COVID19

[neeko]

I suspect the Brexit thing will become irrelevant as the EU will implode / explode and therefore we won’t have any EU institution to deal with.

Now is the time to help other countries, if the UK can make 10/100/1000 ventilators each day, it should give 10 % to other counties that can’t make their own. This export of ventilators would kill people in the UK(because they are not in use here) but should still be done.

What is the end game for this pandemic in the UK and the world, lock down everyone, no physical meeting of anyone at all. Do this for 2- 4 years while they look for a vaccine that is effective and is safe. This will kill 10”s of thousands of people in the UK from medical complications that can’t be solved, and domestic violence in addition to CV19 deaths, which should petter out as people stop passing the virus to each other. The economic contraction will kill many too as the country won’t be able to afford the health care we once had.

The alternative is that the country locks up the over 70s so they are cocooned and then tries to get the virus to pass through the population as rapidly as we can cope with the hospitalisation rates to help the pneumonia cases recover. There will be ventilators setup in lines in village halls to help those affected. Death rates will be huge, but better than doing nothing.

I fear 1 won’t happen as there is not the discipline to keep this in place long enough. 2 won’t happen as people won’t accept the deaths. I suspect that we will go in waves from one to the other, lockdown > get bored > cases escalate and too many die > lockdown and loop.

We will end up with an app on your phone giving your CV19 status, if you have had the virus then you will be free to move around, these people will be the workers for the next few months / years.

Oops that went a bit TL/DR

[kukushkin88]

It’s a little surprising this is dividing down political lines but since it has....

I think a good way to try and understand how slow and pathetic our governments response is, is to think what countries like Italy would do if they could wind back the clock and act decisively two weeks earlier. We have very few respirators relative to equivalent European nations *. How did we think we would be different? Catastrophic for Boris to come up against an enemy that can’t be influenced by his bullshit and rhetoric laden clown act. Certainly seems likely we’ll top the death totals at some stage.

* https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00134-012-2627-8/figures/1

A good time to revisit the excellent article Doobs linked:

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca

When I was in for my kidney surgery at the beginning of December, there were already onco-urology wards so over stretched that the patients who’d been there the longest were looking after the newer patients, as well as having to provide guidance to agency nursing staff, it’s nearly impossible to overstate how badly this will go for the U.K and it’s decimated health service.

Tbf. You literally know nothing but are talking as though you are an authority. It's just so pointless

I don’t quite know “nothing”, I have two science based degrees and have worked in a scientific field for most of the last 17 years, it’s almost irrelevant but not totally, I’d reckon it puts me slightly in front of a lay person for understanding the situation. More than that though, I am unable to work due to the immunotherapy and so I can spend nearly all my time trying to learn from people much more better informed and knowledgeable* than I am. Woodsey is right that we won’t know for certain for a very long time but the U.K. is clearly going to fall in line with everyone quickly, there’ll be another panicked change of direction once todays deaths are announced. School closures incoming.

* The fact that we are very short respirator wise for example is just a number that can’t be disputed.

[Jon MW]

.. there’ll be another panicked change of direction once todays deaths are announced. School closures incoming.

* The fact that we are very short respirator wise for example is just a number that can’t be disputed.

Yes to the respirator bit - and yes to the NHS 'could' be better equipped (although that obviously has the proviso that if the NHS had been kept at full post-Blair operational capacity - what would have been sacrificed to pay for it?)

But - closing the schools was always part of the plan.

Things move fast in an epidemic - what isn't appropriate to do one day. might be the appropriate thing to do a couple of days later.

In terms of party politics - the government seem to be pretty much following expert advice; you can get your expert advice elsewhere - but their action all along have seemed to pretty closely tie in with the modelling that's been shown (and the implication of what the modelling was before they refined it).

I'm not defending the politics - I'm defending the science and maths.


If you wanted to add politics to it. The modelling specifically states that it is not looking at any moral implications - that's for the public policy makers to introduce after they interpret the advice. It could be argued that the government are being guided too much by the science and maybe should apply a bit more humanity to it.

[RED-DOG]

Biggest event in our lifetime?

