The big Coronavirus thread

pblakeney

mrfpb said:

pangolin said:

orraloon said:

Would be totally sensible to concentrate on front line NHS et all workers.

Example. Stepson is an NHS call handler, takes the 999s. He developed a bit of a wheeze and throat (we are into tree pollen season) and his view is that in normal times he would simply have taken a lemsip and throat lozenge and carried on at work. Instead he is at home, not at work for 7 days isolation, just in case, thereby unable to contribute and adding to the overstretch on those still in work.

So a reliable check would be a v good thing indeed.

Is that not a job they can do remotely? Or do they not have the IT infrastructure.

More to do with IG and GDPR safeguards and the whole cofidentiality issue. Also the work is too stressful to do in your own home. Staff need access to face to face debrief. Otherwise, who are you going to vent to after a bad call? The wife and kids?

My wife experienced that last week when I finished my first day of WFH.
I had to point out that every day is like that and that she only sees me after I've had time to destress. Also pointed out that is why I'm looking forward to retiring and that my work is not a hobby while she has continued through early retirement as she missed it too much. Commuting does have a side benefit.
As a point of reference, my job is nowhere as stressful as handling 999.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Eventually they will need to test everyone and keep testing everyone, so you will need around a billion just for Europe, assuming each person will on average need three tests.

The challenge isn't really developing a test - it is developing a test you can make 100s of millions of in fairly short notice.

You may only need to test those at high risk and sample the rest of the population to see if herd immunity has been reached.

Mmm I don't think the gaps and the casualties from those would be tolerated... People will want to know if *they* have had it or not. If it's as easily transmitted. You think people would tolerate the 'accidental' infections?

In the meantime, constant testing of everyone can more easily help get things back to normal.

What is it they do in the SARS affected places? Take your temperature whenever you go on a bus, enter a bank or an office, supermarket etc - if you have a temperature they send you to a warehouse without passing go until you are assessed. If you have it they stick you in a bed and tell you to not leave for 14 days. The rest go back.

Something like that makes sense if you want to return to normality sooner.

briantrumpet

There's an interesting mix of opinions in the Telegraph today. (Sorry, the content is subscription only.)

From Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, who is using evidence of death toll averages in Italy compared with previous years to suggest that the reported covid death toll is four times higher than being reported:

"The question I have for those in Britain who argue that we should call off the lockdown and restart the economy is what would happen if the virus were allowed to run wild and the death ratios were to track Lombardy.

You would be looking at a weekly death rate in late Spring that was four, five, or 10 times normal and that would overwhelm the critical care facilities of the NHS many times over. There could be an extra 500,000 or 600,000 deaths before the pandemic burnt itself out."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/03/30/italys-true-death-rate-warning-britons-want-call-covid-19-lockdown/

Andrew Lilico argues that "Britain needs to have a less cowardly debate about the lockdown trade-off dilemma":

""Avoiding – say – a million deaths might well justify keeping us locked down for 18 months. And keeping us locked down for only three months might well be justified for a much lower number of deaths. But the Government needs to spell out what it sees as the costs (time and intensity of lockdown) and benefits (numbers of lives otherwise lost; numbers of people who would otherwise survive but with compromised lungs).

This demand for the Government to spell it out is not mere ghoulish fascination. Partly it is because social compliance with restrictions will be much higher if people believe they may not go on for long and if they do go on for a long time they are avoiding perhaps a million deaths (possibly including their own) and many others with compromised health.

But more than that it is vital for our future liberty. Many people seem to believe these measures are saving tens of thousands of lives and are justified on that basis. If the government leaves us with the impression that all this would be worth it to save, say, 50,000 lives there is a risk that some future government would use these events as a precedent to impose similar restrictions when indeed there were only 50,000 lives at stake."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/03/31/britain-needs-have-less-cowardly-debate-lockdown-trade-off-dilemma/

rick_chasey

Andrew Lilico is a f*cking idiot and he has enough form of idiotic thinking I have concluded to never read his stuff again.

He's like a thick younger Peter Hitchens.

