Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread
- Thread starter GingerBeerMan
- Start date
Suggest you have a read of this
https://mronline.org/2020/03/10/tes...hPj7FaAKYju4KXGM-_qc4xMBugV__WKcH5QpDH2AnQMkQ
Beach Hut
Brighton Bhuna Boy
It is not a mild flu if you have other medical complications sadly you are more than likely to die if you catch it.
Still keep believing whatever you are reading however it is wrong.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,256
apologies that wasnt the right term, should have used peicemeal or fragmented, as per Der Spiegel.
- Nov 11, 2009
- 12,625
A guy at my work yesterday reckoned the governments 'herd immunity' was a good idea compared to other nations trying to stop it in its tracks..... When I questioned him how any responsible government could just allow 60% to get it as the right course (as 60% of population is 40 million X 1% mortality is 400,000 deaths.) His argument was that in the countries where they try and stop it, it will return and of the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic it was the 3rd mutation that killed the most people if the 50 million who died.
Interesting but wasn't convinced personally, when the all the words leading scientists are racing to find working vaccines.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,256
vaccine is for next winter, one will need to trialed and put into production, best case key workers get something in the autumn. some help can be given from anti-viral drugs but as they are unapproved this will only be on small scales (because liability and unavailablity). complex pharmaceutical products dont just roll off a production line like sweeties, they take time to produce and the factories would be setup or ready and have other product in production.
with this backdrop the herd immunity approach is quite sensible, its what we do with vaccination and naturally in any case (not everyone gets flu vaccines, enough get it to slow spread, minimise impact). the alternatives are Chinese style lockdown our liberal society simply isnt prepared for, or various mid way points of mass self isolation and banning of social events, which are likely to only prolong the wave of infections anyway. there is no right answer really if its as bad as anticipated. people i work with know about these things and seem quite comfortable with the current approach.
rogersix
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2014
- 8,276
Lack of self awareness, perhaps?
That can't be true?
Indeed, without vaccinations maybe he could have a point, but our hope is that we'll be better prepared in a year or two.
Afraid so...
I know you said 'best case', but I think that's extremely wishful thinking. They were talking about 18 months to have a vaccine. Maybe they'll be well ahead of that, because it's such a priority for the whole world, but surely not being dished out in Autumn this year?
Well I can't believe that's ethically acceptable, or guidance from the government, so my gut feeling is that the management you're referring to should be questioned.
Last edited:
They are massively accelerating the trials of the first vaccine that has been produced, testing in animals and humans in parallel - something they don't normally do.
I've not read anything that suggests this will improve the best case 18 months timeline we've heard about though.
The technology used for this first vaccine being trialled is very new though and I'm not sure it's actually produced a viable vaccine of any kind yet. No pressure...
- Jul 10, 2003
- 28,583
I think there are two significant factors which make the situation worse, both of which aren't due to the virus itself.
1. Most of the developed world has fine tuned 'resource management' to such a degree that Health Services are only able to cope with the basic 'normal' levels of illness. For anything even slightly outside of that norm there is absolutely no spare capacity, and as is clear, this is significantly outside that norm.
2. With the advancements in Science, particularly over the last few decades, large numbers of people are now able to live with underlying, and more serious, health problems than would not have been possible in the past. This highest risk group is, therefor significantly larger and more vulnerable than at any time before.
The problem is that whatever happens, there is no way to alleviate these two factors
1. Most of the developed world has fine tuned 'resource management' to such a degree that Health Services are only able to cope with the basic 'normal' levels of illness. For anything even slightly outside of that norm there is absolutely no spare capacity, and as is clear, this is significantly outside that norm.
2. With the advancements in Science, particularly over the last few decades, large numbers of people are now able to live with underlying, and more serious, health problems than would not have been possible in the past. This highest risk group is, therefor significantly larger and more vulnerable than at any time before.
The problem is that whatever happens, there is no way to alleviate these two factors
Last edited:
Fingers crossed
I really don't think so. My analogy may not be easy to understand, but I think it's what the government are trying to do. As does someone who knows more than me about this - and he even talks about a tap!
[tweet]1238518371651649538[/tweet]
1. The govt strategy on #Coronavirus is more refined than those used in other countries and potentially very effective. But it is also riskier and based on a number of assumptions. They need to be correct, and the measures they introduce need to work when they are supposed to.
2. This all assumes I'm correct in what I think the govt are doing and why. I could be wrong - and wouldn't be surprised. But it looks to me like. . .
3. A UK starting assumption is that a high number of the population will inevitably get infected whatever is done – up to 80%. As you can’t stop it, so it is best to manage it.
There are limited health resources so the aim is to manage the flow of the seriously ill to these.
4. The Italian model the aims to stop infection. The UKs wants infection BUT of particular categories of people. The aim of the UK is to have as many lower risk people infected as possible. Immune people cannot infect others; the more there are the lower the risk of infection
5. That's herd immunity.
Based on this idea, at the moment the govt wants people to get infected, up until hospitals begin to reach capacity. At that they want to reduce, but not stop infection rate. Ideally they balance it so the numbers entering hospital = the number leaving.
6. That balance is the big risk.
All the time people are being treated, other mildly ill people are recovering and the population grows a higher percent of immune people who can’t infect. They can also return to work and keep things going normally - and go to the pubs.
7.The risk is being able to accurately manage infection flow relative to health case resources. Data on infection rates needs to be accurate, the measures they introduce need to work and at the time they want them to and to the degree they want, or the system is overwhelmed.
8. Schools: Kids generally won’t get very ill, so the govt can use them as a tool to infect others when you want to increase infection. When you need to slow infection, that tap can be turned off – at that point they close the schools. Politically risky for them to say this.
9. The same for large scale events - stop them when you want to slow infection rates; turn another tap off. This means schools etc are closed for a shorter period and disruption generally is therefore for a shorter period, AND with a growing immune population. This is sustainable
10. After a while most of the population is immune, the seriously ill have all received treatment and the country is resistant. The more vulnerable are then less at risk. This is the end state the govt is aiming for and could achieve.
11. BUT a key issue during this process is protection of those for whom the virus is fatal. It's not clear the full measures there are to protect those people. It assumes they can measure infection, that their behavioural expectations are met - people do what they think they will
12. The Italian (and others) strategy is to stop as much infection as possible - or all infection. This is appealing, but then what? The restrictions are not sustainable for months. So the will need to be relaxed. But that will lead to reemergence of infections.
13. Then rates will then start to climb again. So they will have to reintroduce the restrictions each time infection rates rise. That is not a sustainable model and takes much longer to achieve the goal of a largely immune population with low risk of infection of the vulnerable
14. As the government tries to achieve equilibrium between hospitalisations and infections, more interventions will appear. It's perhaps why there are at the moment few public information films on staying at home. They are treading a tight path, but possibly a sensible one.
15. This is probably the best strategy, but they should explain it more clearly. It relies on a lot of assumptions, so it would be good to know what they are - especially behavioural. Most encouraging, it's way too clever for #BorisJohnson to have had any role in developing.
- Jul 10, 2003
- 28,583
He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about, he doesn't mention the bucket or bath once
Very informative and interesting (and well explained!). It does make sense with what we are seeing happen currently
Green Cross Code Man
Wunt be druv
Thanks for that, it is very helpful. Let's hope it comes off.
He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about, he doesn't mention the bucket or bath once
Very informative and interesting (and well explained!). It does make sense with what we are seeing happen currently
Once this all blows over, I'll offer to give him some training on this kinda thing.
I'll bundle it in with my "Ali J Appreciation" course.
Icy Gull
Back on the rollercoaster
- Jul 5, 2003
- 72,015