The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
I guess you set up a national system that involves properly isolating everyone on the vulnerable list (no shopping trips no walks) and someone who can care of them alongside (with maybe a rota of people who have been quarantined for two weeks to take over for people who have no one to care for them ) and having a system of supplies that dropped off carefully every other day.kingstongraham said:
Even if we partially open up and go for herd immunity as quickly as possible without overwhelming the hospitals (however that could be done) - How do we protect the vulnerable? How do we get cancer patients their treatment restarted safely?rick_chasey said:
Hospitals would be overwhelmed in short order.kingstongraham said:Say we opened up again and went for herd immunity as quickly as possible. How do we protect the vulnerable? How do we get cancer patients their treatment restarted safely?
0 -
Start only treating corona patients in the pop up hospitals?kingstongraham said:
Even if we partially open up and go for herd immunity as quickly as possible without overwhelming the hospitals (however that could be done) - How do we protect the vulnerable? How do we get cancer patients their treatment restarted safely?rick_chasey said:
Hospitals would be overwhelmed in short order.kingstongraham said:Say we opened up again and went for herd immunity as quickly as possible. How do we protect the vulnerable? How do we get cancer patients their treatment restarted safely?
0 -
And a completely parallel system of hospitals and staff for treating those with and without coronavirus?rick_chasey said:
I guess you set up a national system that involves properly isolating everyone on the vulnerable list (no shopping trips no walks) and someone who can care of them alongside (with maybe a rota of people who have been quarantined for two weeks to take over for people who have no one to care for them ) and having a system of supplies that dropped off carefully every other day.kingstongraham said:
Even if we partially open up and go for herd immunity as quickly as possible without overwhelming the hospitals (however that could be done) - How do we protect the vulnerable? How do we get cancer patients their treatment restarted safely?rick_chasey said:
Hospitals would be overwhelmed in short order.kingstongraham said:Say we opened up again and went for herd immunity as quickly as possible. How do we protect the vulnerable? How do we get cancer patients their treatment restarted safely?
0 -
Yeah if that’s feasible.kingstongraham said:
And a completely parallel system of hospitals and staff for treating those with and without coronavirus?rick_chasey said:
I guess you set up a national system that involves properly isolating everyone on the vulnerable list (no shopping trips no walks) and someone who can care of them alongside (with maybe a rota of people who have been quarantined for two weeks to take over for people who have no one to care for them ) and having a system of supplies that dropped off carefully every other day.kingstongraham said:
Even if we partially open up and go for herd immunity as quickly as possible without overwhelming the hospitals (however that could be done) - How do we protect the vulnerable? How do we get cancer patients their treatment restarted safely?rick_chasey said:
Hospitals would be overwhelmed in short order.kingstongraham said:Say we opened up again and went for herd immunity as quickly as possible. How do we protect the vulnerable? How do we get cancer patients their treatment restarted safely?
Would be a lot easier with track and trace obviously.0 -
Problem is you’d still have deaths as plenty of people who weren’t vulrenable would die and so most people would still behave lockdown like anyway.0
-
Lot of businesses won't be able to afford that once the money tap gets switched off.rick_chasey said:Problem is you’d still have deaths as plenty of people who weren’t vulrenable would die and so most people would still behave lockdown like anyway.
0 -
Do you think there will be excess deaths from a lockdown? How do you balance those deaths against deaths of the vulnerable to corona? There is no easy answer.kingstongraham said:
Even if we partially open up and go for herd immunity as quickly as possible without overwhelming the hospitals (however that could be done) - How do we protect the vulnerable? How do we get cancer patients their treatment restarted safely?rick_chasey said:
Hospitals would be overwhelmed in short order.kingstongraham said:Say we opened up again and went for herd immunity as quickly as possible. How do we protect the vulnerable? How do we get cancer patients their treatment restarted safely?
0 -
That's a good idea and make sure they get all the equipment first. Also funnel NHS workers who develop immunity there and make sure they have the PPE they require to feel secure.Jeremy.89 said:
Start only treating corona patients in the pop up hospitals?kingstongraham said:
Even if we partially open up and go for herd immunity as quickly as possible without overwhelming the hospitals (however that could be done) - How do we protect the vulnerable? How do we get cancer patients their treatment restarted safely?rick_chasey said:
Hospitals would be overwhelmed in short order.kingstongraham said:Say we opened up again and went for herd immunity as quickly as possible. How do we protect the vulnerable? How do we get cancer patients their treatment restarted safely?
