COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[grunge]

I haven't suggested it won't get worse, it is entirely possible, I'm saying that there is no evidence yet that is happening. Essentially I think there's too much panic over what might happen and not enough clear analysis of what we actually know.

How can we have evidence when there hasn't been a winter with it yet. and were in the middle of an indian summer meaning more people are actually outside than they normally would be. Evidence will come later, positive or negative.

we can look at other places and see examples though but kinda reversed. Southern US states for example where summer hit and everyone went inside for Air con spiked it there quite a lot.

 

[bluejon]

How can we have evidence when there hasn't been a winter with it yet. and were in the middle of an indian summer meaning more people are actually outside than they normally would be.

we can look at other places and see examples though but kinda reversed. Southern US states for example where summer hit and everyone went inside for Air con spiked it there quite a lot.

The southern states, the virus was hitting them for the first time so you can't use that as an equivalence. What's winding me up is this assumption that the worst is going to happen, when there's no evidence for that and a stricter lockdown is likely to cause more misery and harm than it will solve.

 

[Healdplace]

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.

 

[bluejon]

Spain certainly didn't, even before it took off here they were showing care homes in Spain, where the staff had f**ked off and left everyone to die, and they did, this was on UK main news, we hadn't even started lockdown then, there was an outcry in Spain about it.

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.

 

[True_Blue69]

He has been rebuked by almost all the major epidemiologists around. You will do anything, anything to try and undermine the virulence of this disease. All you do is peddle lies.

All I did was summarise what he said. Him and the epidemiologists know more than me or you and it is important that different views get shared regardless whether you agree with them or not.

 

[grunge]

The southern states, the virus was hitting them for the first time so you can't use that as an equivalence. What's winding me up is this assumption that the worst is going to happen, when there's no evidence for that and a stricter lockdown is likely to cause more misery and harm than it will solve.

thats the thing though with the southern states, it was mapped out to show the start of the heat and power spikes for AC turning on was quickly ( about a week or so ) followed by lots of cases and hospitalisations. It could be a coincidence but having that accross the majority of the southern states at the same time seems to limit that out a bit.

From a government point of view, Id say they have to work with a pessimistic mind set else its political suicide.

personally im hoping that with social distancing / masks etc etc resulting in lower viral loads that we'll be able to make it through this winter with fewer deaths than the start and probably a ton of cases.

 

[True_Blue69]

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.

We have so many things in place that we didn't at the start you could argue that we are already on the side of caution. The numbers in hospital are still low as it's the death rate. I really do think that we should be waiting a few weeks to see how it behaves. Schools went back there was always going to be more cases, if we are just going to shut then t down again what was the point? If the experts were so sure this was going to happen then why did we bother relaxing the rules at all?

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Fair enough, bluejon. This is all about analysis and opinions. But why do you think the government scientists are not on board with this and seem more concerned?

I really think people would love to see a counterpoint of optimism. I definitely would. As I know there is room for different readings of this.

The escalating hospital numbers and fairly rapid rise of ventilated patients and the nudging up of deaths looks pretty clear to my non scientst eyes.

Yes the numbers are not out of control - agreed - yet - but is there any good reason to think they will stall or just inch up to modest levels rather than carry on doubling every seven days?

Certainly without taking extra measures now as seems being considered.

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.

 

[BlueAnorak]

neither of those two things explain why currently they are not having a second surge of cases.

Population density IS the key thing.
And 250-300 cases a day equates to 2750-3300 cases a day in the UK.
Enjoy!

 

[Tim of the Oak]

He has been rebuked by almost all the major epidemiologists around. You will do anything, anything to try and undermine the virulence of this disease. All you do is peddle lies.

He is desperate for cancer services to be accessible in hospitals to help other patients. The Government recently announced funding to have bigger intensive care units, IIRC, partly because outbreaks could not be managed in hospitals without disrupting / contaminating other very important services. Obviously, this will take time to do.