Corona Virus main thread

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Margin Call, a movie aimed at the 2008 crash, was aired once again over the weekend. As was Contagion, a movie that mirrors what is happening right now.

Coincidence?

[T 190]

1 hour ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Sorry T but this is getting very tedious, there is no hindsight involved here and if you don't believe me then perhaps you should take a took at the Lancet and what they said in January and since.

The idea that this government has followed the best expert advice available is a total fiction, they ignored most of the experts and took a gamble on minimising the economic impact - that gamble has totally backfired!

I’m not particularly disagreeing with you. However from the main source Ferguson basically the numbers were not looking that bad. Look at Germany for instance for closer look at reality. They then saw the data from Italy plugged it in the model and went oh holy sh1t at which point action was taken. So I’m not sure you are being entirely fair. I suspect UK will come out worst than some but better than most. 

[T 190]

From BBC live reporting

 

Why so few deaths in Germany?

Getty ImagesCopyright: Getty Images

If you look at the statistics, Germany has a much lower mortality rate than all neighbouring countries: .more than 62,000 infections but only 541 deaths. So what's behind the numbers? 

The most likely explanation is extensive testing: Germany started doing widespread testing early on, confirming many cases with only mild symptoms. 

That means the number of confirmed cases is closer to the actual number of infections than in other countries, where confirmed cases may show only a fraction of those infected. So if Italy, Spain or the UK included all those mild cases currently not being tested, their mortality rates might not be all that different from Germany after all. 

Another explanation is healthcare capacity: Germany has more extensive care capacity than France, Italy or the UK. 

This means that currently the medical system can still cope relatively well with the number of severely ill. Patients from Italy and France are even being taken to Germany for treatment. Yet once the number of critically ill in the country peaks, the German healthcare system is also expected to find itself overstretched.

 

I still think treatment and testing capacity matters and so do most people with knowledge of the virus. The NHS and BBC are providing better information and UK has a more intergrated national process but some other countries have more capacity. Very strange that some people think capacity doesn’t matter and can’t accept other societies might just do some things better. 

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

31 minutes ago, Aggy said:

So there are stats that work both ways and you’re choosing the ones that make the government look bad. 😉 

I’d also say we simply don’t know whether we’ll end up “looking worse” than others. There are multiple things the government had to take into account - going on a lockdown a month long her might have saved 1000 more lives, but it might have cost more than that because the lockdown was lasting longer, more people unemployed etc. etc. 

No I'm not and in fact I don't recall quoting any stats at all.

What I have repeatedly said is that we had a potential substantial advantage compared to many other countries in our ability to control this virus, i.e. being on an island with controlled borders - an advantage which we've squandered.

Secondly that our government (and its chosen experts) firstly were very late to implement any strategy and when they did it was completely different to the one that the WHO, SE Asian experts with early experience of the virus and many independent UK experts were advocating.

Thirdly they didn't do some of the most basic things that any competent government would have done like using the two month warning to stock up on basics that the NHS would need to fight the virus - PPE would have been a good start.

All of those statements I think you'll find are factually correct.

What happens from now on is very unclear but your suggestion that locking down earlier would have had other adverse consequences and resulted in a longer lockdown seems almost certainly wrong - the disease has right from the start been spreading very quickly and obviously the purpose of the lockdown is to slow or even stop the spread which again the existing evidence shows to be the case. So I would suggest that the earlier the lockdown, i.e. whilst the number of people already infected is lower, then the more effective it would be and the quicker the lockdown could be lifted - that seems simple logic to me or as we used to call it plain common sense.

[Badger 2,405]

11 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

So there are stats that work both ways

Sorry Aggy, but I don't see how anybody could defend the fact that our NHS, care staff and public services do not have the protective equipment they need. 

+ It is also difficult to understand why Germany is able to do so many more tests than ourselves. 

[T 190]

6 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

No I'm not and in fact I don't recall quoting any stats at all.

What I have repeatedly said is that we had a potential substantial advantage compared to many other countries in our ability to control this virus, i.e. being on an island with controlled borders - an advantage which we've squandered.

