Covid : Infection rates v death rates and a possible second wave

[Huntergreed]

But then you exaggerate their viewpoint. Maybe they just want suppression until there is a vaccine.

A vaccine may never become available (it’s looking likely, but we absolutely cannot base a pandemic strategy around the assumption one will become available). If anythinf, the fact that the government has done so highlights a problem with modern society, that we take these things for granted and always assume a perfect solution will become available when this is often simply not the case.

 

[rumoto]

Respect to the hysteria, it does not help when you have politicians like the Welsh health minister saying that a national lockdown could be just weeks away:

Brexit: 'Much to play for' says Sir Roger Gale after voting against bill — as it happened

Bill passes at second reading by 340 votes to 263

www.theguardian.com

The Welsh health minister has warned that a national lockdown could be a few weeks away unless people follow the new Covid-19 regulations. On the day most people in Wales are obliged to wear masks when they go into shops and other public places, Vaughan Gething said the county was in a “parallel position to early February,” adding: “We were in national lockdown in the third week of March.”


Speaking on BBC Radio Wales, Gething said:

"We have a number of weeks to be able to get to a position where we can recover some of the ground with a return to effective social distancing, with a return to respecting the rules we have in place to save people’s lives or we will be forced into greater local lockdowns and the potential for another national lockdown".


He said that if a widespread lockdown was necessary he hoped all four governments would work together - but said he would also take Wales-only action if needed.

 

[Huntergreed]

And with respect to the hysteria, it does not help when you have politicians like the Welsh health minister saying that a national lockdown could be just weeks away:

Brexit: 'Much to play for' says Sir Roger Gale after voting against bill — as it happened

Bill passes at second reading by 340 votes to 263

www.theguardian.com

The Welsh health minister has warned that a national lockdown could be a few weeks away unless people follow the new Covid-19 regulations. On the day most people in Wales are obliged to wear masks when they go into shops and other public places, Vaughan Gething said the county was in a “parallel position to early February,” adding: “We were in national lockdown in the third week of March.”


Speaking on BBC Radio Wales, Gething said:

"We have a number of weeks to be able to get to a position where we can recover some of the ground with a return to effective social distancing, with a return to respecting the rules we have in place to save people’s lives or we will be forced into greater local lockdowns and the potential for another national lockdown".


He said that if a widespread lockdown was necessary he hoped all four governments would work together - but said he would also take Wales-only action if needed.

I think this would likely be the last straw for wales, we’ve been prioritising this virus above literally everything for half a year now, it’s about time that stopped and we took a more balanced and proportionate response.

 

[DB]

Vaughan Gething said the county was in a “parallel position to early February,” adding: “We were in national lockdown in the third week of March.”

Ah yes, a typical example of a government response - "we tried this beore, and it didn't work (but did cause massive knock-on problems) - so let's try it again..."

 

[AdamWW]

Ah yes, a typical example of a government response - "we tried this beore, and it didn't work (but did cause massive knock-on problems) - so let's try it again..."

Maybe the government are being influenced by the fact that their scientific advisors tell them that the lockdown almost certainly prevented the health system from collapsing, and if infections take off again it's a serious risk this winter?

 

[DB]

Maybe the government are being influenced by the fact that their scientific advisors tell them that the lockdown almost certainly prevented the health system from collapsing, and if infections take off again it's a serious risk this winter?

But nobody seems able to provide evidence that tis is actually true - Sweden's health system didn't collapse, and the NHS her got nowhere near to doing so - plus they have extra capacity now, and the current level of reported infections (which may actually just be a result of increased testing) is not resulting in a wave of hospital admissions.

This uncertainty over whether businesses will be forced to close at short notice must be causing massive economic problems - who is going to risk investing in anything under these circumstances?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ah yes, a typical example of a government response - "we tried this beore, and it didn't work (but did cause massive knock-on problems) - so let's try it again..."

The lockdown did work for the purpose for which it was intended - to push a very high and uncontrolled case rate (reckoned at around 100,000/day) right back down.

 

[DB]

The lockdown did work for the purpose for which it was intended - to push a very high and uncontrolled case rate (reckoned at around 100,000/day) right back down.

But did it? Or was it already starting to reduce anyway?

 

[AdamWW]

But nobody seems able to provide evidence that tis is actually true - Sweden's health system didn't collapse, and the NHS her got nowhere near to doing so - plus they have extra capacity now, and the current level of reported infections (which may actually just be a result of increased testing) is not resulting in a wave of hospital admissions.

Define "nowhere near".

I think we used more than 50% capacity having drastically reconfigured to achieve this, with cases doubling every 3-4 days before the lockdown that doesn't sound like nowhere near to me.

