Jump to content
Fuzzar

Corona Virus main thread

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Van wink said:

That one-

‘Equally, the large large majority of people who have covid will have literally no long-standing effects whatsoever ‘

 

I wouldn’t say that’s dismissive. If we look at the way every other very similar virus works (and let’s not forget there are loads of coronaviruses and lots of different strands of “normal” flu that behave very similarly to covid19), the people  who do have long/medium lasting affects are the ones where it has taken hold of their immune system to a large degree and causes significant damage in the first place.

Given that the vast, vast majority of people who have covid have very mild or even no symptoms, it’s not dismissive to suggest the vast vast majority aren’t going to have disastrous long or medium term side affects.

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Aggy said:

What at the moment suggests there is going to be 100, 200 or 500 k deaths between now and March/April say (a normal flu season generally October to April)?

27 deaths yesterday? Or the increased number of infections (which is now almost as high as it has ever been without anything like the corresponding number of deaths or hospital admissions)?

I don’t disagree that if there are going to be 500,000 deaths from covid in the next six months, strong action and restrictions/lockdowns are required. But calls now for strict lockdowns and two week “circuit breaks” to start next week are ridiculous and that’s the point I’ve been making all day. 

The healthcare system is geared up to deal with 20k plus flu deaths and associated  hospitalisations/side affects - that’s we deal with every year. We have got the nightingale hospitals sitting empty ready to help with capacity (a couple have been repurposed as they were literally never used by anyone but could easily be re-repurposed). We’ve got social distancing measures to a far greater extent than at the start of March. We’ve got hand sanitizers on every corner and in multiple places around every public place. We’ve got limits on how many people can meet up. We have to wear masks in public places. We haven’t got large public gatherings. We’ve got 27 deaths a day currently. Even when we had c.1500 deaths a day, only two of the seven nightingale hospitals had been used at all by anyone  - 154 patients ever used them, despite capacity for 12,000 at any one time.

So what suggests the healthcare system is about to be overwhelmed?

As I said before, the focus needs to (as it was originally) get back to avoiding so many excess deaths that hospitals get swamped and away from this idea that nobody should ever die from covid and that a small increase in covid deaths is a sign of guaranteed impending disaster. 

I’m really not sure what point you’re trying to make. Are you genuinely saying you think we should restrict people’s lives, ban them from seeing their families, from going to work, restrict their ability to see their mates, because there might (or might not) be long term affects from one specific virus at some point in the future? 

Aggy - First the current number of daily infections are now-where near the 100,000 day estimated at the peak prior lockdown - when it was doubling every 3 or 4 days. The problem is that it shows every sign of growing back that way if we don't take more action.

Secondly - the virus hasn't changed - it just as nasty and virulent as ever. If the infected numbers start to approach what we had before there is little reason beyond mildly improved treatments to think that we wouldn't have a similar eventual outcome. Don't add a lockdown or more restrictions (treat just like seasonal flu) and yes you are again looking at the hundreds of thousands dead just in time for Christmas or New Year. That's what terrifies Johnson.

The success - if you want to call it that - of the previous lockdown was to currently limit CV-19 deaths to 60K or thereabouts and in some ways save the NHS (although at the ruthless hard-nosed cost of the care homes being dumped on) - similar to a very bad flu year. However the comparison you then draw between a 'no lockdown' carry on as normal flu or even severe flu season with a no-holds barred lockdown to stop CV-19 season is clearly false. Treat CV-19 as common or even severe flu then expect indeed plan for ten times plus more deaths and the associated collapse of the NHS.

Hence comparison between everyday - or even a bad flu season and and CV-19 is entirely false. 

I no more want a lock-down or further restrictions than anybody else - but we have to see it as not as we wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had this update by email, it is hopefully going to add some weight to trace and isolate, also pleased to see a renewed emphasis on working with local authorities, yet again though, why wait till now. 

image.thumb.png.65621be44211b0d8c9f172b30b9454f6.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Aggy said:

I wouldn’t say that’s dismissive. If we look at the way every other very similar virus works (and let’s not forget there are loads of coronaviruses and lots of different strands of “normal” flu that behave very similarly to covid19), the people  who do have long/medium lasting affects are the ones where it has taken hold of their immune system to a large degree and causes significant damage in the first place.

