The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
morstar said:
That's a really good watch. Thanks.rick_chasey said:
News night explain why Germany is doing so much better than the U.K.
Note that Merkel makes it clear their exit strategy involves getting infection rates to below testing rates so they can trace and track.
I know we'll take very different things from it though. For me it underlines the UK policy has been one of allowing the virus to spread whilst "Protecting the NHS". I don't think this is in dispute, they are simply not shouting it from the rooftops.
I think where we differ is that you ultimately believe the UK are failing to suppress this in the same way the Germans are whereas I think UK are not even trying to suppress this in the same way the Germans are.
Is that a fair assessment?
If so, the debate is about what is the right policy, not why the UK failed to achieve a goal it wasn't targeting.
The inference is that we have to hope UK is at least significantly further along than Germany in terms of %age infected.
0 -
Those are US stats right? Google tells me 40% of the US is obese. So again, not hugely over represented in that 48% stat.coopster_the_1st said:pangolin said:
I'll repost this as we're back on obesity. Are there some other stats somewhere that point to obese people being over represented amongst covid victims? Or is it an easy/reassuring thing to believe for a group of reasonably fit cyclists.pangolin said:
Am I missing something or is this just very bad reporting and or science. From the article (talking about patients in critical care):morstar said:“ One thing very visible to us in London intensive care units now is how diabetes, high blood pressure and possibly being a little overweight, seem to be such potent risk factors for having a severe lung illness, perhaps even more so than having an existing lung disease which you would think would be a greater risk," Dr Patel said.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52338101
"more than a third were overweight - with a BMI of 25-30
38% were obese - with a BMI of over 30"
From google:
"The Health Survey for England 2017 estimates that 28.7% of adults in England are obese and a further 35.6% are overweight but not obese."
Sounds like being obese raises your risk slightly but surely that is a surprise to nobody? And overweight folk are just an accurate representation of society.
You've done exactly what the article I was complaining about did by the way. Post a scary number without putting it in context.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Have they ever "not ruled out" a Brexit extension?rick_chasey said:
Like they ruled out a Brexit extension...pangolin said:I'm surprised today's announcement seems like they are trying to rule out future lock downs.
Of course there will be a Brexit extension, it's just not the right time to talk about itleft the forum March 20230 -
The UK policy seemed based on the coopster view of the world, where people wouldn't stay in lockdown for more than a fortnight to prevent other people dying unnecessarily.
Now that turns out to have been wrong.0 -
-
There are several peaks and we measure them all with a delay. The best in my opinion is hospital beds, as it can be measured quickly. Tests reflect an event that happened up to 2 weeks earlier, deaths reflect an event that might have happened at any point in time, we are still reporting deaths that happened in March.Pross said:
Genuine question, what is counted as the peak then? The death rate appears to be slowing so I assumed that meant we are over the peak.surrey_commuter said:Does nobody else find it frustrating that we may have peaked at the back end of last week yet our best guess at that won’t be for another two weeks.
Has anybody seen an estimate for what each week of lockdown is costing the economy
According to hospitalisations, we peaked about a week ago, so you can probably extrapolate that the peak of infection was between 3 and 4 weeks ago, about the time the lockdown was announcedleft the forum March 20231 -
If you're referencing my argument. It's Luxembourg.ddraver said:BUT HOLLAND RICK!!!!!
And I've only ever used in regard to testing and it remains a very relevant point that nobody has even attempted to counter. If anything, I have provided the most information about Luxembourg, some of which doesn't support my argument.
You'll also notice that I have said PPE is the thing we should be tackling as it is a quantifiable and practical problem that has direct beneficial outcomes.
But nice missing of the point.1 -
Are you suggesting the UK government are claiming to be following one strategy while actually following another.morstar said:
That's a really good watch. Thanks.rick_chasey said:
News night explain why Germany is doing so much better than the U.K.
Note that Merkel makes it clear their exit strategy involves getting infection rates to below testing rates so they can trace and track.
I know we'll take very different things from it though. For me it underlines the UK policy has been one of allowing the virus to spread whilst "Protecting the NHS". I don't think this is in dispute, they are simply not shouting it from the rooftops.
