Jump to content
Fuzzar

Corona Virus main thread

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Teemu’s right foot said:

It’s no coincidence that the Nhs is advertising it’s open on practically every commercial break now. The government know what they have done regarding this and the figures for deaths involving these illnesses I’ve highlighted over the next year or two won’t be pretty. In hindsight it wasn’t the brightest idea to go with the slogan “protect the nhs, stay at home and save lives” as many people have taken that advice literally, detrimental to their own health 

This is just a question.

China and New Zealand shut down their economies completely and went into total lockdown. You are saying if I am correct we shouldn’t have done that ? If that is correct Both their economies are totally recovered flu is almost eradicated and their death rates have plummeted. Whereas Brazil and the US those same figures are in free fall. 
Why would that be ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Yep

Apparently the Goverment are about to release a film about long Covid which will outline ( apparently ) the old die, we don’t know what’s going to happen to others we are only just beginning to find out. Again 3 months to late, no good scaring the youngsters now it’s to late. 
On the positive side once this is under control, have you seen New Zealand and China’s death figures ( all causes ) they have plummeted. That just goes to show when the Goverment was being listened to ie wash hands and generally be hygienic it seems to have almost wiped out flu.

I agree it's all been just behind the curve. I admire NZ and it's leadership.... Caring, pro-active. Yet, it's difficult to compare to the UK as it's such a different demographic. Our government one feels, has been far too ideological / political about how it's dealt with the pandemic. Contracts, messaging, spin etc.  .... But that is me saying it Wbb and I'm not a supporter. In my defence though, I've stated before too though that a labour government would have struggled. 

Edited by sonyc
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Teemu’s right foot said:

It’s no coincidence that the Nhs is advertising it’s open on practically every commercial break now. The government know what they have done regarding this and the figures for deaths involving these illnesses I’ve highlighted over the next year or two won’t be pretty. In hindsight it wasn’t the brightest idea to go with the slogan “protect the nhs, stay at home and save lives” as many people have taken that advice literally, detrimental to their own health 

Spot on.

Oxford advised the Goverment ( they are one of the Goverment advisors ) if you change the message and then predicted almost to the number what would happen. The scientists told the Goverment not to do it but again they ignored the science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Well b back said:

This is just a question.

China and New Zealand shut down their economies completely and went into total lockdown. You are saying if I am correct we shouldn’t have done that ? If that is correct Both their economies are totally recovered flu is almost eradicated and their death rates have plummeted. Whereas Brazil and the US those same figures are in free fall. 
Why would that be ?

I haven’t got the answers, I’ve never claimed to have but I wish I did. But from what I’m seeing in these figures is that lockdown hasn’t necessarily saved lives, it’s traded lives. Going forwards if it’s possible I’d like to see the nightingale hospitals that were relatively unused before being used for purely covid cases so to keep the hospitals functioning for all these other equally serious illnesses. 
 

 

Edited by Teemu’s right foot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Oh dear, 75 cases at Bernard Matthews factory.

I suppose Bootiful wouldn't be appropriate??

Share this post


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

I agree it's all been just behind the curve. I admire NZ and it's leadership.... Caring, pro-active. Yet, it's difficult to compare to the UK as it's such a different demographic. Our government one feels, has been far too ideological / political about how it's dealt with the pandemic. Contracts, messaging, spin etc.  With  But that is me saying it Wbb and I'm not a supporter. In my defence though, I've stated before too though that a labour government would have struggled. 

Couldn’t agree more and as you know I was a supporter.

It is interesting that on the Come On Sarah thread we regularly put the Oxford advise to the Goverment as they were so horrified they printed it on their website. As you will know at every step the advice was pushed to one side until 2 months later each time and then they would blame the scientists for not telling them. They must think we are stupid. The death rates, the positives, the number off school we really don’t know what to believe. If you believe some and not the others, remembering there is at least a 2 week lag on people going to hospital the official positives against the actual admissions show nearly 30% are now going to hospital. Now we know that’s not really true as the real figure for positives is probably ( probably as nobody knows the truth ) approaching 60 -70 000 now. That makes the hospital admissions as they were ( based on the 2 week lag ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, ricardo said:

There can be little doubt that people feared attending appointments. The big drop in people going to A&E show this clearly.

One of the few benefits of covid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Couldn’t agree more and as you know I was a supporter.

