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

[Nogbadthebad]

So, there are two things about this comment on newsnight. First, it means we can't really trust UK figures for deaths any longer by government admission.

Second, it doesn't track right. Anonymous data doesn't need family permission for publishing under GDPR.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

People seem to really struggle with this.

If you have 1000 ICU beds, and only 130 being used. Why are you locking down? You surely lockdown when you see 130 double two days running to 520. If you do it at 130 with 200 new cases a day and 15 into ICU, it's just a waste of time and money.

You yourself seem to be struggling with the concept of lag. If you do your shutdown on the day you have 520 cases, the very next day you're out of beds.

If you have 1000 icu beds and only 30 being used and you see it double two days running to 120 you shut it down.

 

[André Dominguez]

Yesterday we added a new counts on this in PT due to people disobeying the emergency protocol

39 people are now awaiting trial and 649 shops were closed and cannot open until the trial ends.

 

[UncleBob]

Seriously arguing that you should only start the lockdown when the capacity is at the breaking point, i mean

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Don't forget that there is a lag of a few weeks between infection and the onset of serious disease. For example, the people who got infected at Cheltenham Festival will just now be beginning to show symptoms and won't be hitting the hospital ICUs until sometime next week. That's why you (the government) have to act well before your health system reaches capacity - you always know you have a three week backlog to work through.

Of course you act before, and Sweden for example is acting, let's not make out here that it's "lockdown" or "nothing". Sweden have put lots of things in place that I listed earlier.

Even stricter measures will come in when the curve takes a turn, I'll make the point again, not doing so achieves what? Gets rid of virus? No.

So how do you stop it then, if a one year lockdown isn't workable. What do you do? Lockdown every time you reach 130 ICU patients? Then open again when? Then lockdown again when?

 

[Fiskey]

So, there are two things about this comment on newsnight. First, it means we can't really trust UK figures for deaths any longer by government admission.

Second, it doesn't track right. Anonymous data doesn't need family permission for publishing under GDPR.

That sounds very strange.

 

[RobinLFC]

Seriously arguing that you should only start the lockdown when the capacity is at the breaking point, i mean

Can't believe it either - it would most definitely lead to people dying in the hallway of hospitals, Spanish-style.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

You yourself seem to be struggling with the concept of lag. If you do your shutdown on the day you have 520 cases, the very next day you're out of beds.

If you have 1000 icu beds and only 30 being used and you see it double two days running to 120 you shut it down.

No, not at all @Ekkie Thump

Do you lockdown everything everytime your ICU is at 1/10 capacity? When do you open again? Never? If you see your stats, like in Sweden seeing 200 new cases a day for a week and say 15 a day to ICU, do you lockdown? Why exactly?

What is lockdown today solving in Sweden's case aside from kicking the can down the road? Surely Sweden should bring in stricter measures only when 200 becomes 400-600 etc. Otherwise what's the point?

 

[arnie_ni]

Youve 1000 icu beds.

600 in use. Good capacity left. Lets not lockdown for 2 more weeks.

In the meantime 400 people who attended Cheltenham land into icu needing beds within the space of a day or two. Capacity reached.

During those 2 weeks you didnt decide to lockdown 500 more bed icu beds. Those people are left to die.

You need to close up shop well before capacity is reached to cope with the unknown.

 

[11101]

People seem to really struggle with this.

If you have 1000 ICU beds, and only 130 being used. Why are you locking down? You surely lockdown when you see 130 double two days running to 520. If you do it at 130 with 200 new cases a day and 15 into ICU, it's just a waste of time and money.

That is why there are so many people working on these computer models. It takes 4-7 days for symptoms to show and another 4 days to need hospitalisation, and another day or two to require ICU. That means you need to predict how many ICU beds you are going to need at least 5 days and potentially up to 2 weeks from now, and yes, this is why i keep saying governments care more about case numbers than deaths.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

That is why there are so many people working on these computer models.

Absolutely. And I'm happy when governments follow these models. That's my entire point like.

 

[arnie_ni]

That is why there are so many people working on these computer models. It takes 4-7 days for symptoms to show and another 4 days to need hospitalisation, and another day or two to require ICU. That means you need to predict how many ICU beds you are going to need at least 5 days and potentially up to 2 weeks from now, and yes, this is why i keep saying governments care more about case numbers than deaths.

