SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

Given the last 6 months of hygiene, is there a risk that populations are more vulnerable than normal to other viruses? Obviously the new measures won't disappear so maybe this is redundant, but the logic is that (for example) kids have built up less of a natural immunity over the last 6 months than they would normally have, so if transmission gets a foothold it could have a more significant impact than normal, in terms of both severity and infectiousness.

Maybe pseudo-science, just curious.
 
Wolverine said:
Lack of testing is an absolute scandal in the UK.
I've got mild symptoms likely cold but my wife and kid have temp, new cough and therefore needing to isolate. Probably a bug my daughter picked up at nursery, loads going around but despite trying multiple occasions not able to get a test via government website. Trying through work connections now as NHS trusts' occu health sometimes have their own but feel for anybody trying to navigate this when they do the right thing and stay away from work with bosses annoyed. Dreading the coming winter period.
Click to expand...
Would be interesting to know how many daily tests are required to keep up the Premier League "bubble".
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Sounds like an absolute shit show. In Ireland we’re having our own testing capacity issues. The combination of the usual seasonal viruses kicking off while covid is still rife in the community puts the system under serious strain. This should have been predictable though, right? I’ve no idea what the rate limiting step might be when it comes to testing in the kind of quantities we’re going to need over the next few months but I’m worried that it’s just not possible to upscale to the level we’ll need if cases keep increasing at the current rate.

As I said above, we’ve been focussed on ensuring that hospitals/ICUs don’t get overwhelmed but there hasn’t been enough mention of what might happen when the test and tracing systems start to go under.
Click to expand...

Yeah I mean there is also a weird guilt associated with taking time off only to get a negative swab because of a perception bosses/colleague think we're making it up or exaggerating to get time off. But I've been glued to my laptop to try and get a home kit/drive through. I think regional differences are a bit factor, the midlands is experiencing an uptick so that might be a factor but hearing that others are told to drive 100 miles or something ridiculous to get tests done which isn't always feasible because the drive itself would make you miss the allocated time slot.

I'm not sure whether what the issue is either, sky news reported that there is an untested backlog of 185000 tests awaiting processing, some of which is being shipped overseas so unsure whether its a deliberate ploy to avoid worsening that backlog for cost reasons.

There is no transparency with regards to how many people are being tested daily. This figure hasn't been given by department of health for ages. Total number of tests 200 000 per day with a capacity listed as around 370 000 but this hasn't got close anywhere close to being reached.
I watched PMQs recently and there was hardly any scrutiny of the evasion of questions around testing by Boris.

There is mounting anecdotal evidence on doctor forum groups that 111 is given advice not always in keeping with government guidelines regarding whether a test is needed, e.g. if temperature settles then no longer need to isolate or get test. Which I think is something we'll start to see in the winter. People will be told to isolate rather than get tested.

What might happen around winter is they'll blame public (like Matt Hancock is doing already now without citing evidence) for inappropriately requesting tests and that testing capacity has breached so they should just aim to isolate 14 days without necessarily getting tests - with tests prioritised for care homes, front line staff etc.

I think there will be an issue with regards to hospitals being overburdened (combination of flus, colds, resp conditions and covid patients) sure but people's livelihoods being affected from a work point of view. And its not great from a community spread point of view as the lack of testing will mean people just giving up and going about their day as per and spreading the infection further.
 
krautrøck said:
Would be interesting to know how many daily tests are required to keep up the Premier League "bubble".
Click to expand...

Yeah I have an unprovable feeling that a significant discrepancy exists between number of tests carried out and number of people tested. Possibly due to private sector outsourcing of these tests and swabs elsewhere. The whole thing stinks.
 
I dip into this thread a lot less often now but every time i do it's the same arguments :lol:
 
RK said:
Given the last 6 months of hygiene, is there a risk that populations are more vulnerable than normal to other viruses? Obviously the new measures won't disappear so maybe this is redundant, but the logic is that (for example) kids have built up less of a natural immunity over the last 6 months than they would normally have, so if transmission gets a foothold it could have a more significant impact than normal, in terms of both severity and infectiousness.