I think where we differ is that you ultimately believe the UK are failing to suppress this in the same way the Germans are whereas I think UK are not even trying to suppress this in the same way the Germans are.
Is that a fair assessment?
If so, the debate is about what is the right policy, not why the UK failed to achieve a goal it wasn't targeting.
The inference is that we have to hope UK is at least significantly further along than Germany in terms of %age infected.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I know the difference between Holland* & Luxembourg thanks, I lived in one for a time...morstar said:
Desperate to make some point about Luxembourg.ddraver said:BUT HOLLAND RICK!!!!!
(*I even know the difference between Holland & The Netherlands! Fancy That)
⭐🌟⭐
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
rjsterry said:
Which if the government sticks to its 5 tests we are now aiming for, too. We've just got a lot more to do to bring the two rates together.rick_chasey said:
News night explain why Germany is doing so much better than the U.K.
Note that Merkel makes it clear their exit strategy involves getting infection rates to below testing rates so they can trace and track.
“Third, we need to have reliable data from SAGE showing that the rate of infection is decreasing to manageable levels across the board. Fourth, we need to be confident that the range of operational challenges, including testing capacity and PPE, are in hand, with supply able to meet future demand”.rjsterry said:
Which if the government sticks to its 5 tests we are now aiming for, too. We've just got a lot more to do to bring the two rates together.rick_chasey said:
News night explain why Germany is doing so much better than the U.K.
Note that Merkel makes it clear their exit strategy involves getting infection rates to below testing rates so they can trace and track.
Genuine question, where is that level of detail provided? The wording above is far more open to interpretation than you suggest.0 -
When lockdown was being discussed we only had the French, Italian and Spanish lockdown examples, which fortunately for the UK, are way more draconian that the UK lockdown.kingstongraham said:The UK policy seemed based on the coopster view of the world, where people wouldn't stay in lockdown for more than a fortnight to prevent other people dying unnecessarily.
Now that turns out to have been wrong.
The UK has now pivoted from its original herd immunity plan because of media influence to a suppress one. This is going to cost us all
I still believe the Swedish have got this correct and that will become more obvious to everyone over the next couple of months by which time it will be too late...1 -
This is only correct due to the 700-900 people dying a day. If it was 10 per day then the lockdown would not be justified. People are only in lockdown as a sufficient percentage of the population are scared enough for their own self interest that the group can enforce it. Like all things the death rate sets what is acceptable on any given week.kingstongraham said:The UK policy seemed based on the coopster view of the world, where people wouldn't stay in lockdown for more than a fortnight to prevent other people dying unnecessarily.
Now that turns out to have been wrong.0 -
-
There must be some sort of irony that the person who says the UK can borrow unlimited amounts of money is finding out that paying that money back becomes a priority over other spending.rick_chasey said:
This is the stupidity of the "let's keep borrowing" brigade.0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
Not at all. They consistently state that the test they want is the antibody test, which unfortunately is looking less likely based on reports this week. They see limited value in infection testing. Jason Leitch (Scottish health advisor) made this point on BBC news last week explicitly and that is consistent with what Witty and others have said repeatedly.tailwindhome said:
Are you suggesting the UK government are claiming to be following one strategy while actually following another.morstar said:
That's a really good watch. Thanks.rick_chasey said:
News night explain why Germany is doing so much better than the U.K.
Note that Merkel makes it clear their exit strategy involves getting infection rates to below testing rates so they can trace and track.
I know we'll take very different things from it though. For me it underlines the UK policy has been one of allowing the virus to spread whilst "Protecting the NHS". I don't think this is in dispute, they are simply not shouting it from the rooftops.
I think where we differ is that you ultimately believe the UK are failing to suppress this in the same way the Germans are whereas I think UK are not even trying to suppress this in the same way the Germans are.
Is that a fair assessment?
If so, the debate is about what is the right policy, not why the UK failed to achieve a goal it wasn't targeting.
The inference is that we have to hope UK is at least significantly further along than Germany in terms of %age infected.
They are explicitly saying "protect the NHS". What they are not explicitly saying is, " We expect a higher short term mortality rate but, believe we will exit quicker with a similar overall mortality rate to other nations once this is over".
Whilst they're not explicitly outlining the outcome, I believe the policy and actions are consistent with that policy. Nothing I have seen suggests otherwise.
