[Fultonius]

Sorry for the delay replying (I was trying to think of some alternatives  ).

Yes age-based shielding is the major measure I was thinking of, but all of the other bits and pieces (hand washing, mask wearing, distancing, etc.) are part of the puzzle and should help. Again I think the problem here is the implementation of those measures; I mean as an example why on earth did all university education not move online for this year?!

It's a good point Will about reliance on family for childcare etc. However, it's an issue that could be addressed if, for example, we didn't lock down and pay people's wages and instead used that money to pay for free childcare. Let's face it, either way the grandparents aren't going to see the grandchildren, but at least the parents could keep their livelihoods.

I was completely supportive of the original lockdown, and I was amazed by the number of people who said they'd still gone climbing during the lockdown, after it lifted. But where I'm coming to now is a concern that lockdowns are a completely blunt instrument that suppress the virus at the expense of literally everything else, and I'm not convinced it's worth that sacrifice when, for instance, we do now have better treatment methods, the average age of someone dying from C19 is pretty much bang on the average life-expectancy, the small number of people who need intensive care are now more likely to recover quicker/not die from the virus, and looking back historically deaths from respiratory illnesses are around average for the time of year at the moment.

Did you hear Hancock saying yesterday that 5-10% of all those infected (whether asymptomatic or not - and irrespective of age and severity of initial illness) were experiencing a form on long-covid.

I think there may be some real long term implications of this for our health - and the NHS/spending for years to come if we let it 'rip'...

I know I've had a "scare" and am now probably on the other side of the fence to what I was before (generally compliant, but a bit blasé about the risks as I'm young/fit/healthy).

I think it's too soon to tell whether "deaths" are actually the biggest negative effect of this. Letting it rip might mean a large percentage of the population gets short/medium/long term effects that we do not yet know if they cause irreversible damage.

Shielding only affects those who have underlying health issues.

That said....I can't help but feel this is a bit of nature rebalancing against the scourge of the earth/rampant capitalism/overpopulation etc.....

[slab_happy]

Also, the most vulnerable people (and most likely to get severely ill and to die) of all are fragile elderly and/or disabled people who need some kind of care, whether that's in care homes or with carers visiting their homes (or informally, living with relatives who provide some support).

You can't "shield" them by isolating them in a bubble unless you can also isolate everyone providing them with care, everyone living with them, etc..

And care homes are still, even now, reporting that they can't reliably get adequate supplies of PPE or frequent enough testing of residents and staff.

Lots of the people who need shielding in some way are not the elderly who were staying at home doing jigsaws anyway. I can think of loads of people in their 20s and 30s who have health conditions that make them vulnerable. The world is a scary place to them - more so if they have to be confined to quarters because the disease is prevalent in their area.

Also, for example, think about the person in their 40s who's got diabetes and is overweight, or who's immunosuppressed because of treatment for Crohn's disease or whatever, and has a kid in school and works at a job which can't be done from home.

They're at high risk, but if you want to put them in a bubble, you have to provide enough money to support them and their family, you have to isolate their kid too and provide some kind of home access to schooling (and deal with the psychological consequences of even more isolation for the kid).

People often seem to talk as if the "vulnerable" who need shielding are all elderly retired couples who might have some health conditions but are basically independent and can look after themselves, don't share accommodation with anyone else, and can keep each other company and catch up with friends and relatives via Zoom.

That pretty much describes my parents (thank fuck) and they've been able to isolate themselves and only go somewhat stir-crazy (they were not staying at home and doing jigsaws prior to this; they're still not doing jigsaws and I'd be alarmed they'd had a personality transplant if they were ...).

But that description does not fit a huge number of vulnerable people who are at high risk from the virus.

There's an assumption that shielding is just "tell the pensioners to stay indoors for a bit" and it's really not that simple.

[tomtom]

Its the total sinker for the herd immunity argument - in our interlinked society you simply can't isolate a significant (millions) percentage of the population that are spread all around the company.

