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

[AM9]

I don't think anyone's denying that social distancing worked. It still worked when things like pubs and restaurants had opened up. It's accepted that airborne respiratory diseases do not spread as much outside. The uptick in cases is no reason to start shutting things down again and wrecking the economy further.

Without wanting to start another mask debate, for which there's already a thread, the widespread wearing of face coverings has contributed to social distancing breaking down. The public needs educating, not threatening.

If you keep telling a child off for everything they do, they stop listening. This has now happened with the government telling the public off all the time.

I wasn't speaking specifically about face coverings as it is off-topic, but given that the recent rise on infections seems to coincide with tolerance of these restrictions according to @adc82140, just persevering with the compliance with those restrictions should help bring things back to levels where the next small steps in the relaxation programme can be considered.

 

[adc82140]

I agree. The message from government should be that social distancing did work, and we should all be doing what we did in June/July. Focus on the positives, tell the public how well they did then. Tell them that cases will fall if we do the same again. Don't keep threatening "lockdowns".

 

[AM9]

I agree. The message from government should be that social distancing did work, and we should all be doing what we did in June/July. Focus on the positives, tell the public how well they did then. Tell them that cases will fall if we do the same again. Don't keep threatening "lockdowns".

Apart from the inappropriate use of the word 'lockdown' which is nothing like the restrictions imposed in the UK, I don't think that there is a serious threat from the Government of movement restrictions, the media of course is another thing. Although cabinet briefings are few and far between, the public should watch those rather than looking for confirmation of their fears/prejudices in the populist news outlets.

 

[Yew]

To be fair @Meerkat does raise a valid point, there are going to be quite a lot of people scared so silly by the government's dialogue that they will need help getting out of the fear cycle. What we need is some calm, measured messaging, intelligent conversations around the actual risk vs perceived risk of the virus, and why in our society we simply cannot hide away and hope the virus forgets about us. Because obviously there is going to be a point, and probably soon, where a lot of people are going to start getting restless when they see the ongoing restrictions but not the apocalyptic death rates foretold. And when that point is reached, if there isn't a firm exit plan, the virus won't be anything like the worst thing to worry about.

Indeed, I made a post on social media today, suggesting that we can't rely on suppression or a vaccine and was met withn "So you want millions to die for herd immunity" when even in Fergursons wildest dreams he's not predicted that much.

 

[Class 33]

Well the number of number of new cases has dropped for the 2nd day running. HOPEFULLY that fast rise up to 3,539 on Friday is just a nasty spike, and the cases are on the way down again, even if fairly slowly. Otherwise if the numbers of new cases continues to rise well past 3,500 - even if fairly slowly, I am very concerned that the government are going to say "This virus is spiraling out of control, and we need to take urgent action....", and this action could be more severe restrictions implemented and worst case scenario.... A SECOND FULL NATIONAL LOCKDOWN. I really wouldn't put it past this cabinet to do such a thing. A second full national lockdown will be even more destructive than the first one, in terms of the economy, people's livelihoods and their mental health. Many people won't be able to take going through all that again. We'll be reset back to the lockdown of 23rd March again, and it will take at least several months to ease out of it again. And then say in 6 months from that second lockdown, the numbers of new cases could surge again and there'll be threat of a THIRD national lockdown. This is no laughing matter. We can't go on like this for many months or even years to come.....

Although the press and media keep scaremongering us about a second full national lockdown umpteen times over the past month now, there has recently been some hints from those in government - Boris Johnson, Matt Hancock and Michael Gove that a second full national lockdown is currently not ruled out.

Number of deaths today just FIVE, or THREE if you count the "deaths within 28 days of positive test by date of death" figures. Deaths are still very very low. But the government don't seem to be taking this into account atall!

 

[Meerkat]

Things would have to be absolutely disastrous for the government to dare going for another full lockdown.
Cynically I don’t think it would ever be a ‘national‘ lockdown, even if we ended up with everyone in a local lockdown apart from some obscure corner of the country!!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I get the flu shot each year. We have Vacines for flu but people still die each year from flu - quite a lot actually. So even a Covid Vacine will not be a magic bullet. People will still die. We need to learn to live with it.

