COVID19

[Marky147]

Just linking this because it’s mildly interesting that Jeremy Hunt likes it:

https://twitter.com/mojitobab/status/1250458634980659201?s=21

New bird, Kush?

[kukushkin88]

The public talking about strategy is vital. There will be a choice that needs making, when does the lockdown end?

In reality there is going to be a trade off, lower deaths, but decreased economic activity, or more deaths but a better economy.

100k deaths and 5m unemployed or 500k deaths and 1m unemployed.

A Goldilocks solution of heathy economy and low deaths is probably not possible.

The public and politicians should be talking about the real options that the country faces not distractions.

I agree but lots of what does get discussed is linked. The length and extent of the lockdown will shape the release. The capacity to test will shape the release, the ability to provide adequate PPE will shape the release (53 healthcare workers have died now), the ability to get money to business to enable them to survive, will shape the release and the recovery.

The discussion to be had is which outcome are we aiming for, all of the above is important irrespective of the goal.

Talk about ventilators has gone quiet, the nightingale hospitals seem to be solving a problem that has not / maybe will not happen.

There are lots of interesting questions to await the answers of:

Why are smokers not being affected?
What is the role of il-6 gene, and given its prevalence in the black / Asian community, what effect will it have on healthcare workers, where minorities make up so much of the staff.
Will any commentator in the media actually change there mind on any subject following CV19, or is that impossible.

I agree with that - the outcome so far is as good as was aimed for but leaves more questions than it answers in many ways.

Is that true about smokers - my mum sent me something showing smokers were more at risk to try and get me to stop - naturally I resisted as I fear nothing....and am quite stupid too.

What are we measuring for "the outcome so far is as good as was aimed for"?

We're already past the top end of the fatalities, we were told 20,000 was the top end, then we were told that number was a good outcome by Vallance and Powis. Once we have ONS data up to today, we'll see that we're already well past 20,000. Can't be an economic target that we're pleased with. About 15% of the way to the testing target, can't be that. Massive PPE shortage, a problem that we aren't able to resolve. 53 Healthcare workers dead.

"we were told 20,000 was the top end"

When were we told this?

I'm not saying it hasn't been said, but I remember the exact words, "we'll be doing well if we can keep deaths below 20,000" at one of the earlier daily briefings. That wouldn't seem to tie up while suspiciously being the same number.

Government were working to the IC/Neil Ferguson model as far as we know. I can’t find a better transcript of what was said but this pretty much covers it. Vallance and Powis have both consistently referred to it (below 20,000) as a “good outcome”.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/m.economictimes.com/news/international/world-news/uk-coronavirus-deaths-could-reach-7000-to-20000-neil-ferguson/amp_articleshow/74992928.cms

Just found this, which is better, contains lots of the evidence given to the select committee:

https://reason.com/2020/03/27/no-british-epidemiologist-neil-ferguson-has-not-drastically-downgraded-his-worst-case-projection-of-covid-19-deaths/

[kukushkin88]

Just linking this because it’s mildly interesting that Jeremy Hunt likes it:

https://twitter.com/mojitobab/status/1250458634980659201?s=21

New bird, Kush?

lol, things are pretty desperate in quarantine. I’m not even sure why I saw this tweet. Must be because I follow Jeremy Hunt. Do you know what FBPE means?

[Marky147]

No idea, lol.

She seems as delightful as the woman who is always fawning over The Donald in the other thread.

[nirvana]

Hashtag for the most ardent pro EU posters on twitter, often heard mumbling to themselves that they'd do more than milkshake Farage if they had a chance

Follow Back Pro Europe - it was the rallying point for twitterland to convince itself that the country was pro EU, pro 2nd ref etc because so many pro EU people had large twitter followings - it spread like a virus

[Jon MW]

...

"we were told 20,000 was the top end"

When were we told this?

I'm not saying it hasn't been said, but I remember the exact words, "we'll be doing well if we can keep deaths below 20,000" at one of the earlier daily briefings. That wouldn't seem to tie up while suspiciously being the same number.

