Coronavirus

[Sith Happens]

[ariotofmyown]

2 hours ago, Archied said:

Yep your right ,all guesswork 

areas of london have massive multi generational households crammed in

age ? Would like to see the stats there but age/ deaths = r number ?
weather ? Minimal at best , it’s raining cats and dogs down here and has been for a while , bloody cold too , not enough difference for everybody to be out with picnic baskets

even with restrictions,have you seen public transport here ,,, it’s crammed

for all the idea that london streets are paved with gold and yes there are very rich people here but there is real poverty here too in big numbers

on obese I would like to see figures but again ,, r number?
I know 2 people who have tested positive and none of them have been more than bad flu I’ll ( only saying what I see as earlier poster),,for a pandemic where people are dropping like flies I find that a little strange 

 

Maybe I should have emphasised the "proportionally" part even more. London clearer has all the things you say above: poverty, multi-generational households, older people. But I think it proportionally has less than other areas.

And you didn't mention my first piece of guesswork, that they are proportionally less closer family ties in London, often to do with many people moving to London for work, but proportionally less people moving away. It seems clear that would reduce household transmission between generations.

[EtoileSportiveDeDerby]

8 hours ago, ariotofmyown said:

Some theories on why London has faired better than other places:

London has a much higher proportion of people who have moved to there, hence there is a lower proportion of people in closer family groups. So less household transmission than areas with more closer knit communities.

Average age of Londoners is probably lower than other areas, so less risk of death.

It's warmer and drier in London so nicer to meet up outdoors in the Autumn.

People are possibly more compliant with rules in London as they feel more at risk with many more people around.

Perhaps a higher % of jobs in London are a) able to be done at home and b) as a higher % of workers in London use public transport than other areas, firms were more likely to allow home working.

I'm sure I see a lower % of obese people in London/South East than in other towns around the country, probably linked to poverty. I imagine unemployment rate is lower in London than struggling towns in other areas.

All guesswork though.

I also understood that they had the first wave a lot worse than the rest of the country as a result had more immunity for the second wave.

[ariotofmyown]

1 hour ago, Archied said:

we are losing sight of this for a virus that kills 1% of people who catch it and we all will catch it at some point , of that I’m pretty sure 

I can't believe this sort if thing is still been posted and liked. 1% of 66.7m is 667,000 and a vaccine is gonna be rolled out in 10 days.

@Angry Ram @Wolfie and even @TexasRam surely you cannot agree with this?

 

[G STAR RAM]

16 minutes ago, Albert said:

Says someone still banging on about the idea of just letting it burn, despite all the evidence we've seen against that idea in recent months. 

Never once advocated 'letting it burn'.

I advocate letting people who want to carry on as normal to so, and protect everyone else.

Its kind of ironic that your next paragraph is about reading people's posts.

 

[Albert]

2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Never once advocated 'letting it burn'.

I advocate letting people who want to carry on as normal to so, and protect everyone else.

Its kind of ironic that your next paragraph is about reading people's posts.

 

That is called letting it burn, because there exists no such strategy to allow such to be otherwise. However you want to frame it, what you're advocating for is letting it burn. Very few want to word it that way, that they're okay with 400k+ people dying from it in the UK, but it's what they're advocating for. Whether it's because they live in a fantasy world where 'shielding' actually had workable and defined strategy, or are just too spineless to admit it... that's an open question. 

[Albert]

7 minutes ago, EtoileSportiveDeDerby said:

I also understood that they had the first wave a lot worse than the rest of the country as a result had more immunity for the second wave.

Research out of places like Sweden, which have had worse infection rates than London according to serology studies, has seen no such effect yet. Herd immunity doesn't really have much of an impact until you're getting close to a majority of the population being immune, and the serology studies suggest only about 13% of the population of London has had it so far. There's limited reason to suggest that this would be the cause of lower rates of infection at this point. 

[Sith Happens]

The topic of 'shielding' the vulnerable to allow people to get on with life has been raised a lot.

As someone who is in the vulnerable category I have said I would be open to this to help the country get back to normal, but I do wonder in reality how it would work.

So take people like me, I shield, does my wife too who isnt vulnerable?

If i live in household where one person is vulnerable and several others arent? School children etc? How would we handle this.

What about multi generational households with some elderly and some not?