Given that the vast, vast majority of people who have covid have very mild or even no symptoms, it’s not dismissive to suggest the vast vast majority aren’t going to have disastrous long or medium term side affects.

This has multi organ affects, the true extent of which are still being discovered, this doesn’t behave like “normal flu”.

Edited by Van wink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Van wink said:

This has multi organ affects, the true extent of which are still being discovered, this doesn’t behave like “normal flu”.

VW, this is going to go back to the point I was making yesterday. People underestimate “normal” flu a lot and it seems you don’t know all that much about it either. 

Plenty of strands of “normal” flu affect multiple organs. Without even mentioning multi organ failure which can happen as the virus spreads whilst still infected, and focussing just on the after affects,  plenty of strands of “normal flu” can increase the later risk of heart attack and stroke, they can affect the liver long term, there are plenty of studies showing that well beyond 6-12 months after surviving “normal” flu many elderly people continue to have significant lung function impairment. It can result in long term problems and increased chance of later issues with the kidneys, even the brain.

I do agree the full extent of after effects from covid are yet to be made clear, and it is likely that COVID-19 will affect more people and more severely in the long run. But what is clear is that actually in the large part it acts very similarly (albeit “stronger”) to a lot of influenza viruses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

Aggy - First the current number of daily infections are now-where near the 100,000 day estimated at the peak prior lockdown - when it was doubling every 3 or 4 days. The problem is that it shows every sign of growing back that way if we don't take more action.

Secondly - the virus hasn't changed - it just as nasty and virulent as ever. If the infected numbers start to approach what we had before there is little reason beyond mildly improved treatments to think that we wouldn't have a similar eventual outcome. Don't add a lockdown or more restrictions (treat just like seasonal flu) and yes you are again looking at the hundreds of thousands dead just in time for Christmas or New Year. That's what terrifies Johnson.

The success - if you want to call it that - of the previous lockdown was to currently limit CV-19 deaths to 60K or thereabouts and in some ways save the NHS (although at the ruthless hard-nosed cost of the care homes being dumped on) - similar to a very bad flu year. However the comparison you then draw between a 'no lockdown' carry on as normal flu or even severe flu season with a no-holds barred lockdown to stop CV-19 season is clearly false. Treat CV-19 as common or even severe flu then expect indeed plan for ten times plus more deaths and the associated collapse of the NHS.

Hence comparison between everyday - or even a bad flu season and and CV-19 is entirely false. 

I no more want a lock-down or further restrictions than anybody else - but we have to see it as not as we wish.

YF - i think you’re misreading my posts.

I’m not sure where I have drawn any comparison between a no- lockdown carry on and normal flu. In fact I’ve clearly said (a couple of times) that action was needed in March and if it gets to the stage where the hospitals will be overwhelmed in the future, I would support stricter restrictions then. I’ve previously on this thread made exactly the point you have here (I think it was in response to Jools or real bruh or someone) - that the lockdown in March stopped a number of deaths that would otherwise have occurred.

To be clear, my point is that restrictions need to be based on whether or not the hospitals and healthcare systems will be overwhelmed and at the moment I don’t see that as enough of a concern for full lockdown or “circuit breaks” starting next week.

Youve not answered the question in my previous post - what currently suggests the health service will be overwhelmed? I listed multiple reasons why it possibly won’t happen (no correlating rise in deaths  or hospital admissions against increased infections, completely empty nightingale hospitals ready to be used, increased social distancing, use of masks, existing social distancing and restrictions on numbers of people who can meet up etc.). My comparison to numbers of deaths from normal flu every year was made merely to show that we regularly cope with a lot more deaths than we currently have from covid - which is why we need to go back to worrying about excess deaths and not just covid deaths.
 

However other than “infections are going up and therefore deaths must have to follow in a few weeks”, without any evidence for that (other than that it happened previously when there were literally no measures in place other than being asked to wash your hands after having a wee) there hasn’t been any real stats or evidence supporting the idea that stricter lockdowns or “circuit breaks” are needed next week to avoid healthcare systems being overwhelmed.... 

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another point I would make, and you touch on it YF, is that we have no idea how many infections there were in March.