Not least as a quick scan of his argument runs almost diametrically opposite to the body of historical data and studies, but that's fairly standard for him.

kingstonian

My eldest son has Philosophy & Ethics as a school subject. I bet his teacher is itching to be able to use this as a discussion topic in a lesson. Of course it'll have to wait a year or two to happen, but it is one of those really interesting ethical debates with multiple perspectives.

rick_chasey

How does that c*nt still get published I have no idea.

He has a psychological breakdown about every 6 months on twitter where he spouts the most batsh!t crazy nonsense which normally involves some kind of mass-death as a trade off, so at least this is on-form for him.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Eventually they will need to test everyone and keep testing everyone, so you will need around a billion just for Europe, assuming each person will on average need three tests.

The challenge isn't really developing a test - it is developing a test you can make 100s of millions of in fairly short notice.

You may only need to test those at high risk and sample the rest of the population to see if herd immunity has been reached.

Mmm I don't think the gaps and the casualties from those would be tolerated... People will want to know if *they* have had it or not. If it's as easily transmitted. You think people would tolerate the 'accidental' infections?

In the meantime, constant testing of everyone can more easily help get things back to normal.

What is it they do in the SARS affected places? Take your temperature whenever you go on a bus, enter a bank or an office, supermarket etc - if you have a temperature they send you to a warehouse without passing go until you are assessed. If you have it they stick you in a bed and tell you to not leave for 14 days. The rest go back.

Something like that makes sense if you want to return to normality sooner.

People will want to know if they have had it, but I suspect the vast majority of people don't actually need to know. If the herd immunity threshold was reached then it would effectively have died in the UK, so the main risks would be people bringing it in from abroad, and then it would die again after affecting only a few people. I think there are other diseases comparable to this such as TB.

That reminds me. I am very much liking the story that a BCG provides good protection against the virus although I have no idea if that is true.

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

How does that c*nt still get published I have no idea.

He has a psychological breakdown about every 6 months on twitter where he spouts the most batsh!t crazy nonsense which normally involves some kind of mass-death as a trade off, so at least this is on-form for him.

Given that, I was surprised he wasn't just spouting the "open everything up, we'll be fine" line.. that's why I read his piece, thinking he'd offer a counterpoint to AEP's cautionary approach.

rick_chasey

Yeah but a wrong counterpoint is still wrong so why bother with it?

In a discussion about the earth being round I don't need to hear from a flat-earther.

kingstongraham

Is his argument that the government should have spelled out that a do nothing strategy is predicted to cost, say, 500,000 lives, a limited social distancing, say, 250,000 lives, and the current restrictions, say, 20,000?

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

Yeah but a wrong counterpoint is still wrong so why bother with it?

In a discussion about the earth being round I don't need to hear from a flat-earther.

I don't disagree with the point that a dispassionate debate is useful: if both the humanitarian and economic arguments point to the policy of taking the economic hit now for longer-term benefits (again, in both humanitarian and economic terms), it will only strengthen the reason for sticking with that policy. As you and I have both pointed out elsewhere, a well-argued opposition is the best way of ensuring that those making decisions will (probably) make better decisions. And if you can persuade a flat-earther that maybe the horizon is actually a bit curved, then you might be getting somewhere.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Eventually they will need to test everyone and keep testing everyone, so you will need around a billion just for Europe, assuming each person will on average need three tests.

The challenge isn't really developing a test - it is developing a test you can make 100s of millions of in fairly short notice.

You may only need to test those at high risk and sample the rest of the population to see if herd immunity has been reached.

Mmm I don't think the gaps and the casualties from those would be tolerated... People will want to know if *they* have had it or not. If it's as easily transmitted. You think people would tolerate the 'accidental' infections?

In the meantime, constant testing of everyone can more easily help get things back to normal.

What is it they do in the SARS affected places? Take your temperature whenever you go on a bus, enter a bank or an office, supermarket etc - if you have a temperature they send you to a warehouse without passing go until you are assessed. If you have it they stick you in a bed and tell you to not leave for 14 days. The rest go back.

Something like that makes sense if you want to return to normality sooner.

People will want to know if they have had it, but I suspect the vast majority of people don't actually need to know. If the herd immunity threshold was reached then it would effectively have died in the UK, so the main risks would be people bringing it in from abroad, and then it would die again after affecting only a few people. I think there are other diseases comparable to this such as TB.

