Do we trust the experts in regard to COVID-19?

[Bletchleyite]

I disagree, we have around 3000 hospitalisations nationwide. Getting them ready just in case is reasonable, but it feels more of a precaution than an urgent rush.

You need to look in specific areas. Carting very sick people from Liverpool to Southampton (say) is not an option.

Depends on the circumstances. If I were in a care home with no quality of life then yes.

"Letting it rip" with no mitigation would bring that to a far wider demographic.

 

[Darandio]

Tinfoil hattery of the highest order.

The first one you quoted yes, the second one no. With so much interest in a vaccine, it's not acceptable for him to have a vested interested in a company trying to produce one whilst trying to make decisions that affect how we go about our way of life.

 

[Bikeman78]

You need to look in specific areas. Carting very sick people from Liverpool to Southampton (say) is not an option.



"Letting it rip" with no mitigation would bring that to a far wider demographic.

I'm not convinced that it would. If Boris said "do what you like" people wouldn't all go back to how they lived in February overnight. It would spread less now that it did mid March.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not convinced that it would. If Boris said "do what you like" people wouldn't all go back to how they lived in February overnight. It would spread less now that it did mid March.

Haven't we seen what would happen if people basically did what they liked?

 

[Domh245]

I disagree, we have around 3000 hospitalisations nationwide. Getting them ready just in case is reasonable, but it feels more of a precaution than an urgent rush.

For the North West, North East and Yorkshire (ie the Nightingales that have been stood up) hospital occupancy is definitely a concern. The North West is at 42% of it's peak value, and at current rates* would reach the same level in about a fortnight, which is near enough baked in already given the time between infection and hospitalisation. North East & Yorkshire is a similar situation in terms of equalling peak occupancy in about 2 weeks, but is arguably in a worse situation as the growth is higher - current number of hospitalised patients is around 36% of peak

The obvious question is what the peak occupancy was in terms of %ages - if at the peak there was still ample capacity then it's less of a concern than if they were days away from being overwhelmed.

*Growing at around 5% a day

You need to look in specific areas. Carting very sick people from Liverpool to Southampton (say) is not an option.

Why not? The French did it (and are doing it again I think?)

 

[trebor79]

You think there is nothing wrong with one of the top medical scientists in the country - giving guidance to the government as to what actions to take - having a financial interest in *one* of the big pharma companies? That's about as blatant a conflict of interest as you can get.

Note I didn't claim it was influencing his advice. It is unacceptable either way.

Such a lot of hot air on social media about this. He used to work for GSK and that's how he has those shares.
Frankly, if you want the very best people working for government, then they are going to come with baggage like that. It's not difficult to make sure there are checks and balances to avoid personal gain colouring judgement. The way the government has handed out £bn contracts to their mates is of far more concern to me.

There would be no emergency healthcare either. Would you foresake being treated if you caught it?

Why would there be no emergency healthcare? I accept it might be degraded for a period of time, so I might choose not to do certain things that come with a risk of accident or injury.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why would there be no emergency healthcare? I accept it might be degraded for a period of time, so I might choose not to do certain things that come with a risk of accident or injury.

Because if we let it rip then there will be more COVID patients requiring hospital treatment than total beds in hospitals. There will also be a severe lack of staff as many of them will have it.

"Letting it rip" is a ridiculous idea and may as well be forgotten about. What I'd support is mitigation rather than suppression (which was the original idea) - and whether officially or not that's effectively where we are now. What I do think is we need shielding back, maybe level 3 will feature that.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

The two big problems with the so-called "experts" is firstly that their predictions have wildly exaggerated the number of cases and deaths and secondly that the media have presented their "worst case scenarios" as accurate when of course they've proved nothing of the sort.

As an example, remember just three weeks ago when Whitty and Vallance were adamant that by mid-October we'd be looking at 50,000 new cases and 200 deaths every day? Well it's mid October now and the actual numbers are barely a quarter of what they were claiming!

Covid cases are half of Gov's doomsday prediction of 50,000

Sir Patrick Vallance and Chris Whitty, England's chief scientific and medical officers, claimed there would be 50,000 cases by October 13. There were fewer than 13,000 yesterday.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Britain's coronavirus crisis has fallen far short of the Government's doomsday prediction of 50,000 cases a day by tomorrow, figures show.

