COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

One problem with it, the selfishnes of people in this country, you saw it with panic buying as a country we are twats, you saw the bellends in Benidorm out drinking on lockdown, give them an inch etc. Other european countries seem to have more self discipline than us, if we had been allowed to carry on in the hope people wouldve adhered to the rules as long as this youd be sadly mistaken, I can take you to parts of Oldham where they are quite blatanly not bothering, this would be mirrored all over this country. Also the size and the way we live here doesnt exactly endear itself to seperation, lots of urban areas, I guess places like Sweden arent as densley populated as us. weve had nearly 30000 deaths id expect that to be at least trebeld in Covid deaths if we hadnt done lockdown plus add to that all the add on deaths from RTCs etc and you can see it wouldve been carnage. Our way out of this is by creating an "isolation nation" pubs, bars reataurants can now work out how to function within these "rules", suprmarkets have achieved it and workplaces have to a degree.
As humans we ahve overcome far worse than this, with a little bit of planning and thought most but not all of us could come out soon but it has to be done right and for those not conforming have to brought to account.

Death toll trebled? Who knows? I do know we’ve put all our eggs in the Ferguson basket and he’s been wrong before. In fact, he said that, with the measures the government now had in place, deaths would be ’substantially below 20000’. He’s wrong about that.
A few other predictions from Professor Ferguson, who has single handedly done more damage to the economy than the bankers did.
In 2005, he said that 200 million could be killed from bird flu. Actual deaths were 282.

In 2009, Ferguson and his Imperial team predicted that swine flu had a case fatality rate 0.3 per cent to 1.5 per cent. His most likely estimate was that the mortality rate was 0.4 per cent. A government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a ‘reasonable worst-case scenario’ was that the disease would lead to 65,000 UK deaths. Actual deaths were 457, with a case fatality rate of 0.026%.

In 2001 the Imperial team produced modelling on foot and mouth disease that suggested that animals in neighbouring farms should be culled, even if there was no evidence of infection. This influenced government policy and led to the total culling of more than six million cattle, sheep and pigs – with a cost to the UK economy estimated at £10 billion.
It has been claimed by experts such as Michael Thrusfield, professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University, that Ferguson’s modelling on foot and mouth was ‘severely flawed’ and made a ‘serious error’ by ‘ignoring the species composition of farms,’ and the fact that the disease spread faster between different species.

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. He also predicted that number could rise to 150,000 if there was a sheep epidemic as well. In the UK, there have only been 177 deaths from BSE.

Ferguson’s disease modelling for Covid-19 has been criticised by experts such as John Ioannidis, professor in disease prevention at Stanford University, who has said that: ‘The Imperial College study has been done by a highly competent team of modellers. However, some of the major assumptions and estimates that are built in the calculations seem to be substantially inflated.’

Now, it might come to pass that he was correct, but his modelling didn’t allow for anything other than; not enough critical care beds, not enough kit, no immunity, and, worst of all, no allowance for deaths related to the lockdown but not actually caused by C-19. It’s got to be worth questioning rather than blind faith and obedience, I’d have thought?

 

[Fame Monster]

Is it time to relook at this lockdown and think about just ending it? I ask this because there does seem to be a collective madness overcoming us and blithe acceptance of government statements, not to mention the unending damage we are doing to the economy.
If life is going to be about everyone being much poorer, not speaking to anyone when going out, covering your face so you can’t see anyone anyway, not touching anyone, not going to the pub, sitting in straight lines in restaurants, having every other seat empty in cinemas, or the theatre, not going on holiday and having no sport whilst telling anyone over 70 or people with comorbidities that the only way to ‘live’ is to stay in and not see anyone, then I’m not convinced we are ‘doing the right thing’.

The ‘Ferguson model’, which panicked Trump and Johnson so much, was reused by Uppsala University to highlight the risk to Sweden. It predicted if Sweden ‘did nothing’, by May 1st, there’d be 80000 dead. If they just maintained voluntary social distancing, that number would be 40000. They did the latter and, as of May 1st they’ve had 2700 deaths.

I found this transport usage map interesting, which certainly suggests that people were doing the right thing as soon as social distancing was encouraged and the lockdown didn’t increase the pace of that, at all.

I share your concerns about finding the right balance between quality of life and preventing deaths and I think one of the few UK success stories is the fact that we've allowed people to go out and walk their dog or do some exercise (unlike Spain or Italy) and at the same time bring the reproduction number below 1.

On the modelling, it obviously is hugely speculative but I don't think there's any question that the ICL modelling is an overestimate as applied to the UK. Up to today, we've had around 50,000 excess deaths by most accounts. That's only 2 months into the crisis and with a lockdown. The Ferguson model predicted 250,000 deaths at the end of the crisis and with no lockdown and with social distancing applying only to the over-70s. I think that kind of outcome was well within the realms of possibility/probability and unless we implement an effective tracing system among other measures, it could be a figure we're heading towards even now.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

I share your concerns about finding the right balance between quality of life and preventing deaths and I think one of the few UK success stories is the fact that we've allowed people to go out and walk their dog or do some exercise (unlike Spain or Italy) and at the same time bring the reproduction number below 1.

