Coronavirus: Some scientists say UK virus strategy is 'risking lives'(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Coronavirus: Some scientists say UK virus strategy is 'risking lives'
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51892402
216 comments
This thing appears to work by both reducing lung function (pneumonia) and diminishing oxygen-carrying capacity of blood - a double whammy. If you've got any marginal health issues, this reduces your margin - maybe not to death, but to damage.
Source is this Twitter thread analysing the reports coming out: https://twitter.com/davidasinclair/status/123897208631765401...
Thread starts at https://twitter.com/davidasinclair/status/123897208275664896...
Source is this Twitter thread analysing the reports coming out: https://twitter.com/davidasinclair/status/123897208631765401...
Thread starts at https://twitter.com/davidasinclair/status/123897208275664896...
This verbal diarrhea helps no one or anything to do with the situation, it's just more main stream media styled hysteria inducting fuckwittery. You are making utterly pointless arbitrary links .. it's embarrassing to see this as the top comment on a HN submission in these times.
Well, it helped me a lot. To better ground my concerns about possible health damage this virus can impose after recovery. In fact it matters to me more than the risk of death, after which there would be nobody to care about it anyway. Yet death is the outcome everyone focus on while others are neglected.
Your comment, in turn, just wasted 10 seconds of my time to read it.
Your comment, in turn, just wasted 10 seconds of my time to read it.
Thank you for your well considered input into the conversation.
Do you really think social distancing will prevent getting to the 60% needed for herd immunity?
I dont think any of our measures are strong enough to actually stop the disease without getting to herd immunity.
I dont think any of our measures are strong enough to actually stop the disease without getting to herd immunity.
Two things.
A) I did not mention social distancing at all. It may be in a pool of measures needed to handle this (see other island nations who have managed that so far) but still not the topic of the comment.
- We don't know yet if there can be hard immunity yet. Probably, maybe likely at least short term, but
B) Herd immunity. It's not a strategy. It's just saying 'let's pray. The costs of just doing that are unknown but have risks based on what we know from many other virii. Risks, not certainties. Regardless
- It won't happen at 60% given the infectiousness of this pathogen. Not even close. We are at much higher vaccination rates (86%) for measles (R0=18) globally.
- It may wane after a few months
Herd immunity right now is a fancy word for The Vast Majority of people will get it.
A) I did not mention social distancing at all. It may be in a pool of measures needed to handle this (see other island nations who have managed that so far) but still not the topic of the comment.
- We don't know yet if there can be hard immunity yet. Probably, maybe likely at least short term, but
B) Herd immunity. It's not a strategy. It's just saying 'let's pray. The costs of just doing that are unknown but have risks based on what we know from many other virii. Risks, not certainties. Regardless
- It won't happen at 60% given the infectiousness of this pathogen. Not even close. We are at much higher vaccination rates (86%) for measles (R0=18) globally.
- It may wane after a few months
Herd immunity right now is a fancy word for The Vast Majority of people will get it.
Not trying to undermine your post here, but can you please at least provide some sources and whether you are an expert in the field?
a short summary is that you have to watch out for the things that don't kill you. i don't know what bojo has in mind.
If herd immunity isn't possible there are too many new variants, then for the same reasons vaccines will also be ineffective. What is the long-term strategy here then?
There are different strategies for vaccines so even if it acted like the flu - there are options, albeit work intensive ones. We do have flu vaccines after all, they are just not guaranteed to work
It is looking good for immunity in monkeys right now, do knock on wood. Failing that...
Get much much better at hygiene and science.
Let's hope it does not come to that but be respectful of the fact that, many times in our history as a species we have been confronted with challenges like this and it did force dramatic changes on the way we live. We are by no means exempt from such dynamics today.
We are still working through HIV and its implication. In the tropics dengue and malaria require constant vigilance and the plague certainly hit the world when their known tools and frameworks failed.
We are a resilient species, if anything we adopt to visible risks quite well once we get out of flight or fight but our lifestyle is not guaranteed and any politicians promising that reality is not real is bad news for our ability to adapt to the threats
It is looking good for immunity in monkeys right now, do knock on wood. Failing that...
Get much much better at hygiene and science.
Let's hope it does not come to that but be respectful of the fact that, many times in our history as a species we have been confronted with challenges like this and it did force dramatic changes on the way we live. We are by no means exempt from such dynamics today.
We are still working through HIV and its implication. In the tropics dengue and malaria require constant vigilance and the plague certainly hit the world when their known tools and frameworks failed.
We are a resilient species, if anything we adopt to visible risks quite well once we get out of flight or fight but our lifestyle is not guaranteed and any politicians promising that reality is not real is bad news for our ability to adapt to the threats
gridlockd(2)
Link to the evidence of long term issues please, or is this just scaremongering.
It's not about the existing evidence it's about the lack thereof, and thus it must be considered as a possibility. To do otherwise is an extremely dangerous assumption. It's valid point and I don't see that as scaremongering.
I'm not an expert but I found this preprint: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.12.20022418v...
I'm not an expert but I found this preprint: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.12.20022418v...
Long term dear, it takes months to years after recovery for 'evidence' (I assume you mean scientific studies) because that's what long term means. The Ebola studies took 2 years to conclusively determine long term effects.
There is several studies in pre-read discussing permanent lung scarring (not exactly surprising from what we know about serious cases spending weeks incubated) and two discussing t-cell exhaustion but they are not peer reviewed yet but you should have no problem locating them.
For SARS we saw significant long term ling damage and, in a statistically significant number of people, terminal, worsening lung scarring over 4 years, so given the strong similarities in the genome of Cov-SARS-2 it's a concern too... we will only know in a few years time.
Humans have the ability to learn from patterns. Many viruses have long term effects, especially if the initial infection was rough - I listed a few examples.
Now we can call this fearmongering and ignore the possibility, but that seems more like a reflexive reaction to dismiss a realistic, potentially dangerous threat than a serious addition to this conversation.
There is several studies in pre-read discussing permanent lung scarring (not exactly surprising from what we know about serious cases spending weeks incubated) and two discussing t-cell exhaustion but they are not peer reviewed yet but you should have no problem locating them.
For SARS we saw significant long term ling damage and, in a statistically significant number of people, terminal, worsening lung scarring over 4 years, so given the strong similarities in the genome of Cov-SARS-2 it's a concern too... we will only know in a few years time.
Humans have the ability to learn from patterns. Many viruses have long term effects, especially if the initial infection was rough - I listed a few examples.
Now we can call this fearmongering and ignore the possibility, but that seems more like a reflexive reaction to dismiss a realistic, potentially dangerous threat than a serious addition to this conversation.
No that is the definition of scaremongering, "the spreading of frightening or ominous reports or rumours".
Isn't that exactly how the west ended up in this clusterfuck. Dismissing what happened in China as scaremongering and failing to prepare for the likelihood of global spread?
Ignoring risks we cannot personally control is a human staple and we found many ways over the years do deal with that, chiefly religion - but it does not remove the risk, it just makes us feel better about it
Ignoring risks we cannot personally control is a human staple and we found many ways over the years do deal with that, chiefly religion - but it does not remove the risk, it just makes us feel better about it
Other could point to a formal paper, but you can read this in the meanwhile,
https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-recovery-damage-...
https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-recovery-damage-...
20-30% drop in lung capacity that "might improve over time" is hardly comparable to HIV or Ebola.
It takes years to recover, IF you recover that lost capacity (that's why it's "might improve").
Also, there's reported cases of people relapsing after being "recovered". Some of them even died, increasing suspicion that this virus might be biphasic:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-reinfection-...
We simply don't know a lot about this virus yet.
Also, there's reported cases of people relapsing after being "recovered". Some of them even died, increasing suspicion that this virus might be biphasic:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-reinfection-...
We simply don't know a lot about this virus yet.
I’m really surprised at the public reaction in the UK. Many of my friends are still going to pubs and concerts like nothing is going on. Life is just continuing as normal. Feels a bit like they’re being used a cannon fodder in this huge “herd immunity” gamble, because some of them will get it, and some of them will die. Personally I’m staying as isolated as I can until the worst of this is over, regardless of the official advice.
Same here, I'm continuously amazed people are actively "standing up" to a virus. Like it's some terrorist threat that they won't back down in fear from. A dude last week told me he's flying out for a cruise this week. How many spring breakers hopped on planes to Mexico? Can you really not live without going out for a few weeks? Stay inside, read a book, watch some movies, work on that video game backlog, get some work done. The quicker we stop the spread, the quicker we can all go back to our normal lives. All you're doing is just making it longer and more devastating.
wtf people. Use your brains. It's totally irresponsible for you to be spreading this to everyone else.
wtf people. Use your brains. It's totally irresponsible for you to be spreading this to everyone else.
>The quicker we stop the spread, the quicker we can all go back to our normal lives. All you're doing is just making it longer and more devastating.
From my understanding, this isn't really true. "Stopping the spread" is an unreasonable and incredibly difficult undertaking. Isolation is about reducing the rate of cases. It's likely that similar infection numbers will be reached over the course of the whole pandemic no matter what. Nobody is going back to "normal life" any time soon - the only question is how drastic the counter-measures will be.
From my understanding, this isn't really true. "Stopping the spread" is an unreasonable and incredibly difficult undertaking. Isolation is about reducing the rate of cases. It's likely that similar infection numbers will be reached over the course of the whole pandemic no matter what. Nobody is going back to "normal life" any time soon - the only question is how drastic the counter-measures will be.
The idea to social distancing is to slow the inevitable spread so health infrastructure isn't overwhelmed and death is minimized.
Also it gives us some time to think clearly about next steps and to have some control over the situation at an individual and organization level. Maybe someday we will also decided that herd immunity is the way to go but we may also decided to give the researchers a month to see if they come up with other options
> we will also decided that herd immunity
Or more critically, if we learn that lasting native immunity is even possible.
For the coronaviruses which cause the cold (such as CoV-OC43) the adaptive immune response is not particularly strong and immunity lasts only months. -- not due to mutation, but because of behaviors in the immune system which we don't yet understand. This has contributed to the difficulty in creating a vaccine for the prior sars virus.
As a result, the whole "get people immune for next season" idea may be a largely pointless goal. The best comparisons we have so far suggest that it is, though we just don't have enough information yet.
Or more critically, if we learn that lasting native immunity is even possible.
For the coronaviruses which cause the cold (such as CoV-OC43) the adaptive immune response is not particularly strong and immunity lasts only months. -- not due to mutation, but because of behaviors in the immune system which we don't yet understand. This has contributed to the difficulty in creating a vaccine for the prior sars virus.