When we had 1000 deaths a day, for all we know there could have been 200,000 new infections a day. That’s again why the current increase in infections alone can’t be what we’re basing policies on. 
 

If the end game is to stop healthcare systems being overwhelmed, then without knowing how many infections a day caused the number of hospital admissions and deaths that caused us to get close to being overwhelmed in March, the current number of infections is not hugely useful. What would be useful is knowing how many infections we can deal with and making sure we don’t exceed that.  Of course we don’t know what that figure is,  but you can’t impose full lockdown, for instance, without either an idea of that number, or evidence in some other form such as deaths/hospital admissions increasing to the extent that the hospitals will be overwhelmed fairly soon - which isn’t the case currently.

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Aggy said:

YF - i think you’re misreading my posts.

I’m not sure where I have drawn any comparison between a no- lockdown carry on and normal flu. In fact I’ve clearly said (a couple of times) that action was needed in March and if it gets to the stage where the hospitals will be overwhelmed in the future, I would support stricter restrictions then. I’ve previously on this thread made exactly the point you have here (I think it was in response to Jools or real bruh or someone) - that the lockdown in March stopped a number of deaths that would otherwise have occurred.

To be clear, my point is that restrictions need to be based on whether or not the hospitals and healthcare systems will be overwhelmed and at the moment I don’t see that as enough of a concern for full lockdown or “circuit breaks” starting next week.

Youve not answered the question in my previous post - what currently suggests the health service will be overwhelmed? I listed multiple reasons why it possibly won’t happen (no correlating rise in deaths  or hospital admissions against increased infections, completely empty nightingale hospitals ready to be used, increased social distancing, use of masks, existing social distancing and restrictions on numbers of people who can meet up etc.). My comparison to numbers of deaths from normal flu every year was made merely to show that we regularly cope with a lot more deaths than we currently have from covid - which is why we need to go back to worrying about excess deaths and not just covid deaths.
 

24 minutes ago, Aggy said:

 

I do agree the full extent of after effects from covid are yet to be made clear, and it is likely that COVID-19 will affect more people and more severely in the long run. But what is clear is that actually in the large part it acts very similarly (albeit “stronger”) to a lot of influenza viruses.

 

I know a great deal about flu Aggy, the problem is how very little we know about COVID 19.

I’m not going to continue this because we are never going to agree and it’s going nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Herman said:

Image

Is that crass little meme from the horses mouth or some Lefty publication/site that barely anyone reads or visits? I'll hazard a guess it's the latter 🙃

The following IS from the horses mouth and it contains information on deaths of patients who have died in hospitals in England and had either tested positive for COVID-19 or where COVID-19 was mentioned on the death certificate ---- 

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/

 

437a2dee-23ca-402c-8bba-ef7c8f27b7cd-0b74be01-1f75-41fe-997c-1917b7d9c7ee


So as we can see and the NHS states, only 1,396 out of 29,705 have died FROM the virus --- All other deaths (28,309) had pre existing conditions.

Nobody I know thinks the virus is a scam, but given the figures above, people are obviously right to question government actions.  
  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So as we can see and the NHS states, only 1,396 out of 29,705 have died FROM the virus --- All other deaths (28,309) had pre existing conditions.

That they wouldn't have died from if it wasn't for the virus. Or if they were wearing M&S underwear. Or were from Krypton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

So as we can see and the NHS states, only 1,396 out of 29,705 have died FROM the virus --- All other deaths (28,309) had pre existing conditions.

 

That they wouldn't have died from if it wasn't for the virus. Or if they were wearing M&S underwear. Or were from Krypton.

Christ alive, grandad, I can't even be bothered to award you a Luc Pickard face palm for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Jools said:

Is that crass little meme from the horses mouth or some Lefty publication/site that barely anyone reads or visits? I'll hazard a guess it's the latter 🙃

The following IS from the horses mouth and it contains information on deaths of patients who have died in hospitals in England and had either tested positive for COVID-19 or where COVID-19 was mentioned on the death certificate ---- 

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/

 

437a2dee-23ca-402c-8bba-ef7c8f27b7cd-0b74be01-1f75-41fe-997c-1917b7d9c7ee


So as we can see and the NHS states, only 1,396 out of 29,705 have died FROM the virus --- All other deaths (28,309) had pre existing conditions.