 

[Meerkat]

I get the flu shot each year. We have Vacines for flu but people still die each year from flu - quite a lot actually. So even a Covid Vacine will not be a magic bullet. People will still die. We need to learn to live with it.

Sure, but it’s a bit tricky to know how to live with it when we aren’t sure how it spreads or how dangerous it really is (and therefore what healthcare capacity we need)

 

[AdamWW]

Things would have to be absolutely disastrous for the government to dare going for another full lockdown.
Cynically I don’t think it would ever be a ‘national‘ lockdown, even if we ended up with everyone in a local lockdown apart from some obscure corner of the country!!

Me too.

Another way of looking it as that the government is fully aware of how quickly infections can take off, and they are worried that it could easily lead to a situation where the only way to prevent the health system from being overloaded would be another national lockdown.

 

[Bantamzen]

Me too.

Another way of looking it as that the government is fully aware of how quickly infections can take off, and they are worried that it could easily lead to a situation where the only way to prevent the health system from being overloaded would be another national lockdown.

New infections do not necessarily need medical attention.

 

[adc82140]

Don't forget that cases are not high now. We were only testing in hospitals in April. It has been estimated that there were actually 100,000 or more cases a day. That's high.

 

[AdamWW]

New infections do not necessarily need medical attention.

Of course not.

And perhaps soon we will get credible evidence that something has changed and coronavirus is no longer a threat to the health system if allowed to spread unchecked, and will likely result in a level of deaths similar to other things we live with (e.g. flu).

Unlike some people here, I find the idea that if this happens the government would keep restrictions anyway for some reason is pretty ridiculous.

 

[Richard Scott]

Don't forget that cases are not high now. We were only testing in hospitals in April. It has been estimated that there were actually 100,000 or more cases a day. That's high.

I take it that's 100,000 new cases a day? If so then a considerable number of people have already had it?

 

[adc82140]

Yep. Each day.

 

[Richard Scott]

Yep. Each day.

That being the case be interesting not know (speculate?) how many people have had it and where that leaves us in terms of herd immunity?

 

[adc82140]

Of course that's 100,000 in the peak days. It would have fallen back as we went in to May...

 

[bramling]

Well, looks like there’s been a case at a school in my town, a teacher apparently tested positive over the weekend. Needless to say social media is in overdrive, with the Karens out in full force. Looks like the school in question is now closed for at least tomorrow.

Not a great start...

 

[Jonny]

New infections do not necessarily need medical attention.

Most do not, and most of the remainder do not need more than minimal attention (paracetamol and basic nursing care) of the kind that is better done at home. Also the cases-per-death rate had reached an equilibrium in the region of hundreds of cases per death, making people rightly skeptical about how bad it is for most people.

 

[gingerheid]

That being the case be interesting not know (speculate?) how many people have had it and where that leaves us in terms of herd immunity?

We know also know that it's possible to catch a slightly different strain as a second infection, possibly after as little as 4 months. It doesn't necessarily leave us in a good place in terms of herd immunity (though it may leave us in a better place in terms of death rate).

 

[87electric]

Of course not.

And perhaps soon we will get credible evidence that something has changed and coronavirus is no longer a threat to the health system if allowed to spread unchecked, and will likely result in a level of deaths similar to other things we live with (e.g. flu).

Unlike some people here, I find the idea that if this happens the government would keep restrictions anyway for some reason is pretty ridiculous.

If I may, I would like to remind you of your last sentence in 6 months time.

 

[AdamWW]

If I may, I would like to remind you of your last sentence in 6 months time.

By all means.

That being the case be interesting not know (speculate?) how many people have had it and where that leaves us in terms of herd immunity?

Not close enough yet given the way that infections are currently rising.

 

[Bantamzen]

Of course not.

And perhaps soon we will get credible evidence that something has changed and coronavirus is no longer a threat to the health system if allowed to spread unchecked, and will likely result in a level of deaths similar to other things we live with (e.g. flu).