As a result, the whole "get people immune for next season" idea may be a largely pointless goal. The best comparisons we have so far suggest that it is, though we just don't have enough information yet.
"For the coronaviruses which cause the cold (such as CoV-OC43) the adaptive immune response is not particularly strong and immunity lasts only months. -- not due to mutation, but because of behaviors in the immune system which we don't yet understand. This has contributed to the difficulty in creating a vaccine for the prior sars virus."
From what I understand, work on developing a SARS vaccine stopped because the epidemic was over, and there was no longer an interest or will to continue working on it.
In addition, here's what Vincent Racaniello of This Week In Virology[1] had to say about antivirals:
"We could have had antivirals against all coronas or many coronas if we had put the money in to making them, but there was no interest and therefore companies which need to make profits were not interested in pursuing them, but they could have been developed and stockpiled and been ready.
"So if you had infinite money and people you could say, 'Let's get a bunch of RNA polymerases from bat SARS-like coronaviruses and design something that will inhibit them all.' I don't think it would be that hard because they're very conserved. But without the financial incentive... so, antivirals are kind of a different thing because you could develop them and bring them, you could even do a phase one and then have them ready for actual testing when there's an outbreak."
[1] - at about 1 hr and 33 minutes in to episode 590 - http://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-590/
From what I understand, work on developing a SARS vaccine stopped because the epidemic was over, and there was no longer an interest or will to continue working on it.
In addition, here's what Vincent Racaniello of This Week In Virology[1] had to say about antivirals:
"We could have had antivirals against all coronas or many coronas if we had put the money in to making them, but there was no interest and therefore companies which need to make profits were not interested in pursuing them, but they could have been developed and stockpiled and been ready.
"So if you had infinite money and people you could say, 'Let's get a bunch of RNA polymerases from bat SARS-like coronaviruses and design something that will inhibit them all.' I don't think it would be that hard because they're very conserved. But without the financial incentive... so, antivirals are kind of a different thing because you could develop them and bring them, you could even do a phase one and then have them ready for actual testing when there's an outbreak."
[1] - at about 1 hr and 33 minutes in to episode 590 - http://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-590/
Antivirals != vaccine.
Antivirals for sars-cov-2 seem MUCH more likely to arrive quickly than a vaccine, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that several of the things currently being tested (some of which are already approved for the treatment of other conditions) are effective.
Antivirals for sars-cov-2 seem MUCH more likely to arrive quickly than a vaccine, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that several of the things currently being tested (some of which are already approved for the treatment of other conditions) are effective.
That this keeps coming up on HN is fascinating.
I'm just imagining some programmer in a future interview talking about their familiarity with async functions in Javascript. The interviewer glances down at an app named "Mirror Test Pro" that cross-referenced that claim against an old HN post revealing ignorance about the upshot of social distancing. It consequently overlays a red "X" on the programmer's avatar. "Thanks, we'll be in touch," the interviewer says as the programmer is shuttled out the door.
And I'm imagining many such programmers becoming frustrated when a breach of MTP data reveals why they kept getting rejected in interviews. They would band together and write a powerful DDOS tool to exact vengeance upon the world that humiliated them. Lucky for the world, their sudden, synchronous silence gives enough advanced warning to thwart the attacks while their CPUs helplessly whir on one giant blocking call.
I'm just imagining some programmer in a future interview talking about their familiarity with async functions in Javascript. The interviewer glances down at an app named "Mirror Test Pro" that cross-referenced that claim against an old HN post revealing ignorance about the upshot of social distancing. It consequently overlays a red "X" on the programmer's avatar. "Thanks, we'll be in touch," the interviewer says as the programmer is shuttled out the door.
And I'm imagining many such programmers becoming frustrated when a breach of MTP data reveals why they kept getting rejected in interviews. They would band together and write a powerful DDOS tool to exact vengeance upon the world that humiliated them. Lucky for the world, their sudden, synchronous silence gives enough advanced warning to thwart the attacks while their CPUs helplessly whir on one giant blocking call.
I have no idea what this comment is trying to say.
The problem is that the 20% or so that end up in severe or critical condition and need hospitalization are too much for the medical system to handle. The more they can slow the spread the better they'll be able to help all those that will need medical care.
In Italy the number of people that end up in ICU is 10%. Now think of the population of people that are in your area and how many intensive care beds that are available to them... do you think your local hospitals can handle 10% of that number? Probably not. This is what makes it a big issue.
In Italy the number of people that end up in ICU is 10%. Now think of the population of people that are in your area and how many intensive care beds that are available to them... do you think your local hospitals can handle 10% of that number? Probably not. This is what makes it a big issue.
“...20%...severe or critical...ICU is 10%...”?
Wait, what? Source?
Wait, what? Source?
Quick search brings up this: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/13/viral-imag...
Which doesn’t shows that there isn’t a single consensus source yet. The article points out one source with 25.5% severe and another with 13.8% severe. Meanwhile for critical, it shows the numbers 4.7% and 6.1%.
While OP isn’t entirely accurate, for off the top of the head numbers, it’s not wildly off base either it seems.
Which doesn’t shows that there isn’t a single consensus source yet. The article points out one source with 25.5% severe and another with 13.8% severe. Meanwhile for critical, it shows the numbers 4.7% and 6.1%.
While OP isn’t entirely accurate, for off the top of the head numbers, it’s not wildly off base either it seems.
Let's assume that untreated severe means death. Let's take the lower value 13.8%.
Now let's factor in that in a developed country there are some 0,5% hospital beds total capacity. Let's say that Covid-19 can have at disposal half of those beds.
If you do not do all you can to flatten the curve, you are probably looking at a 10% death rate over infected population, if not more.
That's over 6 million people in the UK.
IMHO, you have to do something to buy more time, although it is yet to be seen if lockdowns will be effective enough as this guy seems to be too strong.
Now let's factor in that in a developed country there are some 0,5% hospital beds total capacity. Let's say that Covid-19 can have at disposal half of those beds.
If you do not do all you can to flatten the curve, you are probably looking at a 10% death rate over infected population, if not more.
That's over 6 million people in the UK.
IMHO, you have to do something to buy more time, although it is yet to be seen if lockdowns will be effective enough as this guy seems to be too strong.
Oh, and I'm not counting the deaths caused by the army shooting at people panicking or killing each other not to get infected. Human nature is like that.
The WHO situation report for 06/Mar says:
> For COVID-19, data to date suggest that 80% of infections are mild or asymptomatic, 15% are severe infection, requiring oxygen and 5% are critical infections, requiring ventilation.
Ventilation would have to be done in the ICU, in my understanding.
Source: 06/Mar/2020 Situation Report from https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2...
> For COVID-19, data to date suggest that 80% of infections are mild or asymptomatic, 15% are severe infection, requiring oxygen and 5% are critical infections, requiring ventilation.
Ventilation would have to be done in the ICU, in my understanding.
Source: 06/Mar/2020 Situation Report from https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2...
This page mentions a study in China:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-sympto...
I haven't found exactly the 10% in ICU (and I'd be especially interested in the percentage of young people requiring ICU), but yeah basically 80% mild cases and the others needing assistance.
I haven't found exactly the 10% in ICU (and I'd be especially interested in the percentage of young people requiring ICU), but yeah basically 80% mild cases and the others needing assistance.
That's the issue, people are still acting it's somewhere else's problem. Bars are still busy, people are still getting on cruises, that's why this is scary.
Stopping the spread isn't the goal, though, it's flattening the curve, so that there's ICU space for critical patients and health services aren't overwhelmed (all the other stuff that needs ICU).
Here's an explanation on why decreasing the rate a little bit via the isolation may save lifes tenfold https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22548734
"The quicker we stop the spread, the quicker we can all go back to our normal lives"
Actually no, it's the opposite. "flattening the curve" means spreading the period of time infection spreads to not overwhelm the medical services at any one point. So the quicker we slow down the spread, the longer it'll take to get back to normal.
The idea we can completely stop the spread at this point is unlikely, the best we can do is slow it.
Actually no, it's the opposite. "flattening the curve" means spreading the period of time infection spreads to not overwhelm the medical services at any one point. So the quicker we slow down the spread, the longer it'll take to get back to normal.
The idea we can completely stop the spread at this point is unlikely, the best we can do is slow it.
Getting the healthcare system "back to normal" ASAP is the top priority, and you do that by flattening the curve as much as feasible. Once we actually know what the sustainable carrying capacity of the medical system is and how not to exceed it, we can maybe think about relaxing these policies and moving cautiously towards a "herd immunity FTW" approach.
You are right. But many people want something different. They are used to getting their problems solved and they just can't accept the reality that you have put your finger on. They are demanding action now when that fails to work (either because there is action and it fails, or because there is not perceived to be enough action) they will get angry.
I wonder if there will be a process of grief leading to acceptance about this event, I feel we are in denial now, tending to anger. Next will be bargaining (I think evidenced by isolation and hording) or maybe not - maybe the population will simply fail to process this.
I wonder if there will be a process of grief leading to acceptance about this event, I feel we are in denial now, tending to anger. Next will be bargaining (I think evidenced by isolation and hording) or maybe not - maybe the population will simply fail to process this.
> Like it's some terrorist threat that they won't back down in fear from.
Ironically, even the actual terrorists decided to back down in fear from it, suspend their terrorist activities, and teach themselves how to wash hands properly.
https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-isis-terrorists-...
Ironically, even the actual terrorists decided to back down in fear from it, suspend their terrorist activities, and teach themselves how to wash hands properly.
https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-isis-terrorists-...
Well I for one am distancing to the point of isolation, even from my family for a few days until a clean state of health is established following trips abroad. We have a vulnerable family member (young, but complex conditions) and are taking no chances. And yes, we accept that it could take many months - until either we do catch it or there is a vaccine, it’s hard to see the end of it.
"Keep Calm and Carry On" is a big part of British national identity. It may or may not be appropriate in this crisis, sounds like genuine experts are arguing both ways, but that's part of the reason behind why the British respond like this.
That's what confuses me. How particularly is the UK so different from the rest of Europe or the globe even? I get that how the UK views itself may give support for this strategy, and it agrees with how I view UK society, but why only in this location is national identity the defining factor in pandemic response?
The UK is a funny combination of collectivism and individualism. The NHS, BBC, the Blitz spirit, but also small-c-conservatism, almost always slightly-right-of-centre governments, the Monarchy. It's culturally mid-Atlantic - somewhere between the European way and the way in the United States. And that's pretty much how they're responding to this crisis, isn't it?
The UK already has more aggressive policies than Canada and our PM is in isolation. The UK is easily par for the course. It really only got very serious yesterday when numbers doubled (which we saw with the US reacting to that news).