It is interesting that on the Come On Sarah thread we regularly put the Oxford advise to the Goverment as they were so horrified they printed it on their website. As you will know at every step the advice was pushed to one side until 2 months later each time and then they would blame the scientists for not telling them. They must think we are stupid. The death rates, the positives, the number off school we really don’t know what to believe. If you believe some and not the others, remembering there is at least a 2 week lag on people going to hospital the official positives against the actual admissions show nearly 30% are now going to hospital. Now we know that’s not really true as the real figure for positives is probably ( probably as nobody knows the truth ) approaching 60 -70 000 now. That makes the hospital admissions as they were ( based on the 2 week lag ).

I know no longer what figures to believe. I read the more cautious on here (you, Yellow Fever, Van wink to name a few) as well as some main stream media (Guardian, Independent mainly but some tabloids thrown in) plus a sprinkling of other media outlets (both left and right leaning). On top of this I am interested in the thoughts of Teemu, Aggy, Ricardo , Barbe bleue , Rock the Bus and a few others who argue differently.  

I don't tend to see things black and white and prefer to ask questions. I don't think anyone has all the right answers. I wish I had more confidence. For one strong argument about the numbers that we shouldn't be worried (arguing we should see the so-called evidence), I hear other first hand reports  to the contrary -  e.g. from the NHS (people I know and workers in the field). Who do you believe? 

My main worry is that the pandemic has yet to fully transpose to the rest of the country (London for example). My worry is also mainly based on numbers where I live. I watch these rising on Zoe (for my area they can go up greatly in 24 hours). I see the 500 in Norfolk and then see the 5000/6000 in my area! I suppose living in a hotspot area is bound to feel far different to sleepy Norfolk. Of course it will.

I dislike some of the strident nature of some responses because I feel its unnecessary but we are all different people and for the main part, we are Norwich City fans. But that's life isn't it. I am just seeing Raynor has had to apologise for her ill-considered comment today in the Commons, so at least we don't call people that on here (except Ips*** fans).

Edited by sonyc
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Van wink said:

One of the few benefits of covid

I wonder what happened to the "worried well".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ricardo said:

I wonder what happened to the "worried well".

Worried themselves to death 😉

Share this post


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

I know no longer what figures to believe. I read the more cautious on here (you, Yellow Fever, Van wink to name a few) as well as some main stream media (Guardian, Independent mainly but some tabloids thrown in) plus a sprinkling of other media outlets (both left and right leaning). On top of this I am interested in the thoughts of Teemu, Aggy, Ricardo , Barbe bleue , Rock the Bus and a few others who argue differently.  

I don't tend to see things black and white and prefer to ask questions. I don't think anyone has all the right answers. I wish I had more confidence. For one strong argument about the numbers that we shouldn't be worried (arguing we should see the so-called evidence), I hear other first hand reports  to the contrary -  e.g. from the NHS (people I know and workers in the field). Who do you believe? 

My main worry is that the pandemic has yet to fully transpose to the rest of the country (London for example). My worry is also mainly based on numbers where I live. I watch these rising on Zoe (for my area they can go up greatly in 24 hours). I see the 500 in Norfolk and then see the 5000/6000 in my area! I suppose living in a hotspot area is bound to feel far different to sleepy Norfolk. Of course it will.

I dislike some of the strident nature of some responses because I feel its unnecessary but we are all different people and for the main part, we are Norwich City fans. But that's life isn't it. I am just seeing Raynor has had to apologise for her ill-considered comment today in the Commons, so at least we don't call people that on here (except Ips*** fans).

All I think that all of us want the most effective way out of the mire.

We know what the experts proposed, we know what happened before and we know what does work. We also sadly see increasing numbers and spreading economically disastrous lockdowns chasing after them. Hopefully Tier 3 will at least slow it but it is not obvious how you exit tier 3 without a similar lockdown to last March. Endless otherwise until Spring ?

If that's true them then the short sharper lockdown is likely to be the preferred choice and have more public support.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the NZ comparisons really unhelpful. Being a country of 5m people in an extremely remote pair of islands is the ideal place to be for a pandemic. England is densely populated and very close to Europe so in the ways that matter right now we’re as different from NZ as could be.

 

We need to look at similar countries to us for our lessons, not NZ which has every natural advantage in dealing with this crisis.

Share this post


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

I know no longer what figures to believe. I read the more cautious on here (you, Yellow Fever, Van wink to name a few) as well as some main stream media (Guardian, Independent mainly but some tabloids thrown in) plus a sprinkling of other media outlets (both left and right leaning). On top of this I am interested in the thoughts of Teemu, Aggy, Ricardo , Barbe bleue , Rock the Bus and a few others who argue differently.  