Ok I know under the current shielding rules you wouldnt need to isolate the non vulnerable people too, but in a situation we open the country back up surely those non vulnerable people will be more at risk themselves, and then puts the vulnerable people at risk.

Add into that many of the general public have shown a total lack of common sense, can we rely on the younger, non vulnerable people, not to visit grandma and grandad, or if elderly are out walking whos responsibility is it to keep a reasonable distance? Or arent the elderly, or even vulnerable allowed out at all? Do we have set hours these people can excercise outdoors etc and other people have to adhere and keep off the streets at these hours?

I have no idea on numbers, but if we had to isolate the elderly/vulnerable AND those they live with (and support bubbles maybe) how many people will this be? Would it actually be more than are currently on furlough? Will those forced to isolate receive 80% pay too?

So I am open to it, just asking the question how it would work in reality? I may be wrong but no other country has done this as far as i know, if its workable why havent Italy, France, Spain etc done it ?

And the suggestion we house the elderly, vulnerable in the nightingales to keep them 'isolated' is an appalling one.

[G STAR RAM]

14 minutes ago, Albert said:

That is called letting it burn, because there exists no such strategy to allow such to be otherwise. However you want to frame it, what you're advocating for is letting it burn. Very few want to word it that way, that they're okay with 400k+ people dying from it in the UK, but it's what they're advocating for. Whether it's because they live in a fantasy world where 'shielding' actually had workable and defined strategy, or are just too spineless to admit it... that's an open question. 

But youre advocating other strategies that will lead to over 500k+ deaths (see I can pluck random figures out of the air too) and you are ok with that?

Or are you too spineless to admit it?

[Eddie]

55 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

The geezer has Rhino skin just not open to listening to anything. In essence, post 1 is exactly the same as post 301. Preachy at best. Good idea to not respond, can’t be much going on in Australia.

You could actually say that about just about anyone on here.

Who has been swayed at all from their previously entrenched positions? Anyone?

[Gone]

24 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

I can't believe this sort if thing is still been posted and liked. 1% of 66.7m is 667,000 and a vaccine is gonna be rolled out in 10 days.

@Angry Ram @Wolfie and even @TexasRam surely you cannot agree with this?

 

I agree with the sentiment yes, complete over reaction that’s destroyed our way of life socially and economically. However you’re right the vaccine is coming and I can’t wait to get back to normal

[Sith Happens]

1 minute ago, TexasRam said:

I agree with the sentiment yes, complete over reaction that’s destroyed our way of life socially and economically. However you’re right the vaccine is coming and I can’t wait to get back to normal

I think thats something we all agree on.

[Albert]

1 minute ago, Sith Happens said:

The topic of 'shielding' the vulnerable to allow people to get on with life has been raised a lot.

As someone who is in the vulnerable category I have said I would be open to this to help the country get back to normal, but I do wonder in reality how it would work.

So take people like me, I shield, does my wife too who isnt vulnerable?

If i live in household where one person is vulnerable and several others arent? School children etc? How would we handle this.

What about multi generational households with some elderly and some not?

Ok I know under the current shielding rules you wouldnt need to isolate the non vulnerable people too, but in a situation we open the country back up surely those non vulnerable people will be more at risk themselves, and then puts the vulnerable people at risk.

Add into that many of the general public have shown a total lack of common sense, can we rely on the younger, non vulnerable people, not to visit grandma and grandad, or if elderly are out walking whos responsibility is it to keep a reasonable distance? Or arent the elderly, or even vulnerable allowed out at all? Do we have set hours these people can excercise outdoors etc and other people have to adhere and keep off the streets at these hours?

I have no idea on numbers, but if we had to isolate the elderly/vulnerable AND those they live with (and support bubbles maybe) how many people will this be? Would it actually be more than are currently on furlough? Will those forced to isolate receive 80% pay too?

So I am open to it, just asking the question how it would work in reality? I may be wrong but no other country has done this as far as i know, if its workable why havent Italy, France, Spain etc done it ?

And the suggestion we house the elderly, vulnerable in the nightingales to keep them 'isolated' is an appalling one.

Realistically, this is the core of the problem. If you're shielding people, they need to be ring fenced, if not double ring fenced. All people who are in regular contact with them also need to shield. Then there's the question of how these people will actually be taken care of. Are they getting paid, will there be a payment to help them along? Who do they get food or otherwise? 

