The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
Nobody said there was an easy solution, but testing is the starting point of most of the difficult ones.morstar said:And you are totally ignoring the growing number of people who are through this (or not) who will start simply wanting to get on with life.
That is not a policy proposal by me, it is a simple fact. I am still trying to work out (like Wheelspinner) how I both engage with the world while trying to keep my family safe. I don't know the answer.
Anybody mentioned there isn't an easy solution? Stop pretending lots of testing is it. It f*cking well isn't unless we can do multiple hundreds of thousands per day and have a follow mechanism that uses that data to direct benefit.
Like the one you suggest.0 -
Latest research indicates that up to 80% of those infected are asymptomatic. https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1375.
The scientist from Oxford is right that we probably shouldn't be in lockdown if this is the case.0 -
Perfect is the enemy of goodrjsterry said:
Oh, heavens! Well if it's mildly uncomfortable, let's not bother. Part of the the overall problem with UK testing is the infrastructure. That will need to be in place whether we are talking about the current swab test or a thumb-censored antibody test so let's stop finding reasons why it won't be perfect and start building.Stevo_666 said:
I think it isn't too nice.pangolin said:
I suggested a while back that to be really effective you'd need to be testing all NHS staff every day to check they haven't caught it that day. I think someone responded that it wasn't a very pleasant test?Stevo_666 said:
Re: my point above and assuming we are talking about a test for who has it rather than who has developed antibodies, then testing someone today doesn't help if they catch tomorrow for example, the the level of testing to be able to identify and isolate is absolutely huge. Add to this the asymptomatic incubation period where nobody can tell who has it without a test, I simply don't see how it is feasible to do this on a comprehensive basis.rjsterry said:
I think I saw somewhere yesterday that someone had worked out that isolating a carefully targeted 10% (those testing positive and those at increased risk, presumably) was as effective in slowing the spread as isolating a randomly selected 50% of the population. The point being that an economy can function with 10% out of action but not 50%. At the moment we are doing the latter and need to move to the former.Stevo_666 said:
I do see that the likes of us (i.e. not old and/or vulnerable) will have to take some degree of risk going forward. We can't all keep living under a rock until a vaccine is available.Longshot said:
This is right I think. I cannot see any way we get testing done comprehensively enough for this to provide a true picture. Therefore we'll need to take some measured risk but not with the highly vulnerable.Stevo_666 said:
The only true exit strategies in my mind are a vaccine or herd immunity. If we don't get the first in time, then we will get the second by default.
I would see that some level of social distancing will need to be maintained even after certain restrictions are relaxed (I also mentioned up thread that the isolation of the old and vulnerable may need to stay). Clearly this is by no means a full solution, but I'm not pretending to know all the answers.
The other point here is that keeping that set of people isolated will do relatively less economic damage give the proportion of them that will be economically inactive. So in that case the medical/health aims are not running contrary to the economic aims.
I'm not saying there is no point to testing - far from it. But it will need to be targeted where needed most and can only be part of a wider strategy to slow the spread until a vaccine or treatment is available.
https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/31/far-back-doctors-swab-test-coronavirus-12482026/
That aside, the sheer overall numbers of tests which would be involved means it just isn't practical, as I've argued above.0 -
When it comes to testing, worth remembering that the current tests aren't very accurate - or at least, they don't pick up a lot of people who have it in the early stages. Quite a lot of false negatives, which means that if testing is your get-out-of-jail card, you're going to have quite a lot of COVID+ people treating patients, manning shops etc as they wave their clean certificates.
Not sure what the solution to that is - it's easy to wish for better tests: hopefully there will be.0 -
This Govt will ease lockdown, wait 6 weeks and look at the results of their continued halfarsed attempts to count the dead.
I would accept the help of independent labs and ramp up testing levels to at least level with Germany. I would then use this capacity to closely monitor target samples who were impacted by the easement. I would base further decisions upon that data0 -
I just don't know how any policy maker can be making decisions when the data on infections is almost non-existent and the data on deaths is weeks out of date.