Nobody I know thinks the virus is a scam, but given the figures above, people are obviously right to question government actions.  
  

The pre existing condition point is not one I think is particularly persuasive in terms of reviewing the “government’s actions” imo. As mentioned earlier, it’s about avoiding hospitals becoming overwhelmed. Doesn’t really matter who is dying - it’s about making sure there aren’t so many dying that hospitals can’t give everyone a fighting chance and other essential health services collapse as well.

Where it is relevant is in determining how we move forward. The deaths are overwhelmingly in the 60 plus age group (and I imagine if you broke it down further, more would be 70 plus than 60-69). Seems blindingly obvious therefore that the best way to stop hospitals from being overwhelmed isn’t to stop 20 year olds going to work or kids from going to school, but to stop people 70 plus, especially those with pre existing conditions, from (to use a current government buzz phrase) “mingling”. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jools said:

Christ alive, grandad, I can't even be bothered to award you a Luc Pickard face palm for that.

You are just finding ways to politely say fcuk old people and those with problems, back it up with some meaningless stat because I just want the economy back to normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

You are just finding ways to politely say fcuk old people and those with problems, back it up with some meaningless stat because I just want the economy back to normal.

It’s not all about the economy in fairness. Longest waiting time for routine cancer checks ever. Longest waits for non-emergency operations ever. No (at one point, now I think there are some, albeit limited) face to face GP appointments. There will, no doubt, be 40 year olds who could have received potentially life saving early cancer treatment but will die because their screenings were delayed 6 months or more due to lockdown - when they look at the stats Jools has put up you wonder whether they think their life was worth sacrificing to protect the “old people” as you call them.

Again, it’s why it comes down to avoiding hospitals being overwhelmed, not choosing which diseases and illnesses are more “worthy” of lockdown. People do and will die. It isn’t a case of making sure no “old people” ever die from covid ever again. It’s a case of making sure everyone (young and old) can access treatment when they need it. People will still die, but they’ll have the best chance of not dying that we can give them. Edit: that’s also why ‘lockdowns’ and restrictions shouldn’t be dismissed by “youngsters” - keeping hospitals from being overwhelmed is in everyone’s interests. But equally, if the hospitals aren’t being overwhelmed we shouldn’t be imposing restrictions solely to avoid covid full stop.

Edited by Aggy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Aggy said:

But equally, if the hospitals aren’t being overwhelmed we shouldn’t be imposing restrictions solely to avoid covid full stop.

The alternative being.......wait till it’s too late again.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

You are just finding ways to politely say fcuk old people and those with problems, back it up with some meaningless stat because I just want the economy back to normal.

I'm old myself, gramps, and I've worked right the way through the virus -- I'm in the business of care homes and none of my residents or staff have tested positive -- My homes have been sent tests monthly and the government support package has in my opinion been way too generous -- I'm considering sending monies back.

So, no, I'm not saying screw old people and neither am I saying screw people with pre existing conditions -- I'm obviously following government guidelines, but I will question the latter and all the so-called experts when factual data such as that I supplied via the NHS presents itself.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Aggy said:

YF - i think you’re misreading my posts.

I’m not sure where I have drawn any comparison between a no- lockdown carry on and normal flu. In fact I’ve clearly said (a couple of times) that action was needed in March and if it gets to the stage where the hospitals will be overwhelmed in the future, I would support stricter restrictions then. I’ve previously on this thread made exactly the point you have here (I think it was in response to Jools or real bruh or someone) - that the lockdown in March stopped a number of deaths that would otherwise have occurred.

To be clear, my point is that restrictions need to be based on whether or not the hospitals and healthcare systems will be overwhelmed and at the moment I don’t see that as enough of a concern for full lockdown or “circuit breaks” starting next week.

Youve not answered the question in my previous post - what currently suggests the health service will be overwhelmed? I listed multiple reasons why it possibly won’t happen (no correlating rise in deaths  or hospital admissions against increased infections, completely empty nightingale hospitals ready to be used, increased social distancing, use of masks, existing social distancing and restrictions on numbers of people who can meet up etc.). My comparison to numbers of deaths from normal flu every year was made merely to show that we regularly cope with a lot more deaths than we currently have from covid - which is why we need to go back to worrying about excess deaths and not just covid deaths.
 