I don't tend to see things black and white and prefer to ask questions. I don't think anyone has all the right answers. I wish I had more confidence. For one strong argument about the numbers that we shouldn't be worried (arguing we should see the so-called evidence), I hear other first hand reports  to the contrary -  e.g. from the NHS (people I know and workers in the field). Who do you believe? 

My main worry is that the pandemic has yet to fully transpose to the rest of the country (London for example). My worry is also mainly based on numbers where I live. I watch these rising on Zoe (for my area they can go up greatly in 24 hours). I see the 500 in Norfolk and then see the 5000/6000 in my area! I suppose living in a hotspot area is bound to feel far different to sleepy Norfolk. Of course it will.

I dislike some of the strident nature of some responses because I feel its unnecessary but we are all different people and for the main part, we are Norwich City fans. But that's life isn't it. I am just seeing Raynor has had to apologise for her ill-considered comment today in the Commons, so at least we don't call people that on here (except Ips*** fans).

Agreed

I lived in Wymondham until July and moved to a place called Brownhills not far from Walsall. Living here I realise how sheltered I was in Norfolk. We are level 2 and fast approaching the higher level. People here are different as we are surrounded by it. Our epicentre is a place called Bloxwich where it seems like a tsunami pushing out. We have somebody working on the frontline and they are a wreck. They tell us the reason the Nightingales can’t be opened is half of them are in isolation and they can’t get enough new people in to staff them. The description they give is like a horror film. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All measures appear to be different stopgaps to try to minimize both deaths and economic ruin in some unknown balance, whilst waiting for an actual vaccine to appear AND be proven effective.

NZ have been very effective in their measures, but as ICF rightly points out, it's far easier for them to do this than it is for the UK, helped at the same time by people who actually LISTENED to the rules and followed them correctly.

We've had marches against face masks, people refusing not to go for a drink, gyms refusing to close, people socialising regardless of lockdown rules, covid deniers who claim it's purely fake news, all against a backdrop of a government that seems to regularly ignore expert advice whilst ensuring they overspend on simple things like excel spreadsheets, and making sure that lucrative contracts for PPE go to their chums regardless of their ability to actually supply them!

No social gatherings unless you want to join Boris and chums in a grouse hunt, no breaching lockdown unless you have to drive hundreds of miles to test your eyesight, no shaking hands unless you're the PM (who then catches Covid), the whole thing is a colossal farce.

Why does everything have to be in the background, why can't groups like SAGE simply come out publicly immediately after advising the government and say "We told them to lockdown based on our expertise, knowledge and projections and they totally ignored us!"?

Like many, I simply don't know what to believe any more, but what I do know is that as a member of a higher risk group I'm more concerned about getting Covid and possibly dying from it, then I am about pubs closing and people having to restrict their socialising for the near future. But that's just me, other people could feel totally the opposite, but I do question why I have to keep working and living in fear each day whilst others blithely don't worry about it and instead want to moan they can't nip for a pint...

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 20/10/2020 at 22:57, Van wink said:

So NHS Professionals drop me a little line tonight-

“As you all know NHS Professionals are currently working hard to increase capacity in Level 2, but additional support is also required to meet the increasing demand.

 
From 21st October 2020 changes will be introduced across the worker community to provide the additional capacity to meet this surge in demand. A number of experienced agents from Serco and Sitel will assist with Index Case tracing from tomorrow, focusing primarily on gathering information required for Contact tracing. 
 
These agents will work closely with NHS Professional colleagues, including Team Leaders and Clinical Leads, who will be available to provide advice as required, exactly as they do currently for NHSP Clinical Caseworkers.”
 
So pleasing to see more work for Serco and Sitel, perish the thought of using local capacity!!!
I wonder who these “experienced”people are and where have they come from. Unbelievable.

This is possibly linked to your points VW.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-test-and-trace-serco-untrained-tracing-b1204648.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/local/northyorkshire/18808438.harrogate-hospital-ready-needed/
 

NHS Nightingale in Harrogate ready and able to take patients if needed (although not currently needed). Positive in many respects. Hopefully won’t be needed but gives us options if required.

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12982764/fewer-patients-icu-manchester-now-than-last-year/

https://inews.co.uk/news/analysis/manchester-intensive-care-beds-tier-3-restrictions-analysis-730414

Something I had completely missed. As mentioned by others who knows what stats to believe nowadays, but NHS E’s own stats suggest this time last year Manchester’s critical beds were 87 per cent full and Salford’s were 96 per cent full. Tameside 100 per cent full this time last year according to these links. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, It's Character Forming said:

I find the NZ comparisons really unhelpful. Being a country of 5m people in an extremely remote pair of islands is the ideal place to be for a pandemic. England is densely populated and very close to Europe so in the ways that matter right now we’re as different from NZ as could be.

