Corona Virus main thread

[Indy 3,283]

4 minutes ago, JF said:

I didn’t get 250,000 the model that was presented to the government did. And again it can’t be scaled up as the levels of transmission here would be many, many times more

But that’s just your opinion, the actual figures don’t say that. The reality is there’s not really a significant difference. 

I have family in Stockholm and they are social distancing and have been for a fair while, but they are happy that normality as best as it can be is being tried.

My cousin other family in Prague went to totally the other way, full lockdown and face masks outside mandatory, they’re not as happy.

As much as this virus is serious, mental well being is too, Sweden in my opinion is the way I would choose, but again it’s just my opinion.

[Yellow Fever 3,732]

13 minutes ago, BigFish said:

It is an intersting point, the UK's statistics are crap (in qualitive terms). This may well be deliberate propaganda by the government or it may be part of the government's general level of incompetance.

The figures the government try and get away with is around 16k, yet excess deaths figure is 43k.

This raises the question that are the government letting the elderly die in care homes because it keeps them off the stats rather than the bromide "protect the NHS"

I don't think its deliberate or otherwise.

It's just very difficult for anybody to get a clear idea of the numbers with different definitions in a rapidly changing situation. All countries are in much the same boat and 'revising' their numbers with hindsight. Consistency is the best we can hope for. 

[sonyc 5,481]

Europe is easing coronavirus lockdowns. The UK's failures have never been so stark

Martin McKee

The British government’s refusal even to discuss its exit strategy contrasts with the approach in EU countries
 

• Coronavirus – latest updates
• See all our coronavirus coverage

58

Published:09:00 Thu 23 April 2020

 Follow Martin McKee

Shoppers and staff wearing face coverings at a reopened Ikea store in Cologne, Germany, 22 April 2020. Photograph: Andreas Rentz/Getty Images

The lockdown is wreaking havoc with the economy, children are missing vital education, those with mental health problems or experiencing domestic abuse are suffering, and people in need of non-Covid-19 healthcare are not getting it. Though the cabinet seems divided over the answer, the question is genuine: when will the UK exit the Covid-19 lockdown?

Lockdown eased: Netherlands and France plan to re-open primary schools

If the government has an exit strategy, it is keeping it closely guarded. As with so much about the government’s response, such as the identity of most members of its Covid-19 advisory group, information is released on a strictly need-to-know basis. What we do know is that the government will not set a specific date. It is right not to do so. Donald Trump may believe he is battling a germ that is “brilliant”, a characteristic not normally associated with a microscopic clump of genetic material, but even he abandoned his initial goal of opening up the US by Easter. This “very smart” virus does not observe religious festivals or read his tweets.

The seeming unwillingness of the British government to share its thinking with the public contrasts starkly with the approach taken elsewhere. The European Union has published a roadmap that lays out a phased approach for containing the virus. Cynics might be forgiven for recalling the contrast between the EU’s detailed Brexit impact assessments and the superficial British ones, which had to be prised from the hands of ministers many months later. In the case of coronavirus, the UK would do well to follow the European roadmap, which recommends developing a robust system of contact tracing, expanding testing capacity and reinforcing PPE supplies as among the first steps towards lifting a lockdown.

AdvertisementHide

 

Other European countries have also set out their proposals in varying levels of detail. Angela Merkel gave an in-depth explanation of the scientific basis behind Germany’s lockdown strategy, drawing on a deep understanding of the epidemiology. In a speech marked by humility and acceptance that mistakes had been made, Emmanuel Macron explained that the process would be lengthy: schools would be opened when the data supported it, but restaurants and bars would remain closed for much longer.

The countries that are most advanced in this process are those that closed down earliest, and thus managed to better contain the spread of the virus. This approach contrasts with that of the United Kingdom, which delayed its lockdown. Germany, which has attracted widespread praise for its ability to deliver widespread testing, is opening up smaller shops, as is Austria, although this is subject to customers distancing from each other and wearing face coverings. The Czech Republic, which like its neighbour Slovakia has strongly encouraged face coverings, is also opening small businesses. Denmark, meanwhile, is starting to open up elementary schools. These governments have made clear that continued progress is dependent on the course of the pandemic, and restrictions might well be reimposed – but they have been much more open with citizens about their respective approaches than the UK has been.

