Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Jacksgranda]

1 minute ago, Granny Danger said:

The Lib Dems should be all over it.

What about the Greens? The SNP have a majority at Holyrood, do they not? Or are they/have they been "propped up" by the Greens?

(I should know this stuff!!)

[bendan]

5 hours ago, madwullie said:

But that's what England have done. Really. What is different now, what is in place that wasn't all those, what, 8 weeks ago? They've started testing TTI and that's about it. But it's not ready. They opened without having the TTI  ready the purpose of which wa sto allow them to open more safely. Absolute bonkers. 

The only weapon(s) they have if cases spike again (and there's no reason to believe they won't) are further lockdown or take it on the chin. All their lockdown has been used for is slow the spread and given time to build capacity - all reactive solutions, nothing at all proactive. 

Other countries used their lockdown to prepare. Scotland *seem* to be although the jury is firmly out. 

 

Edit: I've just read a report from SK that said x number of cases had occurred due to the opening of exercise classes, especially high intensity ones had infection issues (they had absolute numbers). However, classes with less than 5 participants had zero cases. This is useful data brought about by TTI that can help shape future policy and ensure public safety. Can you imagine anything similar being posted about the UK now? We don't have anything in place that let's us evaluate this stuff to that level of detail, so it seems we/they actually have opened up with no plan beyond hoping for the best and seeing what happens. 

We'll never have the level of detail of SK because of privacy issues first and foremost.

I don't know what existing TTI capacity England had, but given there's still not much in the way of social activity allowed, it's not really like going back to where they were. I think they're gambling a bit on current trends continuing, whereas we are waiting, with the time lag, to see what actually happens, or happened, before opening up a bit more. 

[supermik]

There is now just under 0.4% of the British population tested positive for the virus.
Approximately  14% of that figure have died.

That makes the total deaths linked to the virus as just over 0.05% of the population.

 

What time do the pubs open?

[hk blues]

Just now, supermik said:

There is now just under 0.4% of the British population tested positive for the virus.
Approximately  14% of that figure have died.

That makes the total deaths linked to the virus as just over 0.05% of the population.

 

What time do the pubs open?

August!

[Donathan]

kinda terrifying that someone's reaction to those 2 numbers is to want lockdown lifted faster

Well, no. You need to remember that there’s selection bias in the people that have tested positive for the virus because the majority of tests are aimed at the more serious cases.

For the vast majority, this virus is effectively just the sniffles. The nationwide curtailing of civil freedoms should be opposed at all junctures.

[Donathan]

Serology suggests about 5% of folk have had it, right?

I neither know this, nor care.

[Donathan]

Serology suggests about 5% of folk have had it, right?

The most pessimistic studies are assuming 1% IFR (infection fatality ratio)

That suggests around 3.5m cases in the UK (5% as you rightly suggest)

Other models believe the virus spreads more easily but is much less fatal. The most optimistic models are using 0.2% IFR (1 death per 500 cases), suggesting 25% of the population has had covid.

[mizfit]

170 deaths recorded across the UK yesterday. I’m presuming that we’ll see a jump into the 300’s today because of data lag.

[Donathan]

170 deaths recorded across the UK yesterday. I’m presuming that we’ll see a jump into the 300’s today because of data lag.

More likely tomorrow. A lot of labs won’t have recorded deaths yesterday (Sunday) to go into today’s figures, since we don’t really work on Sundays in this country.

[Donathan]

I do. Crude maths says 30k deaths at 5% = 600k at 100%. That's a lot of dead grandparents.

Eh more like 360k at 60% and then it fizzles out.

The idea is:

If the population is completely susceptible (no one is immune) and no social distancing is going on then one patient infects 2.5 on average.

Now say 20% are immune, that drops R0 down to 2 because 1/5 of those potential victims the patient meets is already immune.

Once 60% of the population is immune, R0 is 2.5 * 40% = 1, so any outbreak wont grow exponentially and will just fizzle out once it reaches a patient who doesn’t mingle with anyone in the 40%.

[bendan]

31 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

Serology suggests about 5% of folk have had it, right?

We haven't had any clear info confirmed yet - Vallance seemed to say it was around that, but that would have only been from infections happening up to early April. PHE England seem to think it's currently a bit over 10% of the English population (their estimate range is from about 5m to 8m). Their estimate of the IFR was 0.63%.