[kukushkin88]

.. there’ll be another panicked change of direction once todays deaths are announced. School closures incoming.

* The fact that we are very short respirator wise for example is just a number that can’t be disputed.

Yes to the respirator bit - and yes to the NHS 'could' be better equipped (although that obviously has the proviso that if the NHS had been kept at full post-Blair operational capacity - what would have been sacrificed to pay for it?)

But - closing the schools was always part of the plan.

Things move fast in an epidemic - what isn't appropriate to do one day. might be the appropriate thing to do a couple of days later.

In terms of party politics - the government seem to be pretty much following expert advice; you can get your expert advice elsewhere - but their action all along have seemed to pretty closely tie in with the modelling that's been shown (and the implication of what the modelling was before they refined it).

I'm not defending the politics - I'm defending the science and maths.


If you wanted to add politics to it. The modelling specifically states that it is not looking at any moral implications - that's for the public policy makers to introduce after they interpret the advice. It could be argued that the government are being guided too much by the science and maybe should apply a bit more humanity to it.

The last paragraph certainly makes a good point. I’m also keen not to try and appear wise after the event, it’s just as much of a dick move here as in gambling. On Thursday last week Vallance said we were “4 weeks” behind Italy, yesterday 3. I think my point remains valid to ask what Italy would do if could wind back the clock, we have that opportunity and we still aren’t taking it, we have far fewer respirators per capita than Italy.

In terms of the science and the maths, this document has it covered better than most I think:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

[Jon MW]

.. there’ll be another panicked change of direction once todays deaths are announced. School closures incoming.

* The fact that we are very short respirator wise for example is just a number that can’t be disputed.

Yes to the respirator bit - and yes to the NHS 'could' be better equipped (although that obviously has the proviso that if the NHS had been kept at full post-Blair operational capacity - what would have been sacrificed to pay for it?)

But - closing the schools was always part of the plan.

Things move fast in an epidemic - what isn't appropriate to do one day. might be the appropriate thing to do a couple of days later.

In terms of party politics - the government seem to be pretty much following expert advice; you can get your expert advice elsewhere - but their action all along have seemed to pretty closely tie in with the modelling that's been shown (and the implication of what the modelling was before they refined it).

I'm not defending the politics - I'm defending the science and maths.


If you wanted to add politics to it. The modelling specifically states that it is not looking at any moral implications - that's for the public policy makers to introduce after they interpret the advice. It could be argued that the government are being guided too much by the science and maybe should apply a bit more humanity to it.

The last paragraph certainly makes a good point. I’m also keen not to try and appear wise after the event, it’s just as much of a dick move here as in gambling. On Thursday last week Vallance said we were “4 weeks” behind Italy, yesterday 3. I think my point remains valid to ask what Italy would do if could wind back the clock, we have that opportunity and we still aren’t taking it, we have far fewer respirators per capita than Italy.

In terms of the science and the maths, this document has it covered better than most I think:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

That's the research paper I've been talking about - it should be on the page I linked to but didn't quite work.

But didn't Italy put lockdown measures in place after 20 cases were confirmed?

What more do you think they could have done?

EDIT: having re-read it from your link, what they exactly state is, "We do not consider the ethical or economic implications of either strategy here, except to note that there is no easy policy decision to be made", I might have assumed they meant - it's up to the politicians to decide that.

[tikay]

Biggest event in our lifetime?

Yes.

And the financial/economic slump that will follow, right across the globe, will be even bigger.

Trying to stay upbeat, but it all looks pretty gloomy right now. 

[MintTrav]

.. there’ll be another panicked change of direction once todays deaths are announced. School closures incoming.

* The fact that we are very short respirator wise for example is just a number that can’t be disputed.

Yes to the respirator bit - and yes to the NHS 'could' be better equipped (although that obviously has the proviso that if the NHS had been kept at full post-Blair operational capacity - what would have been sacrificed to pay for it?)

But - closing the schools was always part of the plan.

Things move fast in an epidemic - what isn't appropriate to do one day. might be the appropriate thing to do a couple of days later.

In terms of party politics - the government seem to be pretty much following expert advice; you can get your expert advice elsewhere - but their action all along have seemed to pretty closely tie in with the modelling that's been shown (and the implication of what the modelling was before they refined it).