However other than “infections are going up and therefore deaths must have to follow in a few weeks”, without any evidence for that (other than that it happened previously when there were literally no measures in place other than being asked to wash your hands after having a wee) there hasn’t been any real stats or evidence supporting the idea that stricter lockdowns or “circuit breaks” are needed next week to avoid healthcare systems being overwhelmed.... 

 

10 minutes ago, Van wink said:

The alternative being.......wait till it’s too late again.

Sorry if I was confusing thinking you were comparing flu to Covid. I accept you aren't. It's a bad comparison on so many fronts.

Equally - doing very little will eventually result in a similar or even greater number of deaths as before - yes more in the over 60s but not exclusively so and the collapse / overwhelming of our entire health system (doctors and even young nurses get it and die as well as before). Possibly it is a calculation / a price worth paying in the 'survival' of the nation that we have to accept. Women and children first. I do not accept we are at that juncture. 

The defence in some quarters to this seems to be that the disease is somehow less fatal, less severe or some sort of not really understood herd immunity or cross immunity (that seems to have gone awol at present hence the ramping of cases). All of these I call wishful thinking, hoping for the best (as before) or it won't be me'. 

Given that we know how this played out before and little has changed then extreme caution is the order of day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

Sorry if I was confusing thinking you were comparing flu to Covid. I accept you aren't. It's a bad comparison on so many fronts.

Equally - doing very little will eventually result in a similar or even greater number of deaths as before - yes more in the over 60s but not exclusively so and the collapse / overwhelming of our entire health system (doctors and even young nurses get it and die as well as before). Possibly it is a calculation / a price worth paying in the 'survival' of the nation that we have to accept. Women and children first. I do not accept we are at that juncture. 

The defence in some quarters to this seems to be that the disease is somehow less fatal, less severe or some sort of not really understood herd immunity or cross immunity (that seems to have gone awol at present hence the ramping of cases). All of these I call wishful thinking, hoping for the best (as before) or it won't be me'. 

Given that we know how this played out before and little has changed then extreme caution is the order of day.

I’m really not sure how you can say little has changed.

In February and early March the entire prevention strategy was asking people to wash their hands and hum happy birthday.

We didn’t have enough PPE. We didn’t have any experience of how to handle covid. We thought ventilation was the best way of dealing and now we know it isn’t. We didn’t have nightingale hospitals sitting there ready to be used if necessary. We’ve now got all of that (albeit we can always do with more of the ppe!). We’ve got social distancing far more than in Feb/March. We’ve got to wear face masks. We can’t see more than six people and in various places in the country it’s stricter than that. Many people are still working from home that were in the office in March. We haven’t got large public events. You have to sanitise your hands before you go into any public building pretty much.  Do you genuinely think little has changed since March? If so, I’d guess you haven’t left the house since then.
 

 

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Van wink said:

The alternative being.......wait till it’s too late again.

When will we know its too late? 

The evidence for a massive second wave looks very thin at the moment. In March / April we went from ten deaths a day to over a thousand in less than three weeks. I still don't  see this happening anywhere in Europe. Yes there are very high numbers of poitives in certain countries but with the unreliability of the PCR test the vast majority seem to be detecting small amounts of virus in a largely asymptomatic population.

The hospitalisation has risen a bit but is many orders of magnitude below what it was. By all means lets us follow sensible rules like mask wearing and social distancing but we should refrain from going to panic stations.

 

Edited by ricardo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Aggy said:

I’m really not sure how you can say little has changed.

In February and early March the entire prevention strategy was asking people to wash their hands and hum happy birthday.

We didn’t have enough PPE. We didn’t have any experience of how to handle covid. We thought ventilation was the best way of dealing and now we know it isn’t. We didn’t have nightingale hospitals sitting there ready to be used if necessary. We’ve now got all of that. We’ve got social distancing far more than in Feb/March. We’ve got to wear face masks. We can’t see more than six people and in various places in the country it’s stricter than that. Many people are still working from home that were in the office in March. We haven’t got large public events. Do you genuinely think little has changed since March? If so, I’d guess you haven’t left the house since then.
 

