[petejh]

I'm not conflating. I'm aware of your point. But there is clear and obvious correlation with # fatalities and # serious illness. So drop the at high risk group to 'over 50'. The logic remains the same that you can divide the population into two quite distinct groups: 1. at high risk of serious illness 2. at low risk of serious illness.
 
And given the two goals are to  1.minimise fatalities (and burden on health service) and 2.minimise economic damage
..
to achieve maximum effect in both goals, you could (and should?) treat the two groups very differently.

I'm open to why that's wrong.

[mrjonathanr]

The problem as I see it Pete isn't that there aren't big differences between the two groups, of course there are, but that you can selectively separate them. If you place the older group under house arrest and leave the younger group unrestricted I don't doubt it will improve the older group's health. But I suspect not to the extent that limiting transmission in the broader population will.

Given that the impact of this illness when it is severe is calamitous, for those in at risk groups,  for families and for front-line staff, I think there is an argument for restricting all the population.

One of the reasons put forward for the prevalence of the illness amongst doctors was the high exposure levels. It isn't as if we know from prior episodes that a split approach will be effective. It seems very risky to me.

[Falling Down]

For what it’s worth, I’ve been sick since Monday evening and have stayed at home to work and will be isolating for the next week at least. 

Felt a bit weird over the weekend then came down with fatigue, aches and pains, elevated temperature and periodic coughing on Monday and they’ve stayed like that since.  Not like a bad cold or real flu - quite mild really.

London will be a real shitshow I suspect. I must have taken dozens of tubes, trains, taxis and buses and been in loads of offices and meeting rooms in different companies over the last four weeks.  I started hand sanitising and washing like mad about three weeks ago and haven’t shaken hands with anyone for at least a couple of weeks or more but have still got sick. 

Still don’t know whether it’s the virus but felt like staying at home earlier this week was the right thing to do.  I’ve got a slightly dodgy immune system with ulcerative colitis (anti immune disorder) so tend to get sick easier when I’m run down and I’m 50 in a few months.  Not worried but glad I’ve isolated this week to save spreading anything.

Keep washing your hands peeps 👍

[BrutusTheBear]

So everyone taking better care of their hygiene and washing hands is great, it will reduce the prevalence of other illnesses.  Keep doing it for sure...

However, someone with better knowledge can correct me if I am wrong but the main way of getting the virus is inhaling it...  Not shaking hands etc... is great but if you’re breathing the same air as someone who has the virus that’s how you will catch it.

[teestub]

Hope you have a fast recovery FD ✊

[mrjonathanr]

+1

[Oldmanmatt]

I agree with that and am aware. But there is clear and obvious correlation with # fatalities and # serious illness. So drop the at high risk group to 'over 50'. The logic remains the same that you can divide the population into two quite distinct groups: 1. at high risk of serious illness 2. at low risk of serious illness.
 
And given the two goals are to  1.minimise fatalities and 2.minimise economic damage
..
to achieve maximum effect in both goals, you could (and should?) treat the two groups very differently.

I'm open to why that's wrong.

Because the vast majority of “senior management” and “executive” control of of economic institutions, companies and corporations (or to put it another way, the people who actually run things) are square in the at risk of serious illness categories.
They don’t even need to be hospitalised. Knock these people on their backs for 4-6 weeks and add in a “poorly” chunk of 35-50 year old middle management and a whole bunch of “sub par” reduced performance 25-35 year olds; and watch the economic drag that creates.

Imagine if we got close to the 80% of the population infection rate of the worst case scenario?

Shit, you’re looking at 60% of the population being too ill to work!

Obviously, that’s a worst case and as such, not the most likely. But, hell, it doesn’t need to get that bad to really put a dent. Basically, the difference between a two-four week imposed lockdown and a four to six week period of mass absenteeism doesn’t add up in my guestamation
(In fact, it wouldn’t be just the 4-6 weeks of peak illness. It would be drawn out, with a taper as summer draws in). I would have guessed the latter to be more harmful.

Then there’s the strain on medical services. Bed demand etc etc.

No. I don’t see the logic of the split you suggest.

I mean, I do, of course, it’s far from stupid, I really don’t mean to suggest it is. I just don’t see it as better than a total slow down of infection rates, which is what the lockdown strategy is intended to achieve.