Maybe pseudo-science, just curious.
Click to expand...

No I think there is precedent for this, my 2 year old since restarting nursery has had loads of coughs and colds due I think to not building up that natural immunity that she would have otherwise had she been able to attend nursery more or go to dirty soft plays and parks.

There is also something similar called the hygiene hypothesis which is said to explain why more kids have allergies these days with fewer respiratory or atopic conditions like asthma, eczema allegedly in third world conditions due to a supposed build of immunity in kids there. Haven't looked into it much so can't comment much on it but we're all taught about it in medical school.
 
RK said:
Given the last 6 months of hygiene, is there a risk that populations are more vulnerable than normal to other viruses? Obviously the new measures won't disappear so maybe this is redundant, but the logic is that (for example) kids have built up less of a natural immunity over the last 6 months than they would normally have, so if transmission gets a foothold it could have a more significant impact than normal, in terms of both severity and infectiousness.

Maybe pseudo-science, just curious.
Click to expand...

It’s an interesting idea but I don’t think it holds. The last 6 months typically have low virus circulation rates anyway. No schools, more time outdoors etc. Whatever immunity kids have against the viruses doing the rounds at this time of year would usually have been picked up more than 6 months ago.

The young ones typically don’t have much immunity anyway. There’s a shit-load of viruses to work your way through and only so many illnesses you can catch in any given year. It’s completely normal for kids to be dropping like flies in their first term back at school.

EDIT: Although @Wolverine makes a good point about the closure of soft play centres etc.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Eh? What are you reading about mortality rates then? To be clear, the CFR globally is currently sitting at just over 3%.

IFR is much more difficult to calculate - so nobody can be certain of the true value - but the best available evidence has it between 0.5 and 1%.
Click to expand...

Sorry I was referring to the actual mortality rate which I assume is IFR (not deaths divided by confirmed cases) that I'd read was now predicted at under 0.5% rather than 1%.

To be honest the point was more about the predicted deaths and modelling around them rather than the IFR/CFR. Ie 8000 deaths per 1m or 4000 per 1m with Sweden style restrictions.

I'll amend my post to delete the fraction under 1% comment as the "totally discredited" statement was erroneous (it may well be in the future but can't be said to be so today).
 
finneh said:
Sorry I was referring to the actual mortality rate which I assume is IFR (not deaths divided by confirmed cases) that I'd read was now predicted at under 0.5% rather than 1%.

To be honest the point was more about the predicted deaths rather than the OFR. Ie 8000 deaths per 1m or 4000 per 1m with Sweden style restrictions.

I'll amend my post to delete the fraction under 1% comment as the "totally discredited" comment was erroneous (it may well be in the future but can't be said to be so today).
Click to expand...

Yeah, IFR is the true mortality rate. The chance an individual has of dying when they become infected. It’s very hard to calculate accurately in a disease with so many mild/asymptomatic cases. As I said, the best available evidence has the IFR somewhere between 0.5 and 1%. For comparison, the IFR of influenza is 0.1%. And let’s not forget, we have vaccines against influenza.

CFR can be calculated with much more certainty but will always be higher than the IFR, due to only picking up a fraction of the true number of cases.

Regarding the modelling, it’s incredibly difficult to get these things right very early in an epidemic. The fact that the best estimate IFR is still many multiples higher than flu, this long into the pandemic shows that - whatever the models predicted - it was the right thing to do to flatten the initial curve as aggressively as possible. With no natural immunity and no vaccine, the death rate would have been horrific.