Sir Patrick Vallance and Professor Chris Whitty, the country's chief scientific and medical officers, made the bleak forecast last month as they urged Britons to abide by new lockdown curbs amid rising cases.

Speaking at the Downing Street TV press conference on September 22 — when there were about 4,000 infections each day — they warned that case numbers could continue to double every week.


Sir Patrick said: 'If, and that's quite a big if, but if that continues unabated, and this grows, doubling every seven days, you would end up with something like 50,000 cases in the middle of October per day.'

But the latest figures released yesterday show the true trajectory of the virus has fallen well short of the doomsday scenario, with the Department of Health recording 12,872 positive tests.

Covid-19 case numbers are always lower on weekends because of a recording lag, which means the real number of infections on Sunday will probably be slightly higher.

But infections should have been above 40,000, according to the Government's depressing estimates last month. And cases will need to rise by 37,128 within the next 24 hours for Sir Patrick and Professor Whitty's predictions to come true.

The advisers also warned deaths could soon surge past 200 but there were 65 victims yesterday — not even a third of the September forecast.

Scientists described the experts' estimates as 'scientifically inaccurate' because the prediction was based on just few hundred positive cases, and accused them of scaremongering. Some Tory MPs were said to have nicknamed the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Adviser 'Witless and Unbalanced' on the back of the prediction.

I think it's safe to say that we have good reason not to trust the "experts" now we know they don't seem to have a clue what's going to happen next!

 

[trebor79]

Because if we let it rip then there will be more COVID patients requiring hospital treatment than total beds in hospitals. There will also be a severe lack of staff as many of them will have it.

"Letting it rip" is a ridiculous idea and may as well be forgotten about. What I'd support is mitigation rather than suppression (which was the original idea) - and whether officially or not that's effectively where we are now. What I do think is we need shielding back, maybe level 3 will feature that.

Oh. You're starting to sound like Boris and Hancock. Nobody is suggesting "letting it rip", those words are only ever used by people pushing a rinse and repeat of the failed policies of lockdowns, economic destruction and trying to legislate our way out of this.
If we effectively shield the over 75's, then that's 95% of the hospitalisations avoided straight away. Did you see that charts in the briefing today - in the north west, even though age 80+ are still only a few of the infections, they make up the largest proportion of hospital cases.
If we properly shield the very elderly, there will be no overwhelming of the health service (not to the extent postulated at any case). The only reason we are apparently risking that now is because we have made no attempt whatsoever to shield those people, whilst pretending daft rules about face masks and who it is legal to meet with and in what circumstances will prevent an endemic respiratory virus from spreading.

 

[Yew]

Because if we let it rip then there will be more COVID patients requiring hospital treatment than total beds in hospitals. There will also be a severe lack of staff as many of them will have it.

Again with that straw man?

 

[DustyBin]

The first one you quoted yes, the second one no. With so much interest in a vaccine, it's not acceptable for him to have a vested interested in a company trying to produce one whilst trying to make decisions that affect how we go about our way of life.

Agreed, it’s a blatant and unacceptable conflict of interest which brings his integrity into question. That’s not to say his integrity is compromised, but it is in question which is why professionals are required to adhere to the ethical standards set out by by their regulating body. It’s non-negotiable. A very close friend of mine runs a construction company, I don’t include him on tender lists for construction projects as it would represent a potential conflict of interest. It’s as simple as that I’m afraid!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Again with that straw man?

It's a fact, not a straw man.

Perhaps you're arguing for shielding plus slightly lesser restrictions? If so I'd support that.

 

[StationTown]

Oh. You're starting to sound like Boris and Hancock. Nobody is suggesting "letting it rip", those words are only ever used by people pushing a rinse and repeat of the failed policies of lockdowns, economic destruction and trying to legislate our way out of this.
If we effectively shield the over 75's, then that's 95% of the hospitalisations avoided straight away. Did you see that charts in the briefing today - in the north west, even though age 80+ are still only a few of the infections, they make up the largest proportion of hospital cases.
If we properly shield the very elderly, there will be no overwhelming of the health service (not to the extent postulated at any case). The only reason we are apparently risking that now is because we have made no attempt whatsoever to shield those people, whilst pretending daft rules about face masks and who it is legal to meet with and in what circumstances will prevent an endemic respiratory virus from spreading.

I don't think it's that straightforward. How do we effectively shield the over 75s (or other extremely vulnerable people of a younger age)?

