes in China.0
-
Yes I think with the increase in overall deaths people don't necessarily know if they are or are not covid related yet; there's some suspicion that they are mis-labelling corona deaths, particularly in care homes.First.Aspect said:
What are your thoughts on the recent overall deaths statistics for the UK. Record numbers. Only about half of increase associated with Covid-19?rick_chasey said:
How is this different to any other recent pandemic? Like, for example, the Ebola outbreak?kingstonian said:
Yes, they know how to treat this from a purely medical perspective. But there are more angles to this than just the medical angle.rick_chasey said:
I think it's fair to say WHO has experience in dealing with epidemics (*recently*) and know what they are talking about.morstar said:
Succinctly put.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.
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.
One example - most countries will have locked down their country for between 6 - 10 weeks by the time they start lifting restrictions. From a purely medical perspective, their governments almost certainly knew that would be the necessary length of the restrictions, but communicated shorter increments because social psychologists advised that approach would be better received and more adhered to by the general population. Same outcome, but achieved a different way by not following a purely medical perspective.
I think it's a little condescending on the WHO, who have led multiple responses to epidemics, to assume they have not had to deal with other matters like the economic and other social costs until now.
There is tunnel vision going on - not least from the WHO - about the collateral damage here.
Hopefully this particular datum is a blip and we aren't just treading water here.
That aside, I think my point still remains; if hospitals are stretched to cater for corona patients, they won't be able to do all the normal services. If say, you stopped lock-down today, they would be overwhelmed in 3 weeks time and have no bandwidth to do much else.
Stopping the lockdown won't stem the deaths. You have to get infection levels down before anything else. It's that basic.0 -
True. But once it is within capacity, there's an argument that restrictions need to be released in such a way as to maintain the rate of Covid infections, because releasing those restrictions will bring other healthcare services back towards normality and thereby "save lives". There's also an argument that it is best to keep a lid on it and wait for the cavalry to arrive, in terms of a vaccine.rick_chasey said:
Yes I think with the increase in overall deaths people don't necessarily know if they are or are not covid related yet; there's some suspicion that they are mis-labelling corona deaths, particularly in care homes.First.Aspect said:
What are your thoughts on the recent overall deaths statistics for the UK. Record numbers. Only about half of increase associated with Covid-19?rick_chasey said:
How is this different to any other recent pandemic? Like, for example, the Ebola outbreak?kingstonian said:
Yes, they know how to treat this from a purely medical perspective. But there are more angles to this than just the medical angle.rick_chasey said:
I think it's fair to say WHO has experience in dealing with epidemics (*recently*) and know what they are talking about.morstar said:
Succinctly put.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.
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.
One example - most countries will have locked down their country for between 6 - 10 weeks by the time they start lifting restrictions. From a purely medical perspective, their governments almost certainly knew that would be the necessary length of the restrictions, but communicated shorter increments because social psychologists advised that approach would be better received and more adhered to by the general population. Same outcome, but achieved a different way by not following a purely medical perspective.
I think it's a little condescending on the WHO, who have led multiple responses to epidemics, to assume they have not had to deal with other matters like the economic and other social costs until now.
There is tunnel vision going on - not least from the WHO - about the collateral damage here.
Hopefully this particular datum is a blip and we aren't just treading water here.
That aside, I think my point still remains; if hospitals are stretched to cater for corona patients, they won't be able to do all the normal services. If say, you stopped lock-down today, they would be overwhelmed in 3 weeks time and have no bandwidth to do much else.
Stopping the lockdown won't stem the deaths. You have to get infection levels down before anything else. It's that basic.
So most countries will try to strike a balance between semi-normal, and allowing the virus to progress at a manageable rate, combined with crossing fingers. If nothing else, if the vaccine does arrive, you've made it a bit easier to get to the herd immunity stage while all of the world's economies scramble to get hold of vaccine.
Looks to me just now that trying to keep the overall numbers of Covid deaths less than "N" will kill more than N people, but no one knows what N is. I fear that N is actually not very high.0 -
The BMJ in 2017 said the "austerity" since the GFC shortened the lives of 150k people.First.Aspect said:
Now they may have been trying to political point score, but if we take their research at face value, how many lives are going to be shortened given the relative size of the economic stimulas being fired at the problem this time?
150k people is probably not too far off for the number of lives that will be shortened by C190 -
Amidst all the gloom, C19 is doing wonders for air pollution.
If we could find a way to hang on to some of those gains, that would feel like the whole thing wasn't entirely a damage limitation exercise.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Look at the air pollution around Milan and compare it to London.rjsterry said:Amidst all the gloom, C19 is doing wonders for air pollution.
If we could find a way to hang on to some of those gains, that would feel like the whole thing wasn't entirely a damage limitation exercise.
There are some thoughts that exposure to higher air pollution puts you at greater risk to complications when you contract C19.0 -
Yes, I'd spotted that earlier. Possibly contributes to London being hit so much worse than the rest of the UK.coopster_the_1st said:
Look at the air pollution around Milan and compare it to London.rjsterry said:Amidst all the gloom, C19 is doing wonders for air pollution.
If we could find a way to hang on to some of those gains, that would feel like the whole thing wasn't entirely a damage limitation exercise.
There are some thoughts that exposure to higher air pollution puts you at greater risk to complications when you contract C19.
Also, have a look at some of these before and after photos of places like Delhi.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/11/positively-alpine-disbelief-air-pollution-falls-lockdown-coronavirus?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
I'd never appreciated before how bad air pollution near the mountains was in Italy- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0