Secondly that our government (and its chosen experts) firstly were very late to implement any strategy and when they did it was completely different to the one that the WHO, SE Asian experts with early experience of the virus and many independent UK experts were advocating.

Thirdly they didn't do some of the most basic things that any competent government would have done like using the two month warning to stock up on basics that the NHS would need to fight the virus - PPE would have been a good start.

All of those statements I think you'll find are factually correct.

What happens from now on is very unclear but your suggestion that locking down earlier would have had other adverse consequences and resulted in a longer lockdown seems almost certainly wrong - the disease has right from the start been spreading very quickly and obviously the purpose of the lockdown is to slow or even stop the spread which again the existing evidence shows to be the case. So I would suggest that the earlier the lockdown, i.e. whilst the number of people already infected is lower, then the more effective it would be and the quicker the lockdown could be lifted - that seems simple logic to me or as we used to call it plain common sense.

Not completely disagreeing but the UK and other countries was not set up to do what some countries in Asia with SARS and MERS experience could do. Also this virus is so widespread you can only flatten the curve unless you completely stop all human contact so this will be an ongoing problem until it does through the population or a vaccine is developed. Some balance does need to be made between healthcare and collapsing society. That is the challenge every country is facing. If you suppress it early it just comes back later when you relax the restrictions. This is a pandemic with no nice easy solutions. Some people will be worried about their health but some are worried about being unemployed so that also needs to be considered. 

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

7 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

No I'm not and in fact I don't recall quoting any stats at all.

What I have repeatedly said is that we had a potential substantial advantage compared to many other countries in our ability to control this virus, i.e. being on an island with controlled borders - an advantage which we've squandered.

Secondly that our government (and its chosen experts) firstly were very late to implement any strategy and when they did it was completely different to the one that the WHO, SE Asian experts with early experience of the virus and many independent UK experts were advocating.

Thirdly they didn't do some of the most basic things that any competent government would have done like using the two month warning to stock up on basics that the NHS would need to fight the virus - PPE would have been a good start.

All of those statements I think you'll find are factually correct.

What happens from now on is very unclear but your suggestion that locking down earlier would have had other adverse consequences and resulted in a longer lockdown seems almost certainly wrong - the disease has right from the start been spreading very quickly and obviously the purpose of the lockdown is to slow or even stop the spread which again the existing evidence shows to be the case. So I would suggest that the earlier the lockdown, i.e. whilst the number of people already infected is lower, then the more effective it would be and the quicker the lockdown could be lifted - that seems simple logic to me or as we used to call it plain common sense.criticism

I've only seen balanced and factual criticism of the government. For example, I have yet to see anyone mount a a valid defence against the criticism,  as CM says, that the government unforgiveably wasted the crucial time it had to better prepare.

As to the the argument over the timing and the severity of the lockdown, that is more a matter of degree. But if as seems likely the government this weeks makes the lockdown more stringent, with more clearcut rules that makes plain, as the current advice does not, just what is allowed, that would fit in with the pattern of a tendency to put off tough decisions.

[T 190]

Germany can do more testing because it has more capacity.  But the UK is still high in testing compared to most countries. 

[Aggy 754]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

Sorry Aggy, but I don't see how anybody could defend the fact that our NHS, care staff and public services do not have the protective equipment they need. 

+ It is also difficult to understand why Germany is able to do so many more tests than ourselves. 

Very different points you’re mixing up there badger. 

The state of the NHS and the lack of protective equipment is not an issue that has arisen because of coronavirus. We’re seeing/hearing about it more now because of coronavirus, but the issue with the NHS funding goes much further back than a couple of months ago when coronavirus kicked off. I haven’t commented on the general state of the NHS or Tory funding of it over the past decade in this thread.
 

The stats I was referring to were in respect of things such as when lockdowns were started and steps the government has taken specifically in response to coronavirus. 

 

[T 190]

Tough restrictions make people unemployed and struggling and anxious and depressed. It’s a lot easier if you have funds or a secure income but that is not the case for a lot of people. These people also need to be considered. Just shutting down the economy may make sense for some but not the majority. 

