Coronavirus - potential Black Swan?

[This time]

And since not all of the vulnerable are little old ladies you need safe child minders and schools.

[Riedquat]

 

It's not just carers though. You need phlebotomists, nurses, GPs, hospital consultants, midwives, radiographers etc etc. Then you need a safe way for the vulnerable to attend these services - bus drivers, taxi drivers etc. 

If you only consider there are two possibilities - 100% zero chance of contact or may as well have no restrictions at all.

[slawek]

 

I think new born children do have immunity.. 

What evidence do you have to suggest they are succeptable, 

I mention this, as my brother and sis in law have just had a baby. 6 weeks ago, whilst in hospital, mother caught covid inside, but baby didn't.

 

It is a well know fact that mothers are passing only antibodies giving a child initial limited protection. We wouldn't need to vaccine them if this immunity lasted. 

https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/childrens-health/how-long-do-babies-carry-their-mothers-immunity/

[This time]

And once you consider that the people who live with vulnerable people also need to avoid catching the virus you're actually looking at about half the population that would need to shield.

It would be far easier and simpler to go for eradication.

[Riedquat]

 

And once you consider that the people who live with vulnerable people also need to avoid catching the virus you're actually looking at about half the population that would need to shield.

It would be far easier and simpler to go for eradication.

Eradication isn't practical.

You only get to half the population if you're only willing to consider two choices - zero contact between the vulnerable and others, or it's all as good as none. This all sounds too much like another example of seeing things only in black and white, and getting hung up over "but there is a risk" making it impossible to contemplate anything short of a perfect outcome in one particular area as being acceptable.

How many people does it need if you only consider those with direct, regular contact and perhaps some of their immediate contacts? If that reduces the risk by 90% (number plucked out of thin air merely for illustrative purposes) with minimum impact to the vast majority of society then little is really gained and a lot lost by going for the remaining 10%.

The harsh reality in all aspects of life is that the ideal result can never be achieved, but the simple black and white way of looking at things that's become so prevalent, that is so averse to dealing with "but it might happen!" no matter how unlikely struggles to cope with the real world.

[Peter Hun]

 

If the government won't lock down properly and won't let the virus rip, then what do they think they are doing?

Since March the whole sorry saga has been a total disaster actually and I honestly can't see an end to it while we've still got Cummings and Boris driving the specsavers bus down the road to ruin.

Its called the Bumbling Buffoon strategy.

The Eton-Oxford idiot factory that allows rich dimwits into political power.

[DiggerUK]

Herd mentality relies on opinion substituting for a reasoned analysis of the facts.  
 

The figures for justifying this farce have long been absent. The figures for ending it now have very clear for weeks.

For the first time in a month of sundays we had fatalities in triple figures, 143, as opposed to the thousands during PeakCovid in March/April/May.

And these figures come about despite 25,697,164 tests to date. So much for the last scare farce of fatalities doubling every 7-8 days..._

Edited October 14, 2020 by DiggerUK

[Peter Hun]

 

Eradication isn't practical.

 

Then don't complain about the economic cost of doing this way.

[This time]

 

Eradication isn't practical.

You only get to half the population if you're only willing to consider two choices - zero contact between the vulnerable and others, or it's all as good as none. This all sounds too much like another example of seeing things only in black and white, and getting hung up over "but there is a risk" making it impossible to contemplate anything short of a perfect outcome in one particular area as being acceptable.

How many people does it need if you only consider those with direct, regular contact and perhaps some of their immediate contacts? If that reduces the risk by 90% (number plucked out of thin air merely for illustrative purposes) with minimum impact to the vast majority of society then little is really gained and a lot lost by going for the remaining 10%.

The harsh reality in all aspects of life is that the ideal result can never be achieved, but the simple black and white way of looking at things that's become so prevalent, that is so averse to dealing with "but it might happen!" no matter how unlikely struggles to cope with the real world.

50% is the proportion of society that would need to be shielded in the let it rip scenario. That's only taking into account the clinically vulnerable and their household. That is why the government rejected it as a strategy.

[Peter Hun]

 

And these figures come about despite 25,697,164 tests to date. So much for the last scare farce of fatalities doubling every 7-8 days..._

Fatalities doubled in the last 7 days.

 

[slawek]

 

In medieval times they believed a pocket full of posies would stop you getting the plague. We are behaving irrationality in demanding the use of masks. 

It is not irrational. There are scientific papers estimating effectiveness of face masks.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32497510/  

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32329337/

You don't need to be an Einstein to figure out that mask reduce droplet spreading, a major way the virus jump between people. Just a common sense. 

[captainb]

 

It's not just carers though. You need phlebotomists, nurses, GPs, hospital consultants, midwives, radiographers etc etc. Then you need a safe way for the vulnerable to attend these services - bus drivers, taxi drivers etc. 

Accept its not those people all the time is it, have a red/green hospital with mass testing if necessary at the green hospital. As for transport get taxis with the dividers up. Risk would be so minimal, taxi driver infected, not isolating, and transmits it over 2m through a glass screen.

 

We know where the actual risk is why not try and isolate it as much as possible? why are we even talking about mass shut downs of peoples employment with all the damage that causes while care homes are still open? and people at risk told not to isolate?

Is there no risk analysis element.?

Current solution of well trash everything for minimal impact should be looked at with extreme WTF is going on. Look at Bolton in "lockdown" for months, cases rising hence resignation of MP. What has it actually achieved? The lockdown saves us is based on?

 

 

[swankyman]

 

Fatalities doubled in the last 7 days.

 

Explain please. 

Up-to-date graph attached to help you

[Riedquat]

 

You don't need to be an Einstein to figure out that mask reduce droplet spreading, a major way the virus jump between people. Just a common sense. 