The UK government has also completely denied the “herd immunity” thing is part of any active policy. But that hasn’t slowed down social media... or HN for that matter.
The UK government has also completely denied the “herd immunity” thing is part of any active policy. But that hasn’t slowed down social media... or HN for that matter.
Is it really that different? The actions and motivations seems very much like Finland and Sweden, for example, in as much as they stage their response and focus on keeping the society running until data suggests otherwise.
On the other hand, if it works the payoff will be quite significant in terms of impact to the economy compared to the rest of the world.
And if it doesn't work it would be catastrophic in terms of impact because the NHS will collapse fast and won't be even able to process all the other medical needs of the population for an extremely long time.
Taking a step back from the impact on patients, if you subscribe to conservative economic thinking, this would be a good thing in the long run. Of course the impact would be blunt but relatively short and in conservative thinking a quick swallow of a bitter pill for future benefits is a perfect idea.
The future benefit being get the state out of medicine.
I don’t subscribe to this view at all but having read Rees-Mogg’s daddy’s book, the Soverign Individual i will happily stake my house on the above being very close to the victorian geezer’s view on this.
The future benefit being get the state out of medicine.
I don’t subscribe to this view at all but having read Rees-Mogg’s daddy’s book, the Soverign Individual i will happily stake my house on the above being very close to the victorian geezer’s view on this.
On the other hand free healthcare!
There is however another underlying gamble. If they let the virus freely evolve and spread this might also give it more opportunities to mutate and maybe become more lethal whereas country that try to mitigate contagion won't offer as many hosts to try random forks...
>this might also give it more opportunities to mutate and maybe become more lethal
AFAIK viruses tend to mutate to be less lethal because killing the host is bad for reproduction.
random source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
>This is a common occurrence with influenza viruses: there is a tendency for pathogenic viruses to become less lethal with time, as the hosts of more dangerous strains tend to die out
AFAIK viruses tend to mutate to be less lethal because killing the host is bad for reproduction.
random source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
>This is a common occurrence with influenza viruses: there is a tendency for pathogenic viruses to become less lethal with time, as the hosts of more dangerous strains tend to die out
The first wave of the Spanish Flu mostly killed the elderly. The second wave mutated and killed young, normally healthy people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu#Deadly_second_wave
I see that same line being peddled out of context like this frequently these days. When you point out the young people factor you really also need to point out why that was the case and it wasn’t because of the mutation of the virus...
Wikipedia says it was a mutation, although the selective pressure on that mutation (war) is something we hopefully won't have in today's circumstances.
There is very little evolutionary pressure to mutate to a more lethal variant and a lot of pressure to mutate to less dangerous variant.
The ideal evolutionary strategy is to produce excess bodily fluids from sweating, coughing and sneezing, while not making people so sick that they lay down and stay home, let alone die.
Viruses don’t get bonus points for being lethal, unlike certain video games.
The ideal evolutionary strategy is to produce excess bodily fluids from sweating, coughing and sneezing, while not making people so sick that they lay down and stay home, let alone die.
Viruses don’t get bonus points for being lethal, unlike certain video games.
Actually this is modeled quite well in "Plague Inc" (the game) if you mutate the virus towards being too lethal it will not spread fast enough to annihilate the entire population.
Right but the point of the game is still to kill a lot of people and that’s not something that viruses care about.
If I'm not mistaken the Spanish flue actually mutated to become more lethal.
If the strategy works the UK will benefit massively.
It is like seeing an experiment playing out at a societal scale. We are all looking at it from a personal level, but successful societies have always been built on sacrifices of various kinds - their costs or others (colonization)
It is like seeing an experiment playing out at a societal scale. We are all looking at it from a personal level, but successful societies have always been built on sacrifices of various kinds - their costs or others (colonization)
People are still working everywhere. It will be interesting to see GBP/EURO this week, on Friday it tumbled doooown. I predict it will go down another 5p.
So you saying I should have call options on EWU? Probably a bit premature, but could be a good gamble.
TBH this looks more like you should buy a straddle.
[deleted]
If condemning 2-5% of your elderly population to death with a shrug is seen as shrewd economic policy, I’m moving to Mars. Fuck this place.
I imagine that 2-5% of people over 70 die each year from other natural causes, if not much more. I’m not justifying anything, but I feel the death rates need to be understood in this context.
What's with the focus of people over 70? If you catch this and are in your 50s or 60s, you have a decently high chance of dying.
Hell, the young and healthy can go skydiving 100 times and have less chance of dying vs coronavirus.
Nevermind the not dying part. Over 50% of ICU spots in France and the Netherlands for coronavirus are taken up by people under 60. Pneumonia this severe can cause permanent lung damage.
Hell, the young and healthy can go skydiving 100 times and have less chance of dying vs coronavirus.
Nevermind the not dying part. Over 50% of ICU spots in France and the Netherlands for coronavirus are taken up by people under 60. Pneumonia this severe can cause permanent lung damage.
Deaths in the elderly is precisely what the UK strategy is aiming to avoid. Isolate elderly and other at risk groups until there is herd immunity in the rest of the population.
The UK strategy is not aiming to reduce deaths in the elderly. Claiming that it is would be a grievous lie to distract attention from the real and only reason: propping up the economy as long as possible.
Claiming you can isolate at risk groups well enough while the whole country is going about its business is just putting your fingers in your ears and going lalalalala.
Claiming you can isolate at risk groups well enough while the whole country is going about its business is just putting your fingers in your ears and going lalalalala.
"Some of you may die, but that's a risk I'm willing to take"
“Some of you will die but that’s a risk I’m willing to take”
"Some of you will die* this year, and there is nothing that anyone can do about that"
*some of you will die even without the virus, more of you will die than normal because of it, this is awful, but true.
*some of you will die even without the virus, more of you will die than normal because of it, this is awful, but true.
Many more of you will die than would have if I had chosen a better policy.
That may or may not be true - there's no given that there is a better policy or that any of the policies that we have seen are a better policy. We won't know until next year at least - the final counting will take a while.
It has always been like that, only usually it is not this obvious.
All advanced societies are built on the exploitation of someone else, you just did not get to see who those people were.
Note: I am not endorsing the choice - just observing.
All advanced societies are built on the exploitation of someone else, you just did not get to see who those people were.
Note: I am not endorsing the choice - just observing.
Wake up people. The fatality in Italy borders 8% average! For that age group it's > 10%
UK seems to be playing a very dangerous game.
UK seems to be playing a very dangerous game.
I don’t think wake up is the right sentiment. In South Korea, Germany, the diamond princess, in fact anywhere that’s not Italy or Wuhan the death rate is lower.
The higher death rates have occurred in places where the health system was overrun.
Of course with the current trajectory the UK health system will be over run.
The higher death rates have occurred in places where the health system was overrun.
Of course with the current trajectory the UK health system will be over run.
It's not 2%-5% of the elderly, it's 10% or more. Particularly with no supportive treatment. The UK government say they will try to preferentially isolate the elderly population, but this makes very little sense. People will spread the infection regardless, and some social contacts across generations will have to occur.
You’re going to be really upset then when you find out what happens to the elderly if you just wait a few years.
This stuff always involves complicated choices.
For example, would you advocate a policy of taxing all restaurant owners at a 90% marginal rate forcing most into bankruptcy to pay for a very expensive new medical treatment that only works on the elderly and extends their life just a few years?
If you proposed that do you think it would be unanimous or controversial?
This stuff always involves complicated choices.
For example, would you advocate a policy of taxing all restaurant owners at a 90% marginal rate forcing most into bankruptcy to pay for a very expensive new medical treatment that only works on the elderly and extends their life just a few years?
If you proposed that do you think it would be unanimous or controversial?
Describing sheer abandonment of elder care as “a complicated trade-off” is utterly disgusting.
Did anyone propose that?
Do you believe that, in normal circumstances, we should repurpose all money typically spent on primary education and firefighting to go to elder care instead?
If you weren’t arguing for that last year then you believe in complicated trade-offs too.
The concept of trade-offs is the absolute core basis of all major public policy decisions.
It’s also the basic of many personal decisions. If you’re familiar with hospice care or a DNR order then you know that end of life questions have trade-off calculations as well, even within families or between life partners.
Pretending this is a binary decision is just nonsensical.
Do you believe that, in normal circumstances, we should repurpose all money typically spent on primary education and firefighting to go to elder care instead?
If you weren’t arguing for that last year then you believe in complicated trade-offs too.
The concept of trade-offs is the absolute core basis of all major public policy decisions.
It’s also the basic of many personal decisions. If you’re familiar with hospice care or a DNR order then you know that end of life questions have trade-off calculations as well, even within families or between life partners.
Pretending this is a binary decision is just nonsensical.
One day youngers will be elders too, and the future youngers will apply the same rules.
Marines say "no one left behind", for a reason, because it creates a group... A society.
The UK decision smells like eugenics.
Marines say "no one left behind", for a reason, because it creates a group... A society.
The UK decision smells like eugenics.
> “ Did anyone propose that?”
In rereading your post carefully, the answer is yes. You did describe it that way and offer a reason to think it’s not so bad. Doing so is shameful.
In rereading your post carefully, the answer is yes. You did describe it that way and offer a reason to think it’s not so bad. Doing so is shameful.
It's 2-5% of the general population. It's much higher among the elderly. And once the hospitals gets overrun it could easily be even higher than that.
It’s the same in New York. At this point we can talk all day about it on message boards but we are going to find out who’s right soon enough regardless.
"like nothing is going on" - Most people assume they'll be fine. And they're right. Even those that get it, the vast majority will survive it, like they survive most illnesses. It's just not that scary unless you're in an at-risk category. I say this as a British male in my 30's.
I'm not changing anything unless I get ill. And then, it will only be to stay away from at-risk people and large gatherings. If I worked in an office, I'd work from home, but I work from home already. I'm certainly not going to barracade myself in my house for weeks/months.
That's just my perspective, and one which may explain why you're seeing this behaviour from other Brits.
[edit] Yeah, I thought this comment might be controversial. General response seems to be that I should be more scared than I am, and that I should do more than I am to stop the spread of the disease. I'm still not scared, and I still feel my response is proprotionate at this time.
I'm not changing anything unless I get ill. And then, it will only be to stay away from at-risk people and large gatherings. If I worked in an office, I'd work from home, but I work from home already. I'm certainly not going to barracade myself in my house for weeks/months.
That's just my perspective, and one which may explain why you're seeing this behaviour from other Brits.
[edit] Yeah, I thought this comment might be controversial. General response seems to be that I should be more scared than I am, and that I should do more than I am to stop the spread of the disease. I'm still not scared, and I still feel my response is proprotionate at this time.