I would also suggest, the Chinese strategy, which appears to have been largely successful, was not motivated by sentimental regard for their elderly, but by a cold appraisal of what would be best for the state and their economic continuity.

Even if our society doesn’t allow such dictatorial action and our population more likely to rebel/ignore; we could achieve a partial, if less effective, facsimile.

[tomtom]

Heal fast FD.

[Ged]

So everyone taking better care of their hygiene and washing hands is great, it will reduce the prevalence of other illnesses.  Keep doing it for sure...

However, someone with better knowledge can correct me if I am wrong but the main way of getting the virus is inhaling it...  Not shaking hands etc... is great but if you’re breathing the same air as someone who has the virus that’s how you will catch it.

I think hand to mouth and hand to eye is actually the most common route of transmission for these sorts of things. Although obviously someone coughing in your face isn't ideal either.

[nik at work]

It wouldn’t be 2-4 weeks lockdown. It would be much longer at this stage, more like 13-16 weeks I think...
I’m no Boris fan boi and I disagree with Pete completely with regards to Brexit. But on this I think Pete is closer to the ‘best’ option than the idea of immediate lockdown.

Get well soon FD

And Brutus current opinion/thinking is hand washing 5 times a day for the full 2 minutes reduces your risk of getting Covid by a third, that’s why it’s worth doing.

[BrutusTheBear]

Ditto FD get well.

Thank you Nik that’s useful.  I watched this and at around a minute in the ‘expert’ (I think he’s legit) talks about how the virus acts and is transferred.  If he’s correct a bit less than a cough in the face is needed.. 

[petejh]

Is Shark 60 yet? 😃

Last spotted heading to his disaster bunker in the US... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/11/disease-dodging-worried-wealthy-jet-off-to-disaster-bunkers

I’m no Boris fan boi and I disagree with Pete completely with regards to Brexit. But on this I think Pete is closer to the ‘best’ option than the idea of immediate lockdown.

Please. The two are completely irrelevant to each other. You may as well link my support of LFC with my view on abortion.
edit - actually Liverpool FC historically have a catholic support base! But you get my point.

[gme]

Labour leadership shindig postponed. I am starting to thing this is all a Corbyn plan to keep him as leader for a bit longer.

[BrutusTheBear]

  Whole bleddy thing is his fault innit.

[Offwidth]

Offwidth. The extra weeks are because our cases have not accelerated as fast as Italy in the early stages. Our curve isn’t as steep.

I listened to the statement/press conference for quite a while. BJ is just a front man. But the CMO and CSO were open with their reasons - and there was no attempt to shy away from any interviewers questions etc...

I'm sorry but I'm not convinced. If anything the data and information indicates an apparent steeper take off in cases in Italy was probably due to a slow start in testing. UK deaths roughly match the Italy situation 2 weeks ago (possibly a slightly slower increase but not so different for the week before that).. Hence, I'm shocked if no one questioned this at the press conference. Two weeks is more than an order of magnitude difference in infection and deaths on an exponential rise. Luckily in any case we will know within a few days if this statement from the government is wrong. I feel for the CMO as I suspect he is under massive pressure from the government to delay the hard decisions on delay.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/

[tomtom]

Didn’t mean to endorse either approach - was just reflecting what was said in the press conference. They were also asked why thru didn’t ramp up measures like other countries etc..

[BrutusTheBear]

I am now at home and not at work (a school)  ‘self isolating’ for 7 days as instructed.  Have what feels like a very heavy cold and a temperature/ fever. The school I work at has lots of staff off for similar reasons, remaining staff are stretched very thin.  I am 1 member of staff away from closing my unit..  Not far off having to shut anyway.
Former public health chief Prof. John Ashton was highly critical of government last night.  In my view, there is no way in the world that this government has our best interests at the heart of their decision making.  If they can’t make the right decisions perhaps it is down to us to take necessary action to protect ourselves and those around us.

[Ru]

The reason we're not shutting down like other countries is that they are trying to stop the virus spreading (as seems to have been successful in China and a couple of other countries) whereas we are only trying to slow it down. China seems to have almost completely stopped transmission (18 new cases yesterday) with something like 0.02% of the population having been infected.

The UK's plan, somewhat bafflingly, assumes that we cannot stop the virus, and that at least 60% of the population need to catch it to get herd immunity (not that there's any real evidence that immunity necessarily follows infection so far as I can find). The plan is only to flatten out and delay the peak to reduce NHS stress. Sir Vallance, the CMO, has said as much.