0 -
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/damage-done-by-lockdown-could-outweigh-that-of-coronavirus-warns-professor/ar-BB12UZvV?ocid=spartanntp
This issue is like nothing else. I honestly can't judge now whether this is an outlier opinion or a serious and viable academic analysis. The back projection of 3 weeks makes sense to me, and does the random testing approach.
Certainly one of the growing number of voices raising concerns about the collateral death toll. I think as those emerge they will be quite shocking.
Thoughts?0 -
If only we knew what the answer to that so far was....TheBigBean said:
Do you think there will be excess deaths from a lockdown? How do you balance those deaths against deaths of the vulnerable to corona? There is no easy answer.kingstongraham said:
Even if we partially open up and go for herd immunity as quickly as possible without overwhelming the hospitals (however that could be done) - How do we protect the vulnerable? How do we get cancer patients their treatment restarted safely?rick_chasey said:
Hospitals would be overwhelmed in short order.kingstongraham said:Say we opened up again and went for herd immunity as quickly as possible. How do we protect the vulnerable? How do we get cancer patients their treatment restarted safely?
0 -
Today's Tuesday, so another week's worth of statistics of total UK deaths will be released. We'll have a better idea of the number of additional deaths have been caused by the coronavirus outbreak so far. My expectation? Lots.0
-
Of course there's an easy answer. Do exactly what Germany do as they've got all the answers.TheBigBean said:
Do you think there will be excess deaths from a lockdown? How do you balance those deaths against deaths of the vulnerable to corona? There is no easy answer.kingstongraham said:
Even if we partially open up and go for herd immunity as quickly as possible without overwhelming the hospitals (however that could be done) - How do we protect the vulnerable? How do we get cancer patients their treatment restarted safely?rick_chasey said:
Hospitals would be overwhelmed in short order.kingstongraham said:Say we opened up again and went for herd immunity as quickly as possible. How do we protect the vulnerable? How do we get cancer patients their treatment restarted safely?
0 -
My guess is lots of excess deaths, not all due to Corona, and then an argument over underreporting and other potential causeskingstongraham said:Today's Tuesday, so another week's worth of statistics of total UK deaths will be released. We'll have a better idea of the number of additional deaths have been caused by the coronavirus outbreak so far. My expectation? Lots.
0 -
Only if Covid mortality is the only metric and it exists in isolation.tailwindhome said:Stevo_666 said:
Well put - a very clear and simple explanation.morstar said:
This what the mortality rates COULD look like.
Taking extensive action now is no guarantee of a better outcome.
Does that help?
Series 2 is Germany, Series 1 UK.
Anyone who doesn't get that must be a bit thick, or desperate not to understand.
We all get that the graph shows that even in the absence of a vaccine that the 'German' outcome is better?
It isn't and doesn't. Therefore other factors have to be considered.
It still could be a better outcome but that is the far more complex debate we should be having.
A lot of people are pretending there is no complexity to this.0 -
I hadn't quite realized until recently that the deaths reported each day aren't actual the deaths that day but the newly reported deaths (this aside from weekends and deaths outside hospital)
So they're reporting a daily increase in the cumulative total
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Interesting analysis from @AlistairHaimes on the impacts of each action taken.
This from running the Imperial College model with daily actual deaths
If I'm reading it right, the social distancing had a bigger impact than lockdown *but* it takes the lockdown to get the R0 number under 1
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
It's your graph, you simplified it.morstar said:
Only if Covid mortality is the only metric and it exists in isolation.tailwindhome said:Stevo_666 said:
Well put - a very clear and simple explanation.morstar said:
This what the mortality rates COULD look like.
Taking extensive action now is no guarantee of a better outcome.
Does that help?
Series 2 is Germany, Series 1 UK.
Anyone who doesn't get that must be a bit thick, or desperate not to understand.
We all get that the graph shows that even in the absence of a vaccine that the 'German' outcome is better?
It isn't and doesn't. Therefore other factors have to be considered.
It still could be a better outcome but that is the far more complex debate we should be having.
A lot of people are pretending there is no complexity to this.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
It's not complex at all, it's very easy to sort out. Everybody stays at home for three weeks and live off bake beans and pot noodle!
Sorted, get back to buying sh1t from China, flying, driving and general cool things.0 -
He's basically saying that without testing we don't know and it could well be that the lockdown is more costly than not.First.Aspect said:https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/damage-done-by-lockdown-could-outweigh-that-of-coronavirus-warns-professor/ar-BB12UZvV?ocid=spartanntp
This issue is like nothing else. I honestly can't judge now whether this is an outlier opinion or a serious and viable academic analysis. The back projection of 3 weeks makes sense to me, and does the random testing approach.