0 -
I posted a link a few posts earlier with someone with some expertise questioning the testing argument and highlighting some problems.kingstongraham said:
Nobody said there was an easy solution, but testing is the starting point of most of the difficult ones.morstar said:And you are totally ignoring the growing number of people who are through this (or not) who will start simply wanting to get on with life.
That is not a policy proposal by me, it is a simple fact. I am still trying to work out (like Wheelspinner) how I both engage with the world while trying to keep my family safe. I don't know the answer.
Anybody mentioned there isn't an easy solution? Stop pretending lots of testing is it. It f*cking well isn't unless we can do multiple hundreds of thousands per day and have a follow mechanism that uses that data to direct benefit.
Like the one you suggest.
You need to counter those arguments, not just say to do what no country is managing.
The figures are 2 weeks old.
S Korea 400K tests. It is an aggressive early lockdown.
Germany, only 4x UK testing, it was an early lockdown that delivered success.
Singapore, don’t have the numbers but ultimately their approach is being overrun.
Nobody is testing multiple hundreds of thousands per day. (Edited)
Yes, we can make a start rather than give up if we can’t achieve perfection. But, have you ever considered that maybe the model in use suggests we have the right amount of testing for the policy that is being followed.
Personally, I think the far bigger issue is PPE. It is a quantifiable and practical problem that there are no excuses for not resolving.
0 -
rick_chasey said:
I just don't know how any policy maker can be making decisions when the data on infections is almost non-existent and the data on deaths is weeks out of date.
So what do you suggest they do? Even doing nothing stems from a decision.You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.0 -
What level of testing gives you that data?rick_chasey said:I just don't know how any policy maker can be making decisions when the data on infections is almost non-existent and the data on deaths is weeks out of date.
Germany is doing 4 x the testing. Not 10 or 100 x.
Stevo pointed out the population percentage this equates to. I.e. Totally negligible.
Maybe our testing has a solid scientific base and control group within it. I have no idea but am not assuming I know they have got it wrong unlike others.
Targeted testing at 25K per day could be far more effective than 100k per day in a scattergun approach. I am not saying Germany are doing scattergun but bigger does not explicitly mean better.
0 -
If that's right then yes it would make a massive difference to our approach. That is certainly one valid use of testing.nickice said:Latest research indicates that up to 80% of those infected are asymptomatic. https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1375.
The scientist from Oxford is right that we probably shouldn't be in lockdown if this is the case.
It also reinforces the strangeness of this illness in that it can cause such a massively wide range of effect, from no symptoms at all up to fatal. There was a programme on the other night that was postulating it was down to differences at the cellular level in terms of the shape of the outer coating of our body cells affecting how easily the virus could 'hook up' to the cells and so gain entry to and infect the cell. More info needed here."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Why would you not do as many tests as possible and get the most efficient system for counting deaths. The cost is literally insignificant and will help you ease lockdown quickest so saving tens (if not hundreds) of billions of pounds in economic costs.morstar said:
What level of testing gives you that data?rick_chasey said:I just don't know how any policy maker can be making decisions when the data on infections is almost non-existent and the data on deaths is weeks out of date.
Germany is doing 4 x the testing. Not 10 or 100 x.
Stevo pointed out the population percentage this equates to. I.e. Totally negligible.
Maybe our testing has a solid scientific base and control group within it. I have no idea but am not assuming I know they have got it wrong unlike others.
Targeted testing at 25K per day could be far more effective than 100k per day in a scattergun approach. I am not saying Germany are doing scattergun but bigger does not explicitly mean better.0 -
Nobody is saying don't test. It is more the case that is is only part of a mitigation strategy until a vaccine comes along. As I mentioned earlier today.morstar said:
I posted a link a few posts earlier with someone with some expertise questioning the testing argument and highlighting some problems.kingstongraham said:
Nobody said there was an easy solution, but testing is the starting point of most of the difficult ones.morstar said:And you are totally ignoring the growing number of people who are through this (or not) who will start simply wanting to get on with life.
