COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[BlueAnorak]

As I have said to you before, I am a scientist, I am speaking to many other scientists, and that is our analysis of the current figures. My head is anywhere but the sand. I am reviewing figures every single day and there is no significant resurgence in the dead or seriously ill at this time. I hope it stays that way.

Well now the NHS has a process hospital deaths will be 80% less than March/April. (The NHS is useless when it doesn't have a process).
Also its 3 weeks from hospital admission to death so deaths will start ramping up next Wednesday.
In addition masks stop you getting a big starter dose of the virus so you are much more likely to survive.
Next Wednesday. I hope I'm wrong but deaths will start to ramp up then.

 

[cleavers]

I wasn't aware of that, so if that's the case fair enough, I've generally concentrated on UK figures. I do know the spanish did lockdown much harder than us though during their first lockdown, so spread of the disease was likely much slower there than here.

Yes that's true, our lockdown was less strict, but it did get it under control.

You keep saying there is no evidence of a need to panic, I agree there shouldn't be "panic", but there certainly should be caution. The CMO this morning said both cases and hospitalisation were now doubling in 7 or 8 days, figures that can be seen in the available data. I'm not convinced that cases themselves are doubling that quickly, the graphs don't show it, though the rise does seem to be continuing.

However, 660 were in hospital in England on Sep 13th, on the 20th it's at 1141, not quite "double" but close enough, ICU has also gone from 74 to 142, so that is clear evidence. Also it can take 10-30 days to die from going into ICU, and obviously some may recover.

The other issue which seems to be ignored is that those who end up in ICU, can suffer badly for months (perhaps life) even if they do recover, so we should be looking to prevent that as well, not to mention indirect illness/death caused by having to put too much into treating covid.

 

[mosssideblue]

Sorry to be picky but if you put 1 grain on the first square then the final square will have 2 to the power 63 grains which will be exactly half of that number. ;-)

It's still a gurt big number

 

[BlueAnorak]

My current reading of the situation is that because the Spanish and French didn't leave their care home system to the wolves, they are now having problems, whereas our country left them to die (sending suspected covid patients back into care homes was criminal). I'm not saying for one saying "I know there won't be a second wave", because I'd be talking out my arse if I did, just saying that the current numbers are not running out of control.

Bollox.
Spain, Italy and France had a much bigger proportion of their deaths in care homes than England.

 

[True_Blue69]

The problem with the ‘government scientist’ is a bit like the problem with Ferguson and his modelling. If they’re wrong and there is no serious uptick in deaths, they will not be criticised. However, should they say everything will be fine and it’s not, they will be hounded until the end of days. It’s part of the reason they wanted to keep the SAGE membership confidential.
My criticism of the government scientists is there aren’t enough of them and there isn't enough diversity amongst them, which can’t be a good thing.

Surprised they wanted to remain anonymous, different members of SAGE have been rolled onto BBC news pretty much every hour today. Not that the BBC want to push a particular message on their viewers obviously.

 

[bluejon]

Bollox.
Spain, Italy and France had a much bigger proportion of their deaths in care homes than England.

I can only find those numbers going back to June. You are right that Spain was more (but not by loads), you are wrong about Italy and France, they were significantly less than ours. If you can find more recent figures that show a change in that fair enough.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Prof Sikora on BBC news now saying that him and a bunch of epidemiologists have written to the government advising them to sit tight and don't make and rash decisions in implementing and more measures. They are saying that although cases are rising, those getting seriously ill is remaining low. Also spoke about Spain and France to point out that although the numbers of deaths has risen, healthcare is nowhere near bring overrun and the numbers remain relatively low. Specially referred to the current scaremongering in the UK.

 

[kaz7]

Keep positive bud.

we are in a much better position than March, we know loads more about the virus than back then - day by day we are also closer to a vaccine.

This is very true

 

[MillionMilesAway]

This battle of the scientists over two approaches is fascinating but one of them has to be more right than the other and how do we decide which?

The trouble is if its the doomsayers who are right and we are too slow to act then we face a bad few weeks and even longer to rest back control. Which in the end damages the economy worse.

If the it may well not be quite so bad if we wait and see ones are right and we do react then it does cause some loss of income short term but I doubt anything like a full lockdown for months will ever be considered viable again.

On that balance surely erring on the side of caution makes sense scientifically.

Its like racing towards a cliff edge with the steering looking a bit iffy. You can turn the engine off and stop. Just in case. Or keep going and bet on the steering allowing you to turn away at the last minute.

Prudence in a pandemic looks like sense. But the balance of lives v livelihood is not a simple one I do appreciate.

The bold/underlined bit is key, and politically the only option. At the end of it, it is unlikely that anyone will be able to prove that it is the wrong choice.

Having taken the Prudence path at the fork we're approaching, it then comes down to how far down the road to Prudenceville (or beyond) they proceed.

 

[Healdplace]

The problem with the ‘government scientist’ is a bit like the problem with Ferguson and his modelling. If they’re wrong and there is no serious uptick in deaths, they will not be criticised. However, should they say everything will be fine and it’s not, they will be hounded until the end of days. It’s part of the reason they wanted to keep the SAGE membership confidential.
My criticism of the government scientists is there aren’t enough of them and there isn't enough diversity amongst them, which can’t be a good thing.

I do agree with that - scientists are allowed to disagree - especially when facing a new problem. Diversity of viewpoint should be welcomed and is in science. But less so in politics where they are less interested in being right than in not being blamed if they are wrong.