And no, the increase in infections is not just due to increased testing. And if it carries on going up and in the next few weeks we don't see the increase in hospital admissions continue, that would be most interesting and would probably justify a change in approach.

As for evidence - what evidence is there that the government should ignore the advice they've commissioned that tells them that there is a big risk to the health system?

 

[DB]

vAs for evidence - what evidence is there that the government should ignore the advice they've commissioned that tells them that there is a big risk to the health system?

You mean Ferguson? It's now pretty clear to everyone that he vastly over-estimated - as should have been clear by looking at other countries.

 

[Yew]

As for evidence - what evidence is there that the government should ignore the advice they've commissioned that tells them that there is a big risk to the health system?

That feels like you're asking us to prove a negative, the thought should be "what evidence is there that the Government should trust the predictions being made". Regardless, I feel that examining some of the error-bars on the inputs to the models is enlightening. One that I've seen puts the "percentage of hospitalised patients who will die" with a 95% confidence interval of 1.2-43.3% That's heading into the realms where you may as well use a dart board to estimate!

 

[Meerkat]

But I don't exaggerate their viewpoint - this 'until there is a vaccine' argument is ridiculous. A vaccine may not be developed for years, even if it is it may be of limited effectiveness (as the flu vaccines are). Manufacturing and rolling it out will not be quick. We cannot trash the economy and cause major social damage on the basis of so many unknowns, and with no backup plan.

We aren’t trashing the economy etc - the current policy is suppression with the lightest, focussed, restrictions possible, and those restrictions are focussed on reducing economic and social damage.

 

[AdamWW]

You mean Ferguson? It's now pretty clear to everyone that he vastly over-estimated - as should have been clear by looking at other countries.

No. I don't. I really don't.

Believe it or not, the government have other sources of information.

That feels like you're asking us to prove a negative, the thought should be "what evidence is there that the Government should trust the predictions being made". Regardless, I feel that examining some of the error-bars on the inputs to the models is enlightening. One that I've seen puts the "percentage of hospitalised patients who will die" with a 95% confidence interval of 1.2-43.3% That's heading into the realms where you may as well use a dart board to estimate!

OK here's my take on it.

If I need to make a decision and it's not something I know enough about myself, I have to get people who do know to advise me.

I would then need a pretty good reason to decide that actually I know more than they do and ignore it.

And models that give a wide range may not be what you want, but knowing that something is highly uncertain is in itself useful information.

 

[DB]

We aren’t trashing the economy etc - the current policy is suppression with the lightest, focussed, restrictions possible, and those restrictions are focussed on reducing economic and social damage.

I must be imagining all those shops which have permanently closed recently then. And all the figures on the economy.

No doubt this problem will be even more stark when the furlough scheme ends.

 

[Meerkat]

I must be imagining all those shops which have permanently closed recently then. And all the figures on the economy.

No doubt this problem will be even more stark when the furlough scheme ends.

Those were the effects from not controlling the outbreak and needing a lockdown, not the effects of the ongoing policies. I would remind you that footfall in shops had plummeted even before lockdown, so unless you are proposing the government goes Trump and starts telling us everything is fine.......

 

[Bletchleyite]

But did it? Or was it already starting to reduce anyway?

I think it's clear that the lockdown would cause it to reduce more quickly than looser measures.

 

[DB]

Those were the effects from not controlling the outbreak and needing a lockdown, not the effects of the ongoing policies. I would remind you that footfall in shops had plummeted even before lockdown, so unless you are proposing the government goes Trump and starts telling us everything is fine.......

No, they were the effect of the government's policies. There was no 'need' for a lockdown - it was a government decision, and one not taken by Sweden who have fared better.

Footfall only plummeted when Project Fear started, a week or two before the lockdown.

I think it's clear that the lockdown would cause it to reduce more quickly than looser measures.

But it's not clear - look at Sweden.

 

[AdamWW]

But it's not clear - look at Sweden.

And conclude what?

We had R down at values way under 1 for a while which was a good thing to have when infections/hospitalisations/deaths were running at a high level.

I haven't seen anything suggesting they managed the same (or needed to, presumably because infection levels were somewhat lower when they started restrictions).

 

[Meerkat]

But but Sweden, seems to be the answer for everything. One small country on the fringes of Europe with a fairly distinct social and cultural model.

 

[MikeWM]

Also if someone does have Covi19 symptoms but is in hospital for an unrelated reason, e.g. cancer, a heart attack, etc would they contribute to the Covid19 hospitalisation stats?

And what if someone has no symptoms? Are we testing in-patients routinely, same as they are tested for MRSA, and counting those if positive, even if eg. the patient is in for routine elective surgery?