The rights and wrongs of that are what we should be debating as the policy seems quite evident.0 -
The UK government still has no policy except herd immunity. They can't say it, because that phrase is now conflated with the do nothing policy.coopster_the_1st said:
When lockdown was being discussed we only had the French, Italian and Spanish lockdown examples, which fortunately for the UK, are way more draconian that the UK lockdown.kingstongraham said:The UK policy seemed based on the coopster view of the world, where people wouldn't stay in lockdown for more than a fortnight to prevent other people dying unnecessarily.
Now that turns out to have been wrong.
The UK has now pivoted from its original herd immunity plan because of media influence to a suppress one. This is going to cost us all
I still believe the Swedish have got this correct and that will become more obvious to everyone over the next couple of months by which time it will be too late...
What they have implemented is what you may call a "pragmatic" approach to it. Lockdown, partial release and try not to overwhelm the NHS. Keep it rolling like that until something comes along. If the partial release means that what we saw before the lockdown happens again, I don't know where they go from there. Lockdown again?
Worth bearing in mind that flattening the curve does result in fewer hospital days overall.0 -
We maybe don't need to match German testing levels but at the moment we are relying on mathematical models to show infection rates. The only way anyone has of verifying these models is widespread community testing. It's the 'reliable data' bit. Whether they actually will stand by that criteria is another matter.morstar said:rjsterry said:
Which if the government sticks to its 5 tests we are now aiming for, too. We've just got a lot more to do to bring the two rates together.rick_chasey said:
News night explain why Germany is doing so much better than the U.K.
Note that Merkel makes it clear their exit strategy involves getting infection rates to below testing rates so they can trace and track.
“Third, we need to have reliable data from SAGE showing that the rate of infection is decreasing to manageable levels across the board. Fourth, we need to be confident that the range of operational challenges, including testing capacity and PPE, are in hand, with supply able to meet future demand”.rjsterry said:
Which if the government sticks to its 5 tests we are now aiming for, too. We've just got a lot more to do to bring the two rates together.rick_chasey said:
News night explain why Germany is doing so much better than the U.K.
Note that Merkel makes it clear their exit strategy involves getting infection rates to below testing rates so they can trace and track.
Genuine question, where is that level of detail provided? The wording above is far more open to interpretation than you suggest.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Sorry, I had thought you were referencing me.ddraver said:
So what's the thing about Holland then? I don't know what you are referencing.0 -
How does population density and number of highly populated areas compare between Belgium & Ireland?tailwindhome said:
Are Ireland and Sweden following the same C19 policy?
Shows how stupid that tweet is. He has compared Apples, Pears and Oranges. I can't believe the poster cannot see this!0 -
I don't think they are changing policy explicitly. I don't think they were ever going to be aggressive as your stance but ultimately they are on a consistent path of herd immunity is the exit strategy.coopster_the_1st said:kingstongraham said:The UK policy seemed based on the coopster view of the world, where people wouldn't stay in lockdown for more than a fortnight to prevent other people dying unnecessarily.
Now that turns out to have been wrong.
The UK has now pivoted from its original herd immunity plan because of media influence to a suppress one.
I agree I think they are introducing more testing solely to appease press demands. I think the lack of success in increasing this is due to the disconnect between stated intent and belief in the concept.0 -
OK, thanks.rick_chasey said:0 -
Who has created the herd immunity conflation? It is definitely not those arguing that herd immunity is the way out of this.kingstongraham said:
The UK government still has no policy except herd immunity. They can't say it, because that phrase is now conflated with the do nothing policy.coopster_the_1st said:
When lockdown was being discussed we only had the French, Italian and Spanish lockdown examples, which fortunately for the UK, are way more draconian that the UK lockdown.kingstongraham said:The UK policy seemed based on the coopster view of the world, where people wouldn't stay in lockdown for more than a fortnight to prevent other people dying unnecessarily.
Now that turns out to have been wrong.
The UK has now pivoted from its original herd immunity plan because of media influence to a suppress one. This is going to cost us all
I still believe the Swedish have got this correct and that will become more obvious to everyone over the next couple of months by which time it will be too late...