Certainly one of the growing number of voices raising concerns about the collateral death toll. I think as those emerge they will be quite shocking.
Thoughts?
But then without testing you don't know that. Nor is anyone in a position to predict a) the cost of a depression and b) how much the economy will return to normal or not if the virus is still out there killing people.
So it's a finger in the air jobbie.
And either way, testing is really helpful in shielding the most vulnerable.
if only the excess death stats were accurate and we knew what proportion of them were corona, eh?
Given most swedes are in lockdown even if the rules say it isn't, I wouldn't expect removing a lockdown to be the panacea some think it might be.
I certainly won't be heading into the office tomorrow if it was lifted today, and plenty of people would do the same.
I still maintain that fewer deaths and a better grip on the virus will likely mean less economic cost.
Ideally you want the osculations between higher deaths and tighter lock downs to be really small, rather than the *massive spike massive lockdown* approach.
In an ideal world you get R down to basically zero, wait 3 weeks, then test and trace the sh!t out of it.0 -
No, I know you didn't say that, but that is the implication of the let's-go-for-hetd-immunity-asap cheerleaders.morstar said:
I hardly said that.rjsterry said:
The idea that beyond 70 you are really just waiting to die is pretty disgusting.morstar said:
But if you take Angela Merkle talking in such great detail about the precision of their balancing the infection rate. She was talking about 1.0-1.3 infection rates. If we assume they are 1% through infecting people after a month or so and have established control, that is a very long lifecycle of lockdowns. That is not without cost.rjsterry said:
Yes, we all understand the premise. There's just a huge helping of assumptions in both lines @morstar 's made up graph. If the X axis is months, this assumes no effective treatment or vaccine in the next two years, which is pretty pessimistic, not to mention the thousands of people who die a year or two earlier on the upper curve. I mean, we're all going to die at some point, but generally we consider an extra year to be worth going for if given the opportunity.Stevo_666 said:
Well put - a very clear and simple explanation.morstar said:
This what the mortality rates COULD look like.
Taking extensive action now is no guarantee of a better outcome.
Does that help?
Series 2 is Germany, Series 1 UK.
Anyone who doesn't get that must be a bit thick, or desperate not to understand.
More relevantly, with all this talk of going back to the office, that's a real proposition in Germany, now. And with a lower and more accurately measured infection rate they are better placed to do that without inadvertently kicking off another spike.
Sweden could be out the other end by early summer.
Suicides are up. That is a fact. Other problems anticipated.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-usa-cost/
I personally have seen only minor changes to my life In lockdown but am already feeling frustration creeping in.
Have you considered a lot of older people value quality of life over prolonging life at all costs? I can understand why some may think I’d rather enjoy the year than spend it in hiding. Especially if you know you realistically only have a few years of good health remaining.
At least you are engaging with the points unlike Rick but you keep really skewing them in order to counter.
You do realise that more and more people will find lockdown repressive and damaging the longer it goes on.
Also, Germany releasing their lockdown involves more people dying.
Of course there are health consequences to maintaining the lockdown as well, but without detailed information we're just guessing where that balance is.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I have consistently explained why you are completely missing half the argument whilst professing openly to not knowing the answers myself.rick_chasey said:
So the calculus there is how many extra people die for people to feel less repressed vs doing the optimum process re low deaths?morstar said:
I hardly said that.rjsterry said:
The idea that beyond 70 you are really just waiting to die is pretty disgusting.morstar said:
But if you take Angela Merkle talking in such great detail about the precision of their balancing the infection rate. She was talking about 1.0-1.3 infection rates. If we assume they are 1% through infecting people after a month or so and have established control, that is a very long lifecycle of lockdowns. That is not without cost.rjsterry said:
Yes, we all understand the premise. There's just a huge helping of assumptions in both lines @morstar 's made up graph. If the X axis is months, this assumes no effective treatment or vaccine in the next two years, which is pretty pessimistic, not to mention the thousands of people who die a year or two earlier on the upper curve. I mean, we're all going to die at some point, but generally we consider an extra year to be worth going for if given the opportunity.Stevo_666 said:
Well put - a very clear and simple explanation.morstar said:
This what the mortality rates COULD look like.
Taking extensive action now is no guarantee of a better outcome.
Does that help?
Series 2 is Germany, Series 1 UK.
Anyone who doesn't get that must be a bit thick, or desperate not to understand.
More relevantly, with all this talk of going back to the office, that's a real proposition in Germany, now. And with a lower and more accurately measured infection rate they are better placed to do that without inadvertently kicking off another spike.