The key elements that a British exit strategy must include are fairly obvious, providing, as the UK government keeps repeating, that these decisions are led by science. The science is clear. The only way to get back to anything like normality is to get what epidemiologists call the reproduction number, or R₀, below 1. Put another way, we must find ways to ensure that those who are infected in a community pass that infection on to fewer than one other person. We can be certain this point is being made by England’s chief medical officer, an experienced infectious disease epidemiologist. But how can this be achieved?

The EU’s document provides helpful guidance for what the UK’s strategy might look like. First, it should not even consider lifting restrictions until it has adequate data to be sure that the R₀ really is below one. It can only do so if it has sufficient testing in place, for both the virus, determining who is infected, and the antibody, telling us who has been infected in the past and is therefore, hopefully, immune. This will require many more tests than the government’s current daily target of 100,000.

At the same time, it will be important to show that the death rate really is falling, which will require far better data than is currently being provided, which has created considerable confusion about the number of deaths outside hospitals, especially in care homes. And the NHS must be ready for any resurgence once restrictions are lifted. This means having enough PPE, which is no more than an aspiration at present. Finally, the UK will need sufficient public health capacity to tackle resurgent infections, a task that will require enormous efforts to reverse the effects of a decade of cuts.

Easing the lockdown will have to be accompanied by other measures to reduce transmission, such as continued physical distancing and, increasingly likely, face coverings, as in France, Austria, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Change must be gradual, with health authorities closely monitoring the effects. In Italy, regions are taking the first very hesitant steps at different speeds, while in Spain those in construction and manufacturing sectors who are now permitted to go back to work must maintain stringent precautions.

AdvertisementHide

 

Throughout this process, it will be essential to follow what other countries are doing. The approaches taken by various European countries offer a natural laboratory in which to test our own ideas. We must avoid simplistic comparisons, but also accept that the different approaches offer many learning opportunities. Unfortunately, some government advisers seem reluctant to take this opportunity.

• Martin McKee is professor of European public health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and an adviser to the World Health Organization

[Ian 1,129]

In all honesty, I don't really see the point in comparing actual numbers of deaths in different countries, when there don't seem to be any definitive guidelines for how a COVID-19 death is reported. Really doesn't seem like there's many firm conclusions you can draw.

Edited April 23, 2020 by Ian
Typo

[sonyc 5,481]

I think it's what we do next that matters (hence copying an article above). We can argue the strategy in the past but what next?

[JF 694]

1 hour ago, Indy said:

But that’s just your opinion, the actual figures don’t say that. The reality is there’s not really a significant difference. 

I have family in Stockholm and they are social distancing and have been for a fair while, but they are happy that normality as best as it can be is being tried.

My cousin other family in Prague went to totally the other way, full lockdown and face masks outside mandatory, they’re not as happy.

As much as this virus is serious, mental well being is too, Sweden in my opinion is the way I would choose, but again it’s just my opinion.

My opinion on what???? You said you wanted the uk to follow the path of limited social distancing and herd immunity? I said isn’t that what our original plan was until the government were presented with the model that showed if we did then 250,000 could die, the day after was when the far stricter measures were implemented. 

https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/17/coronavirus-will-kill-250000-uk-unless-britain-put-lockdown-12408369/

 

 

Edited April 23, 2020 by JF

[Ian 1,129]

1 minute ago, sonyc said:

I think it's what we do next that matters (hence copying an article above). We can argue the strategy in the past but what next?

Agreed, but the way I see it is that realistically there's only one true "exit strategy"; herd immunity, via vaccination or other means.

The problem is, of course, that it's all well and good to suggest the Government shouldn't lift any lock-down measures until we can measure that reproduction is down to less than 1. From an epidemiology perspective this may be fantastically simple and obvious, but at what cost to the economy and therefore the lives of the vast majority who need an immediate income on which to live?

It does grate on me when those with clearly vested interests seize on any scrap of "evidence", circumstantial or otherwise, to jump on the anti-Government bandwagon. This is going to be a pandemic for the medium-to-long term, and as such, IMO we should not be too hasty to judge any strategies put in place until further down the line.