> Most people assume they'll be fine. And they're right. Even those that get it, the vast majority will survive it, like they survive most illnesses.
This assumes that you can get comprehensive treatment from the healthcare system. If you can't, the numbers get very scary, even for the young (relatively speaking). If we really want the "herd immunity" strategy to work, we should still start containment now in order to flatten the curve, accounting for long lags due to the incubation period. "Wait and see" is not a viable approach, and other countries were mistaken in trying it.
This assumes that you can get comprehensive treatment from the healthcare system. If you can't, the numbers get very scary, even for the young (relatively speaking). If we really want the "herd immunity" strategy to work, we should still start containment now in order to flatten the curve, accounting for long lags due to the incubation period. "Wait and see" is not a viable approach, and other countries were mistaken in trying it.
Even young people end up in ICU like this 16 year old:
https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/nederland/artikel/5056536/se...
As the classic asks: Do you feel lucky, punk?
https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/nederland/artikel/5056536/se...
As the classic asks: Do you feel lucky, punk?
Every time I eat something or go somewhere, or don't eat something or don't go somewhere, I'm taking a risk with my life.
What matters is what the level of risk is, and what the cost of reducing that risk is.
I feel lucky.
What matters is what the level of risk is, and what the cost of reducing that risk is.
I feel lucky.
They probably would have ended up there after catching the flu.
but they're no where nearly as likely to catch the flu as they are this virus, which no one is immune to.
The boy was never sick.
If you, in your ignorance, are contagious before you decide to self-quarantine and end up transmitting the virus to others who will suffer and die for it, will that weigh on your conscience?
Given your apparent self-centered attitude and lack of empathy, I would guess that it will not bother you one bit.
Given your apparent self-centered attitude and lack of empathy, I would guess that it will not bother you one bit.
I understand the risks. I wouldn't expect/want every body else in the country to hide away in their houses to protect me from getting Coronovirus either. That would imply a self-centered attitude and lack of empathy that is probably better applied to people such as yourself.
> I understand the risks
That's not possible, because we don't yet have enough information about covid-19. We're still trying to work out what the death rate is!
> It's just not that scary unless you're in an at-risk category. I say this as a British male in my 30's.
So far we think your chance of death if _you_ (30 years old, no comorbidities) get covid-19 is between 0.5% and 1.5%.
And that's if the hospitals are not overwhelmed. One thing that will overwhelm the hospitals is people like you spreading disease.
That's not possible, because we don't yet have enough information about covid-19. We're still trying to work out what the death rate is!
> It's just not that scary unless you're in an at-risk category. I say this as a British male in my 30's.
So far we think your chance of death if _you_ (30 years old, no comorbidities) get covid-19 is between 0.5% and 1.5%.
And that's if the hospitals are not overwhelmed. One thing that will overwhelm the hospitals is people like you spreading disease.
Risk analysis doesn't require complete information. I understand the risks given the current information that is being provided.
By the sound if it, your risk analysis (also based on incomplete information) has lead you to believe that I should take some measures that I am not. That does not concern me.
By the sound if it, your risk analysis (also based on incomplete information) has lead you to believe that I should take some measures that I am not. That does not concern me.
The idea of being contagious and spreading the virus to others doesn't bother you?
I drive a car. Some day I might kill somebody because of it. It would bother me if it happened of course, but I'm not going to stop driving just in case.
Car accidents don't kill an exponentially increasing number of people once set in motion.
You wrote: "The idea of being contagious and spreading the virus to others doesn't bother you?" - To me, the point you seemed to be making was: if you do something that applies some level of risk to others, then that must mean you don't care about the harm.
So I addressed that by pointing out that most people risk the lives of others, but do care about the potential harm.
Now you've gone off on a tangent, and made an entirely different point, but presented it as an argument related to your first comment, or my response to it. It is neither.
I understand your position to be: Something bad is happening, and anything other than the most extreme response is to be criticised. Which is usually the response to be expected on Internet forums, so I'm going to move on now.
So I addressed that by pointing out that most people risk the lives of others, but do care about the potential harm.
Now you've gone off on a tangent, and made an entirely different point, but presented it as an argument related to your first comment, or my response to it. It is neither.
I understand your position to be: Something bad is happening, and anything other than the most extreme response is to be criticised. Which is usually the response to be expected on Internet forums, so I'm going to move on now.
Okay, let's make this a bit more graphic.
Suppose you caught it. It means you may get sick for several days. Sucks, but hey. However, it also means you'll be contagious for the next couple of weeks. Before you get sick, but also after you got better. Anyone who comes in contact with you runs a risk of catching it from you.
What does that mean "contact"? Simple. You're basically shedding viral particles. An invisible cloud of them hovers around you. A cough, talking, touching anything ranging from toilet seats to doorknobs to tables,... You basically leave a trail of particles that has the potential to infect others long hours after you've passed by. And you wouldn't even realize you're doing it.
Because this is exactly where you'll get a demonstration of power laws in action. Suppose 1 person infects 2 others over the course of those weeks, those will go on to infect 4, 16, 32,... you'll get what's going on here. Basically, you're that first match in a stack of matches that got lit, and before you know it, the entire stack has burned down.
Why is that bad? Because maybe two or three hops from you, there's a specialist, a couple of nurses, a few people who are designated to help out elderly people and maybe a couple of people with health conditions such as asthma, COPD, diabetes, high blood pressure,...
You didn't just got sick, you also provided a gateway for the virus to jump to all those people as well. Meaning all those who got sick can't provide healthcare anymore; and a ton of people end up in an already strained healthcare system.
And that's discounting people who have bad luck and end up having a heart attack, a stroke or a bad accident. If the ICU's are overloaded with COVID patients, stark choices will have to be made on who gets to live and who is left to die. That's where they are in Italy right now.
We aren't just talking about "patients", we are talking about your and other people's loved ones. Parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, friends,... That's what we are discussing here.
Wrapping up. If you think that barricading yourself in your house for weeks/months is a "no go", well, you're not gonna like what's going to happen next either.
Stay in your home. Avoid contact if you can. Follow the WHO recommendations. Be responsible about this. That's how you help saving lives.
Suppose you caught it. It means you may get sick for several days. Sucks, but hey. However, it also means you'll be contagious for the next couple of weeks. Before you get sick, but also after you got better. Anyone who comes in contact with you runs a risk of catching it from you.
What does that mean "contact"? Simple. You're basically shedding viral particles. An invisible cloud of them hovers around you. A cough, talking, touching anything ranging from toilet seats to doorknobs to tables,... You basically leave a trail of particles that has the potential to infect others long hours after you've passed by. And you wouldn't even realize you're doing it.
Because this is exactly where you'll get a demonstration of power laws in action. Suppose 1 person infects 2 others over the course of those weeks, those will go on to infect 4, 16, 32,... you'll get what's going on here. Basically, you're that first match in a stack of matches that got lit, and before you know it, the entire stack has burned down.
Why is that bad? Because maybe two or three hops from you, there's a specialist, a couple of nurses, a few people who are designated to help out elderly people and maybe a couple of people with health conditions such as asthma, COPD, diabetes, high blood pressure,...
You didn't just got sick, you also provided a gateway for the virus to jump to all those people as well. Meaning all those who got sick can't provide healthcare anymore; and a ton of people end up in an already strained healthcare system.
And that's discounting people who have bad luck and end up having a heart attack, a stroke or a bad accident. If the ICU's are overloaded with COVID patients, stark choices will have to be made on who gets to live and who is left to die. That's where they are in Italy right now.
We aren't just talking about "patients", we are talking about your and other people's loved ones. Parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, friends,... That's what we are discussing here.
Wrapping up. If you think that barricading yourself in your house for weeks/months is a "no go", well, you're not gonna like what's going to happen next either.
Stay in your home. Avoid contact if you can. Follow the WHO recommendations. Be responsible about this. That's how you help saving lives.
He's following the advice of his government and its experts. The two most prominent of which have spent their entire professional lives studying infectious diseases. You are a guy on the internet with opinions. Why should he listen to you and not them ?
I'm literally parroting what experts have been saying for days and weeks now. If you ask that question, you are clearly not paying attention.
You are indeed parroting the advice of many people (lots of whom are anything but experts) but that advice contradicts the current guidance from the UK experts, who btw are these guys: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Whitty and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Vallance
Who should we believe, them or CaptArmchair?
Who should we believe, them or CaptArmchair?
I'm so sorry you really have to ask that question...
Even if you've decided that the risk to yourself is acceptable, think who you might infect (there can be around a month between the infection and the first symptoms) who [they may] have less chances for survival (if you are against social distancing, at least don't be around old people or places they have to visit).
Roughly 20% of people who get infected require hospitalization. For multiple weeks. And though a majority of those being hospitalized survive, they often incur damage to their lungs and organs.
Do you realize that:
You might still need intensive care and not get it?
You might be infected and not know it?
This is really a huge gamble you're making, for your health and others'
You might still need intensive care and not get it?
You might be infected and not know it?
This is really a huge gamble you're making, for your health and others'
> I'm not changing anything unless I get ill.
The whole point of the social distancing strategy is that it's not just about you.
The whole point of the social distancing strategy is that it's not just about you.
> Personally I’m staying as isolated as I can until the worst of this is over, regardless of the official advice.
Good choice. Look at what Italy and Spain are doing now. Stay at home as much as possible, don't hang out with others. Wear personal protective equipment if you must go out for some reason.
Good choice. Look at what Italy and Spain are doing now. Stay at home as much as possible, don't hang out with others. Wear personal protective equipment if you must go out for some reason.
It's worth pointing out that Italy is about 2 weeks further along in infection spread than the UK and Spain a week.
Italy's had 1800 death, Spain 300, UK 30. They're all roughly the same size population (60, 50, 70 million)
As I've said in other threads on this, I would assume that the earlier you lock down, the longer you have to stay locked down. Or you risk a second peak.
There's a balancing act, given that it's not possible now to stop the spread, only slow it. Lock down too early and you do a lot of damage to the economy and by extension the country. Lock down too late and people die from lack of care.
Italy's had 1800 death, Spain 300, UK 30. They're all roughly the same size population (60, 50, 70 million)
As I've said in other threads on this, I would assume that the earlier you lock down, the longer you have to stay locked down. Or you risk a second peak.
There's a balancing act, given that it's not possible now to stop the spread, only slow it. Lock down too early and you do a lot of damage to the economy and by extension the country. Lock down too late and people die from lack of care.
> I would assume that the earlier you lock down, the longer you have to stay locked down.