What they have implemented is what you may call a "pragmatic" approach to it. Lockdown, partial release and try not to overwhelm the NHS. Keep it rolling like that until something comes along. If the partial release means that what we saw before the lockdown happens again, I don't know where they go from there. Lockdown again?
Worth bearing in mind that flattening the curve does result in fewer hospital days overall.
Every first world government that I am aware of except NZ and Australia are proceeding with a herd immunity policy, it is just they are taking different ways to get there. Germany are doing really badly with this as they only have 1% herd immunity. We have an October deadline for this policy before we run into flu season and the problem that brings to the vulnerable and frail won't have the flu vaccination under the current policy.
Flattening the curve only results in fewer hospital days in the short term. The longer this goes on the more deaths we will get from other morbidities. And then there is the long term social cost to consider.0 -
I think a second peak is highly probable but I would think it will be far less pronounced. Here are some factors I think will contribute.kingstongraham said:
If the partial release means that what we saw before the lockdown happens again, I don't know where they go from there. Lockdown again?coopster_the_1st said:
When lockdown was being discussed we only had the French, Italian and Spanish lockdown examples, which fortunately for the UK, are way more draconian that the UK lockdown.kingstongraham said:The UK policy seemed based on the coopster view of the world, where people wouldn't stay in lockdown for more than a fortnight to prevent other people dying unnecessarily.
Now that turns out to have been wrong.
The UK has now pivoted from its original herd immunity plan because of media influence to a suppress one. This is going to cost us all
I still believe the Swedish have got this correct and that will become more obvious to everyone over the next couple of months by which time it will be too late...
Worth bearing in mind that flattening the curve does result in fewer hospital days overall.
A lot of jobs are affected so less people will be going to work.
A lot of people will continue to work remotely.
People are more attuned to social distancing.
A percentage of the population have now had this (Assume they are immune).
International travel will be less.
However, I agree that timing pulling the trigger on easing and implementing lockdowns will be tricky with the long asymptomatic phase. Testing will definitely have to play a key part in that process.0 -
Agree with your view on testing. It is not the solution to C19 that many and the press believe it is.morstar said:
I don't think they are changing policy explicitly. I don't think they were ever going to be aggressive as your stance but ultimately they are on a consistent path of herd immunity is the exit strategy.coopster_the_1st said:kingstongraham said:The UK policy seemed based on the coopster view of the world, where people wouldn't stay in lockdown for more than a fortnight to prevent other people dying unnecessarily.
Now that turns out to have been wrong.
The UK has now pivoted from its original herd immunity plan because of media influence to a suppress one.
I agree I think they are introducing more testing solely to appease press demands. I think the lack of success in increasing this is due to the disconnect between stated intent and belief in the concept.
IMO they pivoted because of media pressure a couple of weeks ago and confirmed that last Thursday by not relaxing the current lockdown. This will cost us in the longer term in deaths and economically.
The more people who have been infected, the more the lockdown can be relaxed. Sweden are already seeing their infection rates drop.0 -
I'm starting to think Coopster hasn't got any family or friends to worry about dying from the virus.0
-
That's wrong.coopster_the_1st said:
Flattening the curve only results in fewer hospital days in the short term.0 -
Interesting. I hope for everbodies sake there are a proportion of people who have shown no symptoms who have had this so all of those numbers are understated but that is probably wishful thinking.coopster_the_1st said:morstar said:
That's a really good watch. Thanks.rick_chasey said:
News night explain why Germany is doing so much better than the U.K.
Note that Merkel makes it clear their exit strategy involves getting infection rates to below testing rates so they can trace and track.
I know we'll take very different things from it though. For me it underlines the UK policy has been one of allowing the virus to spread whilst "Protecting the NHS". I don't think this is in dispute, they are simply not shouting it from the rooftops.
I think where we differ is that you ultimately believe the UK are failing to suppress this in the same way the Germans are whereas I think UK are not even trying to suppress this in the same way the Germans are.
Is that a fair assessment?
If so, the debate is about what is the right policy, not why the UK failed to achieve a goal it wasn't targeting.
The inference is that we have to hope UK is at least significantly further along than Germany in terms of %age infected.
I guess we all have a long way to go.0 -
As a thought experiment, what would have been the UK death toll so far if we had taken Sweden's approach? And how would the NHS have coped, particularly in London?0