Government were working to the IC/Neil Ferguson model as far as we know. I can’t find a better transcript of what was said but this pretty much covers it. Vallance and Powis have both consistently referred to it (below 20,000) as a “good outcome”.

...

Just found this, which is better, contains lots of the evidence given to the select committee:

https://reason.com/2020/03/27/no-british-epidemiologist-neil-ferguson-has-not-drastically-downgraded-his-worst-case-projection-of-covid-19-deaths/

Yes, 7000 as the low estimate seems weirdly optimistic (although that is a 2nd (3rd?) hand report), but the select committee information doesn't really say much different to what I remembered.

Early on they said - we'll be doing good if we can keep deaths below 20,000

And in that report, was revised to - we think we will keep it to around 20,000

As the headline states, "No, British Epidemiologist Neil Ferguson Has Not 'Drastically Downgraded' His Worst-Case Projection of COVID-19 Deaths", they had a range of modelling data and they moved where they thought the model was pointing to. It might move again, it might not. All in all it seems quite far away from saying they think that's the maximum possible. Also, haven't we just had an ONS update? Shouldn't we know the extra figures? The last lot I saw suggested 90% of COVID19 deaths were in hospital so I'm not sure how much they would affect the total figure.

NB: In terms of modelling changing their targets - the model which predicted 66,000 deaths by August is now predicting the low 20k's.

[neeko]

The public talking about strategy is vital. There will be a choice that needs making, when does the lockdown end?

In reality there is going to be a trade off, lower deaths, but decreased economic activity, or more deaths but a better economy.

100k deaths and 5m unemployed or 500k deaths and 1m unemployed.

A Goldilocks solution of heathy economy and low deaths is probably not possible.

The public and politicians should be talking about the real options that the country faces not distractions.

I agree but lots of what does get discussed is linked. The length and extent of the lockdown will shape the release. The capacity to test will shape the release, the ability to provide adequate PPE will shape the release (53 healthcare workers have died now), the ability to get money to business to enable them to survive, will shape the release and the recovery.

The discussion to be had is which outcome are we aiming for, all of the above is important irrespective of the goal.

Talk about ventilators has gone quiet, the nightingale hospitals seem to be solving a problem that has not / maybe will not happen.

There are lots of interesting questions to await the answers of:

Why are smokers not being affected?
What is the role of il-6 gene, and given its prevalence in the black / Asian community, what effect will it have on healthcare workers, where minorities make up so much of the staff.
Will any commentator in the media actually change there mind on any subject following CV19, or is that impossible.

I agree with that - the outcome so far is as good as was aimed for but leaves more questions than it answers in many ways.

Is that true about smokers - my mum sent me something showing smokers were more at risk to try and get me to stop - naturally I resisted as I fear nothing....and am quite stupid too.

Reading up about smoking and anything is like going down a rabbit hole, anyone who says anything positive about smoking is assumed to be being paid by the tabcco lobby, but anyway.

In the USA only 1.3% of CV19 hospitalisations smoked when 15% of the population smokes (n=7162)

Other counties have similar results.

Smoking kills 7m people a year so net net probably best not to.

https://mobile.twitter.com/klauskblog/status/1245544033272938496

[nirvana]

That's interesting, I wasn't quite sure what the last 2 sentences meant so I'll take the initial evidence :-) Together with Marky's point about colitis and be confident I'm on the right course.

Probably invincible now because I've ramped up smoking levels since working from home, garden's only a few steps away and no-one can see me.

[Doobs]

This is starting to grate.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-ferguson/uk-coronavirus-deaths-could-reach-7000-to-20000-ferguson-idUSKBN21N0BN

We know that 7,000 can't be a possibility, as we are at 4,000 and rising; I know it went down today, but it is a Sunday do reporting is likely to slow.  Add to that lag in reporting, nursing home deaths, unknown cause deaths, people who have died alone, and unless they get a perfect vaccine, a 2nd wave seems a near certainty.  

20,000 is nowhere near the max either.   We "think" the rules should work, we cannot know they will work.  And the final numbers in scenarios where the rules don't work are subject to much more uncertain outcomes (we don't know the current infected population, how far it spreads, reinfections etc.).

bump.   It wasn't like he had no data, or it was early in the pandemic, it was a week and a half ago.   The prediction was farcical as noted at the time.  You give a range rather than a single figure to cover the uncertainty.