And it’s getting ridiculous the way Sweden is being portrayed as a country where life basically carried on as normal. They had to make radical changes to the way they live and continue to do so. They also have much more challenging times ahead when people start returning back to living on top of each other in cities after spending August in voluntary self isolation in holiday homes and the wide open spaces of the Swedish countryside.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
It’s an interesting idea but I don’t think it holds. The last 6 months typically have low virus circulation rates anyway. No schools, more time outdoors etc. Whatever immunity kids have against the viruses doing the rounds at this time of year would usually have been picked up more than 6 months ago.

The young ones typically don’t have much immunity anyway. There’s a shit-load of viruses to work your way through and only so many illnesses you can catch in any given year. It’s completely normal for kids to be dropping like flies in their first term back at school.

EDIT: Although @Wolverine makes a good point about the closure of soft play centres etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm now sure how much of an issue the "immunity" stuff with regards to lockdown has on covid especially when you consider adult population that would be the main drivers of infections has been exposed to colds regularly pre-lockdown.

Agree though regarding kids having little immunity which is something paediatricians always highlight, they get tiny amounts of it if they are exclusively breast fed but even that won't stop them getting viral infections regularly.

The only thing I could think of with regards to adults that probably is not related is the interesting correlation I read about EBV and socioeconomic groups. Lower socioeconomic groups have high rates of EBV seropositivity, having supposedly frequently acquired EBV in early childhood when the primary infection is often subclinical. However, higher socioeconomic groups show a higher incidence of infectious mononucleosis, as acquiring EBV in adolescence or early adulthood results in symptomatic disease.
 
Wolverine said:
Lack of testing is an absolute scandal in the UK.
I've got mild symptoms likely cold but my wife and kid have temp, new cough and therefore needing to isolate. Probably a bug my daughter picked up at nursery, loads going around but despite trying multiple occasions not able to get a test via government website. Trying through work connections now as NHS trusts' occu health sometimes have their own but feel for anybody trying to navigate this when they do the right thing and stay away from work with bosses annoyed. Dreading the coming winter period.
Click to expand...

My daughter brought a cold home from nursery Wednesday as well. My wife and I have got it, just a stuffy nose and a cough but no temp etc. Attempted to get a test, nearest site from us (in Lancaster) was Oldham, and no slots were available well beyond the time we’d have to isolate so we we haven’t bothered. This morning when I checked there aren’t even test sites any more. Same for postal tests. It’s an absolute disgrace.

I also find it incredibly worrying that colds are circulating so quickly and easily when they aren’t even as contagious as coronavirus! What are people fecking doing? How are they even circulating if people are following guidance for COVID?
 
SnowRoll said:
Not sure if posted here before, but there are increasing studies that point to vitamin D as an important factor.
This could also explain covid prevalence in the BAME communities, as they produce less vitamin D, compared to others.
Click to expand...

I just got mine tested coincidentally and found that it’s low so have been prescribed tablets one per week. Hopefully that helps should I ever need it
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Yeah, IFR is the true mortality rate. The chance an individual has of dying when they become infected. It’s very hard to calculate accurately in a disease with so many mild/asymptomatic cases. As I said, the best available evidence has the IFR somewhere between 0.5 and 1%. For comparison, the IFR of influenza is 0.1%. And let’s not forget, we have vaccines against influenza.

CFR can be calculated with much more certainty but will always be higher than the IFR, due to only picking up a fraction of the true number of cases.

Regarding the modelling, it’s incredibly difficult to get these things right very early in an epidemic. The fact that the best estimate IFR is still many multiples higher than flu, this long into the pandemic shows that - whatever the models predicted - it was the right thing to do to flatten the initial curve as aggressively as possible. With no natural immunity and no vaccine, the death rate would have been horrific.