That is not a policy proposal by me, it is a simple fact. I am still trying to work out (like Wheelspinner) how I both engage with the world while trying to keep my family safe. I don't know the answer.
Anybody mentioned there isn't an easy solution? Stop pretending lots of testing is it. It f*cking well isn't unless we can do multiple hundreds of thousands per day and have a follow mechanism that uses that data to direct benefit.
Like the one you suggest.
You need to counter those arguments, not just say to do what no country is managing.
The figures are 2 weeks old.
S Korea 400K tests. It is an aggressive early lockdown.
Germany, only 4x UK testing, it was an early lockdown that delivered success.
Singapore, don’t have the numbers but ultimately their approach is being overrun.
Nobody is testing multiple hundreds of thousands per day. (Edited)
Yes, we can make a start rather than give up if we can’t achieve perfection. But, have you ever considered that maybe the model in use suggests we have the right amount of testing for the policy that is being followed.
Personally, I think the far bigger issue is PPE. It is a quantifiable and practical problem that there are no excuses for not resolving."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Longshot said:rick_chasey said:
I just don't know how any policy maker can be making decisions when the data on infections is almost non-existent and the data on deaths is weeks out of date.
So what do you suggest they do? Even doing nothing stems from a decision.
I think his point is that he would improve the data.
Can somebody suggest a downside to increased testing and counting the dead at the weekend and outside of hospitals?0 -
mass testing (both types) would give a picture of the distribution of never-infected/infected/over-it, which we (and most other countries) clearly lack today
the testing pattern and frequency (of retesting the never-infected) need to be designed to match the local population, i'd assume areas of high-potential transmission density need testing more widely/frequently to avoid hot spots growing exponentially
supplement that with the latest data on outcomes, genetic susceptibility, nhs capacity, whatever else we have
then there can be confidence in prevalence and transmission rate and there's a basis for action
that doesn't require testing 'everybody', it means testing a statistically relevant sample to reach whatever confidence level is adequate to support decision making, still a lot of tests, but i'd think practically achievable
so far, there's nothing coming from government on such an approach, i can't believe sage etc. haven't said it, which gives the impression that the government hasn't figured out how it can put such testing in place in the near future
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
Long shot stated that testing was the starting point. This implied that either we are doing no testing or that I was advocating doing no testing.Stevo_666 said:
Nobody is saying don't test. It is more the case that is is only part of a mitigation strategy until a vaccine comes along. As I mentioned earlier today.morstar said:
I posted a link a few posts earlier with someone with some expertise questioning the testing argument and highlighting some problems.kingstongraham said:
Nobody said there was an easy solution, but testing is the starting point of most of the difficult ones.morstar said:And you are totally ignoring the growing number of people who are through this (or not) who will start simply wanting to get on with life.
That is not a policy proposal by me, it is a simple fact. I am still trying to work out (like Wheelspinner) how I both engage with the world while trying to keep my family safe. I don't know the answer.
Anybody mentioned there isn't an easy solution? Stop pretending lots of testing is it. It f*cking well isn't unless we can do multiple hundreds of thousands per day and have a follow mechanism that uses that data to direct benefit.
Like the one you suggest.
You need to counter those arguments, not just say to do what no country is managing.
The figures are 2 weeks old.
S Korea 400K tests. It is an aggressive early lockdown.
Germany, only 4x UK testing, it was an early lockdown that delivered success.
Singapore, don’t have the numbers but ultimately their approach is being overrun.
Nobody is testing multiple hundreds of thousands per day. (Edited)
Yes, we can make a start rather than give up if we can’t achieve perfection. But, have you ever considered that maybe the model in use suggests we have the right amount of testing for the policy that is being followed.
Personally, I think the far bigger issue is PPE. It is a quantifiable and practical problem that there are no excuses for not resolving.
Neither of which are true.
0 -
surrey_commuter said:Longshot said:rick_chasey said:
I just don't know how any policy maker can be making decisions when the data on infections is almost non-existent and the data on deaths is weeks out of date.
So what do you suggest they do? Even doing nothing stems from a decision.
I think his point is that he would improve the data.