[Yellow Fever 3,732]

Off topic - but can I make a plea for people in general not to 'jump' on people who are working quite legitimately in offices (skeleton crews),  factories, agriculture and whatever.

Yes many are furloughed or sadly out work but others are struggling to metaphorically and literally 'keep the lights on' and the internet running (even this site). Too many people jumping 'holier than thou' to conclusions  when they see somebody unusual going about their normal business normally!

Edited April 23, 2020 by Yellow Fever

[Rock The Boat 1,322]

4 minutes ago, sonyc said:

I think it's what we do next that matters (hence copying an article above). We can argue the strategy in the past but what next?

The article is a good example of woeful media reporting in the UK. Just as there is still an ongoing media debate over our timing of lockdown and in the full knowledge that the government has announced lockdown is ongoing - and generally conformed to - this article seeks to scaremonger with alarmist headlines about us not yet easing up restrictions. 

This isn't the media holding the government to account. It's immature gotcha-type journalism that serves no useful purpose at all. 

[sonyc 5,481]

1 minute ago, Ian said:

Agreed, but the way I see it is that realistically there's only one true "exit strategy"; herd immunity, via vaccination or other means.

The problem is, of course, that it's all well and good to suggest the Government shouldn't lift any lock-down measures until we can measure that reproduction is down to less than 1. From an epidemiology perspective this may be fantastically simple and obvious, but at what cost to the economy and therefore the lives of the vast majority who need an immediate income on which to live?

It does grate on me when those with clearly vested interests seize on any scrap of "evidence", circumstantial or otherwise, to jump on the anti-Government bandwagon. This is going to be a pandemic for the medium-to-long term, and as such, IMO we should not be too hasty to judge any strategies put in place until further down the line.

Yes that is a sensible post. Ultimately it is. Agree about R less than 1 issue too. I guess people will remark and comment though on daily and weekly stories because that is what a message used does, conjecture, argue, critique. Otherwise, we would post once every few months. Yet, you're quite correct about approaches needing time to truly examine. 

[Ian 1,129]

7 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Yes that is a sensible post. Ultimately it is. Agree about R less than 1 issue too. I guess people will remark and comment though on daily and weekly stories because that is what a message used does, conjecture, argue, critique. Otherwise, we would post once every few months. Yet, you're quite correct about approaches needing time to truly examine. 

Absolutely, and people should be free to criticise/comment as they see fit, when they see fit, but important to acknowledge the huge level of uncertainty with exactly what is the best strategy to take for the population as a whole, even within the communities of experts.

Let's be honest, many people using it as another opportunity to bash the Tories/Brexiteers/whatever their favourite political straw-man may be, which is quite sad in a way.

Edited April 23, 2020 by Ian
Typo

[sonyc 5,481]

3 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

The article is a good example of woeful media reporting in the UK. Just as there is still an ongoing media debate over our timing of lockdown and in the full knowledge that the government has announced lockdown is ongoing - and generally conformed to - this article seeks to scaremonger with alarmist headlines about us not yet easing up restrictions. 

This isn't the media holding the government to account. It's immature gotcha-type journalism that serves no useful purpose at all. 

It was one article on lockdown yes. My interest in it is the comparison between different countries and transparency. Transparency in options possible. We are told the 5 tests and they are absolutes. It would be instructive to debate the intracacies of opening up parts, keeping others closed and why. Many journalists have been asking. They've asked because the public would like to know.

Our UK government probably has to keep the message simple. Yet it needs also to be far more open and treat folk like adults too.

[Van wink 2,994]

32 minutes ago, Ian said:

Absolutely, and people should be free to criticise/comment as they see fit, when they see fit, but important to acknowledge the huge level of uncertainty with exactly what is the best strategy to take for the population as a whole, even within the communities of experts.

Let's be honest, many people using it as another opportunity to bash the Tories/Brexiteers/whatever their favourite political straw-man may be, which is quite sad in a way.

Spot on. 