It looks like that was the plan : eg. see this from April https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...in-patient-target_uk_5ea6f047c5b67375e4078e92 Is this actually happening?

If so, and given the test can return a positive result many weeks after a person has ceased to be infectious, we could see 'hospitalisation' numbers rise a lot without any actual impact. Especially if elective surgeries are now 'playing catchup' and getting through more patients than usual.

 

[DB]

But but Sweden, seems to be the answer for everything. One small country on the fringes of Europe with a fairly distinct social and cultural model.

The virus is the same wherever it is!

 

[adc82140]

All patients are tested on admission if an emergency, or pre admission for routine high risk tests and procedures. They don't want covid cases in the green zones of hospitals.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The virus is the same wherever it is!

But people aren't. Sweden's culture has a high level of altruism and "greater good" type thinking, so many of the things we had to legislate happened anyway. This Forum is enough to demonstrate that the UK doesn't think that way and so that approach wouldn't work - if it's not the law and it's not enforced, British people mostly won't do it unless it's to their direct personal benefit, whatever "it" happens to be.

 

[DB]

But people aren't. Sweden's culture has a high level of altruism and "greater good" type thinking, so many of the things we had to legislate happened anyway. This Forum is enough to demonstrate that the UK doesn't think that way and so that approach wouldn't work - if it's not the law and it's not enforced, British people mostly won't do it unless it's to their direct personal benefit, whatever "it" happens to be.

Sorry, but for that to be the case you woud need to show that Swedish people have been staying away from places where others would be. From all the reports, that's clearly not the case and apart from no large gatherings and increased working from home / lower public transport use they've carried on fairly close to normal.

 

[MikeWM]

All patients are tested on admission if an emergency, or pre admission for routine high risk tests and procedures. They don't want covid cases in the green zones of hospitals.

So not *all* inpatients then? That helps put things into perspective somewhat.

 

[Meerkat]

But people aren't. Sweden's culture has a high level of altruism and "greater good" type thinking, so many of the things we had to legislate happened anyway. This Forum is enough to demonstrate that the UK doesn't think that way and so that approach wouldn't work - if it's not the law and it's not enforced, British people mostly won't do it unless it's to their direct personal benefit, whatever "it" happens to be.

Sweden is also out on the fringes and with much fewer of the ‘world city’ issues that the Uk has.

Sorry, but for that to be the case you woud need to show that Swedish people have been staying away from places where others would be. From all the reports, that's clearly not the case and apart from no large gatherings and increased working from home / lower public transport use they've carried on fairly close to normal.

The reports I saw all showed the Swedes doing distancing etc

 

[jumble]

We aren’t trashing the economy etc - the current policy is suppression with the lightest, focussed, restrictions possible, and those restrictions are focussed on reducing economic and social damage.

I wonder how they are targeting the focused areas you mention with testing clearly being in chaos at the moment
I know by experience the facts below are true
The website tells you it has sent texts but don't do so
The website allows you to book appointments but when you get to the test center they have never heard of you
The website claims you can get a same day test which is not true.

As an aside if I were to have symptoms why on earth am I not allowed to walk my spaniel in the park where common sense dictates the risk of anyone catching it from me must be miniscule?

 

[takno]

As an aside if I were to have symptoms why on earth am I not allowed to walk my spaniel in the park where common sense dictates the risk of anyone catching it from me must be miniscule?

The upside of it being a spaniel in particular is that the ear can be used as an improvised face covering. Assuming that walking one's spaniel isn't some kind of filthy innuendo that I'm not privvy to...

 

[DannyMich2018]

Since pubs etc reopened many people (particulary younger ones) have the mindset "oh yes the death rates and number of cases have gone down let not bother with social distancing its ok now". Sadly this is still paramount. While not highest the number of people in Hospital in the UK has been creeping up recently with as know cases have rocketed. No one wants a 2nd UK lockdown so it's really important people act responsibly to prevent a 2nd wave which with Autumn/winter around the corner could be worse than the 2nd.

 

[Bantamzen]

Since pubs etc reopened many people (particulary younger ones) have the mindset "oh yes the death rates and number of cases have gone down let not bother with social distancing its ok now". Sadly this is still paramount. While not highest the number of people in Hospital in the UK has been creeping up recently with as know cases have rocketed. No one wants a 2nd UK lockdown so it's really important people act responsibly to prevent a 2nd wave which with Autumn/winter around the corner could be worse than the 2nd.

Have they? I've been to quite a few since July and I've seen pretty much none of this. Of course the media will always dig out a few exceptions, but from my observations most people are sticking to it.