Covid-19 Virus

For one it’s not peer reviewed, so just as likely to be ******** as not. For another the strain we’ve got could be different but it doesn’t mean that strain itself mutates much.

 

So you read the "Private Eye" hatchet job on him as well...

 

I think he’s been involved in over egging predictions for both foot and mouth and swine flu:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/1e390ac6-7e2c-11ea-8fdb-7ec06edeef84

I’m pretty sure the Covid predictions will be some way off too. don’t get me wrong our death toll is horrendous, but don’t forget his modelling predicted 10x the number of deaths we’ve got with mitigation strategies in place.

That shouldn’t really be a surprise though, they’re concerned with health outcomes and not economies, so any modelling they generate is going to be based on ensuring the best health outcomes and highly likely to be ott. Ultimately if the end result is better than they predicted they’ve done their job. Whether the government should place all their faith in just them and them alone is another question entirely.

 

The virus doubles every three days unchecked. Had a lockdown been rejected, another two weeks would probably have got us towards the magnitudes he was speaking of (which were in a scenario where we did nothing).

He is a knobhead, but his knobheadedness doesn’t have much bearing on this strategy.

 

I didn't actually - I've not read the Eye for a few years now thanks to young kids stealing all my free time - but that's probably why it's been doing the rounds then.

 

I thought the do nothing was 500k and with mitigation was 260k?

Edit: 260k was half way between what we’ve got now and do nothing

 

She don't look fit enough to be a modeller to me m8. You sure ?

 

I write only of the 500k. I believe the 260k referred to pessimistic modelling of the Government’s initial and confusing response. It was followed by tougher action and the lockdown proper.

https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m1089

 

That’s what he said to her, ‘cor, are you a modeller luv?‘

 

The 260k is more reflective of the Swedish approach now, so only time will tell if it would’ve been accurate or not. I concede the 500k looks accurate based on 81% of the country getting it, but that itself is a worse case scenario as 60% might stop it. That said it makes sense that they’re always going to go with the worse case scenario of 81%.

 

The latest edition has just landed on my doormat - I *still* haven't found the time to finish the previous issue (I've not even reached the 'Letters Pages').

 

The bloke behind Sweden's WWC measures had an extremely 'frank' interview on Monday's Daily Show:

 

Seems like the ‘stay at home’ part of the government’s message is due to be dropped on Sunday. Public Health England has asked organisations to remove that phrase from all websites and social media channels by Saturday night.

 

Smudged has it exactly right. "What does the public want to hear"? "How can we give it to them without laying ourselves open to criticism and who can we blame if it goes t*ts up?"

 

There's a clear need to release some of the restrictions. There's only so long that 2 parents trapped in a high rise with 3 kids to entertain can cope in that situation and there's only so long the country can afford to pay for furloughs and bank loans without years of austerity and/or massive tax hikes. The plan was to flatten the curve and in fact it dropped with new cases so low that the Nightingale was barely touched. They have to get people back to work and kids to school whilst limiting the increase in infections. I would set some base rules around the need for 2m distance, disinfectants etc, and if employers can meet those restrictions then they can operate. Restaurants, cinemas (only 1 in 3 seats, every other row vacant) etc.

 

What does that mean with regard to mixing? Any change likely in whether you can meet with others?

 

There are definitely things that can be done now, but we would be on our own lifting restrictions with a six hundred a day death rate.

I do think the rate of community infection is low, so some restrictions can be lifted, but the behaviours need to be reinforced so we carry on largely as if. The reason is that we still have a care home crisis and that could reinfect the general population at any point.

 

And probably no pick 'n' mix :-(

 

I wonder if we might adopt Scotland’s idea of having a ‘bubble’ of friends/family (outside of your home) you can meet with. They’ve been specific that this can only take place in your local area.

Side bar - If this is the case, nothing would change for me - my family and friends live around 80 miles from me.

 

Special rules need to be applied to care homes. The protection has been poor and was a blind spot for politicians and all of us to be honest. Outside that, we need to find a way to move forwards. We know we can't stay in a full on lock down.

 

With a more deadly strain of Covid 19 spreading across Europe I wonder whether we will continue to have open borders. Seems bonkers to me personally.

 

Europe is one country now m8. That's why we left.

 

Auntie takes a skeptical eye to the lockdown with the help of some academics:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52543692

Keep the vulnerable shielded folk protected, send the rest of us to work/school and even some play.

 

I think that would be pointless, as the likes of you and many others will be criticising them, whatever they do. Absolutely regardless of the results.

 

Sounds like a plan.

 

It is interesting that the article could have been written two months ago. There is no evolution of thinking apparent.

There isn’t any arguing that, on paper, the virus presents a low risk of death to those not in risk groups. But it does present some significant risk as Boris (55) and others’ experience shows. He didn’t die, so he didn’t make the stats, but he certainly had an experience most middle aged people would dearly want to avoid.

As the virus spreads so easily and quickly the risk of high numbers badly affected in real terms remains high. And high numbers gives substantial deaths even if not death rates.

We also haven’t satisfied the question of how to protect the vulnerable. They are not isolated in care homes or at home if they have carers visiting.

The thing that has changed is the number of strategies available. We can begin to ease lockdown if our behaviours remain protective. If we use face coverings, continued social distancing, track and trace, heat scanners etc. But it is a risk and the vulnerable and their carers need to be the focus of those efforts. While minimum wage carers get no sick pay and go to work with symptoms or are asymptomatic but untested, the risk remains high.

And it’s from here that a second wave could come. That wave doesn’t need to be huge to disrupt mass transport and mass leisure again.

 

Pre-print (not peer reviewed) of some 'extremely suggestive' work has been released:

https://twitter.com/florian_krammer/status/1257828922638700546

 

How has Covid 19 allowed to become an argument about ethnicity, and from there no doubt racism?

 

I don't know. How has it?

I can't say it seems like a promising set up for a one-liner LTC.

 

Because a black man is 4 times as likely to die than a white man?

 

Seeing as Moose's graph is only comparing the binary options of "do nothing" and "lockdown" I am pleased to see he has apparently drawn it in crayon.

 

I can’t take credit for drawing it, but enlighten us about the option you were pushing and how that would have overlain it. Then we’ll look back at your contributions on the thread and have a good chuckle.

Forgive me if I’m sceptical that you held the answer all along.

 

So what exactly do you think the 4 tame newspapers are doing with today's headlines (shamelessly copied from Moose's post) 'Happy Monday!' (The Sun) 'Hurrah! Lockdown freedom beckons" (The Mail) "Magic Monday' (The Star) and channelling Mandela, 'First Steps to Freedom from Monday' (The Express) other than flying a kite for the government to gauge what the reaction will be? Do you honestly think they haven't been briefed?