They arent testing the public at wide though so the numbers they are basing them on arent an accurate reflection of whats really going on, so how can their computer model have been correct?

There was a week or so period there were no one in the public was being tested.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Youve 1000 icu beds.

600 in use. Good capacity left. Lets not lockdown for 2 more weeks.

Would be a shit idea that no-one suggested.

 

[arnie_ni]

Would be a shit idea that no-one suggested.

Your suggesting it.

You said the UK shut down to early

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Yes, designed from scratch and they aim to start production next week. A consortium led by Airbus is also waiting for permission to start manufacturing an existing design in the same time frame.

I remember everybody being insistent it would take months.

Plenty said it was impossible to make them from scratch in a relevant timeframe. It will be a big PR win for Dyson after the past few years.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Your suggesting it

Where do I suggest that when you're at 600, you should wait 2 more weeks before bringing in stricter measures. I mean, that is exactly what you posted.

I suggest, that Sweden follows the curve, when it's stable, keep doing what you're doing, when it starts to spike, immediately bring in stricter measures.

 

[Smores]

So, there are two things about this comment on newsnight. First, it means we can't really trust UK figures for deaths any longer by government admission.

Second, it doesn't track right. Anonymous data doesn't need family permission for publishing under GDPR.

It's utter horseshit, GDPR doesn't apply to the deceased anyway.

Hopefully that's just Newsnight being incompetent.

 

[11101]

They arent testing the public at wide though so the numbers they are basing them on arent an accurate reflection of whats really going on, so how can their computer model have been correct?

There was a week or so period there were no one in the public was being tested.

They don't need to. They only need to know about the people coming into hospital and how those numbers are growing. If 90% of people have no symptoms it doesn't matter if 90% of people is 9 people or 9 million people. It's only the hospitalised patients that matter for predicting ICU utilisation.

 

[Stanley Road]

Good article in the Guardian as to why Spain is suffering so badly.

 

[redshaw]

What can help people get back to work is antibody tests and UK has ordered millions.

The virus is unchanging and this is good for antibody and vaccines.

 

[Arruda]

Would be a shit idea that no-one suggested.

Yes, you are suggesting it, when you support the idea of waiting a bit more for the lockdown. Waiting until when?

When cases start to rise it will be too late. Every country has gone / is going through this.

 

[UncleBob]

Absolutely. And I'm happy when governments follow these models. That's my entire point like.

Didn't you just agree that lockdowns are only needed when the capacity is at it's breaking point ?

Models are great to trust when they are actually accurate.

 

[arnie_ni]

Where do I suggest that when you're at 600, you should wait 2 more weeks before bringing in stricter measures. I mean, that is exactly what you posted.

I suggest, that Sweden follows the curve, when it's stable, keep doing what you're doing, when it starts to spike, immediately bring in stricter measures.

The numbers are an example.

It was more the element of lag from unknown cases that could literally kill people if you stay open even slightly to long.

Your better to close early than late.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

They don't need to. They only need to know about the people coming into hospital and how those numbers are growing. If 90% of people have no symptoms it doesn't matter if 90% of people is 9 people or 9 million people. It's only the hospitalised patients that matter for predicting ICU utilisation.

Absolutely.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Didn't you just agree that lockdowns are only needed when the capacity is at it's breaking point ?

No.

 

[stepic]

Absolutely. And I'm happy when governments follow these models. That's my entire point like.

and this is why the UK switched strategy. the numbers said the herd immunity strategy wasn't going to work.

every country will be different though. if Sweden has the right mix of age demographics, social behaviour, ICU availability, etc, then all the power to them if they can avoid a lockdown. i'm sure they have plenty of people running the numbers daily.

 

[Eriku]

What can help people get back to work is antibody tests and UK has ordered millions.

The virus is unchanging and this is good for antibody and vaccines.

Is it? It’s been verified that there are two strains, and now there are reports from Iceland about 40 different strains being detected by their scientists. What are you basing your claim on?

 

[RobinLFC]

It's utter horseshit, GDPR doesn't apply to the deceased anyway.

Hopefully that's just Newsnight being incompetent.

Consent given prior to death, is believed to extend beyond death. However, relatives may have a different opinion, once their relative has died. This should be handled sensitively with relatives being encouraged to respect the deceased person's wishes (or in certain cases, their nominated representative / nominee, see below).