Edited May 18, 2020 by bendan

[Todd_is_God]

29 minutes ago, Donathan said:

You need to remember that there’s selection bias in the people that have tested positive for the virus because the majority of tests are aimed at the more serious cases.

 

 

I don't know if that's still true.

Up here, for example, a month or so ago we were testing around 1,200 new people a day of which 33% were positive.

Yesterday that number was around 2,000 new people, with just 4.4% positive.

[Donathan]

Oh that's OK then [emoji849]

 

That’s also assuming a 1% IFR which is the most pessimistic assumption that is considered to be reasonable at the moment. I would opt for 0.7% which is a more likely best estimate. 1 death per 143 cases.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Oh that's OK then [emoji849]

In 50 years when covid-69 is the big threat it would be interesting to revisit this and see what the ‘its ok when old people die’ type posters of today feel when their kids suggest the same.

[madwullie]

15 minutes ago, Donathan said:

Eh more like 360k at 60% and then it fizzles out.

The idea is:

If the population is completely susceptible (no one is immune) and no social distancing is going on then one patient infects 2.5 on average.

Now say 20% are immune, that drops R0 down to 2 because 1/5 of those potential victims the patient meets is already immune.

Once 60% of the population is immune, R0 is 2.5 * 40% = 1, so any outbreak wont grow exponentially and will just fizzle out once it reaches a patient who doesn’t mingle with anyone in the 40%.

Fizzles out is wrong. Plus some sources have suggested 80% required for head immunity. Plus, it doesn't stop at (let's use your figure) 60%. People in the other 40% can still catch it, it's called overshoot. Your optimistic 60% looks more like 70-75 by the time the virus actually stops spreading. And like I said, 60% is a very optimistic number

[Donathan]

Fizzles out is wrong. Plus some sources have suggested 80% required for head immunity. Plus, it doesn't stop at (let's use your figure) 60%. People in the other 40% can still catch it, it's called overshoot. Your optimistic 60% looks more like 70-75 by the time the virus actually stops spreading. And like I said, 60% is a very optimistic number

 

Herd immunity just means the effective reproduction factor is below 1. It’s the same reason why those who are unvaccinated (due to health reasons, or because they are anti-vaxxers by choice) don’t catch measles all the time.

 

To require 80% would mean that the R0 would need to be >5 (because only 20% of people are susceptible), so really that’s not the case unless you’re looking at an incredibly potent infection such as measles.

[Donathan]

Working to the most pessimistic assumption would be my minimum expecation of how our public health experts manage this.

When it comes to PPE hoarding, setting up extra capacity and investing in treatments I agree. However not when it comes to house arresting the healthy population.

[bendan]

4 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

In 50 years when covid-69 is the big threat it would be interesting to revisit this and see what the ‘its ok when old people die’ type posters of today feel when their kids suggest the same.

The irony for me is that the general policy of the NHS is that it's ok for old people to die, mainly because they wouldn't be able to afford trying desperately to prolong the life of every 80+ person with underlying health conditions that ended up in A&E. When my dad passed away at the age of 87, they told me (and him) that there was 'nothing they could offer'. Everyone knew they didn't mean that there were no possible solutions, it was just that they were expensive, invasive, and unlikely to be very successful in someone of his age. He was absolutely fine with that - it's basically what you have to accept in a socialised medical service, and my dad very much believed in the need for the NHS.

Before anyone has a go at me, I'm not suggesting that means I think we should just let people over 70 die of Covid-19. I just think we're in danger of losing perspective on things.

[Donathan]

In 50 years when covid-69 is the big threat it would be interesting to revisit this and see what the ‘its ok when old people die’ type posters of today feel when their kids suggest the same.

I’d rather have a life worth living and end up dead than allow my quality of life to be rotted away to the nth degree.

Quite a few reports of young people committing suicide due to the lockdown. That for me is more tragic than those who died from coronavirus. People becoming sick and dying naturally happens all the time, but it’s an incredible tragedy when society makes life literally not worth living for some younger people that have so much left to give to the world.

[welshbairn]

Young people top themselves all the time too. A couple of months of the pubs being closed isn't exactly being banged up in Barlinnie.