I have no idea why he did this, it just wrecks his credibility.  

[kukushkin88]

...

"we were told 20,000 was the top end"

When were we told this?

I'm not saying it hasn't been said, but I remember the exact words, "we'll be doing well if we can keep deaths below 20,000" at one of the earlier daily briefings. That wouldn't seem to tie up while suspiciously being the same number.

Government were working to the IC/Neil Ferguson model as far as we know. I can’t find a better transcript of what was said but this pretty much covers it. Vallance and Powis have both consistently referred to it (below 20,000) as a “good outcome”.

...

Just found this, which is better, contains lots of the evidence given to the select committee:

https://reason.com/2020/03/27/no-british-epidemiologist-neil-ferguson-has-not-drastically-downgraded-his-worst-case-projection-of-covid-19-deaths/

Yes, 7000 as the low estimate seems weirdly optimistic (although that is a 2nd (3rd?) hand report), but the select committee information doesn't really say much different to what I remembered.

Early on they said - we'll be doing good if we can keep deaths below 20,000

And in that report, was revised to - we think we will keep it to around 20,000

As the headline states, "No, British Epidemiologist Neil Ferguson Has Not 'Drastically Downgraded' His Worst-Case Projection of COVID-19 Deaths", they had a range of modelling data and they moved where they thought the model was pointing to. It might move again, it might not. All in all it seems quite far away from saying they think that's the maximum possible. Also, haven't we just had an ONS update? Shouldn't we know the extra figures? The last lot I saw suggested 90% of COVID19 deaths were in hospital so I'm not sure how much they would affect the total figure.

NB: In terms of modelling changing their targets - the model which predicted 66,000 deaths by August is now predicting the low 20k's.

It does seem almost certain, once we’ve accounted for the reporting lags, that we are already in the low 20k’s. Whitty indicated big numbers coming the next two days, after the long weekend lag.

[Jon MW]

This is starting to grate.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-ferguson/uk-coronavirus-deaths-could-reach-7000-to-20000-ferguson-idUSKBN21N0BN

We know that 7,000 can't be a possibility, as we are at 4,000 and rising; I know it went down today, but it is a Sunday do reporting is likely to slow.  Add to that lag in reporting, nursing home deaths, unknown cause deaths, people who have died alone, and unless they get a perfect vaccine, a 2nd wave seems a near certainty.  

20,000 is nowhere near the max either.   We "think" the rules should work, we cannot know they will work.  And the final numbers in scenarios where the rules don't work are subject to much more uncertain outcomes (we don't know the current infected population, how far it spreads, reinfections etc.).

bump.   It wasn't like he had no data, or it was early in the pandemic, it was a week and a half ago.   The prediction was farcical as noted at the time.  You give a range rather than a single figure to cover the uncertainty.

I have no idea why he did this, it just wrecks his credibility.  

I'm confused by some of these dates. That Reuters article was on the 5th April and said the statement was made on Sunday. The 5th of April was a Sunday so either they meant 'today' or they meant the 30th March.

But the article Kush linked to was from the 27th March, and links to a tweet about it by him from the 26th March -and this was all in relation to information given to the a Select Committee on the 25th.

Obviously if he repeated it without taking into account extra data that would be foolish - but it looks like he gave information to the Select Committee when we were only 2 or 3 days into the extra lockdown measures and restrictions - which kind of makes sense for the phrasing used which emphasised about - if everyone rigidly sticks - to these measures.

[Doobs]

The public talking about strategy is vital. There will be a choice that needs making, when does the lockdown end?

In reality there is going to be a trade off, lower deaths, but decreased economic activity, or more deaths but a better economy.

100k deaths and 5m unemployed or 500k deaths and 1m unemployed.

A Goldilocks solution of heathy economy and low deaths is probably not possible.

The public and politicians should be talking about the real options that the country faces not distractions.