I would not assume that at all. Containment is still possible in a looser sense; many places in both Italy and Spain may end up being disease-free in a shorter period of time by locking down things early, and then they can contribute healthcare resources to places where the disease is more widespread, or even be put under some sort of protective "reverse" quarantine with less strict measures.
I would not assume that at all. Containment is still possible in a looser sense; many places in both Italy and Spain may end up being disease-free in a shorter period of time by locking down things early, and then they can contribute healthcare resources to places where the disease is more widespread, or even be put under some sort of protective "reverse" quarantine with less strict measures.
And then you've got to lock down the next region, which re-infects the first region or you've got to keep the lock-down there happening, and so on, and so on. Did you not think this through?
Essentially the whole things a massive balancing act, allow a certain amount of infections, but not too many the health service gets overwhelmed.
Even China's now getting more infections from outside than in, which is only going to grow.
The consensus is that you can't stop it now. So your plan might be an even worse idea, a cascading lock down, that lasts even longer. The only hope being summer stops it like flu, but then you're left with a potential resurgence in autumn and even more lock downs.
Essentially the whole things a massive balancing act, allow a certain amount of infections, but not too many the health service gets overwhelmed.
Even China's now getting more infections from outside than in, which is only going to grow.
The consensus is that you can't stop it now. So your plan might be an even worse idea, a cascading lock down, that lasts even longer. The only hope being summer stops it like flu, but then you're left with a potential resurgence in autumn and even more lock downs.
Additionally it is not clear yet that the interventions in Italy and Spain have worked. It will not be clear for some months in fact.
Thanks. I have ppe that I can wear but I’m not using it yet. To be honest there is an air of hostility towards people wearing masks etc and I don’t want to get caught in that. If it gets worse I won’t have much choice though.
do not judge people's relationship with death.
some are rational, some petrify and can not move, some try to face it, some turn inside, some turn outside.
some old people are going out on purpose, if they petrify they will not be able to live anyway.
anyway, it is not easy for anyone when the mass is moving in such volatile way, not to mention individual responsibility towards the group is stressed to extremes (as you can see people fighting over toilet paper for example)
i am also staying as isolated as i can, but from time to time i force myself and my family to go out in the forest, to see that the world is not burning yet.
some are rational, some petrify and can not move, some try to face it, some turn inside, some turn outside.
some old people are going out on purpose, if they petrify they will not be able to live anyway.
anyway, it is not easy for anyone when the mass is moving in such volatile way, not to mention individual responsibility towards the group is stressed to extremes (as you can see people fighting over toilet paper for example)
i am also staying as isolated as i can, but from time to time i force myself and my family to go out in the forest, to see that the world is not burning yet.
This has little to do with your risk of death as an individual unless you’re in a vulnerable population. Rather, it’s about people’s selfish indifference to how their actions risk infecting and killing other people. And I’ll judge that all I want, thanks.
How do you feel about people who drive cars? Driving a car risks killing people - tens of thousands die in car accidents. Do you judge drivers?
I would like to see if Gov officials apply the same 'herd immunity' tactic to themselves and their relatives as well.
Would be great to see if Boris Johnson and his cabinet and their close ones are staying home or not.
Would be great to see if Boris Johnson and his cabinet and their close ones are staying home or not.
> I would like to see if Gov officials apply the same 'herd immunity' tactic to themselves and their relatives as well.
The problem is not getting the virus. But, if everybody gets it at the same time. That will make hospitals collapse as queues of people wait for treatment.
If Goverment officials have access to health care, it does not matter for them what happens to the rest of the population.
Herd immunity works. And one hundred years from now what the government did is irrelevant. The problem is the suffering that may be caused to the current UK citizens.
It may work, but the price to pay if it doesn't is very high. It not only includes lives but the long term trust in the government and its institutions, that is quite eroded already.
The problem is not getting the virus. But, if everybody gets it at the same time. That will make hospitals collapse as queues of people wait for treatment.
If Goverment officials have access to health care, it does not matter for them what happens to the rest of the population.
Herd immunity works. And one hundred years from now what the government did is irrelevant. The problem is the suffering that may be caused to the current UK citizens.
It may work, but the price to pay if it doesn't is very high. It not only includes lives but the long term trust in the government and its institutions, that is quite eroded already.
So why didn't people do this back in 2009?
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-h1n1-pandemi...
Or back in 2014?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/1...
Why is the world taking such an extreme reaction towards a disease that's less deadly and infectious than ones from 5 and 11 years ago where there wasn't an air of extreme hostility directed towards people for not worrying?
Is it because the name is scarier? Is it because it's not a flu but a coronavirus?
Because I still remember those, those were genuinely scary, mortality rates were high for healthy people, there were millions of cases around the world, and it was highly infectious.
Yet, there was no massive global quarantine, the world didn't end, and life went on.
Why should a disease that is less bad in every conceivable way be so much more panic inducing?
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-h1n1-pandemi...
Or back in 2014?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/1...
Why is the world taking such an extreme reaction towards a disease that's less deadly and infectious than ones from 5 and 11 years ago where there wasn't an air of extreme hostility directed towards people for not worrying?
Is it because the name is scarier? Is it because it's not a flu but a coronavirus?
Because I still remember those, those were genuinely scary, mortality rates were high for healthy people, there were millions of cases around the world, and it was highly infectious.
Yet, there was no massive global quarantine, the world didn't end, and life went on.
Why should a disease that is less bad in every conceivable way be so much more panic inducing?
> Why should a disease that is less bad in every conceivable way be so much more panic inducing?
Because it's worse in every way: the initial containment has failed, the base immunity does not exist, the transmission rate is much higher, and the virus is more deadly.
Because it's worse in every way: the initial containment has failed, the base immunity does not exist, the transmission rate is much higher, and the virus is more deadly.
>and the virus is more deadly.
Explain this, because this is the part I just can't wrap my head around. How is a disease that's deadly towards a much smaller percentage of the population 'more deadly'. Children aren't affected, anyone under the age of 60 is mildly affected barring pre-existing health problems. How is that more deadly than, a 30% mortality rate for young otherwise healthy individuals in the case of 2009's pandemic?
Explain this, because this is the part I just can't wrap my head around. How is a disease that's deadly towards a much smaller percentage of the population 'more deadly'. Children aren't affected, anyone under the age of 60 is mildly affected barring pre-existing health problems. How is that more deadly than, a 30% mortality rate for young otherwise healthy individuals in the case of 2009's pandemic?
This site (https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus) has an excellent chart comparing the severity of COVID-19 vs the flu:
For all ages, it's basically 12-24x more lethal than the flu. For 0-19, 12 to 25x For 20-49, 6-16x For 50-59, 9-21x For 60+, 4-7x
For all ages, it's basically 12-24x more lethal than the flu. For 0-19, 12 to 25x For 20-49, 6-16x For 50-59, 9-21x For 60+, 4-7x
Mortality in 2009 was 0.03%, not 30%.
Don't forget containment failed.
Normally a comment like yours lacking any kind of reasonable explanation or arguement would be against hn's rules, but I'm assuming in this time of crisis this will be ignored.
That doesn't explain how it's more deadly. More deadly implies it kills more people faster. This is very much not the case no matter how much it's spread and by comparison, it's still contained more than both of those other pandemics were. Those each affected millions of people over a few months.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
We're at 167,543 with a total of 76,590 recoveries as of this comment.
For a website full of people used to dealing with big numbers there sure seems to be a lot of blind just ignoring of said numbers in exchange for emotional reaction.
That doesn't explain how it's more deadly. More deadly implies it kills more people faster. This is very much not the case no matter how much it's spread and by comparison, it's still contained more than both of those other pandemics were. Those each affected millions of people over a few months.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
We're at 167,543 with a total of 76,590 recoveries as of this comment.
For a website full of people used to dealing with big numbers there sure seems to be a lot of blind just ignoring of said numbers in exchange for emotional reaction.
By the rate of mortality, it kills way more people than H1N1 or the 2014 flu. By the rate of infection, it infects more people than SARS or MERS and already has done so. None of these diseases managed to overwhelm the healthcare system of a developed nation like Italy. Clearly, the potential danger is therefore far greater than any of those "closed cases".
Furthermore, the "deadliest" viruses in terms of rate and velocity of death are not as dangerous to the population as a whole, because most of the infected people fall over dead before infecting anyone else.
> We're at 167,543 with a total of 76,590 recoveries as of this comment.
We're also doubling the number of cases every 2.5 days in those countries that haven't managed to contain the spread. In Italy, that number (~20,000) has exceeded the capacity of the healthcare system.
Furthermore, the "deadliest" viruses in terms of rate and velocity of death are not as dangerous to the population as a whole, because most of the infected people fall over dead before infecting anyone else.
> We're at 167,543 with a total of 76,590 recoveries as of this comment.
We're also doubling the number of cases every 2.5 days in those countries that haven't managed to contain the spread. In Italy, that number (~20,000) has exceeded the capacity of the healthcare system.
From your own link, H1N1 seems to have a mortality of 0.017% for the entire US population. No matter how you slice and dice the current numbers, the mortality is an order of magnitude higher if not multiples. And perhaps you don't have any not-doing-well old people in your life or you don't care much for them, but for folks who have such people, it's doubly scary because clearly the mortality is in the single digits percentage for those people.
This is an entirely different situation. MERS & SARS were never spreading at an exponential rate in almost every country of the world (which Covid-19 currently is), and even the countries of origin were able to contain the outbreaks rather quickly.
Corona will probably never "go away" again unless we want to fundamentally change the way we live (which I think won't happen), so the only option right now is to slow the spread until more research has be done and the infrastructure has been built up to deal with severe cases.
Corona will probably never "go away" again unless we want to fundamentally change the way we live (which I think won't happen), so the only option right now is to slow the spread until more research has be done and the infrastructure has been built up to deal with severe cases.
The transmission numbers for this disease seem to be much higher than for H1N1. I don’t think it’s yet known whether that’s because it takes less exposure or because more people are susceptible.
Also, this virus may be as deadly in Africa as H1N1... but Southeast Asia seems to have learned good lessons from 2009 and been better prepared.
People are locking down to AVOID a 2009 rerun.
Also, this virus may be as deadly in Africa as H1N1... but Southeast Asia seems to have learned good lessons from 2009 and been better prepared.
People are locking down to AVOID a 2009 rerun.
The bravest of the brave, hide from this. These guys don't know what's gonna hit them.
But the fault lies with the government, they know and should know better
But the fault lies with the government, they know and should know better
They have taken "Keep Calm and Carry On" to the heart.
When you look at the incentives: less vulnerable people (because the vulnerable ones will be wiped out) will make it more economical for the trade deal with the US to go through, the part about healthcare.