And it’s getting ridiculous the way Sweden is being portrayed as a country where life basically carried on as normal. They had to make radical changes to the way they live and continue to do so. They also have much more challenging times ahead when people start returning back to living on top of each other in cities after spending August in voluntary self isolation in holiday homes and the wide open spaces of the Swedish countryside.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of that; no country carried on as normal and rightly so (in truth even if there were zero policy direction and zero enforcement we wouldn't have carried on as normal. I'd have always opted for restaurants with strict social distancing and outdoor seating over crowded indoor ones and wouldn't have visited my Grandparents. Likewise I'd have ensured a Covid-safe working environment as healthy and comfortable employees are productive ones). My view though is the stricter and longer the lockdown the more fatigued people will be and the more likely they are to stretch the rules when they are relaxed. That goes doubly for countries where severe restrictions to civil liberties are seen as a very blunt and extreme tool.

In truth I was surprised that the UK population was on the whole so obedient and pro-lockdown; the same goes for Australia. That obedience (somewhat fuelled in my opinion by over the top rhetoric) needed to be harnessed for long term measures that would become a legitimate "new normal". As it stands there isn't really a new normal from what I've seen. The analogy I'd give is implementing a 20mph limit on the motorway to limit emissions; the public might respect it for a short time and in a limited area if they are told a climate catastrophe is imminent; but long term you'd be much better off having a 60mph limit as people would adjust to this and long term you'd get better results.

The bigger fear has to be if cases hit the same level as April (proportionate to testing). I can't see the same level of compliance and in that environment are we really going to start imprisoning people for seeing their parents or friends (imagine the revolt if a family of 8 are arrested for sharing Xmas dinner)? For me that cure would be far, far worse than the disease and I absolutely do not trust this government with our liberties. I already fear the level of acceptance to authoritarianism we've seen is likely to "empower" our government going forwards (maybe it already has with them telling us we can't break laws whilst looking to do so themselves. That's textbook despotism).
 
Last edited:
finneh said:
I don't disagree with any of that; no country carried on as normal and rightly so (in truth even if there were zero policy direction and zero enforcement we wouldn't have carried on as normal. I'd have always opted for restaurants with strict social distancing and outdoor seating over crowded indoor ones and wouldn't have visited my Grandparents. Likewise I'd have ensured a Covid-safe working environment as healthy and comfortable employees are productive ones). My view though is the stricter and longer the lockdown the more fatigued people will be and the more likely they are to stretch the rules when they are relaxed. That goes doubly for countries where severe restrictions to civil liberties are seen as a very blunt and extreme tool.

In truth I was surprised that the UK population was on the whole so obedient and pro-lockdown; the same goes for Australia. That obedience (somewhat fuelled in my opinion by over the top rhetoric) needed to be harnessed for long term measures that would become a legitimate "new normal". As it stands there isn't really a new normal from what I've seen. The analogy I'd give is implementing a 20mph limit on the motorway to limit emissions; the public might respect it for a short time and in a limited area if they are told a climate catastrophe is imminent; but long term you'd be much better off having a 60mph limit as people would adjust to this and long term you'd get better results.

The bigger fear has to be if cases hit the same level as April (proportionate to testing). I can't see the same level of compliance and in that environment are we really going to start imprisoning people for seeing their parents or friends (imagine the revolt if a family of 8 are arrested for sharing Xmas dinner)? For me that cure would be far, far worse than the disease and I absolutely do not trust this government with our liberties. I already fear the level of acceptance to authoritarianism we've seen is likely to "empower" our government going forwards (maybe it already has with them telling us we can't break laws whilst looking to do so themselves. That's textbook despotism).
Click to expand...

Well now we’re even deeper into unknowns. Trying to do pop psychology on an entire nation. My take on it is that an initial severe and, crucially, short term lockdown followed by gradual re-opening is much easier to take, psychologically, than the alternatives. People had to see light at the end of the tunnel in order to change their behaviour as much as we needed them to.

When the first lockdown started we all thought/hoped this would all be over by the end of 2020. Can you imagine how it would have went down if the government immediately jumped to a set of (what would have felt like) drastic restrictions and told us they would be remain unchanged for at least a year, probably longer?!?
 