Sweden could be out the other end by early summer.
Suicides are up. That is a fact. Other problems anticipated.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-usa-cost/
I personally have seen only minor changes to my life In lockdown but am already feeling frustration creeping in.
Have you considered a lot of older people value quality of life over prolonging life at all costs? I can understand why some may think I’d rather enjoy the year than spend it in hiding. Especially if you know you realistically only have a few years of good health remaining.
At least you are engaging with the points unlike Rick but you keep really skewing them in order to counter.
You do realise that more and more people will find lockdown repressive and damaging the longer it goes on.
.
Care to put a number on that?
Finally you respond but only wanting a simple answer to a complex problem. Wake up, there isn't one!
There is a human cost to lockdown. I have posted some stuff explaining that as have others. Don't expect me to keep explaining it when you have so far ignored it all.0 -
I simplified one aspect to make the one point that is being completely ignored by Rick.tailwindhome said:
It's your graph, you simplified it.morstar said:
Only if Covid mortality is the only metric and it exists in isolation.tailwindhome said:Stevo_666 said:
Well put - a very clear and simple explanation.morstar said:
This what the mortality rates COULD look like.
Taking extensive action now is no guarantee of a better outcome.
Does that help?
Series 2 is Germany, Series 1 UK.
Anyone who doesn't get that must be a bit thick, or desperate not to understand.
We all get that the graph shows that even in the absence of a vaccine that the 'German' outcome is better?
It isn't and doesn't. Therefore other factors have to be considered.
It still could be a better outcome but that is the far more complex debate we should be having.
A lot of people are pretending there is no complexity to this.
I never pretended it was a complex model for the entire situation.
But whatever, this is just pointless now. I've learnt loads from informed debate on this forum over the years. It is becoming increasingly absent in this thread.1 -
I'd say they are all due to corona, directly or indirectly.TheBigBean said:
My guess is lots of excess deaths, not all due to Corona, and then an argument over underreporting and other potential causeskingstongraham said:Today's Tuesday, so another week's worth of statistics of total UK deaths will be released. We'll have a better idea of the number of additional deaths have been caused by the coronavirus outbreak so far. My expectation? Lots.
0 -
Not sure you're getting my point.morstar said:
I have consistently explained why you are completely missing half the argument whilst professing openly to not knowing the answers myself.rick_chasey said:
So the calculus there is how many extra people die for people to feel less repressed vs doing the optimum process re low deaths?morstar said:
I hardly said that.rjsterry said:
The idea that beyond 70 you are really just waiting to die is pretty disgusting.morstar said:
But if you take Angela Merkle talking in such great detail about the precision of their balancing the infection rate. She was talking about 1.0-1.3 infection rates. If we assume they are 1% through infecting people after a month or so and have established control, that is a very long lifecycle of lockdowns. That is not without cost.rjsterry said:
Yes, we all understand the premise. There's just a huge helping of assumptions in both lines @morstar 's made up graph. If the X axis is months, this assumes no effective treatment or vaccine in the next two years, which is pretty pessimistic, not to mention the thousands of people who die a year or two earlier on the upper curve. I mean, we're all going to die at some point, but generally we consider an extra year to be worth going for if given the opportunity.Stevo_666 said:
Well put - a very clear and simple explanation.morstar said:
This what the mortality rates COULD look like.
Taking extensive action now is no guarantee of a better outcome.
Does that help?
Series 2 is Germany, Series 1 UK.
Anyone who doesn't get that must be a bit thick, or desperate not to understand.
More relevantly, with all this talk of going back to the office, that's a real proposition in Germany, now. And with a lower and more accurately measured infection rate they are better placed to do that without inadvertently kicking off another spike.
Sweden could be out the other end by early summer.
Suicides are up. That is a fact. Other problems anticipated.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-usa-cost/
I personally have seen only minor changes to my life In lockdown but am already feeling frustration creeping in.
Have you considered a lot of older people value quality of life over prolonging life at all costs? I can understand why some may think I’d rather enjoy the year than spend it in hiding. Especially if you know you realistically only have a few years of good health remaining.
At least you are engaging with the points unlike Rick but you keep really skewing them in order to counter.
You do realise that more and more people will find lockdown repressive and damaging the longer it goes on.
.
Care to put a number on that?
Finally you respond but only wanting a simple answer to a complex problem. Wake up, there isn't one!
There is a human cost to lockdown. I have posted some stuff explaining that as have others. Don't expect me to keep explaining it when you have so far ignored it all.