[sonyc 5,510]

Interesting piece on R4 this morning...indicated how connected the state, private business, local politics and citizens are in Germany compared to the UK. A good example is how businesses advise government on their future employment needs which feeds into the careers industry feeding into schooling and they even have very local town-based employment agencies. All of this provides a coordinated response in feeding into their wider economy (a bit like how they build cars and automation in general, everything planned, phased). You can see for sure just how the country would plan for such testing (the so-called German efficiency is more true than just a popular myth). In  the UK our society is far more individualistic.

Edited March 30, 2020 by sonyc

[ron obvious 1,502]

Fascinating look at Sweden:

https://unherd.com/2020/03/all-eyes-on-the-swedish-coronavirus-experiment/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3

 

It’s the opposite of the political landscape in the UK, where deep mistrust from the long Brexit battle meant

that whatever the Cummings-Johnson government initially proposed was instinctively suspected as bad and

wrong by its political opponents; so the virtuous Left-liberal position quickly came to be calling for a more

draconian shutdown. Rival experts were found, a campaign developed, and the Government ultimately

changed course against a background of huge political pressure.

It is possible — perhaps likely — that as the death toll increases in Sweden in coming weeks they will also fall into line and impose a stricter lockdown. But if they don’t, the experience of that country will offer a vital way of knowing whether or not the unprecedented cancellation of life, population-wide house arrest and destruction of the economy that the UK and so many other world powers have chosen will have been the correct response to this threat.

If, at the end of this grisly period, the deaths per capita in Sweden are much higher than neighbouring Denmark and Norway, the more draconian approach will seem to have been worth it; but if the Swedish experience remains roughly in line with those countries, justifying the enforced lockdown will be much harder, and questions with profound consequences will rightly be asked about the decisions of the UK and the wider world.

Edited March 30, 2020 by ron obvious

[T 190]

1 minute ago, sonyc said:

Interesting piece on R4 this morning...indicated how connected the state, private business, local politics and citizens are in Germany compared to the UK. A good example is how businesses advise government on their future employment needs which feeds into the careers industry feeding into schooling and they even have very local town-based employment agencies. All of this provides a coordinated response in feeding into their wider economy (a bit like how they build cars and automation in general, everything planned, phased). You can see for sure just how the country would plan for such testing (the so-called German efficiency is more true than just a popular myth). I. In  the UK our society is far more individualistic.

That is all true. However having lived and worked in various place I often get asked where is the best. The answer for me is that they are not better or worst overall but just better or worse in different respects. I think we are seeing that a more collective society is beneficial when it comes to this but I wouldn’t say countries are necessarily better or worse overall. Interesting comment from Boris today that there is such a thing as society. The question is where do you strike the balance between individualism and solidarity. And there are pros and cons. 

[sonyc 5,510]

11 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

Fascinating look at Sweden:

https://unherd.com/2020/03/all-eyes-on-the-swedish-coronavirus-experiment/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3

This is one story I had decided to follow (even perhaps gruesomely comparing Denmark with Sweden on the daily coronavirus worldmeter.info graphs...like some football league table). Denmark's political leader suggested he would rather act hard and early because although it was painful economically he would rather be judged later for being wrong in retrospect rather than criticised for not acting soon enough. Interestingly in both Denmark and Sweden their political leaders have stated they might be wrong. How great it is to hear such adult and open responses! We can all learn.

And speaking of people's like for Swedish life, my wife often says things to me like "I wish we were more like the Swedes" ( I can predict a joke coming here) 

Edited March 30, 2020 by sonyc

[Van wink 2,994]

1 hour ago, T said:

From BBC live reporting

 

Why so few deaths in Germany?

Getty ImagesCopyright: Getty Images

If you look at the statistics, Germany has a much lower mortality rate than all neighbouring countries: .more than 62,000 infections but only 541 deaths. So what's behind the numbers? 

The most likely explanation is extensive testing: Germany started doing widespread testing early on, confirming many cases with only mild symptoms. 

That means the number of confirmed cases is closer to the actual number of infections than in other countries, where confirmed cases may show only a fraction of those infected. So if Italy, Spain or the UK included all those mild cases currently not being tested, their mortality rates might not be all that different from Germany after all. 