Sure - you could round up ALL the old people. All the vulnerable people, all the people with pre existings etc... (5 million? 10 million?) and put them on an island. Then only let food water/ medicine etc.. over to them....

Then 'let it rip' amongst the less vulnerable section - and they get 'herd immunity'. Problem is, when you let the prisoners back into the rest of the country - COVID has to be COMPLETELY gone in the herd... (and that would take many many many years - it would keep on rumbling along in a very small level for ages) otherwise just a handful of covid carriers would then find all those fresh non-immune people to run rife through. Unless you vaccinate them - but this would mean taking a gamble on effectively imprisoning a chunk of the population for an unknown period of time until a vaccine of unknown efficacy was developed...

err.. nope, don't think so.

[mrjonathanr]

No sugar, Sherlock.

Yes - my last sentence was typed without much thought! (mid zoom)

I am not having a go TT, in total agreement.

[Will Hunt]

It's a good point Will about reliance on family for childcare etc. However, it's an issue that could be addressed if, for example, we didn't lock down and pay people's wages and instead used that money to pay for free childcare. Let's face it, either way the grandparents aren't going to see the grandchildren, but at least the parents could keep their livelihoods.

A nice thought but unfortunately unworkable no matter how much money you throw at it. Current childcare provision is not sized to cope with the additional strains that all those extra kids would place upon it. There isn't the built infrastructure, nor the staff. The lead time to provide the solution is large.

As pointed out on another thread, the reason that respiratory illnesses are in line with other years is because the people who would normally be contracting and suffering with those illnesses are being more careful - but cases are still rising.

The hand washing, mask wearing, distancing stuff is all very well but it clearly isn't sufficient because cases are going up - even in Tier 2 areas. It slows it down, but exponential growth has a nasty habit of getting serious, even if the lead in time is a bit longer.

To be totally blunt, you need to consider that not everybody in the country enjoys a family life that is as simple as a self-contained unit of healthy individuals who can earn a good wage from their study in Pudsey.

[Bonjoy]

...for instance, we do now have better treatment methods, the average age of someone dying from C19 is pretty much bang on the average life-expectancy, the small number of people who need intensive care are now more likely to recover quicker/not die from the virus, and looking back historically deaths from respiratory illnesses are around average for the time of year at the moment.

This is only true if the NHS is not overwhelmed.
Even with T3 measures in place it looks likely the NHS is on course to get overwhelmed in many areas in the not too distant future.

[Oldmanmatt]

Sorry for the delay replying (I was trying to think of some alternatives  ).

Yes age-based shielding is the major measure I was thinking of, but all of the other bits and pieces (hand washing, mask wearing, distancing, etc.) are part of the puzzle and should help. Again I think the problem here is the implementation of those measures; I mean as an example why on earth did all university education not move online for this year?!

It's a good point Will about reliance on family for childcare etc. However, it's an issue that could be addressed if, for example, we didn't lock down and pay people's wages and instead used that money to pay for free childcare. Let's face it, either way the grandparents aren't going to see the grandchildren, but at least the parents could keep their livelihoods.

I was completely supportive of the original lockdown, and I was amazed by the number of people who said they'd still gone climbing during the lockdown, after it lifted. But where I'm coming to now is a concern that lockdowns are a completely blunt instrument that suppress the virus at the expense of literally everything else, and I'm not convinced it's worth that sacrifice when, for instance, we do now have better treatment methods, the average age of someone dying from C19 is pretty much bang on the average life-expectancy, the small number of people who need intensive care are now more likely to recover quicker/not die from the virus, and looking back historically deaths from respiratory illnesses are around average for the time of year at the moment.

I know anecdotal reposts are of limited value, but a couple of incidents really brought home the actual intricacies of what seemed sensible to me (increased shielding of the vulnerable, child care etc).