 

[DustyBin]

It's a fact, not a straw man.

Perhaps you're arguing for shielding plus slightly lesser restrictions? If so I'd support that.

But ‘let it rip’ is the kind of emotive language advocated here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/882722/25-options-for-increasing-adherence-to-social-distancing-measures-22032020.pdf

Perceived threat: A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened; it could be that they are reassured by the low death rate in their demographic group (8), although levels of concern may be rising (9). Having a good understanding of the risk has been found to be positively associated with adoption of COVID-19 social distancing measures in Hong Kong (10). The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging.

I think that’s what people are taking exception to....

 

[Bletchleyite]

But ‘let it rip’ is the kind of emotive language advocated here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/882722/25-options-for-increasing-adherence-to-social-distancing-measures-22032020.pdf

You can use whatever language you like but you know what I mean.

"It is not feasible to remove all restrictions and allow the disease to take its natural progression, even with shielding".

 

[DustyBin]

I don't think it's that straightforward. How do we effectively shield the over 75s (or other extremely vulnerable people of a younger age)?

Taxpayer funded PPE (proper masks that work), financial support if they need to stay indoors, positive messaging about protecting the vulnerable, priority delivery slots.... There’s loads of things we could try but haven’t for some reason....

 

[MikeWM]

Taxpayer funded PPE (proper masks that work), financial support if they need to stay indoors, positive messaging about protecting the vulnerable, priority delivery slots.... There’s loads of things we could try but haven’t for some reason....

Indeed. And it is hard to imagine that it would cost as much as the vast amounts of money we've been throwing around all year, which appears to have achieved effectively nothing.

Would it be *perfect* - no. Some vulnerable people would still be exposed. But that's still happening now anyway, so I don't see how that is a drawback.

 

[StationTown]

Taxpayer funded PPE (proper masks that work), financial support if they need to stay indoors, positive messaging about protecting the vulnerable, priority delivery slots.... There’s loads of things we could try but haven’t for some reason....

But you're talking about some of the most vulnerable people in society. People with complex health needs. People who need 24 hour care. How can you ensure these people are effectively shielded with the amount of external support they require?

I think the reason the 'experts' aren't advocating some of the 'common sense' solutions proposed on here is they actually know what they're talking about. Things are not as straightforward as some assume.

But that's still happening now anyway, so I don't see how that is a drawback.

But surely by suppressing the prevalence of Covid in the community you are reducing risk of exposure? If we no longer care about suppressing the virus you are increasing the risk to these people.

 

[MikeWM]

But surely by suppressing the prevalence of Covid in the community you are reducing risk of exposure? If we no longer care about suppressing the virus you are increasing the risk to these people.

Which is why they need special, targeted measures for a short while.

In the end, we have to either ask vulnerable people to accept there may be an increased risk for a little while - and try to protect them as best we can for that time - or carry on like this, where the vulnerable are at slightly less risk - but over a much longer period of time - and can't do anything more than exist and hope for a future that doesn't appear to be in sight.

For example, I know someone who has various complex medical issues and she shielded religiously between March and August. She doesn't know what to do now - she had a full life before, now she is merely existing, not seeing her family or friends, not going to religious services, not going anywhere... People like that need an end to this, they can't continue like this for much longer.

 

[Yew]

Would it be *perfect* - no. Some vulnerable people would still be exposed. But that's still happening now anyway, so I don't see how that is a drawback.

Indeed, I honestly don't understand the 'shielding is not 100% effective argument' - neither was lockdown

 

[Carlisle]

Letting it rip and denying people healthcare is not an acceptable option

Almost nobody’s suggesting just letting it rip, but the fact we’ve spent eight months attempting to make our existences Covid secure should sufficiently ensure its wont just burn like lightning through virtually the entire UK population either, as Sweden appear to have successfully realised without a national lockdown

 

[StationTown]

Which is why they need special, targeted measures for a short while.

In the end, we have to either ask vulnerable people to accept there may be an increased risk for a little while - and try to protect them as best we can for that time - or carry on like this, where the vulnerable are at slightly less risk - but over a much longer period of time - and can't do anything more than exist and hope for a future that doesn't appear to be in sight.

For example, I know someone who has various complex medical issues and she shielded religiously between March and August. She doesn't know what to do now - she had a full life before, now she is merely existing, not seeing her family or friends, not going to religious services, not going anywhere... People like that need an end to this, they can't continue like this for much longer.