Another explanation is healthcare capacity: Germany has more extensive care capacity than France, Italy or the UK. 

This means that currently the medical system can still cope relatively well with the number of severely ill. Patients from Italy and France are even being taken to Germany for treatment. Yet once the number of critically ill in the country peaks, the German healthcare system is also expected to find itself overstretched.

 

I still think treatment and testing capacity matters and so do most people with knowledge of the virus. The NHS and BBC are providing better information and UK has a more intergrated national process but some other countries have more capacity. Very strange that some people think capacity doesn’t matter and can’t accept other societies might just do some things better. 

Capacity only becomes an issue when it is exceeded. That I have heard may now be the case in some areas in the U.K.  where likely outcomes are having to be assessed to determine which patients are put on ICU. At that point it obviously becomes important, up until that point it is not affecting the death rate. That’s what was being discussed in relation to the death figures from Germany. The discussion has been about why the death rate in Germany appears lower and your argument that its due to the fact that Germany a better health system

Edited March 30, 2020 by Van wink

[sonyc 5,510]

11 minutes ago, T said:

That is all true. However having lived and worked in various place I often get asked where is the best. The answer for me is that they are not better or worst overall but just better or worse in different respects. I think we are seeing that a more collective society is beneficial when it comes to this but I wouldn’t say countries are necessarily better or worse overall. Interesting comment from Boris today that there is such a thing as society. The question is where do you strike the balance between individualism and solidarity. And there are pros and cons. 

Agree with this. Some aspects are far better in other countries and vice versa.

I often think about my past experiences through my work with European projects. I often appreciated how the Dutch look at the world. They LOVE a meeting (which I feel are often a big time waster) but they tend to focus on cooperation in solving problems. In terms of employment for example they get businesses, unemployed people and advice workers all in the same room and then design solutions to an issue. No wonder they have found solutions to flooding and water defences. Now, it doesn't mean everything Dutch is brilliant. But cooperation between public, private and third sectors is one area we might learn from. Seem a happy and resilient set of people too (perhaps Krul is an example).

Edited March 30, 2020 by sonyc

[Aggy 754]

43 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

Fascinating look at Sweden:

https://unherd.com/2020/03/all-eyes-on-the-swedish-coronavirus-experiment/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3

 

Interesting Ron (edit: have deleted the rest of your comments just so I’m not quoting huge chunks).

I would also have to say that I’m not entirely comfortable with a forced lockdown being imposed by a government. Obviously here there is a justification but there are plenty of cases throughout history where an action which was perfectly justified at the outset was misused and led to much worse. Now I’m not for any minute suggesting Boris is going to use this to turn us into a totalitarian state run by him and his cronies, but I do think there was probably some government thought around people’s freedoms which led to the “delay” in them acting. There is a very difficult balancing act required between protecting lives and protecting people’s freedom. 
 

The comment from Denmark which Sonyc posted suggests a “lockdown now, blame me later if it turns out I’ve unnecessarily restricted people’s freedom” approach. Isn’t that a bit worrying? 

Edited March 30, 2020 by Aggy

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

31 minutes ago, T said:

Tough restrictions make people unemployed and struggling and anxious and depressed. It’s a lot easier if you have funds or a secure income but that is not the case for a lot of people. These people also need to be considered. Just shutting down the economy may make sense for some but not the majority. 

I haven't seen anyone here suggest the government should shut the economy further down than it already has.

[Aggy 754]

Just now, PurpleCanary said:

I haven't seen anyone here suggest the government should shut the economy further down than it already has.

In fairness to T, I’m not sure he has said that anyone has suggested that, certainly not in the post you’ve quoted. The economy is already ‘shut down’ to a large extent. If the lockdown lasts much beyond a month or two then things will only continue to get worse economically.

[T 190]

21 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Capacity only becomes an issue when it is exceeded. That I have heard may now be the case in some areas in the U.K.  where likely outcomes are having to be assessed to determine which patients are put on ICU. At that point it obviously becomes as issue, up until that point it is not affecting the death rate. That’s what was being discussed in relation to the figures from Germany. As to whether Germany has a better equipped health service than us, that has never been the point of discussion, the discussion has been about capacity being exceeded which has not been an issue until now.