On the modelling, it obviously is hugely speculative but I don't think there's any question that the ICL modelling is an overestimate as applied to the UK. Up to today, we've had around 50,000 excess deaths by most accounts. That's only 2 months into the crisis and with a lockdown. The Ferguson model predicted 250,000 deaths at the end of the crisis and with no lockdown and with social distancing applying only to the over-70s. I think that kind of outcome was well within the realms of possibility/probability and unless we implement an effective tracing system among other measures, it could be a figure we're heading towards even now.

The Ferguson model? See above post.

 

[Blue Maverick]

I say trebeled because we wouldve been overwhelmed with cases with noy enough ventilators etc, people admitted to hospital for other cases been infected whilst there, plus like RTCs etc coming in, id say quite easliy be in a world of hurt now.

 

[Fame Monster]

The Ferguson model? See above post.

I agree, it's massively flawed and it's overestimated deaths in the past. But I'm not sure it's going to overestimate deaths here with the excess mortality already being around 50,000 deaths.

 

[BlueAnorak]

I get that , but come Friday the media will flip and say it it is wrong to start the exit.
And say the public are asking why.

Yep.
The mediah left, right or neutral have been total twats duing this crisis.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

I agree, it's massively flawed and it's overestimated deaths in the past. But I'm not sure it's going to overestimate deaths here with the excess mortality already being around 50,000 deaths.

But his model was only C-19 deaths. Interestingly, the excess deaths at home and in care homes is about 50/50 male and female, which is atypical of C-19, which affects men much more. It suggests that many of the female excess deaths are non C-19, which warrants further investigation.

 

[Coatigan]

the bearing the brunt maybe the wrong term i just meant the failings of the private sector (banking) and the public sector decimated to bail the banks etc and now the tables are effectively turned will be interesting to see in years to come how the public sector and in particular the NHS are treated by those very ministers applauding not giving them pay rises not long ago, tbh that should be in the political forum and i dont want t o get into those arguements they make me angry. Lets just hope we can all safely get through this and you can buy me a beer at the Ethiad soon ;)

I dont think there is anything political about our discussion. I totally agree on your points re banks, NHS, made similar comments myself. We maybe have a bit of a different net of private/public sectors and what they encompass. I get, from your other posts your broader position and situation btw.

 

[yerwot?]

If big pharma are involved, there’s always a need for scepticism mate. How many times have you read about a ‘miracle’ drug for this, that and the other? Not that it might not be true and I’m hoping the university involvement is more scientific than the usually relentlessly positive drug company view, as the university don’t have a share price to maintain..

the drug companies sponsor uni's research....

 

[George Hannah]

Death toll trebled? Who knows? I do know we’ve put all our eggs in the Ferguson basket and he’s been wrong before. In fact, he said that, with the measures the government now had in place, deaths would be ’substantially below 20000’. He’s wrong about that.
A few other predictions from Professor Ferguson, who has single handedly done more damage to the economy than the bankers did.
In 2005, he said that 200 million could be killed from bird flu. Actual deaths were 282.

In 2009, Ferguson and his Imperial team predicted that swine flu had a case fatality rate 0.3 per cent to 1.5 per cent. His most likely estimate was that the mortality rate was 0.4 per cent. A government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a ‘reasonable worst-case scenario’ was that the disease would lead to 65,000 UK deaths. Actual deaths were 457, with a case fatality rate of 0.026%.

In 2001 the Imperial team produced modelling on foot and mouth disease that suggested that animals in neighbouring farms should be culled, even if there was no evidence of infection. This influenced government policy and led to the total culling of more than six million cattle, sheep and pigs – with a cost to the UK economy estimated at £10 billion.
It has been claimed by experts such as Michael Thrusfield, professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University, that Ferguson’s modelling on foot and mouth was ‘severely flawed’ and made a ‘serious error’ by ‘ignoring the species composition of farms,’ and the fact that the disease spread faster between different species.

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. He also predicted that number could rise to 150,000 if there was a sheep epidemic as well. In the UK, there have only been 177 deaths from BSE.

Ferguson’s disease modelling for Covid-19 has been criticised by experts such as John Ioannidis, professor in disease prevention at Stanford University, who has said that: ‘The Imperial College study has been done by a highly competent team of modellers. However, some of the major assumptions and estimates that are built in the calculations seem to be substantially inflated.’

Now, it might come to pass that he was correct, but his modelling didn’t allow for anything other than; not enough critical care beds, not enough kit, no immunity, and, worst of all, no allowance for deaths related to the lockdown but not actually caused by C-19. It’s got to be worth questioning rather than blind faith and obedience, I’d have thought?

Experience is what we call our mistakes and Prof Ferguson is clearly very experienced. That's a good thing scientifically (if not politically) by the way. Genuine scientific hypotheses are testable - that's because we can measurably know if they are right or wrong. We'll see in due course whether SAGE's advice was good or not - in the meantime probably best not to recycle pathetic left wing hatchet jobs done on anybody linked to the goverment.