Last edited:
Pogue Mahone said:
Well now we’re even deeper into unknowns. Trying to do pop psychology on an entire nation. My take on it is that an initial severe and, crucially, short term lockdown followed by gradual re-opening is much easier to take, psychologically, than the alternatives. People had to see light at the end of the tunnel in order to change their behaviour as much as we needed them to.

When the first lockdown started we all thought/hoped this would all be over by the end of 2020. Can you imagine how it would have went down if the government immediately jumped to a set of (what would have felt like) drastic restrictions and told us they would be remain unchanged for at least a year, probably longer?!?
Click to expand...

Absolutely agreed, particularly with the bolded.
 
That'sHernandez said:
My daughter brought a cold home from nursery Wednesday as well. My wife and I have got it, just a stuffy nose and a cough but no temp etc. Attempted to get a test, nearest site from us (in Lancaster) was Oldham, and no slots were available well beyond the time we’d have to isolate so we we haven’t bothered. This morning when I checked there aren’t even test sites any more. Same for postal tests. It’s an absolute disgrace.

I also find it incredibly worrying that colds are circulating so quickly and easily when they aren’t even as contagious as coronavirus! What are people fecking doing? How are they even circulating if people are following guidance for COVID?
Click to expand...
There has been a walk-in test centre at Preston market for a while, and a second walk-in has opened this morning on Moor park. No appointment necessary. Presumably they're not advertising for outside Preston, but it might be worth bearing in mind if it happens again. Not far away.
 
finneh said:
These aren't the same models that predicted around 8000 deaths per 1m people by now without lockdown are they? Figures that also suggested a Sweden style response would have caused around 4000 deaths per 1m... A figure 7x larger than the reality in Sweden (or even the likes of the US and Brazil)?
Click to expand...

Given the model wasn't making a prediction about Sweden, which not only has a different population distribution but was also dealing with a significantly lower volume of virus transmission at the time, it wouldn't be particularly useful to compare it to Sweden. Unless the intention is to deceive yourself by cherry picking the details you do like and disregarding the others. Like your slightly curious decision to omit mentioning Italy, the country most severely hit in the beginning and the one with the most severe lockdown, in your discussion about the successes and risks associated with lockdowns.
 
711 said:
There has been a walk-in test centre at Preston market for a while, and a second walk-in has opened this morning on Moor park. No appointment necessary. Presumably they're not advertising for outside Preston, but it might be worth bearing in mind if it happens again. Not far away.
Click to expand...

Thanks for letting me know, that's helpful.
 
I just listened to a summary of a meeting on the status of clinical trials being conducted by 9 companies (not including AZ). This meeting (NAIIS).

One interesting point was that all of the trials are using the ability of a vaccine to prevent disease, rather than infection as the primary endpoint (although they will also evaluate the ability to prevent infection). Given the reports of reinfection (albeit asymptomatic), the scenario of a protective vaccine rather than a sterilisting vaccine is worth thiking about.

This raises interesting questions about who you would vaccinate first. If you were to vaccinate front line health workers first then there is a chance they could be protected from disease but not infection, and potentially still transmit the virus. In this scenario people who can't (or won't) get the vaccine would not be protected.

Of course there are still lots of unknowns and this is all speculative, but interesting to think about.

Link to summary, they articulate this stuff much better than I am here and also go into a lot of detail about all the different types of vaccine being developed.
 
Tony Babangida said:
Yeah two weeks isolation should be fine. I might want to see a negative test just to be sure but I'm not a doctor and that might be overkill! Also depends on your friends situation, if they are vulnerable, or directly caring for someone vulnerable it may be sensible to be more cautious.

My sister lost her job back in March, so she needed to move back home (from London) with my parents (up North), she mentioned to me that she had a sore throat, so I told her to stay in an Airbnb for a week. My Dad thought I was being stupidly cautious. Anyway she developed a fever and cough, she was ill for two weeks and ended up staying in isolation for almost 4 weeks. She was never able to get a test so we still don't know if she actually had it, but given the timing and the symptoms it seems likely. I am glad I insisted as my parents are both in their 60s and care for my Grandma who is in her 90s.