I agree but lots of what does get discussed is linked. The length and extent of the lockdown will shape the release. The capacity to test will shape the release, the ability to provide adequate PPE will shape the release (53 healthcare workers have died now), the ability to get money to business to enable them to survive, will shape the release and the recovery.

The discussion to be had is which outcome are we aiming for, all of the above is important irrespective of the goal.

Talk about ventilators has gone quiet, the nightingale hospitals seem to be solving a problem that has not / maybe will not happen.

There are lots of interesting questions to await the answers of:

Why are smokers not being affected?
What is the role of il-6 gene, and given its prevalence in the black / Asian community, what effect will it have on healthcare workers, where minorities make up so much of the staff.
Will any commentator in the media actually change there mind on any subject following CV19, or is that impossible.

I agree with that - the outcome so far is as good as was aimed for but leaves more questions than it answers in many ways.

Is that true about smokers - my mum sent me something showing smokers were more at risk to try and get me to stop - naturally I resisted as I fear nothing....and am quite stupid too.

Reading up about smoking and anything is like going down a rabbit hole, anyone who says anything positive about smoking is assumed to be being paid by the tabcco lobby, but anyway.

In the USA only 1.3% of CV19 hospitalisations smoked when 15% of the population smokes (n=7162)

Other counties have similar results.

Smoking kills 7m people a year so net net probably best not to.

https://mobile.twitter.com/klauskblog/status/1245544033272938496

I'd say it is far more likely to be bad data than the truth.  If they had put together data from multiple clinical trials and only one had asked about smoking habits then you can get this kind of odd result.   There might have been a chance that something about smokers that led to reduced risk, but this is so far removed from this kind of effect that I think it can be assumed to be bad analysis.

He is a reference to a study of smoking outcomes.  I am sure I can find more.

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-covid-19-risk-and-smoking.html

A lot of the other causes of rising mortality in COVID are linked to smoking too.  I think it is safe to assume that smoking isn't going to help for now.

[Doobs]

This is starting to grate.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-ferguson/uk-coronavirus-deaths-could-reach-7000-to-20000-ferguson-idUSKBN21N0BN

We know that 7,000 can't be a possibility, as we are at 4,000 and rising; I know it went down today, but it is a Sunday do reporting is likely to slow.  Add to that lag in reporting, nursing home deaths, unknown cause deaths, people who have died alone, and unless they get a perfect vaccine, a 2nd wave seems a near certainty.  

20,000 is nowhere near the max either.   We "think" the rules should work, we cannot know they will work.  And the final numbers in scenarios where the rules don't work are subject to much more uncertain outcomes (we don't know the current infected population, how far it spreads, reinfections etc.).

bump.   It wasn't like he had no data, or it was early in the pandemic, it was a week and a half ago.   The prediction was farcical as noted at the time.  You give a range rather than a single figure to cover the uncertainty.

I have no idea why he did this, it just wrecks his credibility.  

I'm confused by some of these dates. That Reuters article was on the 5th April and said the statement was made on Sunday. The 5th of April was a Sunday so either they meant 'today' or they meant the 30th March.

But the article Kush linked to was from the 27th March, and links to a tweet about it by him from the 26th March -and this was all in relation to information given to the a Select Committee on the 25th.

Obviously if he repeated it without taking into account extra data that would be foolish - but it looks like he gave information to the Select Committee when we were only 2 or 3 days into the extra lockdown measures and restrictions - which kind of makes sense for the phrasing used which emphasised about - if everyone rigidly sticks - to these measures.

5th April

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p088qgkl

About 4 minutes in he says 7,000 or so to a little over 20,000.   

It just seemed very odd at the time, as I stated 7,000 just seemed an impossible result and a little over 20,000 was never the max.   Maybe he just isn't very good on a Sunday morning, or just wasn't that close to those doing the modelling?  I did think wtf when I heard it.

[kukushkin88]

This is starting to grate.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-ferguson/uk-coronavirus-deaths-could-reach-7000-to-20000-ferguson-idUSKBN21N0BN

We know that 7,000 can't be a possibility, as we are at 4,000 and rising; I know it went down today, but it is a Sunday do reporting is likely to slow.  Add to that lag in reporting, nursing home deaths, unknown cause deaths, people who have died alone, and unless they get a perfect vaccine, a 2nd wave seems a near certainty.  