 

The baseline Aggy is that it is INCREASING - not decreasing - even with these current restrictions. Last rate I saw was a doubling every week but make it 10 days. So if we assume 10K today - that's 20K by first week October and well over 100,000 a day by the end of October. It's March 2020 and all over again and game over.

Need we say more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jools said:

Is that crass little meme from the horses mouth or some Lefty publication/site that barely anyone reads or visits? I'll hazard a guess it's the latter 🙃

The following IS from the horses mouth and it contains information on deaths of patients who have died in hospitals in England and had either tested positive for COVID-19 or where COVID-19 was mentioned on the death certificate ---- 

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/

 

437a2dee-23ca-402c-8bba-ef7c8f27b7cd-0b74be01-1f75-41fe-997c-1917b7d9c7ee


So as we can see and the NHS states, only 1,396 out of 29,705 have died FROM the virus --- All other deaths (28,309) had pre existing conditions.

Nobody I know thinks the virus is a scam, but given the figures above, people are obviously right to question government actions.  
  

Here we go again. You display a startling inability to read and understand the statistics, I suggest you try listening to the officials who provide them. Your claim that, " we can see and the NHS states, only 1,396 out of 29,705 have died FROM the virus --- All other deaths (28,309) had pre existing conditions." is simply wrong. ALL the deaths listed are attributed to the virus. The breakdown simply demonstrates that those with a pre-existing condition are more likely to die if they catch the virus. They were not expected to have died as a result of their pre-existing condition if they had not caught the virus, thus ALL their deaths are recorded as being a result of catching the virus. It really isn't that hard to read these statistics accurately so do try a bit harder

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

The baseline Aggy is that it is INCREASING - not decreasing - even with these current restrictions. Last rate I saw was a doubling every week but make it 10 days. So if we assume 10K today - that's 20K by first week October and well over 100,000 a day by the end of October. It's March 2020 and all over again and game over.

Need we say more.

There are a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions there. And yes, I would argue you do need to say more if you’re suggesting people’s livelihoods should be put at risk. 

1. Why are we assuming 10k? Figures in Ricardo’s link suggest 3899 today, 4322 yesterday, 3,395 the day before. 

2. On the graph in Ricardo’s link (for consistency), there were 2,919 on 10th September. So in the last ten days there has been an increase of 470 from 2,919 to 3,395 today. Certainly not doubling.

3. Whilst increased testing doesn’t account for all of the new infections, you’ve disregarded any impact from testing whatsoever. Yet as per Ricardo’s other stats on here, the percentage of positive tests being carried out remains around 2 per cent. So are the number of infections increasing as much as you suggest, or are they increasing slightly and we’re just finding out about others that have been there all the time?

4. What evidence is there that infections will continue to double every ten days? As per point 2, that’s already not the case. (And whilst haven’t checked figures for the rest of Europe just now, fairly sure they aren’t doubling every week or ten days either.)

Infections were at a minimal baseline when the increases started, because people hadn’t been allowed to go outside for four months. It is to be expected that infections will increase as people start to mingle. We might see that there’s an early upshot which levels off when we get to a new ‘normal’. Likewise, going into autumn and winter, it will become more widespread and people will struggle to shake it off more as other viruses and bugs are floating around as well. 

The issue isn’t that more people might get infected, the issue is ensuring infections don’t get to the level where hospitalisations swamp the hospitals. What evidence is there that this will happen?

5. We don’t know how many infections there were in early March - you’ve acknowledged yourself that there were certainly a lot more than were reported/identified through the limited testing we had then. So if we don’t know how many infections caused that many deaths, then we don’t know how many new infections is a “safe” amount (an amount that won’t overwhelm healthcare services). 
 

Without being able to say “last time, [200,000] new daily infections was the point where we started to have capacity issues and we’re getting close to that figure or will be soon”, I’m afraid it’s not good enough to be introducing legislation restricting people from leaving their homes without other indicators which might suggest capacity issues are imminent.

At the moment what other indicators suggest health infrastructure capacity issues are imminent?

 

6. You didn’t respond to my previous question - do you genuinely believe little has changed since early March when the only measure in place was being asked to wash your hands?

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...