Clearly if the gov is wrong on that front, every other developed country in the world may get on top of this, whilst we are still shrugging our shoulders in the middle of summer saying mass infection is unavoidable (and presumably either being banned from travelling internationally or reigniting chains of transmission).

[Offwidth]

Didn’t mean to endorse either approach - was just reflecting what was said in the press conference. They were also asked why thru didn’t ramp up measures like other countries etc..

Yeah.... history and the data science don't count as the British are masters of the special science about their population getting bored with too early a lockdown (despite all the epidemiology supporting that).

Another good info link from the other channel:

https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1238236295480119298

[spidermonkey09]

Get well soon Brutus.

My doctor girlfriend was baffled this morning at the repeated mentions of herd immunity in the news as there is no evidence in the public domain that infection and subsequent recovery provides immunity. Hard to escape the feeling that the government is prioritising the economy over peoples lives, which seems a dud bet to me given the behaviour of the markets. Politically speaking there was no risk doing what other countries have done in terms of shutting schools and banning public events as it would be perceived as necessary. The whole strategy seems to be based on behavioural science (as yet undisclosed by the government) suggesting that two weeks is the maximum people will tolerate lockdown measures for.

On the plus side, whatever is driving this policy it isn't populism, which is something I suppose.

[Oldmanmatt]

Comforting...

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/coronavirus-iran-digs-mass-graves-for-victims-87t7dph03?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1584035037

[rich d]

So my youngest 11 has developed a cough and will now be off school for 7 days and stay at home this weekend etc. Bit tricky with work for me and the wife. I suppose more concerning is that we've all been in close proximity with her and we've all including daughter been out and about as normal, in fact her eldest sister is at school as normal today.
The odds are that it's just a normal cold, but it does show how easily it can spread, especially if as some reports are saying it's at it's most contagious before symptoms show. 
I was thinking about the stats etc and I wondered how prevalent it actually is. I know that one premier league player and a manager are confirmed positive after testing and would have thought that their hygiene levels as professional sports people were better than the population at large and I'm assuming unlike the rest of us disposable plebs that they will be tested when showing signs of symptoms. Reckon it might be out there in the population already and possibly quite widespread.
PS hope you feel better soon FD.

[Will Hunt]

I know that one premier league player and a manager are confirmed positive after testing and would have thought that their hygiene levels as professional sports people were better than the population at large

Premier League hygiene: don't share bank notes when you're doing lines of coke. And always disinfect the stripper's back before you indulge.

[petejh]

The reason we're not shutting down like other countries is that they are trying to stop the virus spreading (as seems to have been successful in China and a couple of other countries) whereas we are only trying to slow it down. China seems to have almost completely stopped transmission (18 new cases yesterday) with something like 0.02% of the population having been infected.

The UK's plan, somewhat bafflingly, assumes that we cannot stop the virus, and that at least 60% of the population need to catch it to get herd immunity (not that there's any real evidence that immunity necessarily follows infection so far as I can find). The plan is only to flatten out and delay the peak to reduce NHS stress. Sir Vallance, the CMO, has said as much.

Clearly if the gov is wrong on that front, every other developed country in the world may get on top of this, whilst we are still shrugging our shoulders in the middle of summer saying mass infection is unavoidable (and presumably either being banned from travelling internationally or reigniting chains of transmission).

Conversely that is likely to be the sign that UK have estimated it correctly - a longer duration lasting well into mid-summer, with consistently high, but not overwhelming, hospitalisations, is the outcome we're aiming for. Whether it works or not we'll see.
I think the reality hasn't sunk in yet among the public that we're looking at 3-4 months at least of high levels of illness, not a few weeks of lock down and then come out and it's on the decline. We're on a lengthy upslope, perhaps people have been distracted by Italy thinking they've peaked but they haven't, they're still on the uptrend too. I can see the sense in the concept longer term approach and not moving too soon.

It's emerging that China had its first case in November... peaked in February.

Noticed the LSE just banned short-selling of Italian and Spanish stocks Ru 

[abarro81]

So, let's assume that we're looking at a multi-month outbreak stretching through Apr/May/Jun/Jul... maybe more... who wants to guess at what point it's logistically feasible and socially responsible to go on a climbing trip? Or who knows somewhere good for that period with cheap accommodation to "work from home"?