That reminds me. I am very much liking the story that a BCG provides good protection against the virus although I have no idea if that is true.

That sounds like complete cobblers. TB is a bacterial infection, not viral.

briantrumpet

kingstongraham said:

Is his argument that the government should have spelled out that a do nothing strategy is predicted to cost, say, 500,000 lives, a limited social distancing, say, 250,000 lives, and the current restrictions, say, 20,000?

That sort if thing, yes - mainly that the government should be open about the numbers and the choices.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Eventually they will need to test everyone and keep testing everyone, so you will need around a billion just for Europe, assuming each person will on average need three tests.

The challenge isn't really developing a test - it is developing a test you can make 100s of millions of in fairly short notice.

You may only need to test those at high risk and sample the rest of the population to see if herd immunity has been reached.

Mmm I don't think the gaps and the casualties from those would be tolerated... People will want to know if *they* have had it or not. If it's as easily transmitted. You think people would tolerate the 'accidental' infections?

In the meantime, constant testing of everyone can more easily help get things back to normal.

What is it they do in the SARS affected places? Take your temperature whenever you go on a bus, enter a bank or an office, supermarket etc - if you have a temperature they send you to a warehouse without passing go until you are assessed. If you have it they stick you in a bed and tell you to not leave for 14 days. The rest go back.

Something like that makes sense if you want to return to normality sooner.

People will want to know if they have had it, but I suspect the vast majority of people don't actually need to know. If the herd immunity threshold was reached then it would effectively have died in the UK, so the main risks would be people bringing it in from abroad, and then it would die again after affecting only a few people. I think there are other diseases comparable to this such as TB.

That reminds me. I am very much liking the story that a BCG provides good protection against the virus although I have no idea if that is true.

That sounds like complete cobblers. TB is a bacterial infection, not viral.

Which bit? BCG? Or the bit where it is brought into the country from abroad and occasionally affects a local?

TheBigBean

The UK is +400 for deaths today.

rick_chasey

What annoys me is that the entire premise of the idea that it's a trade off between economic activity and deaths flies in the face of research that I, a mere forum nerd, can dig out in about 15 minutes.

What annoys me even more is that anyone who has worked in the b2b private sector will have seen large chunks the private sector engaging in their own version of voluntary lockdown long before the government said we should.

So why can't these f*cking idiotic columnists see that? Anyone can write some thick-as-sh!t 6th form political pontification, and plenty can do it with more flourish than these tw@ts so how are they getting published?

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Andrew Lilico is a f*cking idiot and he has enough form of idiotic thinking I have concluded to never read his stuff again.

He's like a thick younger Peter Hitchens.

Not least as a quick scan of his argument runs almost diametrically opposite to the body of historical data and studies, but that's fairly standard for him.

His language is a bit over the top but the basis of what he is saying rings true. He's basically suggesting cost / benefit analysis for differing situations as far as I can tell which is eminently sensible and pretty much how everything is ultimately decided. As an example, in road safety you may have a junction where there are 2 or 3 fatal accidents a year so you'll look at various measures to overcome the problem. One might cost £1 million and completely sort the situation out whilst another might cost £10k and reduce the predicted rate to 1 death every 3 years and the solution chosen will depend upon the funding available and an analysis of which provides the best cost / benefit.

The issue is that it can also be pretty subjective and involves putting a financial value on human life (and possibly even putting different financial values on different lives).

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

Yeah but a wrong counterpoint is still wrong so why bother with it?

In a discussion about the earth being round I don't need to hear from a flat-earther.

That being said - I'm unaware of his Twitter meltdowns - I think the point about keeping the public 'on side' is valid, and essential to maintaining the efficacy of lockdown measures. Not explaining what you're doing as fully and unambiguously as possible is unlikely to achieve this.

orraloon

pangolin said:

orraloon said:

Would be totally sensible to concentrate on front line NHS et all workers.

Example. Stepson is an NHS call handler, takes the 999s. He developed a bit of a wheeze and throat (we are into tree pollen season) and his view is that in normal times he would simply have taken a lemsip and throat lozenge and carried on at work. Instead he is at home, not at work for 7 days isolation, just in case, thereby unable to contribute and adding to the overstretch on those still in work.