Can somebody suggest a downside to increased testing and counting the dead at the weekend and outside of hospitals?
I doubt it but that wasn't the point. They still have to make decisions in the meantime. They can't just sit on their hands and whistle until that happens.
I'm not suggesting they've done it right from Day 1. However, what's the point in keeping on about it? We are where we are - the only thin we can affect now is future actions.You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.0 -
Article I linked. One downside would be taking clinical staff away from other activities in order to process a massive testing scheme.surrey_commuter said:Longshot said:rick_chasey said:I just don't know how any policy maker can be making decisions when the data on infections is almost non-existent and the data on deaths is weeks out of date.
So what do you suggest they do? Even doing nothing stems from a decision.
I think his point is that he would improve the data.
Can somebody suggest a downside to increased testing and counting the dead at the weekend and outside of hospitals?0 -
I can imagine the reaction of some on here if the Government brought in a massive testing programme and it was then found that the accuracy of the testing wasn't 100% leading to under-estimation of the numbers affected. I suspect it would be along the lines of them misleading us to the real rates and being incompetent resulting in people going into work and putting lives at risk.0
-
Why do you say South Korea had an aggressive early lockdown?morstar said:
I posted a link a few posts earlier with someone with some expertise questioning the testing argument and highlighting some problems.kingstongraham said:
Nobody said there was an easy solution, but testing is the starting point of most of the difficult ones.morstar said:And you are totally ignoring the growing number of people who are through this (or not) who will start simply wanting to get on with life.
That is not a policy proposal by me, it is a simple fact. I am still trying to work out (like Wheelspinner) how I both engage with the world while trying to keep my family safe. I don't know the answer.
Anybody mentioned there isn't an easy solution? Stop pretending lots of testing is it. It f*cking well isn't unless we can do multiple hundreds of thousands per day and have a follow mechanism that uses that data to direct benefit.
Like the one you suggest.
You need to counter those arguments, not just say to do what no country is managing.
The figures are 2 weeks old.
S Korea 400K tests. It is an aggressive early lockdown.
Germany, only 4x UK testing, it was an early lockdown that delivered success.
Singapore, don’t have the numbers but ultimately their approach is being overrun.
0 -
ANOTHER 5.2 million new unemployment claims in the US in this week's numbers. Total over 4 weeks - 22 million new claims.0
-
Don't put your mate and biggest political donor in charge of testing, get someone better in charge and make that a much bigger and critical focus than it is.Longshot said:rick_chasey said:I just don't know how any policy maker can be making decisions when the data on infections is almost non-existent and the data on deaths is weeks out of date.
So what do you suggest they do? Even doing nothing stems from a decision.
I would put a priority on counting deaths accurately and work hard to get rid of the blockages that are stopping that (for example, I still don't know how you register a covid death in a care home if they have not been tested) whilst lockdown is still going on. We need to know where we are across the whole nation with covid deaths (as that is the proxy we are using for infections whilst we have no widely available reliable tests).
Once you have good and accurate data you can start to test out and model various types of partial relief of the lockdown, which you can then trace and track really closely to check they are following the models.
You would hope that you would get testing up to around 200,000 per day by the end of the May, when the lockdown might want to be lifted, especially with someone competent in charge and not your mate. That would then allow you to try and track various lifts.That in tern can feed into more accurate models to give you a better idea of what else might happen if you do x or y.
In the meantime, if the tests really are proving a too difficult problem to solve (which may be the case, but I am sceptical) I would really try and use other models from other nations who have better data to get as close as you can to a model that can predict what will happen - throw the doors wide open and let everyone have a go - so at worst you approximate what will happen in various lockdown lifting scenarios.
Luckily some scandis are already doing that so they might be able to help.
With regard to messaging I would be more honest with the public and explain the plan and explain that the better and more closely to the rules that will be incoming, the easier the lockdown lift will be. (After all, more predictable linear behaviour from people is easier to model). The public are giving the govt a lot of slack so make the most of it.