So yeah they probably are making them cannon fodder, whether its intentional or not, the incentives would let higher ups look at the proposal and say "by golly that makes so much sense", whereas the rest of the world wouldn't consider this proposal as killing two birds with one stone and just reject the proposal.
So yeah they probably are making them cannon fodder, whether its intentional or not, the incentives would let higher ups look at the proposal and say "by golly that makes so much sense", whereas the rest of the world wouldn't consider this proposal as killing two birds with one stone and just reject the proposal.
Vulnerable people are being told to isolate themselves until herd there is herd immunity. The policy protects that elderly.
It's the British way, they're a tough cynical bunch heh. Plus it's human nature to not believe something until it happens to you or your family.
I'm not gonna panic, and keep going as usual, with the recommended precautions. Ideally I don't want to get infected, but if I do, oh well, such is life.
I'm not gonna panic, and keep going as usual, with the recommended precautions. Ideally I don't want to get infected, but if I do, oh well, such is life.
It will be one of the deadliest A/B tests this year.
Or, as I saw in one conversation among my friends:
- I thought that the UK is a rational and science-driven country.
- Yes. And it is why they've offered themselves to serve as a control group.
Or, as I saw in one conversation among my friends:
- I thought that the UK is a rational and science-driven country.
- Yes. And it is why they've offered themselves to serve as a control group.
Yeah, was thinking the same. Even if it doesn't work as expected for UK, it would at least be a good lesson for the world.
I live in the UK and volunteer on the front line; current events won't stop me doing so irregardless of the risk to myself or my family. The comments here on the UK's response are disappointing to say the least and just the product of modern day hysteria. No one knows how this is going to play out, so stop pretending to have some great insight - just focus on protecting yourself, instead of spreading fear, if you are that way inclined and let the rest of us get on with handling the situation.
> No one knows how this is going to play out
It’s entirely predictable how this is going to play out. Sadly, not for the best, if the current trajectory is not adjusted.
It’s entirely predictable how this is going to play out. Sadly, not for the best, if the current trajectory is not adjusted.
Can you cite your experience in these matters and the data from which you have come to this conclusion.. or is this just your feelings from consuming to much main stream media?
But really, I'd love to hear your opinion on how the trajectory shoud be shifted.
But really, I'd love to hear your opinion on how the trajectory shoud be shifted.
In an open letter, the 229 specialists in disciplines ranging from mathematics to genetics - though no leading experts in the science of the spread of diseases
It's not clear to me why we should listen to these people over the likes of Chris Whitty. Especially as they seem to have mischaracterised comments around herd immunity, which I've only seen stated as an aspect that may help rather than the strategy (to reduce the peak).
It's not clear to me why we should listen to these people over the likes of Chris Whitty. Especially as they seem to have mischaracterised comments around herd immunity, which I've only seen stated as an aspect that may help rather than the strategy (to reduce the peak).
They promoted herd immunity for two days, and are now offering wishy-washy denials.
https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/1238390547783528448
https://twitter.com/L__Macfarlane/status/1239190996379930626
https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/1238390547783528448
https://twitter.com/L__Macfarlane/status/1239190996379930626
> which I've only seen stated as
Government started talking about herd immunity as a strategy, and there's video of Boris saying this.
They've stopped saying it, and they've changed their comms, because it's such an unpalatable message and they were getting (still are getting) considerable push-back from the public.
Government started talking about herd immunity as a strategy, and there's video of Boris saying this.
They've stopped saying it, and they've changed their comms, because it's such an unpalatable message and they were getting (still are getting) considerable push-back from the public.
Herd immunity isn't the strategy, it's more like an inevitable consequence that there's probably no way for European countries to avoid hitting at this point. The strategy is about how to try and minimize the deaths and destruction caused in the process of getting there.
I commented on one of the other threads that I personally think this strategy is nuts. I compared it to Dr Strangelove, but really I was thinking of the beginning of “Fail Safe” when the Kissinger-like figure argues that nuclear war could be winnable for the United States.
Making a decision like this without releasing all of the data and assumptions behind the model feels unbelievably cavalier. It affects the whole world.
A couple of months into this, my lowly opinion is: give us the South Korean response, please. What I’d like to see is massive global cooperation to manufacture a billion masks, and an absurd number of tests — combined with aggressive social distancing, public education, hand sanitizer stations, etc.
It’s interesting that the UK government rode to power on a wave of populism — yet are proposing a solution that requires full faith in elites, with little transparency into the data and assumptions. A very precarious time.
[edit: obviously the South Korean model requires faith in institutions as well — but to me they’ve been fully transparent from the start.]
Making a decision like this without releasing all of the data and assumptions behind the model feels unbelievably cavalier. It affects the whole world.
A couple of months into this, my lowly opinion is: give us the South Korean response, please. What I’d like to see is massive global cooperation to manufacture a billion masks, and an absurd number of tests — combined with aggressive social distancing, public education, hand sanitizer stations, etc.
It’s interesting that the UK government rode to power on a wave of populism — yet are proposing a solution that requires full faith in elites, with little transparency into the data and assumptions. A very precarious time.
[edit: obviously the South Korean model requires faith in institutions as well — but to me they’ve been fully transparent from the start.]
>when the Kissinger-like figure argues that nuclear war could be winnable for the United States.
Minor nit: It was at least widely assumed that Groeteschele in Fail Safe (as well as Dr. Strangelove in Dr. Strangelove) was deliberately modeled on RAND Corporation military strategist Herman Kahn.
Minor nit: It was at least widely assumed that Groeteschele in Fail Safe (as well as Dr. Strangelove in Dr. Strangelove) was deliberately modeled on RAND Corporation military strategist Herman Kahn.
Digital tracing also seems to be very helpful in the Korean response. Would you support your government to have a digital database of gps data, credit card transactions, and immigration entry information?
I don't get this narrative, everybody on the planet earth is currently relying on "heard immunity".
What they don't agree on is about measures to take, which is two-dimentional slider (time, social distancing) that outputs multidimentional output of - time, age group death rate/absolute count, nhs capacity, economic impact, heard immunity, retransmission etc.
On one side I'm impressed by the world's rapid response.
On the other hand I'm surprised how poor published scientific modeling/decision making is. We know pretty much all of parameters we need to know by now. Making an online model should be as easy as interview task for data scientist. And we have greatest minds focusing/ready to dedicate time to it. Why are we doing fruitless political arguments? Just share the model and data on github. Refine it every day with new data.
I'd start with real estimated infection counts (they can be derived from official confirmed infection counts by mapping on age weighted symptoms that require hospitalisation - those people are tested only plus incubation period estimated population - those people will not be tested but they are infected).
Any current estimate I've seen seems to lag in time if you take under account incubation period (4d) and real estimated infection count vs confimed cases (5x+).
We need plots for next 3 years or so with breakthrough placeholders - ie. it is highly unlikely that we won't have cure at some level to deal with it in 3 years from now.
It is highly speculative game if you estimate further in the future, yes, but medium term there should be obvious optimal decision.
What they don't agree on is about measures to take, which is two-dimentional slider (time, social distancing) that outputs multidimentional output of - time, age group death rate/absolute count, nhs capacity, economic impact, heard immunity, retransmission etc.
On one side I'm impressed by the world's rapid response.
On the other hand I'm surprised how poor published scientific modeling/decision making is. We know pretty much all of parameters we need to know by now. Making an online model should be as easy as interview task for data scientist. And we have greatest minds focusing/ready to dedicate time to it. Why are we doing fruitless political arguments? Just share the model and data on github. Refine it every day with new data.
I'd start with real estimated infection counts (they can be derived from official confirmed infection counts by mapping on age weighted symptoms that require hospitalisation - those people are tested only plus incubation period estimated population - those people will not be tested but they are infected).
Any current estimate I've seen seems to lag in time if you take under account incubation period (4d) and real estimated infection count vs confimed cases (5x+).
We need plots for next 3 years or so with breakthrough placeholders - ie. it is highly unlikely that we won't have cure at some level to deal with it in 3 years from now.
It is highly speculative game if you estimate further in the future, yes, but medium term there should be obvious optimal decision.
I'm guessing that the UK has decided this can't be practically contained, that even total shutdown will only push it back a couple of months with huge cost. As such they are just going to accept mass casualties.
See figure 4 at the bottom of this preprint from one of the UK research groups about the tactics in Wuhan:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.09.20033050v...
they appear to be modeling here that even a total shutdown for a month, or for two months, will still lead to a similar epidemic.
I think that similar thinking is driving the UK policy but that's just a guess.
I wrote a blog post trying to predict the impact of this virus on Ireland. The fatality rates look grim:
https://medium.com/@fergal.reid/predicting-the-impact-of-cor...
See figure 4 at the bottom of this preprint from one of the UK research groups about the tactics in Wuhan:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.09.20033050v...
they appear to be modeling here that even a total shutdown for a month, or for two months, will still lead to a similar epidemic.
I think that similar thinking is driving the UK policy but that's just a guess.
I wrote a blog post trying to predict the impact of this virus on Ireland. The fatality rates look grim:
https://medium.com/@fergal.reid/predicting-the-impact-of-cor...
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/03/andrew-sullivan-real...
This is a really insightful article from Andrew Sullivan where he compares the initial reaction to the Coronavirus to the initial reactions to AIDS. For too long the homosexual community was in denial about the level of risk. The wanted to think that it would blow over, and no dramatic changes were needed.
Sullivan sees the echos now. A lot of people are still determined to downplay it, as though it proves some sort of moral victory over the people stocking up on toilet paper. The reality is that things may not go back to 'normal' for a long time.
This is a really insightful article from Andrew Sullivan where he compares the initial reaction to the Coronavirus to the initial reactions to AIDS. For too long the homosexual community was in denial about the level of risk. The wanted to think that it would blow over, and no dramatic changes were needed.
Sullivan sees the echos now. A lot of people are still determined to downplay it, as though it proves some sort of moral victory over the people stocking up on toilet paper. The reality is that things may not go back to 'normal' for a long time.
The bottom line is that every virus strategy is going to be "risking lives". From the "do nothing and hope it goes away" strategy to the "shut everything down and hope it goes away" strategy, through all the "flattening the curve" strategies in between, they're all going to be risking lives, given no-one really knows how this is going to work out.
But one thing I do know is that now is not the time for political grandstanding or international conflict. We're all in this together as a planet, and our best chance of getting through it is by working together.
And I also know I would prefer to listen to a group of people who have spent their careers specialising in studying how infectious diseases spread. As the original article says, this list has "no leading experts in the science of the spread of diseases", and if anyone has taken the time to look at the list it is largely maths PhD students and the like. Which I guess is still better than the Silicon Valley charlatans and wannabe social media influencers who seem to be getting a disturbingly uncharacteristic amount of airtime on HN at the moment.