But you do need to have slightly more brains than someone who just accepts masks as the saviour of all to consider what that difference in droplet transmission works out as in various different circumstances, i.e. where that'll make a practical difference and where it won't (not just "well there is a risk!") and thus see where it's sensible and where it's ridiculous.

[Riedquat]

 

50% is the proportion of society that would need to be shielded in the let it rip scenario. That's only taking into account the clinically vulnerable and their household. That is why the government rejected it as a strategy.

The "let it rip" scenario - i.e. another extreme (and one that ignores changes in behaviour even without imposed restrictions).

[slawek]

 

But you do need to have slightly more brains than someone who just accepts masks as the saviour of all to consider what that difference in droplet transmission works out as in various different circumstances, i.e. where that'll make a practical difference and where it won't (not just "well there is a risk!") and thus see where it's sensible and where it's ridiculous.

A poster I replied to was against face masks in general.

Personally I don't treat masks as a magical solution for the Covid. It is more like "every little helps" especially when people are close to each other. Wearing them in open space far from others is pointless.  My guess would be that they reduce overall  R by 20-30%.   If I am right that is tens of thousands of lives saved in the UK alone with rather a minimal impact on the economy. 

[Peter Hun]

 

England and Wales have suffered among the highest per capita death tolls of the coronavirus pandemic, according to research into the impact of the first wave of infections on 21 industrialised countries.

Deaths from all causes were 37% higher than expected in England and Wales between mid-February and the end of May, a grim statistic that was only marginally worse in Spain, the hardest-hit country in the study, where all-cause mortality rose 38% over the same period.

In all three of the nations, the rise amounts to 100 extra deaths per 100,000 people and includes those who died directly from coronavirus but also people who lost their lives to indirect causes of the pandemic, such as cancelled medical treatment and a reluctance to go to hospital when they became ill with other conditions.

The analysis published in Nature Medicine reveals that countries that fared well went into lockdown early or had effective and robust community-based test and trace programmes in operation throughout the first wave. The UK went into lockdown late compared with other countries and halted test and trace efforts because it did not have the capacity to continue them.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/14/covid-19-england-and-wales-among-highest-per-capita-death-tolls

 

 

Explain please. 

By report date.

[MARTINX9]

 

Thanks, signed both of them, but the gym is close to my heart, having just had it taken away again. 

The position on gyms is all over the place.

In Scotland and NI - under its circuit breaker announced today - gyms and swimming pools can stay open for personal exercise. No classes but you can still use the gym or have a swim.

In Liverpool the Mayor wanted to keep gyms and pools open - cos fit and healthy people who aren't obese have close to zero chance of ending up in ICU with COVID - but he was told they had to close.

I would like to see the science that says a gym sign in Lanarkshire or Lisburn NI repulses COVID but one in Liverpool just encourages it to go inside.

Why is the science different across the UK - its the same virus!

[swankyman]

 

 

 

By report date.

Why?

[NobodyInParticular]

 

I'm not really against masks tbh, they are uncomfortable, especially when doing physical work however. 

Cheap, crap masks are cheap and crappy. News at 11.

 

Im sure I read something the other day where a former chief scientist actually said that thay could be trapping covid, and making it more likely to be inhaled. 

No, you read a very poorly worded report that got the thrust of the report entirely wrong, perhaps. The report said that using random bits of cloth over your mouth rather than actual, proper masks designed to be masks is an issue.

 

But it could have actually been a dream.. I just don't know anymore! 

Oh, it was BS, be sure.

[NobodyInParticular]

 

In Liverpool the Mayor wanted to keep gyms and pools open - cos fit and healthy people who aren't obese have close to zero chance of ending up in ICU with COVID - but he was told they had to close.

Yes, close to zero chance of ending up in the ICU, but if asymptomatic or with low-grade symptoms entirely able to spread it to people who will end up in ICU. Which is what has been happening.

 

Why is the science different across the UK 

It's not. It's the responses that are different.

[NobodyInParticular]

 

 

England and Wales have suffered among the highest per capita death tolls of the coronavirus pandemic, according to research into the impact of the first wave of infections on 21 industrialised countries.

Deaths from all causes were 37% higher than expected in England and Wales between mid-February and the end of May, a grim statistic that was only marginally worse in Spain, the hardest-hit country in the study, where all-cause mortality rose 38% over the same period.

In all three of the nations, the rise amounts to 100 extra deaths per 100,000 people and includes those who died directly from coronavirus but also people who lost their lives to indirect causes of the pandemic, such as cancelled medical treatment and a reluctance to go to hospital when they became ill with other conditions.

The analysis published in Nature Medicine reveals that countries that fared well went into lockdown early or had effective and robust community-based test and trace programmes in operation throughout the first wave. The UK went into lockdown late compared with other countries and halted test and trace efforts because it did not have the capacity to continue them.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/14/covid-19-england-and-wales-among-highest-per-capita-death-tolls

 

By report date.

+1.

The UK is a bit like Ned Flanders' parents at time "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas". It's pathetic and depressing.

[NobodyInParticular]

 

So masks are useless, and actually van trap aerosols..

No, no, no, no. Please actually read and comprehend the data or make some attempt to.

[NobodyInParticular]

 

It's not just carers though. You need phlebotomists, nurses, GPs, hospital consultants, midwives, radiographers etc etc. Then you need a safe way for the vulnerable to attend these services - bus drivers, taxi drivers etc. 

+11.3

[NobodyInParticular]

 

It's not just carers though. You need phlebotomists, nurses, GPs, hospital consultants, midwives, radiographers etc etc. Then you need a safe way for the vulnerable to attend these services - bus drivers, taxi drivers etc. 

Also all the family members of nurses, GPs, taxi drivers, etc., unless they are to isolate from their familes (and where are they to do this?).