[Van wink 2,994]

33 minutes ago, sonyc said:

It was one article on lockdown yes. My interest in it is the comparison between different countries and transparency. Transparency in options possible. We are told the 5 tests and they are absolutes. It would be instructive to debate the intracacies of opening up parts, keeping others closed and why. Many journalists have been asking. They've asked because the public would like to know.

Our UK government probably has to keep the message simple. Yet it needs also to be far more open and treat folk like adults too.

When you say “ debate the intracacies” , what forum are you talking about there?

[Bill 1,788]

44 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

 It's immature gotcha-type journalism that serves no useful purpose at all. 

like this, perhaps ?

" in mid-January WHO were claiming that covid Human-Human infection was impossible."

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

39 minutes ago, Ian said:

Absolutely, and people should be free to criticise/comment as they see fit, when they see fit, but important to acknowledge the huge level of uncertainty with exactly what is the best strategy to take for the population as a whole, even within the communities of experts.

Let's be honest, many people using it as another opportunity to bash the Tories/Brexiteers/whatever their favourite political straw-man may be, which is quite sad in a way.

Yes, perhaps in a few cases there has been an element of that, but by the same token some of the defences of the government and the minimising of mistakes I have seen on these coronavirus threads have plainly been politically motivated, coming from pro-Tories and pro-Brexiters.

[sonyc 5,481]

9 minutes ago, Van wink said:

When you say “ debate the intracacies” , what forum are you talking about there?

Oh, the graphs, the graphs!

[Van wink 2,994]

3 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Oh, the graphs, the graphs!

Do you want to phone a friend?

[Bill 1,788]

41 minutes ago, Ian said:

 many people using it as another opportunity to bash the Tories/Brexiteers/whatever their favourite political straw-man may be, which is quite sad in a way.

yes, that's it

nothing in those concerns at all

no PPE shortage, no nurse shortage, no test numbers failing, or testing station not close enough, no contradictions over strategy

 

I blame those pro EU fanatics, the Mail, Telegraph and Times for posting, on an almost daily basis, criticism of the government's handling of this

 

[ricardo 7,328]

47 minutes ago, Van wink said:

When you say “ debate the intracacies” , what forum are you talking about there?

Obviously talking about the Nul and Void thread.

[T 190]

1 hour ago, Ian said:

Absolutely, and people should be free to criticise/comment as they see fit, when they see fit, but important to acknowledge the huge level of uncertainty with exactly what is the best strategy to take for the population as a whole, even within the communities of experts.

Let's be honest, many people using it as another opportunity to bash the Tories/Brexiteers/whatever their favourite political straw-man may be, which is quite sad in a way.

I have supported the govt where they have done well and criticised   them where they have done not so well. That some countries like Germany and S Korea have done better so far is clear. That these countries were better prepared is clear   That the UK has focused on emergency  planning for Brexit rather than the number one rated risk of a pandemic is clear. That NHS has lost staff because of Brexit is clear. That immigrants are critical to UK is clear.  I fully appreciate that people want to deflect and deny but some political policies mean that the UK is less prepared than it otherwise would have been. I think the Govt is now trying to do its best but they will inevitably be failings which are being exacerbated by previous policies. 

[hogesar 9,609]

It's difficult. We want the Government to be open with us and explain things in more detail. Equally, they have to work with and for the lowest common denominator. In this case, bloody idiots that don't listen. I see them everyday - completely ignoring govt advice and going round friends houses, having peoples kids over to come play etc. If you allow them the opportunity to misinterpret, they'll do it, deliberately or otherwise.

[Bill 1,788]

The shortage of staff and lack of preparation lie solely at the feet of an ideology that oversaw constant cuts to equipment and training funds

Failure to act earlier was down to a brexit fixation and having a PM more interested in a photo opportunity that dealing with problems

Similarly, the foul up over joining the EU was, and still is, down to ideology

Since the ministers have been trying to play catch up

 

To try to deny the downward effect Brexit has had on this 'crisis' is to try and yet again deflect. As well as the above has no one grasped why there has been no shortage of food ? Cast your mind back to reports of all warehouse space being bought up so as to stockpile supplies to meet brexit caused shortages. Then read up on the constant comments that other matters were put aside by the government to focus on problems that would be caused by brexit.