But one thing I do know is that now is not the time for political grandstanding or international conflict. We're all in this together as a planet, and our best chance of getting through it is by working together.
And I also know I would prefer to listen to a group of people who have spent their careers specialising in studying how infectious diseases spread. As the original article says, this list has "no leading experts in the science of the spread of diseases", and if anyone has taken the time to look at the list it is largely maths PhD students and the like. Which I guess is still better than the Silicon Valley charlatans and wannabe social media influencers who seem to be getting a disturbingly uncharacteristic amount of airtime on HN at the moment.
> 229 specialists in disciplines ranging from mathematics to genetics - though no leading experts in the science of the spread of diseases
Here’s what you are asking for though USA, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/15/epidem...
> Nobody should be under the illusion that this is something that can be dodged through somehow manipulating a virus that we are only beginning to understand. This will not pass you by; this is not a tornado, it is a hurricane.
Isn't this exactly what the UK strategy amounts to? An acknowledgement that the pandemic can only mitigated at this point? It seems to me that those who are in the "shut down everything" camp are under the illusion that the virus can be stopped.
Isn't this exactly what the UK strategy amounts to? An acknowledgement that the pandemic can only mitigated at this point? It seems to me that those who are in the "shut down everything" camp are under the illusion that the virus can be stopped.
Not stopped, no. Slowed. Give the healthcare system a chance to deal with those that are coming in, without being overwhelmed. Give the researchers a chance to come up with an immunity shot. Time is our friend in this situation.
I live in Mexico where the government has been heavily criticized for not making more tests even to people with symptoms. They are taking very tepid measures. Schools will close by the end of next week and there will be recommended social distancing measures starting in about 10 days.
This weekend there is a huge festival in Mexico City with about 70k assistants every day (Vive Latino). Monday is a national holiday so millions of Mexicans are traveling all over the country.
Mexico City has +20M people and a very fragile public health system. Every month only the underground moves 130M passengers. I hope I'm wrong on this but I fear this will be one of the worse impacted cities on Earth. Thankfully we do not live there but we've been on self imposed lockdown for about a week anyway.
This weekend there is a huge festival in Mexico City with about 70k assistants every day (Vive Latino). Monday is a national holiday so millions of Mexicans are traveling all over the country.
Mexico City has +20M people and a very fragile public health system. Every month only the underground moves 130M passengers. I hope I'm wrong on this but I fear this will be one of the worse impacted cities on Earth. Thankfully we do not live there but we've been on self imposed lockdown for about a week anyway.
They probably just ran the numbers and discovered they'd be risking fewer lives if they did what they are doing instead of shutting down their economy indefinitely. The latter, at a large enough scale, can be quite deadly too.
I have been wondering about this. If health experts are saying it's inevitable that a large portion of the population is going to be infected with the virus then why not limit isolation to those most at risk.
In my mind you want to isolate until we better know how to treat it. I have seen some "evidence" on twitter that anabolic steroids seem to help and that the cs. Koreans are more successful with a treatment of zinc plus mineral salts. I thin eventually we will be able to limit the mortality rate significantly, but it will take time to determine what is effective.
I think I'm with you. I don't think it can be contained anymore.
Even if it seems gone, it can pop up and we go on lockdown again?
I wonder if the lockdown people are anti-math.
Even if it seems gone, it can pop up and we go on lockdown again?
I wonder if the lockdown people are anti-math.
It’s the anti-lockdown people that are anti-math. Any reasonable person can see that the lethality of the virus is much worse when the healthcare system is saturated. If you accept this, then the only solution is to reduce the transmission rate to reduce saturation of the healthcare system, i.e. “flatten the curve”.
I think the point of the UK strategy is doing such a thing early doesn't help much: if you bring in such measures while the number of cases is small, you'll delay the peak but it won't reduce it much unless you can sustain it all the way through, and by increasing the time you're trying to sustain it you run the risk it won't be sustainable.
That's dubious, and why many people have been calling on the UK to expose their analysis to peer review.
Since early contagion is an exponential process the rate of growth (and all higher derivatives) also grows exponentially along with the number of infected. As a result, "as early as possible" also ends up being the correct time to maximally spread out the peak with the least intrusive countermeasures.
In order to conclude that delaying mitigations will do a better job of reducing the peak they must be making some highly novel assumptions. ... or just not actually reasoning about it formally at all and instead depending on intuition which is often not particularly accurate for exponential processes.
Since early contagion is an exponential process the rate of growth (and all higher derivatives) also grows exponentially along with the number of infected. As a result, "as early as possible" also ends up being the correct time to maximally spread out the peak with the least intrusive countermeasures.
In order to conclude that delaying mitigations will do a better job of reducing the peak they must be making some highly novel assumptions. ... or just not actually reasoning about it formally at all and instead depending on intuition which is often not particularly accurate for exponential processes.
> If you accept this, then the only solution is to reduce the transmission rate to reduce saturation of the healthcare system, i.e. “flatten the curve”.
But for how long can you keep people holed up in their homes? This is a tradeoff that the government (whatever it is, in whatever country), must be prepared to face (even if it just means extending lockdowns).
Also, once the curve is flattened, will you allow people to leave their homes, and if so, what if another outbreak occurs? Will you lock people periodically every year until treatments are available?
(meant with no rhetoric: a question that I keep asking myself) Will this be sustainable in the long run?
But for how long can you keep people holed up in their homes? This is a tradeoff that the government (whatever it is, in whatever country), must be prepared to face (even if it just means extending lockdowns).
Also, once the curve is flattened, will you allow people to leave their homes, and if so, what if another outbreak occurs? Will you lock people periodically every year until treatments are available?
(meant with no rhetoric: a question that I keep asking myself) Will this be sustainable in the long run?
This graph explains what it is they're going for. Basically, they're trying to keep the health system below saturation, but busy, in the hope of chugging through the "inevitable" number of cases at a sustainable rate.
Of course, that requires them to be able to "apply the brake" appropriately to keep things from becoming saturated. Which is why I thing the best word to describe the attitude of the UK government is "ballsy".
EDIT: Link to the original Lancet article the figure is from
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
The risk of overly-strict measures is the blue line; the aim of the UK government is to go for the green line.
Of course, that requires them to be able to "apply the brake" appropriately to keep things from becoming saturated. Which is why I thing the best word to describe the attitude of the UK government is "ballsy".
EDIT: Link to the original Lancet article the figure is from
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
The risk of overly-strict measures is the blue line; the aim of the UK government is to go for the green line.
But how long do you, can you, lock down for, 3 months, six months, 1 year, until there is a vaccine?
The problem is more than pure health issues.
By choosing these strategies, the UK assures that no other country will allow UK citizens into its borders a long time after the first wave of the virus passed.
By choosing these strategies, the UK assures that no other country will allow UK citizens into its borders a long time after the first wave of the virus passed.
Taleb opinion about this:
UK Policy is a speculative lunacy.
Playing with the toy standard epidemiological SIR model. We have no idea how model parameters cause a yuuuge variation in ourcomes. We don't even know the central parameters/whether stochastic. Try to add perturbations for "herd immunity".
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1239171413342289921?s=19
UK Policy is a speculative lunacy.
Playing with the toy standard epidemiological SIR model. We have no idea how model parameters cause a yuuuge variation in ourcomes. We don't even know the central parameters/whether stochastic. Try to add perturbations for "herd immunity".
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1239171413342289921?s=19
[deleted]
[deleted]
Years ago I got the flu very bad when I was healthy. I thought I was going to die.
Most of the time your body will fight the flu, but when you get it bad it is very serious.
I cannot imagine why you would do this to your citizens. Depending on how bad they get it even young healthy people will die.
Most of the time your body will fight the flu, but when you get it bad it is very serious.
I cannot imagine why you would do this to your citizens. Depending on how bad they get it even young healthy people will die.
Everyone is going to get coronavirus regardless (the isolation measures just slow it down, not stop it). The UK calculated it is better for its citizens to go through that now, outside normal flu season when hospitals get more busy.
And as others pointed out, the economic impact is minimized. Crashing the economy also has bad health effects.
And as others pointed out, the economic impact is minimized. Crashing the economy also has bad health effects.
The UK has declined to show their math.
Add in the fact that that hospital overload is easily hit with small percentages of the population infected and that even relatively young people die at high rates when they can't receive critical care, I am extremely doubtful that they calculated much of anything here.
If large amounts of working age people die because of overloaded hospitals the negative economic effects will be tremendous.
Moreover, they now appear to be walking back their plan, suggesting that they will actually trying to slow the progression as much as possible... which is what almost everyone else is doing (as full containment isn't possible).
Add in the fact that that hospital overload is easily hit with small percentages of the population infected and that even relatively young people die at high rates when they can't receive critical care, I am extremely doubtful that they calculated much of anything here.
If large amounts of working age people die because of overloaded hospitals the negative economic effects will be tremendous.
Moreover, they now appear to be walking back their plan, suggesting that they will actually trying to slow the progression as much as possible... which is what almost everyone else is doing (as full containment isn't possible).
Depending on the rate of infection, there might be time for 20-80% of the population to be vaccinated before being infected.
Whatever the number, it would be nice to save as many lives and as much potential long-term damage to people as possible.
Whatever the number, it would be nice to save as many lives and as much potential long-term damage to people as possible.
There is no vaccine, and won't be for many years (if at all).
There is no vaccine. No one in the world knows when, or if, there will be one.
The bigger problem is people coming from the UK are testing positive... They're imposing this "plan" on everyone else without a care.
[deleted]
Sweden is also taking similar measures
[deleted]
From what I gathered from actual epidemiologists, the main issue isn't who takes the grandest of stands on this the day of reckoning, but rather, who takes what LONG-TERM action? Can you really shut down your economy, realistically, for more than a few weeks? The virus is sure to survive whatever countermeasures you put in its path.
Flattening the curve is the idea, so that health services can deal with the critically ill. That means EVERYONE HAS TO LIMIT THEIR CONTACT, as much as possible.
If you thought capitalist society was good at distributing goods, just look at what happened to hand sanitizer. Everybody needs it now, yet it has been bought up by the few that got to it.
Flattening the curve is the idea, so that health services can deal with the critically ill. That means EVERYONE HAS TO LIMIT THEIR CONTACT, as much as possible.
If you thought capitalist society was good at distributing goods, just look at what happened to hand sanitizer. Everybody needs it now, yet it has been bought up by the few that got to it.
As far as I understand, the UK's strategy is essentially steepening the curve into one huge but thin peak, in order to minimize the time countermeasures have to be in place - which is the exact opposite of what "flattening the curve" is about.