At this time, about 18% of the UK's population is 65 years or older, and that's before getting into the issues around people who are vulnerable for reasons other than age. Estimates will vary depending on what you define as vulnerable, but it can easily be over 30% of the UK's population without even being particularly extreme with the definitions. About 40% of people in the UK have some kind of pre-existing condition, the question is about how you define vulnerable to Covid-19. With that in mind, how are you shielding ~20 million people? That's 20 million before thinking about the issue with households above. Who is paying for this?

Also, how on Earth are we going to both shield that many people, and take care of the sick. Covid-19 doesn't kill many people outside the vulnerable category, but they still get quite ill, many will need to be hospitalised. If resources are going into shielding people, what about the hospital system? Again, where is the money coming from for this. 

The entire notion of 'shielding the vulnerable' is just there to be a quick soundbite, and ironically it comes from many of the same people who are claiming that the government has already botched managing the pandemic, already complaining about incompetence. Such a system would be extremely vulnerable to such incompetence, small errors could be catastrophic. I don't think people advocating for it seriously believe it's an option, they just want to advocate for opening up, and it's easier to say 'open up and shield the vulnerable' than 'open up and hire temps at the funeral homes'. 

[Albert]

12 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

But youre advocating other strategies that will lead to over 500k+ deaths (see I can pluck random figures out of the air too) and you are ok with that?

Or are you too spineless to admit it?

I didn't pluck a random number though. We've already discussed the source of that figure. Herd immunity estimates around around the 70-85%+ range, and the estimated IFR from best current data on the pandemic, considering the UK's demographics, is about 0.75%. 0.75% of 66.65 million is 500k, and using the herd immunity estimates gives us 350k-425k. 

Also, you'll notice I'm not really advocating for any particular strategy for the UK at the moment, as the situation is an unmitigated disaster. To be honest, I'm surprised nobody has had a crack at me for being critical of the UK's response, but not really having a better one they could use now to suggest. As noted, I feel going for control was a better option, but the situation is so out of control, and the country so fatigued from lockdowns, that I don't really know what they should do now. Opening up won't help, but eternal lockdowns aren't a good option either. It really is just waiting for a miracle at this point. 

[G STAR RAM]

8 minutes ago, Albert said:

I didn't pluck a random number though. We've already discussed the source of that figure. Herd immunity estimates around around the 70-85%+ range, and the estimated IFR from best current data on the pandemic, considering the UK's demographics, is about 0.75%. 0.75% of 66.65 million is 500k, and using the herd immunity estimates gives us 350k-425k. 

Also, you'll notice I'm not really advocating for any particular strategy for the UK at the moment, as the situation is an unmitigated disaster. To be honest, I'm surprised nobody has had a crack at me for being critical of the UK's response, but not really having a better one they could use now to suggest. As noted, I feel going for control was a better option, but the situation is so out of control, and the country so fatigued from lockdowns, that I don't really know what they should do now. Opening up won't help, but eternal lockdowns aren't a good option either. It really is just waiting for a miracle at this point. 

Well to use your terminology, we 'let it burn' for the best part of 4 months between June and October, how come we are nowhere near the 400k deaths?!

USA have 'let it burn' yet even they are only at 271k deaths.

[G STAR RAM]

34 minutes ago, Eddie said:

You could actually say that about just about anyone on here.

Who has been swayed at all from their previously entrenched positions? Anyone?

Me. At the beginning I thought it was being over hyped, thought deaths figures would be no different to normal.

Soon realised the excess deaths painted a different story.

I was fully in favour of the first lockdown but I am not in favour of doing it again.

At the start I thought the Government were handling it ok in comparison to other countries, I now think that, despite our stats not being too out of sync with comparable countries, that the Governments handling of the pandemic has been poor.

[Albert]

18 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Well to use your terminology, we 'let it burn' for the best part of 4 months between June and October, how come we are nowhere near the 400k deaths?!

Because we're looking at an exponential system. The more cases you have, the more you're going to get. The UK still had some restrictions, but it burned away slowly, and started really taking off again in late August heading into September. As posted many many times on here, there was a clear exponential trend in the months leading up to the tiered system, then the lockdowns, which it only slowing in the weeks following this. It was at this point that it was recommended to go into a circuit breaker lockdown, which would have allowed the UK to open up and repeat that process. They decided against it, and this is now the situation. 