So, just in our little world:

My better half is an estate agent. Lettings.
Small company, four employees, plus a large number of subbies and tradesmen.
They manage a little over 2000 properties.
Boss has cancer.
It’s a stage 4 and, eventually, it’s going to kill him, but it’s slow a progression and he was expected to get another 12-24 months, given the ongoing chemo etc.
His partner, in both senses of the word, is also my partner’s boss. That’s two of the four, previously mentioned employees.
Covid, would almost certainly finish him in days.
So, they’re shielding.
They have two teenage daughters, one who’s just buggered off to uni (can’t come home to visit, can’t go to grandparents, is miserable and lost) and one who has just had her GCSEs buggered up (still all 8s so not truly buggered) but now has to go through a ridiculous “deco” routine each day, on getting home, in a house divided into two and has almost zero physical contact with her parents. She’s 16 ffs.
The loss of two staff members has put the business into very difficult circumstances. Might kill it. The knock on would negatively impact, probably hundreds of people, from staff and contractors to tenants and landlords and their families.


Two of the players on my youngest daughters football team, have lost their parents (they’re 12 and 11 years old) and live with grandparents. Grandma’s quite spry but Grandad has prostate cancer.
There are no other relatives.
They wanted to keep the boys at home and continue home schooling, but they received all the usual threats of fines and prosecution etc. They didn’t have a clue how to actually home school without the actual school supporting them. So they carry on, crossing fingers and hoping.
It’s fucking awful to watch. The spectacle has silenced some vociferous dicks amongst the team parents.
Last Wednesday, we went into isolation, because the assistant coach started showing symptoms. On the Thursday, my girl developed a fever and got pretty poorly. She was tested on Friday and we got a negative result at about 5am on Monday.
The coach was positive. He’s 23 and proper poorly. Scarily poorly. 3rd year at Plymouth Uni but from the bay.
The league have given up (thats the FA junior Premier league, not some local thing). All training and matches suspended in our area. We’re a “medium” risk area.

Ultimately, my point is, the ‘vulnerable” are intricately entwined with everybody else and virtually impossible to single out and separate.
Then, there’s the small matter of not actually knowing who is vulnerable. Granted we know how to identify many who are likely to be so, but there are plenty of “unlucky” people who won’t find out until it’s too late.

[JamieG]

they were not staying at home and doing jigsaws prior to this; they're still not doing jigsaws and I'd be alarmed they'd had a personality transplant if they were ...

Woah woah woah, this was a civil conversation. Don't be dragging jigsaws into it. I love a good jigsaw! Did a cracking space themed one at the start of lockdown. Highly recommend. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blppldyci-Puzzle-Jigsaw-Puzzles-Planets/dp/B07WZMYSY3

[Will Hunt]

they were not staying at home and doing jigsaws prior to this; they're still not doing jigsaws and I'd be alarmed they'd had a personality transplant if they were ...

Woah woah woah, this was a civil conversation. Don't be dragging jigsaws into it. I love a good jigsaw! Did a cracking space themed one at the start of lockdown. Highly recommend. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blppldyci-Puzzle-Jigsaw-Puzzles-Planets/dp/B07WZMYSY3

 

It's brought me so much joy to see just how scientifically inaccurate that jigsaw is! In my adult life I have done one adult jigsaw and it was totally zen. But then I got The Guilt about the number of evenings of my life I'd wasted doing it and resolved never to do one again. And then we had a child and now the house is full of jigsaws - my favourite one for us to do is the one with the dinosaurs.

[slab_happy]

they were not staying at home and doing jigsaws prior to this; they're still not doing jigsaws and I'd be alarmed they'd had a personality transplant if they were ...

Woah woah woah, this was a civil conversation. Don't be dragging jigsaws into it. I love a good jigsaw! Did a cracking space themed one at the start of lockdown. Highly recommend. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blppldyci-Puzzle-Jigsaw-Puzzles-Planets/dp/B07WZMYSY3

I apologize for any offense caused to the jigsaw-loving community! No insult was intended; they're just not my parents' thing.