My point is that qualified people have clearly considered such a shielding strategy and feel it will not be effective, especially for those most reliant on health and social care services. Personally, I trust these people in their judgement. Also, many vulnerable people, due to the nature of their disability, would be unable to give their consent to such a policy so we would essentially be making the decision on their behalf. With doubts as to whether we could effectively keep these people safe, I think it becomes very problematic.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Nobody is suggesting letting it rip

Other than shielding, there is at least one person on here who is doing exactly that.

 

[Domh245]

My point is that qualified people have clearly considered such a shielding strategy and feel it will not be effective, especially for those most reliant on health and social care services. Personally, I trust these people in their judgement.

I think you've got a fair point here, and it's a timely reminder about the old maxim - "For every problem there is a solution that is simple, neat—and wrong."

What would be nice, and would help put that idea to bed would be some evidence as to why it's impossible or ineffective. Doesn't have to be a full briefing with Whitty, Valance, and Van Tam, just a SAGE paper or something explaining why it's impractical and we won't try it rather than the current approach (of both the Government and people on here/other social media) of just stating "no it's not possible" with little in the way of justification

 

[Yew]

My point is that qualified people have clearly considered such a shielding strategy and feel it will not be effective, especially for those most reliant on health and social care services. Personally, I trust these people in their judgement. Also, many vulnerable people, due to the nature of their disability, would be unable to give their consent to such a policy so we would essentially be making the decision on their behalf. With doubts as to whether we could effectively keep these people safe, I think it becomes very problematic.

Equally, qualified people have also advocated it.

I think you've got a fair point here, and it's a timely reminder about the old maxim - "For every problem there is a solution that is simple, neat—and wrong."

What would be nice, and would help put that idea to bed would be some evidence as to why it's impossible or ineffective. Doesn't have to be a full briefing with Whitty, Valance, and Van Tam, just a SAGE paper or something explaining why it's impractical and we won't try it rather than the current approach (of both the Government and people on here/other social media) of just stating "no it's not possible" with little in the way of justification

I quite enjoyed Sturgeons "it's unethical' statement, with no justification or discussion.

 

[Howardh]

I don't think it's that straightforward. How do we effectively shield the over 75s (or other extremely vulnerable people of a younger age)?

Well if we haven't been shielding them since, say, July 4th, then they should now all be in hospital or worse?

 

[StationTown]

What would be nice, and would help put that idea to bed would be some evidence as to why it's impossible or ineffective. Doesn't have to be a full briefing with Whitty, Valance, and Van Tam, just a SAGE paper or something explaining why it's impractical and we won't try it rather than the current approach (of both the Government and people on here/other social media) of just stating "no it's not possible" with little in the way of justification

Yes, agree communication is important. I have heard the topic discussed once or twice on TV/radio but communication of strategy needs to be better.

Well if we haven't been shielding them since, say, July 4th, then they should now all be in hospital or worse?

But I guess infection level in community has been very low. What people seem to be proposing is shield certain people then allow virus to spread freely through remaining population. This is off topic though. My point is about experts and why I think it's a good idea to listen to them.

 

[jtuk]

I don't think it's that straightforward. How do we effectively shield the over 75s (or other extremely vulnerable people of a younger age)?

We can't shield a small percentage of the population, so let's try to shield everyone instead?

 

[MikeWM]

Other than shielding, there is at least one person on here who is doing exactly that.

It depends on what we mean by 'let it rip'.

We need to burn the virus through the young and healthy as quickly as possible - while shielding the elderly and vulnerable as best as we can. I've been consistently saying that since March (on here, since mid-May). If we'd done that in March or even May, it would be pretty much all over now.

That's why the large outbreaks at Universities we're seeing are a good thing - outbreaks largely between young, healthy people. If that is 'letting it rip' then I'm all for it.

 

[big_rig]

We can't shield a small percentage of the population, so let's try to shield everyone instead?

Quite. And of those people, none of them under 50 will be given any potential vaccine anyway if/when it is developed anyway.

As the Prime Minister roughly said earlier this year, it's a pandemic, and not every single person is going to come out of it alive, which is sad, but the hard truth. Trying to save every single last life will make the lives of both those one is trying to save and the entirety of the rest of the population as well utterly miserable, with terrible long term health and economic consequences that future generations will be picking up the bill for. Oh to be back in March!