 

We need to look at similar countries to us for our lessons, not NZ which has every natural advantage in dealing with this crisis.

"in the ways that matter right now we’re as different from NZ as could be."

Not really that significantly different, NZ also has densely populated towns and cities (eg. Wellington).  Surely it is relevant to learn from NZ that a very rapid response to outbreaks through a variety of restrictions (lock-downs, isolation etc.) all guided by a thoroughly competent track and trace system, has made a massive difference to their Covid-19 outcomes. 

But if want somewhere you consider more comparable then how about Germany?

"IGermany, from Jan 3 to 5:47pm CEST, 21 October 2020, there have been 380,762 confirmed cases of COVID-19 with 9,875 deaths." ( https://covid19.who.int/region/euro/country/de)

Again, it seems the rapidity of the response combined with a competent track and trace system has made a massive difference to their Covid-19 outcomes (and they don't have the advantage of being an island). 

Sadly,  in an appalling misjudgement of the threat the virus posed, our government delayed its response and lost control from the beginning. It took several months at huge health and economic costs (the worst in europe) to gain some sort of control over it. Whether it has the ability or will to gain sufficient control of it again as the second wave descends is surely in question.  It was very apparent in PMQs that Johnson had no answer to the question of how tier-3 communities might retrieve their situation. Indeed, a SAGE member, prof. John Edmonds is predicting quite an horrendous prospect of "tens of thousands" more deaths: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/coronavirus/covid-uk-news-country-faces-tens-of-thousands-of-deaths-in-second-wave-sage-expert-warns/ar-BB1af8hT?ocid=msedgdhp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, horsefly said:

"in the ways that matter right now we’re as different from NZ as could be."

Not really that significantly different, NZ also has densely populated towns and cities (eg. Wellington).  Surely it is relevant to learn from NZ that a very rapid response to outbreaks through a variety of restrictions (lock-downs, isolation etc.) all guided by a thoroughly competent track and trace system, has made a massive difference to their Covid-19 outcomes. 

But if want somewhere you consider more comparable then how about Germany?

"IGermany, from Jan 3 to 5:47pm CEST, 21 October 2020, there have been 380,762 confirmed cases of COVID-19 with 9,875 deaths." ( https://covid19.who.int/region/euro/country/de)

Again, it seems the rapidity of the response combined with a competent track and trace system has made a massive difference to their Covid-19 outcomes (and they don't have the advantage of being an island). 

Sadly,  in an appalling misjudgement of the threat the virus posed, our government delayed its response and lost control from the beginning. It took several months at huge health and economic costs (the worst in europe) to gain some sort of control over it. Whether it has the ability or will to gain sufficient control of it again as the second wave descends is surely in question.  It was very apparent in PMQs that Johnson had no answer to the question of how tier-3 communities might retrieve their situation. Indeed, a SAGE member, prof. John Edmonds is predicting quite an horrendous prospect of "tens of thousands" more deaths: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/coronavirus/covid-uk-news-country-faces-tens-of-thousands-of-deaths-in-second-wave-sage-expert-warns/ar-BB1af8hT?ocid=msedgdhp

We are hugely different from NZ and I think we must be careful with our comparisons. If I was going for a comparison I would probably say New York state or France were the closest

True a lot of the NZ population is in greater Auckland or Wellington but that's about the only negative for them.  

If you can convince me that they also have dense inner cities,   a culture of high house occupancy in most cities and the community infrasteucture associated with that, crammed public transport, cities that are very closely  linked,  massive  international transport hubs and a history of cross border travel I'll probably agree with you though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Barbe bleu said:

We are hugely different from NZ and I think we must be careful with our comparisons. If I was going for a comparison I would probably say New York state or France were the closest

True a lot of the NZ population is in greater Auckland or Wellington but that's about the only negative for them.  

If you can convince me that they also have dense inner cities,   a culture of high house occupancy in most cities and the community infrasteucture associated with that, crammed public transport, cities that are very closely  linked,  massive  international transport hubs and a history of cross border travel I'll probably agree with you though.