20,000 is nowhere near the max either.   We "think" the rules should work, we cannot know they will work.  And the final numbers in scenarios where the rules don't work are subject to much more uncertain outcomes (we don't know the current infected population, how far it spreads, reinfections etc.).

bump.   It wasn't like he had no data, or it was early in the pandemic, it was a week and a half ago.   The prediction was farcical as noted at the time.  You give a range rather than a single figure to cover the uncertainty.

I have no idea why he did this, it just wrecks his credibility.  

I'm confused by some of these dates. That Reuters article was on the 5th April and said the statement was made on Sunday. The 5th of April was a Sunday so either they meant 'today' or they meant the 30th March.

But the article Kush linked to was from the 27th March, and links to a tweet about it by him from the 26th March -and this was all in relation to information given to the a Select Committee on the 25th.

Obviously if he repeated it without taking into account extra data that would be foolish - but it looks like he gave information to the Select Committee when we were only 2 or 3 days into the extra lockdown measures and restrictions - which kind of makes sense for the phrasing used which emphasised about - if everyone rigidly sticks - to these measures.

5th April

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p088qgkl

About 4 minutes in he says 7,000 or so to a little over 20,000.   

It just seemed very odd at the time, as I stated 7,000 just seemed an impossible result and a little over 20,000 was never the max.   Maybe he just isn't very good on a Sunday morning, or just wasn't that close to those doing the modelling?  I did think wtf when I heard it.

He did have Coronavirus and was certainly suffering in the week prior to when he most recently cited those figures. Not really an excuse (and he doesn’t need me making excuses for him) but you could understand if he didn’t have his a game that day.

[Jon MW]

This is starting to grate.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-ferguson/uk-coronavirus-deaths-could-reach-7000-to-20000-ferguson-idUSKBN21N0BN

We know that 7,000 can't be a possibility, as we are at 4,000 and rising; I know it went down today, but it is a Sunday do reporting is likely to slow.  Add to that lag in reporting, nursing home deaths, unknown cause deaths, people who have died alone, and unless they get a perfect vaccine, a 2nd wave seems a near certainty.  

20,000 is nowhere near the max either.   We "think" the rules should work, we cannot know they will work.  And the final numbers in scenarios where the rules don't work are subject to much more uncertain outcomes (we don't know the current infected population, how far it spreads, reinfections etc.).

bump.   It wasn't like he had no data, or it was early in the pandemic, it was a week and a half ago.   The prediction was farcical as noted at the time.  You give a range rather than a single figure to cover the uncertainty.

I have no idea why he did this, it just wrecks his credibility.  

I'm confused by some of these dates. That Reuters article was on the 5th April and said the statement was made on Sunday. The 5th of April was a Sunday so either they meant 'today' or they meant the 30th March.

But the article Kush linked to was from the 27th March, and links to a tweet about it by him from the 26th March -and this was all in relation to information given to the a Select Committee on the 25th.

Obviously if he repeated it without taking into account extra data that would be foolish - but it looks like he gave information to the Select Committee when we were only 2 or 3 days into the extra lockdown measures and restrictions - which kind of makes sense for the phrasing used which emphasised about - if everyone rigidly sticks - to these measures.

5th April

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p088qgkl

About 4 minutes in he says 7,000 or so to a little over 20,000.   

It just seemed very odd at the time, as I stated 7,000 just seemed an impossible result and a little over 20,000 was never the max.   Maybe he just isn't very good on a Sunday morning, or just wasn't that close to those doing the modelling?  I did think wtf when I heard it.

Given this is basically the exact same thing he said to the select committee on the 25th it seems quite like he just repeated what he had already come up with before - it does seem pretty odd that he wouldn't have been a bit more cautious given the time that had elapsed even taken into account his (presumed) lack of media training.

For context on the 25th the UK deaths were 578, so 7000 at that point might not have seemed so unlikely.

I don't think 20 something thousand is necessarily unlikely now, it all depends on how much of a plateau we have (not counting any second or third waves though)