I know a lot of US colleges had planned to use extensive testing to try and prevent outbreaks, not sure how that is going. I hope it might work, as you say its really sad that people have to miss out on what should be a really exciting time. Remote learning is definitely not the same experience.
Click to expand...
Smart move on your part. Crazy that she couldn’t get a test though.
 
utdalltheway said:
Smart move on your part. Crazy that she couldn’t get a test though.
Click to expand...
Yeah it was pretty early on in all this, from memory at the time if you hadn't been in contact with somone from overseas you didn't qualify. Although months into the pandemic it seems like the UK has still not got things in order and it is still hard to get tested!
 
That'sHernandez said:
My daughter brought a cold home from nursery Wednesday as well. My wife and I have got it, just a stuffy nose and a cough but no temp etc. Attempted to get a test, nearest site from us (in Lancaster) was Oldham, and no slots were available well beyond the time we’d have to isolate so we we haven’t bothered. This morning when I checked there aren’t even test sites any more. Same for postal tests. It’s an absolute disgrace.

I also find it incredibly worrying that colds are circulating so quickly and easily when they aren’t even as contagious as coronavirus! What are people fecking doing? How are they even circulating if people are following guidance for COVID?
Click to expand...

Try and contact occupational health, apparently they can test NHS health workers (especially hospital based ones) and their families. I'm lucky to have a locum post still at one and trying to source it through there. Keir Starmer's got his through that route apparently because his wife works in an NHS hospital.
 
Brwned said:
Given the model wasn't making a prediction about Sweden, which not only has a different population distribution but was also dealing with a significantly lower volume of virus transmission at the time, it wouldn't be particularly useful to compare it to Sweden. Unless the intention is to deceive yourself by cherry picking the details you do like and disregarding the others. Like your slightly curious decision to omit mentioning Italy, the country most severely hit in the beginning and the one with the most severe lockdown, in your discussion about the successes and risks associated with lockdowns.
Click to expand...

I wasn't using solely Sweden. I mentioned abject failures like Brazil and the US (and even the UK). Irrespective of the governmental incompetence no country has seen anything like 8000 casualties (or even 4000) per 1m people; certainly not over the time period predicted.

To call Italy a success at this stage is quite premature; hence the omission (especially given what we've seen in Spain, France, UK etc).
 
Wolverine said:
Try and contact occupational health, apparently they can test NHS health workers (especially hospital based ones) and their families. I'm lucky to have a locum post still at one and trying to source it through there. Keir Starmer's got his through that route apparently because his wife works in an NHS hospital.
Click to expand...

Don't work for the NHS unfortunately.
 
finneh said:
I wasn't using solely Sweden. I mentioned abject failures like Brazil and the US (and even the UK). Irrespective of the governmental incompetence no country has seen anything like 8000 casualties (or even 4000) per 1m people; certainly not over the time period predicted.

To call Italy a success at this stage is quite premature; hence the omission (especially given what we've seen in Spain, France, UK etc).
Click to expand...

I'm not sure which figures you're referring to? The full report's here.

They estimated 510,000 deaths in the UK, if no measures were taken whatsoever. Quite a bit smaller than 8000 casualties per 1m, and quite a bit different than a Sweden-style response (which on a scale of 1-100, was given a score of 50 for the strigency of policies, alongside the likes of Japan, rather than 0 as per their model). So yes if you misreport the figures and the strategies those figures are attached to, your point fits well.

I don't think anyone will be calling Italy a success. The point is that you drew a simple straight line between lockdown, compliance, and a spike in cases.

finneh said:
Coming out of a 3 month lockdown was always going to cause such a "relief" that cases are bound to spike. Whereas you look at the countries that either had no lockdown (Sweden) or a limited and not so draconian lockdown (other Nordic countries, Germany etc) and their population are far more compliant.
Click to expand...