OK if you consider NZ a disputable comparison, what about Germany, South Korea, Japan etc? You certainly can't claim that Berlin, Seoul, and Tokyo are not densely populated cities. Of course higher density of population risks higher virus transmission, but the crucial point with all the cities I've mentioned here is that they are in countries with far more effective responses to Covid than the UK. In particular they have had far superior track and trace systems in place from the beginning. The governments of those countries were prepared for a potential pandemic and accordingly were able to put supressing measures in place rapidly. Our government engaged in a pandemic exercise (called exercise cygnus) in 2016 and decided to ignore the urgent recommendations that were made as a result (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8164389/2016-Government-pandemic-exercise-revealed-NHS-shortages-lack-protective-equipment.html). 

"A Government exercise four years ago predicted a deadly virus from Asia would arrive in the UK and leave the NHS on its knees, but was not published because the results were 'too terrifying'.  

In October 2016, epidemiologists from Imperial College London told Government ministers what Britain would look like seven weeks into a pandemic. 

Exercise Cygnus showed the NHS unable to cope, with a lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) for doctors and nurses, inadequate numbers of ventilators and mortuaries overflowing."

They were warned about the very real likelihood of what would happen but chose to do nothing to prepare for it. It is this fundamental dereliction of duty that we should focus upon in our comparison (and explanation) of the the UKs dreadful record with the records of other countries. We top the European league in both deaths and the economic costs of Covid-19. But that position didn't occur because we got unlucky with the virus, it occured because we got unlucky with our choice of government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, horsefly said:

OK if you consider NZ a disputable comparison, what about Germany, South Korea, Japan etc? You certainly can't claim that Berlin, Seoul, and Tokyo are not densely populated cities. Of course higher density of population risks higher virus transmission, but the crucial point with all the cities I've mentioned here is that they are in countries with far more effective responses to Covid than the UK. In particular they have had far superior track and trace systems in place from the beginning. The governments of those countries were prepared for a potential pandemic and accordingly were able to put supressing measures in place rapidly. Our government engaged in a pandemic exercise (called exercise cygnus) in 2016 and decided to ignore the urgent recommendations that were made as a result (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8164389/2016-Government-pandemic-exercise-revealed-NHS-shortages-lack-protective-equipment.html). 

 

Exactly and to that list you could add China of course - they also have massive densely populated inner cities,  a culture of high house occupancy in most cities and the community infrastructure associated with that, absolutely rammed public transport, cities that are very closely  linked,  massive international transport hubs and they were the only country in the whole world not to have any advance warning of the virus.

Nevertheless a rapid response, a very strict (though very focussed) lockdown, a huge fully functional test, track and trace stopped the virus quickly and completely, and life returned to normal (other than strict checks for travellers entering the country) months ago, as did the economy which is now back in growth.

The key factor is the response - that is blindingly obvious, whether you look at the best or worst cases. I'm afraid BB's waffle about population density\housing conditions is, as usual, just an attempt to deflect attention away from just how poorly our own government has performed.

Edited by Creative Midfielder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Exactly and to that list you could add China of course - they also have massive densely populated inner cities,  a culture of high house occupancy in most cities and the community infrastructure associated with that, absolutely rammed public transport, cities that are very closely  linked,  massive international transport hubs and they were the only country in the whole world not to have any advance warning of the virus.

Nevertheless a rapid response, a very strict (though very focussed) lockdown, a huge fully functional test, track and trace stopped the virus quickly and completely, and life returned to normal (other than strict checks for travellers entering the country) months ago, as did the economy which is now back in growth.

The key factor is the response - that is blindingly obvious, whether you look at the best or worst cases. I'm afraid BB's waffle about population density\housing conditions is, as usual, just an attempt to deflect attention away from just how poorly our own government has performed.

This recent report from the Lancet is well worth a read if you are interested in the response in China. Speed of action, a compliant population well aware of risks following sars, industrial capacity, differing social structures and family structures etc. An interesting article showing the benefit of swift and complete lockdown-
 