Was that why the recommendations from Cygnus were not only ignored, but hidden away ? Civil servants who could, and would have normally been working on such preparations, as with the floods, were dealing with likely Brexit problems instead.

 

Any wonder the usual suspects have been dragging their sorry ar ses on here to try to deflect from all this by posting false information and baseless accusation towards certain medical experts.

 

 

 

 

 

[sonyc 5,481]

44 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Obviously talking about the Nul and Void thread.

Promise in future to stay away from intracacies (wrong term perhaps as Googled, it says  "details, especially of an involved or perplexing subject" and strategies for exit probably don't fall under that). Apologies!

[Yellow Fever 3,732]

37 minutes ago, hogesar said:

It's difficult. We want the Government to be open with us and explain things in more detail. Equally, they have to work with and for the lowest common denominator. In this case, bloody idiots that don't listen. I see them everyday - completely ignoring govt advice and going round friends houses, having peoples kids over to come play etc. If you allow them the opportunity to misinterpret, they'll do it, deliberately or otherwise.

Can agree with that. Yesterday took a walk around the UEA grounds - not many people at all but a police van driving around which I think asked one person to move-on (sitting I think momentarily in a huge area of isolated grass).

Today I'm back in the office (yes somebody has to authorize the payroll). Walking in they could do with a van travelling around the Close - all those oaps sitting in the sun on the benches.

Just saying ! 

 

 

Edited April 23, 2020 by Yellow Fever

[Barbe bleu 809]

2 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Yes, the French have included care homes as have most other European countries - I'm really wondering when most people are going to finally wake up to the fact that the published UK figures are only somewhere around half the real total.

This has been clear for at least two weeks but has effectively been confirmed this week - we are already by far the worst European state, the US is going to be the only place which makes our performance look acceptable.

All of the figures will be inaccurate in some respects. Our NHS /  ONS is not uniquely awful at reporting. 

You can see the latest figures for all causes deaths and measure them against international returns in the COBR sides.

I dont want to make.this a political point but can I ask on what basis you are concluding that we have "by far" the worst figures and that the US returns are the worst. I am not saying that you are wrong but I'd be interested in the analysis 

[Bill 1,788]

As I said last week the relaxation will not come as some total lifting of restrictions - but a gradual loosening of the enforcement.

And for every cretin who will abuse this, there will be hundreds of others who abide by social distancing, wash their hands and generally act responsibly towards others, as well as themselves

For those who are out and about you will notice that more people are also around - though there does seem to be a sense of sticking to the guidelines

 

[Badger 2,404]

2 hours ago, Indy said:

As much as this virus is serious, mental well being is too, Sweden in my opinion is the way I would choose, but again it’s just my opinion.

Agree that mental well being is important. The point is that to safely end lock down we need to accompany it with a strategy and infrastructure to monitor, trace and isolate new cases quickly.

The lock down has bought us time at a great cost but necessarily: what we must do now is to ensure that this is not wasted by releasing from lock down without an appropriate strategy and infrastructure.

[Bill 1,788]

16 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

all those oaps sitting in the sun on the benches.

Just saying !

it's a sign of the summer approaching - just as when migrating birds gather on telephone lines in early autumn

old folk fill up seaside benches in late Spring

Just replying !

[Barbe bleu 809]

2 hours ago, sonyc said:

 

The countries that are most advanced in this process are those that closed down earliest, and thus managed to better contain the spread of the virus. This approach contrasts with that of the United Kingdom, which delayed its lockdown

The science is clear. The only way to get back to anything like normality is to get what epidemiologists call the reproduction number, or R₀, below 1. 

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't germany lockdown at much the same time as us? If we did not delay lockdown relative to germany.

Perhaps what they mean is that when lockdown was introduced germany less less advanced in it's natural progression.  This cannot be due to lockdown as by definition it had not by then happened but instead there are other factors at play.

It could be that germany has intrinsically healthier people and environments but probably the more important reason is that their immediate reaction drill was better executed.  They contained better than we did.  The FT is hitting the government with the wrong stick in my opinion.

Plus I'm not going to take any article that uses R0 when they mean R seriously....