Let me turn the question around.
Imagine if we killed the 1000 wealthiest people and nicked all their wealth. That's around £750bn. Kill the next 2000 and we get to around £1trillion which is around 50% of GDP per annum, right?
We then use that money to prop up the economy whilst we keep the lockdown going untill R is basically zero. We then spend all the money we're not using to prop the economy up on overpaying for PPE and testing.
It would save deaths overall, and the economy would be saved.
Now, obviously there are some serious moral problems with that and it's not a viable option (I get that all of the wealth would be tied up in stuff blah blah, but it's not a real example, investors would literally sh!t the bed in case the authorities came for them next, wealth flight blah blah blah).
But you get my point right? The idea of specifically killing certain people to save the economy seems a bit much. But if it's random people dying it's somehow better?
Your logic boils down to what value a life is. So I'm asking what that value is.0 -
I agree with that.rjsterry said:
No, I know you didn't say that, but that is the implication of the let's-go-for-hetd-immunity-asap cheerleaders.morstar said:
I hardly said that.rjsterry said:
The idea that beyond 70 you are really just waiting to die is pretty disgusting.morstar said:
But if you take Angela Merkle talking in such great detail about the precision of their balancing the infection rate. She was talking about 1.0-1.3 infection rates. If we assume they are 1% through infecting people after a month or so and have established control, that is a very long lifecycle of lockdowns. That is not without cost.rjsterry said:
Yes, we all understand the premise. There's just a huge helping of assumptions in both lines @morstar 's made up graph. If the X axis is months, this assumes no effective treatment or vaccine in the next two years, which is pretty pessimistic, not to mention the thousands of people who die a year or two earlier on the upper curve. I mean, we're all going to die at some point, but generally we consider an extra year to be worth going for if given the opportunity.Stevo_666 said:
Well put - a very clear and simple explanation.morstar said:
This what the mortality rates COULD look like.
Taking extensive action now is no guarantee of a better outcome.
Does that help?
Series 2 is Germany, Series 1 UK.
Anyone who doesn't get that must be a bit thick, or desperate not to understand.
More relevantly, with all this talk of going back to the office, that's a real proposition in Germany, now. And with a lower and more accurately measured infection rate they are better placed to do that without inadvertently kicking off another spike.
Sweden could be out the other end by early summer.
Suicides are up. That is a fact. Other problems anticipated.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-usa-cost/
I personally have seen only minor changes to my life In lockdown but am already feeling frustration creeping in.
Have you considered a lot of older people value quality of life over prolonging life at all costs? I can understand why some may think I’d rather enjoy the year than spend it in hiding. Especially if you know you realistically only have a few years of good health remaining.
At least you are engaging with the points unlike Rick but you keep really skewing them in order to counter.
You do realise that more and more people will find lockdown repressive and damaging the longer it goes on.
Also, Germany releasing their lockdown involves more people dying.
Conversely, I think some people have their head in the sand about the fact this virus is going to people in significant numbers in all countries and mitigation <> cure. Even those with lock downs that started early.0 -
morstar said:
I simplified one aspect to make the one point that is being completely ignored by Rick.tailwindhome said:
It's your graph, you simplified it.morstar said:
Only if Covid mortality is the only metric and it exists in isolation.tailwindhome said:Stevo_666 said:
Well put - a very clear and simple explanation.morstar said:
This what the mortality rates COULD look like.
Taking extensive action now is no guarantee of a better outcome.
Does that help?
Series 2 is Germany, Series 1 UK.
Anyone who doesn't get that must be a bit thick, or desperate not to understand.
We all get that the graph shows that even in the absence of a vaccine that the 'German' outcome is better?
It isn't and doesn't. Therefore other factors have to be considered.
It still could be a better outcome but that is the far more complex debate we should be having.
A lot of people are pretending there is no complexity to this.
I never pretended it was a complex model for the entire situation.
But whatever, this is just pointless now. I've learnt loads from informed debate on this forum over the years. It is becoming increasingly absent in this thread.
Ok.
The point you were making is that the death toll would be same in the end?
Yes?
Well I suggest your graph also show the additional years of life gained by the German approach as the area between the 2 lines
No?
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
And it appears we have now got to the point of fake NHS twitter accounts pushing the go-for-herd-immunity idea. Who would come up with such an idea, I wonder?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Yeah, not sure that isn't one for the conspiracy thread.rjsterry said:And it appears we have now got to the point of fake NHS twitter accounts pushing the go-for-herd-immunity idea. Who would come up with such an idea, I wonder?
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