“While the world is struggling to control COVID-19, China has managed to control the pandemic rapidly and effectively. How was that possible? Talha Burki reports.
On Sept 22, 2020, US President Donald Trump gave a combative address to the UN General Assembly referring to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) as the “China virus”. He demanded that China was held accountable for “unleash[ing] this plague onto the world”. Chinese premier Xi Jingping, who addressed the General Assembly after Trump, urged nations affected by COVID-19 to “follow the guidance of science...and launch a joint international response to beat this pandemic”. He added that “any attempt of politicising the issue or stigmatisation must be rejected”. 9 days later, Trump tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
According to a July survey by the Pew Research Center, two-thirds of Americans believe that China has done a bad job dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. It is clearly not an opinion shared by WHO. In a press conference in September, Mike Ryan, executive director of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme, offered “deepest congratulations...to the front-line health workers in China and the population who worked together tirelessly to bring the disease to this very low level”.
As of Oct 4, 2020, China had confirmed 90 604 cases of COVID-19 and 4739 deaths, while the USA had registered 7 382 194 cases and 209 382 deaths. The UK has a population 20 times smaller than China, yet it has seen five times as many cases of COVID-19 and almost ten times as many deaths. All of which raises the question: how has China managed to wrest control of its pandemic?
Despite being the first place to be hit by COVID-19, China was well-placed to tackle the disease. It has a centralised epidemic response system. Most Chinese adults remember SARS-CoV and the high mortality rate that was associated with it. “The society was very alert as to what can happen in a coronavirus outbreak”, said Xi Chen (Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, USA). “Other countries do not have such fresh memories of a pandemic”. Ageing parents tend to live with their children, or alone but nearby. Only 3% of China's elderly population live in care homes, whereas in several western countries, such facilities have been major sources of infection.
“The speed of China's response was the crucial factor”, explains Gregory Poland, director of the Vaccine Research Group at the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota, USA). “They moved very quickly to stop transmission. Other countries, even though they had much longer to prepare for the arrival of the virus, delayed their response and that meant they lost control”. The first reported cases of the disease that came to be known as COVID-19 occurred in Wuhan, Hubei province, in late December 2019. China released the genomic sequence of the virus on Jan 10, 2020, and began enacting a raft of rigorous countermeasures later in the same month.
Wuhan was placed under a strict lockdown that lasted 76 days. Public transport was suspended. Soon afterwards, similar measures were implemented in every city in Hubei province. Across the country, 14 000 health checkpoints were established at public transport hubs. School re-openings after the winter vacation were delayed and population movements were severely curtailed. Dozens of cities implemented family outdoor restrictions, which typically meant that only one member of each household was permitted to leave the home every couple of days to collect necessary supplies. Within weeks, China had managed to test 9 million people for SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan. It set up an effective national system of contact tracing. By contrast, the UK's capacity for contact tracing was overwhelmed soon after the pandemic struck the country.
As the world's largest manufacturer of personal protective equipment, it was relatively straightforward for China to ramp up production of clinical gowns and surgical masks. Moreover, the Chinese readily adopted mask wearing. “Compliance was very high”, said Chen. “Compare that with the USA, where even in June and July, when the virus was surging, people were still refusing to wear masks. Even in late September, President Trump still treated Joe Biden's mask-wearing as a weakness to be ridiculed”.
Drones equipped with echoing loudspeakers rebuked Chinese citizens who were not following the rules. The state-run Xinhua news agency has released footage taken from the drones. “Yes Auntie, this drone is talking to you”, one device proclaimed to a surprised woman in Inner Mongolia. “You shouldn't walk around without wearing a mask. You'd better go home and don't forget to wash your hands”. In the UK, 150 000 people were permitted to attend a horse racing meet in mid-March, 10 days before the country went into lockdown. In August, 460 000 Americans congregated in Sturgis, South Dakota, for a motorcycle rally.
On Febr 5, 2020, Wuhan opened three so-called Fangcang hospitals. Another 13 would appear over the next few weeks. The hospitals were established within public venues such as stadiums and exhibition centres and were used to isolate patients with mild-to-moderate symptoms of COVID-19. Patients who started to show symptoms of severe disease were quickly transferred to conventional hospitals. The network of Fangcang hospitals, which held 13 000 beds, meant that patients with COVID-19 did not have to isolate at home, which reduced the risk of family members becoming infected. By Mar 10, 2020, the Fangcang hospitals were no longer needed. From around the same time, the focus of China's countermeasures shifted from controlling local transmission to preventing the virus from taking hold as a result of imported cases. Those who entered the country were tested and quarantined.
A modelling study co-authored by Chen calculated that the public health actions undertaken by China between Jan 29 and Feb 29 may have prevented 1·4 million infections and 56 000 deaths. Still, it does not necessarily follow that China's response to the pandemic is generalisable. “As each country has its own health system and epidemic curve, measures implemented in one country may not be easily replicated by another”, points out Imperial College London's Han Fu. “Other factors such as coordination between government sectors and civil compliance with regulations may also affect the effectiveness of the response”. Much also depends on each nation's conception of civil liberties.
“In China, you have a combination of a population that takes respiratory infections seriously and is willing to adopt non-pharmaceutical interventions, with a government that can put bigger constraints on individual freedoms than would be considered acceptable in most Western countries”, adds Poland. “Commitment to the greater good is engrained in the culture; there is not the hyper-individualism that characterises parts of the USA, and has driven most of the resistance to the countermeasures against the coronavirus.” Poland noted that the Chinese accept the notion that disease control is a matter of science. “China does not have the kind of raucous anti-vaccine, anti-science movement that is trying to derail the fight against COVID-19 in the USA”, he said.
In August, Wuhan hosted an enormous pool party. There were objections from some foreign media outlets. The state-owned Global Times was unapologetic. It suggested that the event stood as “a reminder to countries grappling with the virus that strict preventive measures have a payback”. The newspaper quoted a local resident who back in April had feared he might be bankrupted by the pandemic. “There weren't even many local people, not to mention tourists. But now my business is blooming with the city having fully recovered”, he said.
 