So a reliable check would be a v good thing indeed.

Is that not a job they can do remotely? Or do they not have the IT infrastructure.

They work as a team, depending on the type and severity of the issue the call handler has other people working with him/her, call handler can bring others into the situation, there may be multiple simultaneous linked conversations happening, all supported by tech. So no, can't work from home on a laptop and mobile phone.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Eventually they will need to test everyone and keep testing everyone, so you will need around a billion just for Europe, assuming each person will on average need three tests.

The challenge isn't really developing a test - it is developing a test you can make 100s of millions of in fairly short notice.

You may only need to test those at high risk and sample the rest of the population to see if herd immunity has been reached.

Mmm I don't think the gaps and the casualties from those would be tolerated... People will want to know if *they* have had it or not. If it's as easily transmitted. You think people would tolerate the 'accidental' infections?

In the meantime, constant testing of everyone can more easily help get things back to normal.

What is it they do in the SARS affected places? Take your temperature whenever you go on a bus, enter a bank or an office, supermarket etc - if you have a temperature they send you to a warehouse without passing go until you are assessed. If you have it they stick you in a bed and tell you to not leave for 14 days. The rest go back.

Something like that makes sense if you want to return to normality sooner.

People will want to know if they have had it, but I suspect the vast majority of people don't actually need to know. If the herd immunity threshold was reached then it would effectively have died in the UK, so the main risks would be people bringing it in from abroad, and then it would die again after affecting only a few people. I think there are other diseases comparable to this such as TB.

That reminds me. I am very much liking the story that a BCG provides good protection against the virus although I have no idea if that is true.

That sounds like complete cobblers. TB is a bacterial infection, not viral.

Which bit? BCG? Or the bit where it is brought into the country from abroad and occasionally affects a local?

BCG is a vaccine for TB: a bacterial infection. How would it be effective against a virus?

They are both transmitted in similar ways but that's it.

ddraver

rick_chasey said:

So why can't these f*cking idiotic columnists see that? Anyone can write some thick-as-sh!t 6th form political pontification, and plenty can do it with more flourish than these tw@ts so how are they getting published?

One of the more subtle but important realisations when studying science is 'just cos it's published in a journal, doesn't mean it's any good.'

A similar realisation occurs with newspaper columnists and reality...

rick_chasey

I think we can all see that. But what is going on in the minds of the publishers? in this instance, the editors.

kingstongraham

briantrumpet said:

kingstongraham said:

Is his argument that the government should have spelled out that a do nothing strategy is predicted to cost, say, 500,000 lives, a limited social distancing, say, 250,000 lives, and the current restrictions, say, 20,000?

That sort if thing, yes - mainly that the government should be open about the numbers and the choices.

Maybe he should pay attention then.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

I think we can all see that. But what is going on in the minds of the publishers? in this instance, the editors.

They have a page to fill by the print deadline.

rick_chasey

Alrite you lot, next you'll be telling me that people need to eat and drink to survive.

It's not unreasonable to expect higher editorial standards

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

Alrite you lot, next you'll be telling me that people need to eat and drink to survive.

It's not unreasonable to expect higher editorial standards

Of course not. But sometimes they phone it in the same as everyone else.

tailwindhome

briantrumpet

kingstongraham said:

briantrumpet said:

kingstongraham said:

Is his argument that the government should have spelled out that a do nothing strategy is predicted to cost, say, 500,000 lives, a limited social distancing, say, 250,000 lives, and the current restrictions, say, 20,000?

That sort if thing, yes - mainly that the government should be open about the numbers and the choices.

Maybe he should pay attention then.

Indeed. And if that's the only thing he can try to pin on the government, then it does suggest he doesn't have much ammunition.

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

Alrite you lot, next you'll be telling me that people need to eat and drink to survive.

It's not unreasonable to expect higher editorial standards

What, from the Telegraph?

coopster_the_1st

I am enjoying that people are waking up and finally questioning if we are looking way to short term with our actions to the current crisis.

That this discussion angers the woke and SJW's shows that it is likely the current policies are the wrong ones.