Well VW I was always making the point that Germany has more capacity so it is seems we are not disagreeing. 

[Indy 3,297]

7 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I haven't seen anyone here suggest the government should shut the economy further down than it already has.

Time will do that Purple, airlines are now feeling major financial pressure, 1.6 million jobs rely on airlines in this country.

[Van wink 2,994]

2 minutes ago, T said:

Well VW I was always making the point that Germany has more capacity so it is seems we are not disagreeing. 

We are not disagreeing on the fact that Germany has more capacity, what I am pointing out to you is that capacity only becomes an issue if it is exceeded and it will then effect the number of deaths. That hasn’t been the case up until now so would not account for the lower number of deaths so far in Germany.

[T 190]

Agreed Aggy and Sonyc. I’m not saying there is a complete lockdown but one would be necessary to stop this and there are trade offfs. And I’m not saying one country is better or worse just different and we can all learn from different countries. 

[T 190]

VW I’m only making the point that Germany has more capacity. I’m not disagreeing it only matters at critical point. More testing and tracing will help to get to people early. The RKI which is the official source  and has always been my source has always said that their figures reflect. more testing which is obviously a good think and a lower average age of cases. They have always said that they expect the death rate to increase so that has always been my view. I’ve never had a different view to the RKI as they know a lot more than me and therefore is the source of my views. 
 

My point has always been that Germany is better placed because it has more capacity. It also benefits from having the largest ventilator manufacturer and a relatively collectible society who are more open to logic reason and expert advice as a result of the education system introduced by the US after the war. Im not saying Germany is better overall just better placed in this matter.  The UK like Germany is also one of the leading countries in the world for medical healthcare. The UK and Germany are top locations for international medical students and staff. 

[Van wink 2,994]

"Dominic Cummings in self-isolation after developing coronavirus symptoms"

 

I'll just leave that hanging there

[Yellow Fever 3,767]

Also just saw this. Seems we might be under-reporting our 'deaths'

Current death statistics are from hospitals only, and the ONS will begin collating whole UK figures including deaths in the community on a weekly basis"

[Aggy 754]

Just now, Yellow Fever said:

Also just saw this. Seems we might be under-reporting our 'deaths'

Current death statistics are from hospitals only, and the ONS will begin collating whole UK figures including deaths in the community on a weekly basis"

I think that is likely to be the case in many places. I think it was France (possibly Spain?) which I saw had only been reporting hospital deaths - not any in care homes etc.

[Yellow Fever 3,767]

7 minutes ago, Van wink said:

"Dominic Cummings in self-isolation after developing coronavirus symptoms"

 

I'll just leave that hanging there

I guess he can run but not hide 

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

56 minutes ago, Aggy said:

In fairness to T, I’m not sure he has said that anyone has suggested that, certainly not in the post you’ve quoted. The economy is already ‘shut down’ to a large extent. If the lockdown lasts much beyond a month or two then things will only continue to get worse economically.

Aggy, I don't know else to read this post from T. It doesn't make any sense unless it is a reply to someone having supposedly argued for shuttering the economy by way of tougher restrictions:

Tough restrictions make people unemployed and struggling and anxious and depressed. It’s a lot easier if you have funds or a secure income but that is not the case for a lot of people. These people also need to be considered. Just shutting down the economy may make sense for some but not the majority. 

Edited March 30, 2020 by PurpleCanary

[T 190]

Purple. A good way to think through arguments is to look at extreme scenarios to test the logic. I’m not arguing for complete lock down at all. I’m saying that only a complete lock down would be truly effective and  that is not viable.

we have to look at a balanced approach as society always does that not only takes into account simply Covid 19 but also the impact of restrictions on other physical and mental health as well as the impact on social and economic well being. If you are older and retired with health problems with funds and secure income then you are more likely to want heavy long term restrictions. If you are young healthy sociable living pay check to check then you are more likely to want less restrictions. I’m only arguing for a balanced approach that considers everyone and all factors.