 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the Lancet for 25 years presented 5 papers to the government in January warning them exactly what course the virus would take in the UK if it failed to act immediately. Of course the government ignored him. 

I pray the day will come when this appalling bunch of mafia ministers will be called to account for the the needless destruction of lives that their culpable failures have allowed to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ricardo said:

This is the problem for places like N. Zealand. Lots of vulnerable and few with any sort of immunity due to lack of exposure.

Hide until a vaccine arrives seems to be the answer.

There is a simple but alarming answer to that point Ricardo.

If the vaccines fail to work effectively its very hard to see how any 'herd immunity' or 'previous exposure' approach would either. Herd immunity would rapidly fade too.

NZ hopes currently to simply to control the virus until such time as the guinea pigs in place like us prove an effective vaccine. It's a win-win for them. All the advantages and few of the downsides. If a vaccine is possible they will have it in the Spring.

Share this post


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

200k = modelling system based on what actually happened and predicted outcomes. 600k = modelling system based on hypothetical conditions which don’t exist and haven’t for seven months (no restrictions at all). Literally no point using the 600k figure unless people are suggesting we scrap all restrictions - which nobody is. 

Nobody has said we should have shielding and nothing else. Literally said three times in last post we need other restrictions as well. The question asked was whether there was any argument for not having shielding in conjunction with other restrictions other than “some people might not comply”? As Sonyc says, no need to answer but twisting the question to try and belittle the point being made = not cool.

The point being made is:

your worst case scenario with no restrictions = 600k deaths.

We have got various restrictions in place, so 600k deaths isn’t going to happen, using the modelling you’ve linked.

Other modelling suggests previous lockdowns could have already caused potentially more than 200k deaths either having already occurred or will occur in the future. Ignoring that figure is outrageous.

It might be the case that more than 200k deaths in the medium to long term is the “better” figure but it needs to be considered and monitored. WHO director thinks so. Sage scientists think so. Boris clearly thinks so as we aren’t in full lockdown yet. You don’t. Fair enough.

Eg; (completely made up figures): if current restrictions will lead to 10,000 deaths from covid in a month and a lockdown for the same period would cause 10,000 “collateral” early deaths (20,000 total) then how does that change in various situations?

If full lockdown for a month reduces covid deaths to 2,000 but causes 75,000 “collateral” deaths in the next few years then full lockdown isn’t worth it. 
Equally if the initial figures were 100,000 deaths from covid in a month and lockdown helps reduce it to 10,000 in total including collateral then clearly lockdown is sensible.

Hospitals becoming overwhelmed needs  to be factored in. If they’re overwhelmed, more people will die than if they’re not overwhelmed. That’s obvious. But if the measures put in place to stop hospitals being overwhelmed will kill more than they will save, then are they worth it? 

I don’t know the figures. I expect the government does (or at least has pretty good modelling from various different disciplines) and the figures suggest that anything more than a one-off two week circuit break (and even that only if things get very bad) will cause more death than it will save. Which is why nowhere in the world is suggesting another full lockdown for sustained periods. 

Aggy - I'm not trying to argue with you - the original recent BMJ paper was simply trying to answer some basic Covid risk factors in simple lay-mans terms if left unchallenged. Given the data it stacked up with 600K extra deaths.

Of course restrictions will be employed and only in extremis will we go back into full open ended national lockdown again. However, as per last March we must ensure that the health services are not overwhelmed (which for a few months did mean some less urgent services where delayed (a clinical judgement) and also as is well accepted many many people were too scared to attend GP/hospital when they should). That will eventually materialize as some extra deaths.

But again what would you do differently ? There is no other practical option in extremis. We can't have people dying in the streets and corridors with no care because we refused to lockdown earlier and let it completely overwhelm everything  - health and the economy. Doctors and nurses get sick too.