Unlike some people here, I find the idea that if this happens the government would keep restrictions anyway for some reason is pretty ridiculous.

It doesn't necessarily need to be that the virus has changed in any way, with much more testing and now way beyond just the health care systems & with people displaying symptoms we might just learning the true nature of it. If in the coming weeks hospitalisations and deaths remain low, then we will have a much more complete picture, and more importantly we must be prepared to make a significant change in approach to how we deal with it going forward.

 

[Yew]

We know also know that it's possible to catch a slightly different strain as a second infection, possibly after as little as 4 months. It doesn't necessarily leave us in a good place in terms of herd immunity (though it may leave us in a better place in terms of death rate).

I'd like to remind you that that person had no symptoms or other adverse effects.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd like to remind you that that person had no symptoms or other adverse effects.

It's a different type of herd immunity, though. To stop spread through herd immunity you need full immunity i.e. they can't catch it. Being asymptomatic next time round but still infectious requires 100%.

 

[Yew]

Not close enough yet given the way that infections are currently rising.

I don't think there would be a massive difference between, say 30% herd immunity and 50% herd immunity, especially as we don't have accurate estimates of the R value effect of the schools opening up. Hopefully we can start some T-Cell surveillence testing in the near future to get a better picture of what we have in terms of immunity and cross immunity

It's a different type of herd immunity, though. To stop spread through herd immunity you need full immunity i.e. they can't catch it. Being asymptomatic next time round but still infectious requires 100%.

Prima facie, one would expect that if you're not coughing and sneezing due to symptoms, you'd at least be less infectious. I don't think it's clear whether asymptomatic cases are actually a major driver of the infections.

 

[brad465]

I've been trying to find comparisons about total % of the world population who've been infected in any given pandemic to compare with this one, but the only ones that are clear are flu pandemics and as Covid isn't flu, while having a higher basic R value, a perfect comparison can't be made I don't think. However if they were similar, Swine Flu apparently only infected 11-21% of the world population, which is still averaging 1 billion, while Spanish Flu was estimated around 500 million, 33% of the then world population (these are from Wikipedia but have linked sources). These two also had the help of either mass troop movements or air travel to spread fast.

If Covid-19 followed a similar path then presumably the majority of the World population won't actually get it in this pandemic, which combined with it's apparently low death rate means concerns about how few might already have had it need not be so concerning?

 

[AdamWW]

If Covid-19 followed a similar path then presumably the majority of the World population won't actually get it in this pandemic, which combined with it's apparently low death rate means concerns about how few might already have had it need not be so concerning?

If we just drop protections I can't see how this isn't going to get everywhere barring perhaps a few isolated tribes.

So it comes down to the fraction required to get herd immunity (presuming immunity is sufficiently long lasting).

And that depends on R, so a comparison with diseaeses with lower R value doesn't seem a terribly helpful approach to me.

 

[DB]

Indeed, I made a post on social media today, suggesting that we can't rely on suppression or a vaccine and was met withn "So you want millions to die for herd immunity" when even in Fergursons wildest dreams he's not predicted that much.

It's this sort of hysteria which is making things worse! Quite apart from the exaggeration, they completely miss the point that what anyone 'wants' is irrelevant - and they won't have any answers if you ask them "so what alternative do you propose?". People have always accepted that flu will kill some people, and that's just how it is. For some reason with this virus a large minority seem to believe that it can be eradicated and deaths reduced to zero. There is no reason at all to assume that this is likely, certainly within a timescale of less than years (and probably decades) - and even then it would only be a possibility if there was a very effective vaccine.

 

[Meerkat]

It's this sort of hysteria which is making things worse! Quite apart from the exaggeration, they completely miss the point that what anyone 'wants' is irrelevant - and they won't have any answers if you ask them "so what alternative do you propose?". People have always accepted that flu will kill some people, and that's just how it is. For some reason with this virus a large minority seem to believe that it can be eradicated and deaths reduced to zero. There is no reason at all to assume that this is likely, certainly within a timescale of less than years (and probably decades) - and even then it would only be a possibility if there was a very effective vaccine.

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

 

[DB]

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

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.