I'm not defending the politics - I'm defending the science and maths.


If you wanted to add politics to it. The modelling specifically states that it is not looking at any moral implications - that's for the public policy makers to introduce after they interpret the advice. It could be argued that the government are being guided too much by the science and maybe should apply a bit more humanity to it.

The last paragraph certainly makes a good point. I’m also keen not to try and appear wise after the event, it’s just as much of a dick move here as in gambling. On Thursday last week Vallance said we were “4 weeks” behind Italy, yesterday 3. I think my point remains valid to ask what Italy would do if could wind back the clock, we have that opportunity and we still aren’t taking it, we have far fewer respirators per capita than Italy.

In terms of the science and the maths, this document has it covered better than most I think:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

That's the research paper I've been talking about - it should be on the page I linked to but didn't quite work.

But didn't Italy put lockdown measures in place after 20 cases were confirmed?

What more do you think they could have done?

EDIT: having re-read it from your link, what they exactly state is, "We do not consider the ethical or economic implications of either strategy here, except to note that there is no easy policy decision to be made", I might have assumed they meant - it's up to the politicians to decide that.

Funny that their science was different to that of so many other countries.

[Jon MW]

...
Funny that their science was different to that of so many other countries.

a. the science isn't different - the maths might be;
bi. the maths might be because they are other countries;
bii. for example, they use Intensive Care capacity as a very key variable to inform their results - this is all going to be different everywhere.
c. I haven't seen any similar analysis to compare it to. If the WHO have a similar paper then I could look at the differences for example.

[Woodsey]

...
Funny that their science was different to that of so many other countries.

a. the science isn't different - the maths might be;
bi. the maths might be because they are other countries;
bii. for example, they use Intensive Care capacity as a very key variable to inform their results - this is all going to be different everywhere.
c. I haven't seen any similar analysis to compare it to. If the WHO have a similar paper then I could look at the differences for example.

And even with all that considered you will still get different opinions anyway.......

[nirvana]

It’s a little surprising this is dividing down political lines but since it has....

I think a good way to try and understand how slow and pathetic our governments response is, is to think what countries like Italy would do if they could wind back the clock and act decisively two weeks earlier. We have very few respirators relative to equivalent European nations *. How did we think we would be different? Catastrophic for Boris to come up against an enemy that can’t be influenced by his bullshit and rhetoric laden clown act. Certainly seems likely we’ll top the death totals at some stage.

* https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00134-012-2627-8/figures/1

A good time to revisit the excellent article Doobs linked:

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca

When I was in for my kidney surgery at the beginning of December, there were already onco-urology wards so over stretched that the patients who’d been there the longest were looking after the newer patients, as well as having to provide guidance to agency nursing staff, it’s nearly impossible to overstate how badly this will go for the U.K and it’s decimated health service.

Tbf. You literally know nothing but are talking as though you are an authority. It's just so pointless

I don’t quite know “nothing”, I have two science based degrees and have worked in a scientific field for most of the last 17 years, it’s almost irrelevant but not totally, I’d reckon it puts me slightly in front of a lay person for understanding the situation. More than that though, I am unable to work due to the immunotherapy and so I can spend nearly all my time trying to learn from people much more better informed and knowledgeable* than I am. Woodsey is right that we won’t know for certain for a very long time but the U.K. is clearly going to fall in line with everyone quickly, there’ll be another panicked change of direction once todays deaths are announced. School closures incoming.

* The fact that we are very short respirator wise for example is just a number that can’t be disputed.

Yeh but 'certainly seems likely we'll top the death totals' doesn't sound like someone learning much however clever they are and however much they've read.

[nirvana]

.. there’ll be another panicked change of direction once todays deaths are announced. School closures incoming.

* The fact that we are very short respirator wise for example is just a number that can’t be disputed.

Yes to the respirator bit - and yes to the NHS 'could' be better equipped (although that obviously has the proviso that if the NHS had been kept at full post-Blair operational capacity - what would have been sacrificed to pay for it?)

But - closing the schools was always part of the plan.