The NHS mustn't get overwhelmed again (and it diverted huge resources from the less critical to Covid last Spring - which for the the very reasons you note it doesn't want to do again) and be able to continue (without the worried well) as now it's normal day to day services.

So we all surely accept that we must keep Covid at low enough levels to avoid repeating the above. All I can say and see is that the virus is continuing to grow quickly, deaths are rising (we will ignore other issues) - perhaps already a rate of around 25% of what they were at the Spring peak (900/day) and with at least two more weeks 'baked' in.

As in Norwich, Tier 1 doesn't seem to be stopping it, nobody thinks Tier 2 (the Tier 3 waiting room) does much (although economically it causes more hospitality issues) -  and then finally the open ended Tier 3 which may hold the fort but with nearly all the economic issues that worry you. How long do you think it will be on our current trajectory before most of country is Tier  3 ? Christmas ? At present we are heading straight back to where we were last Spring full speed ahead.

This is the true argument - far far better for a limited but effective circuit/fire break which will impact the virus rather than living in hope that somehow the existing system will limit the virus and all that it then entails.

This is Johnson's real weakness - as a 'populist - good-news only' guy he seems unable to make the big 'unpopular' calls until it's too late which is the mark of any true leader. He 'models' himself as a Churchill tribute act - well as per Churchill 'Action this day' and stop the bumbling along.

Share this post


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

This is Johnson's real weakness - as a 'populist - good-news only' guy he seems unable to make the big 'unpopular' calls until it's too late which is the mark of any true leader. He 'models' himself as a Churchill tribute act - well as per Churchill 'Action this day' and stop the bumbling along

Good article in the Guardian yesterday by Kettle. He stated Johnson is simply unable to negotiate. It's one of the key skills of the PM job. Johnson simply announces a way forward then is either stubborn until strongly challenged and then he u turns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Good article in the Guardian yesterday by Kettle. He stated Johnson is simply unable to negotiate. It's one of the key skills of the PM job. Johnson simply announces a way forward then is either stubborn until strongly challenged and then he u turns. 

I can agree - and as per WBB I don't think anybody's concerns with the government and Johnson in particular are traditional politics. I'm basically centre left  - but agree with some sort of poll tax - go figure - and don't like handouts for the work shy or those that don't try or just 'expect'.  Those that do need help or fall on hard times as anybody could get it with compassion not penny pinching though.  

For this government its all about incompetence or wishful thinking - You can almost guarantee whatever decision they make it will be the wrong one, the numbers spun or lied. From my American days they couldn't give away dollar bills in Times Square. They have dug such a hole they can't tell fact from fiction. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

I accept you’re not trying to argue with me. My point though is that you using those figures basically supported my main point yesterday - that we’ve become so scared of covid deaths that nothing else matters.

Your response to modelling which suggests hundreds of thousands of people might already have had death warrants signed as a result of the last lockdown, was to use modelling based on non-existent conditions to downplay those hundreds of thousands of deaths.
 

It would be like me saying we should ignore covid and resist lockdown because, I don’t know, if the government banned all essential workers and nhs staff from leaving the house, then millions would die from non-covid things. That would be a pointless argument because it doesn’t reflect reality. Arguing we should ignore hundreds of thousands of other deaths  because 600,000 might die if there are no restrictions and we do absolutely nothing about covid is equally pointless because we do have restrictions and are doing things about it.

 

As to the wider point re future steps/options....

The article I posted earlier showed that despite all the covid rates increasing for months now, the intensive care beds in the north west are at the same capacity they were last year 2019. If it was guaranteed that covid would overwhelm the nhs, then you’d expect to see higher rates of icu patients now than in previous non-covid years. That might still come to pass, but it hasn’t done yet despite four months of increasing covid infections. Why, I don’t know.

The Medical Director involved in the running of the Harrogate Nightingale hospital yesterday said they’re ready to accept patients - if needed (not currently).  

So currently, despite the huge numbers of covid infections being reported and numbers increasing for months, icus aren’t any more overwhelmed than they were this time last year and we’ve got additional capacity in nightingale hospitals sitting completely empty (and a director running one of them telling us yesterday they are ready to take patients if needed, so earlier staffing concerns presumably resolved at least in part).

Like I said in the last post, its a balance and when/if the modelling continues to show increasing “collateral” deaths, then that needs to be weighed against measures put in place to stop “direct” deaths. 
 

I expect the government has modelling from various disciplines and is taking everything into account. That modelling might suggest a two week circuit break will save more lives than it costs. It seems quite clear that the modelling suggests a more lengthy lockdown will cause more deaths than it saves, which is why nowhere is suggesting we have one. 

 

 

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...