Did they have a less draconian lockdown than the UK? Clearly not. Something in the equation doesn't quite work there.
 
Brwned said:
I'm not sure which figures you're referring to? The full report's here.

They estimated 510,000 deaths in the UK, if no measures were taken whatsoever. Quite a bit smaller than 8000 casualties per 1m, and quite a bit different than a Sweden-style response (which on a scale of 1-100, was given a score of 50 for the strigency of policies, alongside the likes of Japan, rather than 0 as per their model). So yes if you misreport the figures and the strategies those figures are attached to, your point fits well.

I don't think anyone will be calling Italy a success. The point is that you drew a simple straight line between lockdown, compliance, and a spike in cases.
Click to expand...

510,000 deaths in the UK is what... 7650 per million? And roughly half of that were predicted with a "mitigation" strategy (just under 4000 per million). We've seen ineptitude on an industrial scale in many countries around the world and none have seen close to this "mitigation" model.

It was either a collosal over estimation or a scaremongering piece of propaganda (I'd like to believe the former given the lack of knowledge at the time, although it certainly facilitated draconian restrictions)
Brwned said:
Did they have a less draconian lockdown than the UK? Clearly not. Something in the equation doesn't quite work there.
Click to expand...

Yes I think that's well accepted?

Check the GDP decline Q1 and Q2 of the UK, France, Spain and Italy compared to Germany and the Nordic countries if that helps paint a picture.
 
finneh said:
510,000 deaths in the UK is what... 7650 per million? And roughly half of that were predicted with a "mitigation" strategy (just under 4000 per million). We've seen ineptitude on an industrial scale in many countries around the world and none have seen close to this "mitigation" model.

It was either a collosal over estimation or a scaremongering piece of propaganda (I'd like to believe the former given the lack of knowledge at the time, although it certainly facilitated draconian restrictions)


Yes I think that's well accepted?

Check the GDP decline Q1 and Q2 of the UK, France, Spain and Italy compared to Germany and the Nordic countries if that helps paint a picture.
Click to expand...

The comparison is between Italy and the UK, not Italy and Germany. Have Italy had a less draconian lockdown than the UK? No. Have Italy had a resurgence in cases beyond what Germany have? No. So the idea that draconian lockdown = less long-term compliance = greater risk from the resurgence kind of falls apart when you start looking outside the countries you want to look at. It's a neat model and you can explain how it works very intuitively, especially to those of a certain leaning, but it is demonstrably inaccurate too.
 
Brwned said:
The comparison is between Italy and the UK, not Italy and Germany. Have Italy had a less draconian lockdown than the UK? No. Have Italy had a resurgence in cases beyond what Germany have? No. So the idea that draconian lockdown = less long-term compliance = greater risk from the resurgence kind of falls apart when you start looking outside the countries you want to look at. It's a neat model and you can explain how it works very intuitively, especially to those of a certain leaning, but it is demonstrably inaccurate too.
Click to expand...

I'd already tackled that point in that it's too early to say.

I'd say the overall evidence across the globe though, whilst the formula isn't by any means a perfect one, is that it certainly has a greater correlation than lockdown = success.

This ignores the key component of test, track and trace of course which when performed well (with or without lockdown) is proven to be successful.
 
Dashboard is working for me but in the past there's been numerous times where the numbers don't load and spin around while the rest of the page standard text loads fine.
 
Just been reading what Professor Openshaw was saying.

Anyone know if it’s true what they’re saying about them re-opening the nightingale COVID wards and doctors being told “emergency measures” will be needed from October 2nd.
 
Berbaclass said:
Just been reading what Professor Openshaw was saying.

Anyone know if it’s true what they’re saying about them re-opening the nightingale COVID wards and doctors being told “emergency measures” will be needed from October 2nd.
Click to expand...

Seems reasonable to assume that such plans are being drawn up. Hospital admissions are rising.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.