(My mum, who is in her mid-70s and has Parkinson's, is occupying herself by taking up boxing training and has a punchbag. We're all very impressed and also scared of her.)

[JamieG]

Apology accepted. 

Your mum does sound impressive and slightly scary. I think I'll stick to jigsaws.

[petejh]

Jigsaw is clearly fake news. On each of the 6 crewed lunar landings, only two people were ever on the surface of the moon at the same time. 

[Stabbsy]

Did you hear Hancock saying yesterday that 5-10% of all those infected (whether asymptomatic or not - and irrespective of age and severity of initial illness) were experiencing a form on long-covid.

While I do agree with the general direction of the argument, I think the 5-10% in the above could be a massive overestimate. It was discussed on More or Less a few weeks back and they were saying the 10% comes from people experiencing Covid symptoms after 28 days - possibly not a fair definition of "long Covid". They came up with 1.5-2% as a better estimate.

[Bradders]

Crikey that's a lot of replies. Thanks everyone. It's interesting to test these ideas on here as they're arguments which are being frequently discussed in right wing media.

5-10% of all those infected (whether asymptomatic or not - and irrespective of age and severity of initial illness) were experiencing a form on long-covid.

Asymptomatic people are actually symptomatic are they? Struggling with that one. And isn't it 5-10% after a month, but it actually drops to 1 in 50 very quickly. Which isn't all that surprising for any illness really; it always seems to take longer to recover than you might think.

I'm not saying there aren't long term implications, just trying to interrogate this sort of statement.

A nice thought but unfortunately unworkable no matter how much money you throw at it. Current childcare provision is not sized to cope with the additional strains that all those extra kids would place upon it. There isn't the built infrastructure, nor the staff. The lead time to provide the solution is large.

As pointed out on another thread, the reason that respiratory illnesses are in line with other years is because the people who would normally be contracting and suffering with those illnesses are being more careful - but cases are still rising.

The hand washing, mask wearing, distancing stuff is all very well but it clearly isn't sufficient because cases are going up - even in Tier 2 areas. It slows it down, but exponential growth has a nasty habit of getting serious, even if the lead in time is a bit longer.

To be totally blunt, you need to consider that not everybody in the country enjoys a family life that is as simple as a self-contained unit of healthy individuals who can earn a good wage from their study in Pudsey.

Firstly, ouch, no need to make it personal like that. We all have our problems and crosses to bear.

Childcare - fair points, although I still think there would be a way to manage it e.g. via schools, although accept it wouldn't provide a universal solution; I was thinking more to help those who really need it.

Respiratory illness levels - yes agreed and this is where I completely agree that care is needed, I'm not saying we should all just go back to the way it was. The point is surely that if they're at the same level as previous years, and they stay that way, then why do things need to get any stricter as per Wales and Labour calls for the UK as a whole, when that level was previously acceptable?

[abarro81]

The point is surely that if they're at the same level as previous years, and they stay that way, then why do things need to get any stricter

If R>1 then you'd expect that "sameness" to be temporary, i.e. it wouldn't stay that way as case numbers grow

[Will Hunt]

Firstly, ouch, no need to make it personal like that. We all have our problems and crosses to bear.

Soz, it was a bit blunt but not meant to be nasty.

and they stay that way

As Barrows said, this is the thing that isn't happening.

[Bradders]

Okay see what you mean. Is there any data yet showing whether respiratory illness levels are rising quicker than previous years? Assuming that they always rise during the winter months.

Soz, it was a bit blunt but not meant to be nasty.

No worries, just don't like the implication that making this kind of argument means you occupy some kind of ivory tower, looking down uncaringly on the peasants leading their meaningless lives, and haven't thought about how these things might affect people.

[Sidehaas]

Respiratory illness levels - yes agreed and this is where I completely agree that care is needed, I'm not saying we should all just go back to the way it was. The point is surely that if they're at the same level as previous years, and they stay that way, then why do things need to get any stricter as per Wales and Labour calls for the UK as a whole, when that level was previously acceptable?