As to the 400k deaths, that is the scenario where things are genuinely left to burn, and the pandemic has run its course. No country has done that yet, when faced with health system crushing case loads, invariably harsh restrictions have come in. Even going that way would take months of pain, with case loads far beyond what we're currently seeing. 

18 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

USA have 'let it burn' yet even they are only at 271k deaths.

The US is a collection of states that are all doing different things, and have had varying levels of restrictions throughout the year. Many of the more populous states have been moving more towards stronger restrictions, which has limited things somewhat, but their current load of new cases is very high. They are getting around 2,000 deaths per day nation wide, and that is still on the rise. 

[maxjam]

18 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Me. At the beginning I thought it was being over hyped, thought deaths figures would be no different to normal.

Soon realised the excess deaths painted a different story.

I was fully in favour of the first lockdown but I am not in favour of doing it again.

An interesting analysis into covid stats can be viewed here;

I'll probably get called out for not offering any comment or the validity of the posters education will be called into question etc, but I found it to be interesting non-the-less.

 

 

[Sith Happens]

Just had a letter from Matt Hancock offering me free Vitamin D for 4 months.

[Albert]

7 minutes ago, maxjam said:

An interesting analysis into covid stats can be viewed here;

I'll probably get called out for not offering any comment or the validity of the posters education will be called into question etc, but I found it to be interesting non-the-less.

 

 

I still find it funny how offended you were that the previous post was called out for someone masquerading as an expert who wasn't qualified in the field. As noted, the issue with his argument wasn't his qualification, it wasn't that it was riddled with basic factual errors. 

As to this one, there are parts to their analysis that are fine, but they make a lot of unsubstantiated claims, and just run with them. The most notable being that they've claimed that the trend of the mortality in the second wave is suggestive an 'endemic virus' that is 'constrained by community immunity' (or words to that effect). This is just nonsense, and flies in the face of all current research into how many people have an immunity. This is something that is directly measurable, as are its effects. 

The reason that spread is more regionalised now is the restrictions that have been in place since the first wave, and the increased restrictions recently. This is what you expect of a second wave where there are restrictions, but not enough to keep the reproduction number below zero. Equally, pandemics have always been characterised by having cluster patterns, and this is due to there no being any, or very little, immunity in the general population. It's these very cluster patterns that has allowed countries like New Zealand, Australia, Taiwan, etc to control the virus. 

The claim that areas that were hit harder aren't being hit as hard now isn't even substantiated by their graphs, which show regions appearing similarly across both waves, eg Oldham. Equally, if they had a point here, they'd not be pointing vaguely at a time series of cases in each region, but rather, comparing all regions in a more effective plot. Again, their argument here isn't supported in the current literature. 

As to why London is doing better this time around, a lot of that is likely due to how hard hit they were the first time, but not in terms of immunity, but rather, in how people are prepared this time. A similar pattern is seen in America as well, where more left leaning regions also tend to be more prone to take measures to reduce spread, and have been less spread in the latter parts of the year. I'm not even kidding, partisan divide has played a significant role in the US.

Also, oh my God, my sides. "It appears to be peaking at just over 50% the spring peak, and so is not a true second wave". This person has no idea what a second wave is do they? 

They then go on to claim that restrictions had no impact in other countries citing... literally nothing. They palm off the end of the first wave, and the decline seen since the new restrictions in October, then November, without justification. They're confusing multiple ideas here when discussing the impact of restrictions. The end of the lockdown, of course, wasn't just a free for all from day one, and the lag effects of people who are symptomatic still being isolated, etc also have an effect. This is just riddled with unsubstantiated and unexplained claims from them at this point. 

They claim large interventions shouldn't impact localised outbreaks... for reasons...

I find it interesting that they then claim it was just the weather that suppressed the first wave, but that doesn't explain why the second has waned since the introduction of more measures, and then the lockdown. 

They then go and confuse themselves for a bit about how deaths are attributed to the disease. Of course, officially in the UK it's just people who have died within 28 days of a positive test, which as noted, cannot explain the kinds of numbers seen in this or the first wave. The rate of people dying are about 50 times higher than the baseline rate you'd expect people to die if they were just dying 'with Covid', as the pants on head talking point goes. 

Overall, they start off looking into the stats, then just wear that like a robe while going off the deep end of unsubstantiated claims that have little to nothing to do with the statistics they're looking into. They make many bold claims with no reference to anything, virtually all of which fly in the face of current research on the topic. Pretty poor overall.