Luckily the UK has managed to not overload the hospitals in the current lock down and the direction of the curve suggests that it won't happen this round, so that doesn't really need the same focus, as the lockdown is more or less managing that.
How's that for a plan?0 -
I think the saying 'Damned if you do and damned if you don't' applies quite well here.Pross said:I can imagine the reaction of some on here if the Government brought in a massive testing programme and it was then found that the accuracy of the testing wasn't 100% leading to under-estimation of the numbers affected. I suspect it would be along the lines of them misleading us to the real rates and being incompetent resulting in people going into work and putting lives at risk.
Some people actually blame the virus for killing people. How's that for a controversial view?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
testing will never be perfect, there'll always be false positives/negatives, and decisions will always be subject to review/question, but the alternative is paralysisPross said:I can imagine the reaction of some on here if the Government brought in a massive testing programme and it was then found that the accuracy of the testing wasn't 100% leading to under-estimation of the numbers affected. I suspect it would be along the lines of them misleading us to the real rates and being incompetent resulting in people going into work and putting lives at risk.
anyone unwilling to accept that should be publicly mocked - as should ministers who call failures 'challenges', or refuse to accept it if they erred or missed something
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
Personally, I think testing is a red herring. I would go with mandatory face masks, some social distancing and an expectation that people will die whatever the approach that is taken. Some notional track and trace can be thrown on top.0
-
So why do Macron, Merkel, Berset etc feel that their subjects are capable of hearing their plans for easing lockdown but Matty Hancock doesn't trust good old Blighty to be able to tell the difference between today and tomorrow? (interview with Nick Robinson)
Is it that the government think the British population are too stupid to understand or it because they don't actually have any plans yet..?We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
The large variations in deaths and survival rates across Europe, let alone Asia suggests the way things are done has an effect, so I would suggest this is not a good strategy.TheBigBean said:Personally, I think testing is a red herring. I would go with mandatory face masks, some social distancing and an expectation that people will die whatever the approach that is taken. Some notional track and trace can be thrown on top.
0 -
I would suggest the latter. I feel that the cabinet is split along the old false dichotomy of economy vs health. Hancock is very much on health before the economy, which is fine but means its difficult to see a get out any time soon.ddraver said:So why do Macron, Merkel, Berset etc feel that their subjects are capable of hearing their plans for easing lockdown but Matty Hancock doesn't trust good old Blighty to be able to tell the difference between today and tomorrow? (interview with Nick Robinson)
Is it that the government think the British population are too stupid to understand or it because they don't actually have any plans yet..?
I think no one will want to make any difficult decisions with Boris away.0 -
Seems there is more to this story.Pross said:
Might explain why Trump is so keen to lift restrictions.Pross said:
Lucky no-one in this country would get annoyed at being locked down.
Firstly the original protest was against the Michigan governor trying to put into law a additional 70 day lockdown. There were other restrictions on what could be purchased e.g. marijuana was allowed but you could not buy anything from a garden centre.
The original protest of 10k who wanted to deliberaterly cause gridlock as the protest was then hijacked by a few gun wielding idoits and abviously that became the new story.0 -
Wouldn't you rather wait a bit and have them come up with a coherent plan rather than be pressured into a knee jerk reaction? Not that I'm suggesting the plan when it does get announced will definitely be coherent or that it will go as expected! Rushing something out just because people are pressing you to be seen to do something is often a big mistake.ddraver said:So why do Macron, Merkel, Berset etc feel that their subjects are capable of hearing their plans for easing lockdown but Matty Hancock doesn't trust good old Blighty to be able to tell the difference between today and tomorrow? (interview with Nick Robinson)
Is it that the government think the British population are too stupid to understand or it because they don't actually have any plans yet..?0 -
So best to not have face masks, full social contact and lots of tests?rick_chasey said:
The large variations in deaths and survival rates across Europe, let alone Asia suggests the way things are done has an effect, so I would suggest this is not a good strategy.TheBigBean said:Personally, I think testing is a red herring. I would go with mandatory face masks, some social distancing and an expectation that people will die whatever the approach that is taken. Some notional track and trace can be thrown on top.
0