I haven't seen data for the UK as a whole but in the local hotspots respiratory illness levels are definitely not now at normal levels.
In Liverpool region (I live in Sefton) the virus has been spreading fast in the community and was rising exponentially from end of August until a couple of weeks ago when it seems to have flattened (dropped in the younger age groups). This all happened before universities came back and infections are already more spread across the age range than in other hotspot areas like Sheffield or Nottingham that were caused by the students returning to University. As a result we are probably a few weeks ahead here in epidemic terms for the older age groups. What is clear is that Covid hospitalisations here are high - already higher than the peak in spring - and will continue to rise fast for a bit longer, then continue to rise at a slower rate depending on what happens to case rates as a result of Tier 3. The situation here is undoubtedly more severe than in spring and if we get away with fewer deaths it will only be because we treat people better and avoid it spreading to old/sick people in care homes or in hospitals themselves, which is what happened back then. This area is absolutely concrete evidence that the virus will still spread fast, still put people in hospital and is not being contained in younger age groups even with people of older ages being abundantly cautious. I will be blunt - I am firmly of the belief that if this was London there would already be a national lockdown 2. Do I want that? Unsure - if case rates in younger people in the worst hit areas to continue to drop and that trend can subsequently be replicated elsewhere then we might get away with the current approach for a few months. If not, probably a circuit breaker and then survey the outcome a couple of weeks after.

Ps. Having said all of that, I'm still ignoring travel guidance to go solo bouldering!

[AJM]

the average age of someone dying from C19 is pretty much bang on the average life-expectancy

What age do you mean, exactly?

Technically, life expectancy is "life expectancy from age X". The total (life expectancy+X) goes up the older you get.

Just make sure you're looking at one which is relevant for the comparison (given this is not a disease which significantly affects children, I would suggest comparing against a life expectancy from 65 rather than birth).

[aside: It's why the oft-quoted statements like "life expectancy for cavemen was 30" (or, as Google told me, that it was 39 in 1765) don't really tell you very much about the prevelance of middle aged or old people in those societies, because they're so skewed by horrific infant mortality]

[tim palmer]

Is there any data yet showing whether respiratory illness levels are rising quicker than previous years? Assuming that they always rise during the winter months.

Other than itu being completely full with people requiring ventilation for respiratory failure? 

Everyone medically qualified being asked to chip in on respiratory wards because they are full? 

[Bradders]

Fair enough folks, thanks for setting me straight.

[Oldmanmatt]

Fair enough folks, thanks for setting me straight.

This site is useful, in as much as it updates it’s projections regularly and corrects assumed to actual. Most interesting is that it shows bed availability.

https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-kingdom?view=total-deaths&tab=trend

[gme]

I keep trying to avoid commenting on this page as i find it so depressing and negative, something I am not, but the last graphs got my back up again.

Over 100k deaths in the next three months. More than Double what we have had already ?????

Did this same group do a forecast back in March and is it possible to see it. Guess they were one of those saying 250k would die.

Finally we need a function that allows you to block out topics on here, I just want to look at climbing stuff from now on.

[Oldmanmatt]

Dude! That’s if restrictions were lifted entirely!
And that’s nothing new.

Plus, nobody’s twisting your arm.

Edit:
Hang on,I see you’re talking about total, not extra.

We’re already at over 40k.
The projections don’t yet show the effects of new mitigation measures, they’re simply reflecting the trend at time of publishing. You have to follow it as it corrects to new data, not treat it as a crystal ball.

Nevertheless, given that we are already at 40-50k + depending on which figure you use, all things being equal, the 100k by early 2021 is entirely possible.

[gme]

150k is there figure so about 30k a month. Hence why I think pessimistic bull shit and want to know what the same people said it would be back in March. There were some huge figures thrown about by the doom merchants on here.