In legal terms, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act no longer applies to identifiable data that relate to a person once they have died. However any duty of confidence established prior to death does extend beyond death. It is important to maintain confidentiality to ensure that trust in services and institutions are not undermined. Disclosure of confidential information post mortem therefore requires consent to extend the duty of confidence.

 

[Infra-red]

Would be a shit idea that no-one suggested.

We both completely disagree with this statement, then:

You don't want lockdown until your health service is at the absolute brink of capacity.

 

[UncleBob]

No.

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/wuh...illiness-or-memes-please.452816/post-25436956

You don't want lockdown until your health service is at the absolute brink of capacity. I've spoken with three people who have gone into London hospitals in the past two days (people who have to be in hospital quite regularly) and they've all said it's eerily quiet.

If you lockdown too early you cause damage to the economy that didn't need to be caused and are left in pretty much the same situation when you relax (hopefully with more ventilators).

People seem to really struggle with this.

If you have 1000 ICU beds, and only 130 being used. Why are you locking down? You surely lockdown when you see 130 double two days running to 520. If you do it at 130 with 200 new cases a day and 15 into ICU, it's just a waste of time and money.

 

[arnie_ni]

They don't need to. They only need to know about the people coming into hospital and how those numbers are growing. If 90% of people have no symptoms it doesn't matter if 90% of people is 9 people or 9 million people. It's only the hospitalised patients that matter for predicting ICU utilisation.

But how do they know 90 percent have no symptoms if they arent testing the public.

That figure could be 95, or 85, which could mean you could have stayed open a while longer, or you needed to go sooner.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

We both completely disagree with this statement, then:

Absolutely, you don't wait till it's at the brink. You wait until the model and curve shows you it's spiking.

That's basic science.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/wuh...illiness-or-memes-please.452816/post-25436956

You can't read Bob?

 

[Ainu]

You don't want lockdown until your health service is at the absolute brink of capacity. I've spoken with three people who have gone into London hospitals in the past two days (people who have to be in hospital quite regularly) and they've all said it's eerily quiet.

If you lockdown too early you cause damage to the economy that didn't need to be caused and are left in pretty much the same situation when you relax (hopefully with more ventilators).

If you do it when you're at the brink of capacity, you have a catastrophe on your hands in a week's time. The effects of a lockdown are only clearly visible between 7-14 days after the start of the lockdown. That's simply too late.

And it should be obvious that the idea is to not go back to the same situation as before the lockdown after a few weeks. The heaviest lockdown measures will be lifted but many milder measures will stay in effect. All economic activity should gradually start back up while stuff like mass gatherings remain out of the question for a long time. The time you're buying with such a lockdown allows everyone to get so much better equiped. More protection equipment for health workers, better and more focused treatment, better testing, etc. Time is crucial.

 

[MDFC Manager]

Absolutely. And I'm happy when governments follow these models. That's my entire point like.

The problem is, certain governments still ended up prioritising 'economy' over such expert opinions.

 

[Fiskey]

We both completely disagree with this statement, then:

I meant brink of capacity according to the models, not as in every single ICU bed is currently occupied. In the context of the conversation with RAB I feel that should be understood.

 

[Smores]

I very much doubt Sweden's healthcare service is so good that it's running at 90% ICU availability. That whole argument leads to a false sense of acceptable lag.

Reduce it to 10% availability and how quickly do you need to act?

 

[Fiskey]

If you do it when you're at the brink of capacity, you have a catastrophe on your hands in a week's time. The effects of a lockdown are only clearly visible between 7-14 days after the start of the lockdown. That's simply too late.

And it should be obvious that the idea is to not go back to the same situation as before the lockdown after a few weeks. The heaviest lockdown measures will be lifted but many milder measures will stay in effect. All economic activity should gradually start back up while stuff like mass gatherings remain out of the question for a long time. The time you're buying with such a lockdown allows everyone to get so much better equiped. More protection equipment for health workers, better and more focused treatment, better testing, etc. Time is crucial.

I fully understand the effects of lag, I felt that was obvious. RAB and I were talking about rates of infection, and when I said brink of capacity I was referring to the forecast.

 

[MDFC Manager]

Imagine the absolute state of the globe if China hadn't locked down Wuhan when they did, and instead waited for a couple of weeks more.

 

[2cents]