Things move fast in an epidemic - what isn't appropriate to do one day. might be the appropriate thing to do a couple of days later.

In terms of party politics - the government seem to be pretty much following expert advice; you can get your expert advice elsewhere - but their action all along have seemed to pretty closely tie in with the modelling that's been shown (and the implication of what the modelling was before they refined it).

I'm not defending the politics - I'm defending the science and maths.


If you wanted to add politics to it. The modelling specifically states that it is not looking at any moral implications - that's for the public policy makers to introduce after they interpret the advice. It could be argued that the government are being guided too much by the science and maybe should apply a bit more humanity to it.

The last paragraph certainly makes a good point. I’m also keen not to try and appear wise after the event, it’s just as much of a dick move here as in gambling. On Thursday last week Vallance said we were “4 weeks” behind Italy, yesterday 3. I think my point remains valid to ask what Italy would do if could wind back the clock, we have that opportunity and we still aren’t taking it, we have far fewer respirators per capita than Italy.

In terms of the science and the maths, this document has it covered better than most I think:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

What was labour's pledge on respirator numbers before this happened.

[Doobs]

...
Funny that their science was different to that of so many other countries.

a. the science isn't different - the maths might be;
bi. the maths might be because they are other countries;
bii. for example, they use Intensive Care capacity as a very key variable to inform their results - this is all going to be different everywhere.
c. I haven't seen any similar analysis to compare it to. If the WHO have a similar paper then I could look at the differences for example.

I don't think the science and maths was different, the reaction to it was different in some counties than others.  

We do have an advantage vs some countries, as we have effectively conducted our actions earlier in our epidemic than others have in theirs.

[Doobs]

.. there’ll be another panicked change of direction once todays deaths are announced. School closures incoming.

* The fact that we are very short respirator wise for example is just a number that can’t be disputed.

Yes to the respirator bit - and yes to the NHS 'could' be better equipped (although that obviously has the proviso that if the NHS had been kept at full post-Blair operational capacity - what would have been sacrificed to pay for it?)

But - closing the schools was always part of the plan.

Things move fast in an epidemic - what isn't appropriate to do one day. might be the appropriate thing to do a couple of days later.

In terms of party politics - the government seem to be pretty much following expert advice; you can get your expert advice elsewhere - but their action all along have seemed to pretty closely tie in with the modelling that's been shown (and the implication of what the modelling was before they refined it).

I'm not defending the politics - I'm defending the science and maths.


If you wanted to add politics to it. The modelling specifically states that it is not looking at any moral implications - that's for the public policy makers to introduce after they interpret the advice. It could be argued that the government are being guided too much by the science and maybe should apply a bit more humanity to it.

The last paragraph certainly makes a good point. I’m also keen not to try and appear wise after the event, it’s just as much of a dick move here as in gambling. On Thursday last week Vallance said we were “4 weeks” behind Italy, yesterday 3. I think my point remains valid to ask what Italy would do if could wind back the clock, we have that opportunity and we still aren’t taking it, we have far fewer respirators per capita than Italy.

In terms of the science and the maths, this document has it covered better than most I think:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

What was labour's pledge on respirator numbers before this happened.

Given Jezza's view on his own social distancing, I think it is optimistic to suggest a labour government would have acted quicker. 

They would likely have had a few more nurses, but it is hard to see how any significant changes would happen in 3 months.  If they'd got in the time before, it is reasonable to assume there would be more doctors and nurses.  Though keeping the critically sick numbers below intensive care beds would be pretty much as hard as it is now.

[MintTrav]

...
Funny that their science was different to that of so many other countries.

a. the science isn't different - the maths might be;
bi. the maths might be because they are other countries;
bii. for example, they use Intensive Care capacity as a very key variable to inform their results - this is all going to be different everywhere.
c. I haven't seen any similar analysis to compare it to. If the WHO have a similar paper then I could look at the differences for example.

I don't think the science and maths was different, the reaction to it was different in some counties than others.  

We do have an advantage vs some countries, as we have effectively conducted our actions earlier in our epidemic than others have in theirs.

d. It could be a disastrous miscalculation based on arrogantly thinking they know better than the conventional wisdom.