The one thing that I don't see mentioned is: are they actually protecting their vulnerable population while they do this, or are they just gambling at the risk of a 20% lethality rate?
Also, even if they do protect the vulnerable population, that only means they can stand a ~10x larger transmission rate. I don't think anybody knows how large it gets without some kind of action, but yeah, that would in theory make it possible to have milder actions.
That said, if they are indeed protect their population, I don't see how their plan differs from the rest of the world, that is trying to protect their vulnerable population too.
Also, even if they do protect the vulnerable population, that only means they can stand a ~10x larger transmission rate. I don't think anybody knows how large it gets without some kind of action, but yeah, that would in theory make it possible to have milder actions.
That said, if they are indeed protect their population, I don't see how their plan differs from the rest of the world, that is trying to protect their vulnerable population too.
That doesn't seem like what they were proposing. From what I saw the idea was to flatten the curve at the point it is steepest, instead of trying to flatten it while it's still pretty flat, which just increases the time you need to keep countermeasures in place (because delaying only helps a little: it's very unlikely you can delay until a vaccine is developed, the main benefit of a few months delay is the NHS has less of its regular winter workload to deal with, which is higher than in summer).
Ouch. Good luck trying to get the timing right.
The earlier you start with countermeasures, the longer you can try them and see how they affect the spread rate. If you wait to impose them at the last minute, you will have to choose erring on too expensive measures or on letting your people die.
The earlier you start with countermeasures, the longer you can try them and see how they affect the spread rate. If you wait to impose them at the last minute, you will have to choose erring on too expensive measures or on letting your people die.
If you watch the press conference from a few days ago they say that their aim is the complete opposite.
The most charitable interpretation I can give it is that they're attempting the epidemiological equivalent of a suicide burn from rocketry.
A suicide burn is when you're trying to land on a body (say, the Moon) by letting your ship fall freely, thus accelerating with gravity, for as long as possible, and then at the last second, you fire up your engines at 100% output and decelerate until hitting the ground. When timed right, you'll end up touching the ground exactly as your vertical velocity = 0. It's the most fuel-efficient way of landing, but if you miscalculate that time just a little bit, you'll end up smeared all across the surface.
Suicide burn works in rocketry because you can calculate all the forces to extreme accuracy and precision. Nobody would even think of attempting that if the error bars on your altitude or velocity measurements were +/- 1000%, or if your engine output was unstable. Trying to pull the epidemiological equivalent - timing countermeasures to keep NHS at exactly 100% utilization - seems like an impossible task that's bound to end with a disaster.
A suicide burn is when you're trying to land on a body (say, the Moon) by letting your ship fall freely, thus accelerating with gravity, for as long as possible, and then at the last second, you fire up your engines at 100% output and decelerate until hitting the ground. When timed right, you'll end up touching the ground exactly as your vertical velocity = 0. It's the most fuel-efficient way of landing, but if you miscalculate that time just a little bit, you'll end up smeared all across the surface.
Suicide burn works in rocketry because you can calculate all the forces to extreme accuracy and precision. Nobody would even think of attempting that if the error bars on your altitude or velocity measurements were +/- 1000%, or if your engine output was unstable. Trying to pull the epidemiological equivalent - timing countermeasures to keep NHS at exactly 100% utilization - seems like an impossible task that's bound to end with a disaster.
> If you thought capitalist society was good at distributing goods, just look at what happened to hand sanitizer. Everybody needs it now, yet it has been bought up by the few that got to it.
Our country is trying the other approach. Ban the sale of protective gear, and distribute it centrally. It's not working great either. GPs don't have any protective gear anymore and can't buy it on the market, as they did up to now, and talk of shutting down their practices soon, because most GPs are run by old people, and they're literally putting their lives in danger by practicing. They're only getting promises since January. They are now trying to get protective gear on black market to at least have any. They're begging the government to lift the ban so that people who're trying to get them protective gear from abroad are not doing so illegally/in great legal uncertainty.
Of course no other profession exposed to masses of people daily like cashiers, have any chance either to have protective gear, under the current system.
Our country is trying the other approach. Ban the sale of protective gear, and distribute it centrally. It's not working great either. GPs don't have any protective gear anymore and can't buy it on the market, as they did up to now, and talk of shutting down their practices soon, because most GPs are run by old people, and they're literally putting their lives in danger by practicing. They're only getting promises since January. They are now trying to get protective gear on black market to at least have any. They're begging the government to lift the ban so that people who're trying to get them protective gear from abroad are not doing so illegally/in great legal uncertainty.
Of course no other profession exposed to masses of people daily like cashiers, have any chance either to have protective gear, under the current system.
We don’t have capitalism, we have a mixed economy. It is often illegal to raise prices, which would limit hoarding behavior.
(edit: removed my comment because it was unnecessary)
typo: I think you meant: some "scientists" :)
Whether you think this is crazy or not depends on whether you share the premise this strategy is based on: namely that there is no solution which prevents widespread infection and that all quarantine measures are no more than temporary and might be damaging if they push a second peak into the winter.
The plan is to lockdown the vulnerable and let the virus run its course through the rest of society. In this scenario you think(/hope) that the people not locked down only get mild versions of the disease and so don't require hospitalisation. You come out the other side with herd immunity which (again you hope) stops the disease from gaining a foothold again.
Lots of unknowns, of course, but if your starting point is complete infection of the population is inevitable then it doesn't seem necessarily any riskier than other methods and has the merit of being quicker if nothing else. If you think complete infection is preventable then it looks reckless at best, and a borderline genocide at worst.
The plan is to lockdown the vulnerable and let the virus run its course through the rest of society. In this scenario you think(/hope) that the people not locked down only get mild versions of the disease and so don't require hospitalisation. You come out the other side with herd immunity which (again you hope) stops the disease from gaining a foothold again.
Lots of unknowns, of course, but if your starting point is complete infection of the population is inevitable then it doesn't seem necessarily any riskier than other methods and has the merit of being quicker if nothing else. If you think complete infection is preventable then it looks reckless at best, and a borderline genocide at worst.
Mathematics professors know as much about the spread of disease as anyone else here.
The UK is taking measures. The public has been educated and told to stay at home if they show symptoms. If people were uneducated they'd be at work with a slight cough spreading it around. There's a strong social stigma in the UK to not take absence due to a cold. So this is a big deal.
At the end of the day, there's no evidence that the measures other countries are taking will work either. There is a strong argument that closing schools will impact the NHS, even though children aren't very at risk. Other countries are essentially on lockdown indefinitely right now because none of the isolated people have been exposed.
The UK is taking measures. The public has been educated and told to stay at home if they show symptoms. If people were uneducated they'd be at work with a slight cough spreading it around. There's a strong social stigma in the UK to not take absence due to a cold. So this is a big deal.
At the end of the day, there's no evidence that the measures other countries are taking will work either. There is a strong argument that closing schools will impact the NHS, even though children aren't very at risk. Other countries are essentially on lockdown indefinitely right now because none of the isolated people have been exposed.
> There is a strong argument that closing schools will impact the NHS, even though children aren't very at risk.
This is a complete moot point. Other countries have implemented free childcare for healthcare workers when schools are shut. There is no reason why the UK cannot do this for NHS staff.
And because children are not at risk of developing serious symptoms, they can be a huge reservoir for the virus, which then infects the middle-aged and elderly.
This is a complete moot point. Other countries have implemented free childcare for healthcare workers when schools are shut. There is no reason why the UK cannot do this for NHS staff.
And because children are not at risk of developing serious symptoms, they can be a huge reservoir for the virus, which then infects the middle-aged and elderly.
> There is a strong argument that closing schools will impact the NHS, even though children aren't very at risk.
Sweden also made the same point and kept the schools open FYI
Sweden also made the same point and kept the schools open FYI
> Other countries have implemented free childcare for healthcare workers when schools are shut. There is no reason why the UK cannot do this for NHS staff.
Other countries haven't shown evidence that their approach is more effective. The UK solution is to not close schools.
Other countries haven't shown evidence that their approach is more effective. The UK solution is to not close schools.
What has been shown however, is that for sars-cov-2 that young people are asymptomatic carriers at much higher rates than for other infections. And what has also been shown is that the R0 for other respiratory infections is tremendously higher in schools than in the general population.
Though it has not been proven that schools are a hotbed of contagion for sars-cov-2, there is a lot of reason to expect them to be and little reason to expect that they aren't.
Though it has not been proven that schools are a hotbed of contagion for sars-cov-2, there is a lot of reason to expect them to be and little reason to expect that they aren't.
An argument against closing the schools is that they will be looked after by their grandparents.
There's already some data regarding this point, because we have countries that have done this early like Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea and none of them have reported this as a major factor in the known cases.
> The public has been educated and told to stay at home if they show symptoms. If people were uneducated they'd be at work with a slight cough spreading it around.
The evidence is overwhelming that people who have not developed symptoms are contagious. (It's also extremely likely that people who never develop symptoms are transmitting the virus.) This simply isn't sufficient.
The evidence is overwhelming that people who have not developed symptoms are contagious. (It's also extremely likely that people who never develop symptoms are transmitting the virus.) This simply isn't sufficient.
Yeah, they are contagious. We're all going to get this eventually. Unless you want to somehow live in isolation until a vaccine is found (which is unlikely if nobody is working).
- You don't get immune due to strains and changes (flu)
- You get it forever latently and it comes back from time to time (HSV)
- malignant tissue abnormalities, Cancer, organ failure over time (some HSV strains, HEP)
- You get immunity but if another strain hits you you bleed from all orifices and may die (dengue)
- It stays with you forever and makes you more vulnerable to tons of other virii (Eppstein-Barr - I know, killer combo, HSV, HEP)
- Chronic fatigue syndrome (Epstein-Barr)
- It depletes your immune system leaving you vulnerable for life (HIV)
- Permanent lung, liver, kidney or heart damage (SARS)
- chronic joint and muscle pain, vision and hearing loss, abdominal pain, bleeding, malaise, and psychological problems (Ebola)
- birth defects, chronic joint pain and inflammation (Zika)
We have NO IDEA right now if this one has such effects or interactions ... it's too early. But we have indication for several side effects from Wuhan that are being studied like permanent lung scarring and T-cell exhaustion.
So this "strategy" (They would all speak German if they used this to save the economy in 1940) is beyond madness.
Please please please do not take this lightly with a I'll get it anyway attitude. More time buys understanding, treatment, lower severity and better survival chances.
(Same reason to be cautious with rushed vaccines (well tested ones are just fine) - especially if they show up unseasonably early for election time. Read up on the Philippines dengue vaccine for the gory details)