Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread

[Herr Tubthumper]

so go Sweden approach?

My suggestion would have been the German approach. I feel it’s too late now though.

 

[beorhthelm]

My suggestion would have been the German approach. I feel it’s too late now though.

yes they've come out better than most, small increase of cases since summer but steady. what are they doing differently?

 

[Guinness Boy]

I don't think Worthing is a great example of the vast majority to be honest with you. Brighton City centre is a much better example when using the term 'Vast majority'.

It's still an anecdote you've put on here without any evidence to back it up. It's also utterky irrelevant since the response to CV-19 is at a national and local level. But it doesn't go to the micro level of locking down one or two streets.

It seems likely (link below ) that even in Bolton most people were following the rules. The damage was done by a super spreader ignoring them alongside a small cohort of people.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...reader-ignored-quarantine-rules-partly-blame/

 

[Guinness Boy]

Depends what you mean by 'harsh'

I suspect we may disagree a bit, but not by as much as the crude divisions of opinion on 'lockdown vs no lockdown' encouraged by social media would suggest.

For me the critical things we have to do are:

1. Ensure we don't get to the point where the health system is again overwhelmed by covid patients (bad for thse with covid, bad for those with other health problems)

2. Keep schools open.

3. Keep levels in the community low enough that more vulnerable people can stay safe without removing themselves entirely from society (I agree, 'house arrest' is not acceptable or sustainable, but if levels of infection are very high, the risk calculation for vulnerable people is different to where we are now)

4. Follow science. Not just the selected bits of science that support what we want to hear, but the full body of informed opinion which enables assessment of potential scenarios and risks. From a broad reading of evidence, it's clear to me that there is very little certainty about anything yet. And that uncertainty now includes the long term implications on people's health from covid, and the associated impact that could have on the already overloaded health system. Uncertainty is unsurprising, given that we are only nine months into this pandemic. So 'following the science' in practice means making judgements and balancing a very wide range of risks.

Personally, I want to see measures that take the uncertainty into account and which are designed to ensure that we slow the spread down enough that we achieve 1-3, while we sort out the testing and tracing mess.

We started with the basics, reminding people to distance, wash hands, work from home if they can, isolate if they have symptoms. That hasn't been enough so unfortunately we now need to impose and enforce measure to reduce the most important mechanisms of transmission which means mixing of households indoors (I would exclude 'support bubbles' so that people don't get left alone again and I would want to exclude young children as well as it seems well established that the risks of them passing it on are very small indeed).

I suspect, if things don't start to improve with this set of measures we will have to see a close down of bars/restaurants for a while - and if so I sincerely hope, and expect, that the government will be prepared with the financial support required to help that sector through that.

Personally, I remain confident that the likelihood of an effective vaccine arriving within months is pretty high.So I don't see this as an endless cycle. A vaccine may not be the instant magic bullet many are hoping for, but it will provide a clearer path out of this. And even without a vaccine, if we manage this wave without it getting out of control, we'll have yet higher levels of immunity and we are another step towards a sustainable situation. There may be further waves, but the impact of each will be less and thus the response can be moderated more each time.


I suspect 99% of people now accept that the government has screwed this up badly.
We shouldn't be where we are. We should be in control. We shouldn't need to be taking these measures. We should have far better testing and far better tracing.

But we don't. So we need to do something until we do.

Post of the month

 

[The Wizard]

Won’t quote the replies as I know how annoying pages of quotes are Some valid points, I understand different opinions but I think the government need to admit the virus will never be eradicated, we cant go on repeating restriction cycles in the hope of a phantom vaccine, we just can’t, and who’s to say people will even want the vaccine? Unless they are going to mandate it which is a whole new level of insane. Even if it is showing good signs now, there is a reason vaccines take years to develop, normally because problems take a while to reveal themselves.

We need to accept the virus is here to stay, give the option to the vulnerable to shield on full pay, so that people are not financially screwed by having to keep themselves safe and give people the option as to whether they want to lock themselves away for potentially another 3 months or even longer, closing pubs and restaurants at 10pm is utterly bizarre, it’s another one of those high impact on the industry decisions that will make little, to no difference in the spread of the virus.

Working from home, another high impact decision, ok, some people have enjoyed it but working from home drove me insane, I hate not having the routine and lack of socialising has led to me becoming a bit of a social recluse to be honest. I wonder how many people are similar, I don’t think my mental state of mind has ever been worse.

Of course, this government has made a total mess of nearly everything but look all across nearly the whole of Europe, restrictions release a little, the virus cases go up dramatically, total eradication won’t happen and as long as the virus doesn’t just vanish into thin air, it’s always going to come back when restrictions loosen. Are we really going to pin every hope of getting back to anywhere near normal in the next year, on a vaccine that may never come, and I say get back to normal but it won’t be normal because the country is going to be in economic ruin and depression.

Keeping schools open is something that is vital, but it’s not going to happen if the government continue with the policy of sending entire year groups home to self isolate for 2 weeks when one student tests positive, I think the last number I saw was 1 in 2000 people currently have the virus, which is probably much higher in the 11-18 age group, schools are going to be shut down for weeks. Oh but don’t worry if your kids get sent home for 2 weeks, they can go to their grandparents Unbelievable.

 

[Swansman]

I'll follow up, that Anders Tegnell, Sweden's chief epidemiologist and the architect of their approach, was interviewed by Andrew Neill recently and it was an interesting watch.

First of all Tegnell himself stated that no-one has "done well," before describing the Swedish model. Key points he made:

- Every country is different and has different challenges (he noted, when asked why the UK had moved away from a Swedish-style to a harsher set of restrictions, that in the UK, infections and hospitalisations had started shooting upwards, while in Sweden, they'd had a slower rate to contend with and were able to impose less restrictions)

- The idea is to find the minimum set of restrictions that stop the virus increasing its spread and start to bring it down - and STICK WITH THEM. No chopping and changing, no increases, decreases, and re-increases. With a sustained set, people can adapt to them.

- It does mean you take more deaths and economic damage up front, but it can be more sustainable in the longer term.

So, based on Tegnell's thinking, what should the UK model should look like?

As we're having a surge in cases and hospitalisations, it suggests that the level of restrictions as of August and early September is not at the minimum level needed to control the virus. Under the Swedish Model, we now need to increase restrictions to the level that the spread just about starts to come down, and then stick with that level. No lifting unless or until we are absolutely certain that the virus won't surge again.

So, for example, the Rule of Six should be here to stay. If we need to increase restrictions today, as seems likely, the Swedish model suggests that they should remain in place. The aim is not to overshoot the minimum amount of restrictions needed to start bringing the virus spread down.

Advocates of the Swedish model seem to think it's a case of "something-something-less restrictions and for some magic reason it all goes away." It's really not that.

Exactly. For the first months we had some of the loosest rules (no lockdown, still able to go to - heavily regulated - pubs etc) and for the last months we've had some of the harshest (no 'test events', still not allowing any attendance at sports events etc). Its not some kind of do-whatever-the-****-you-want strategy like some might believe. Consistency is the key - none of the "this is a good week, lets loosen up a bit" or "this is a bad week, lets enforce some new things".

Personally I think its the right way to go, not least psychologically. We are not fed with one spoon false hope one day and then one spoon of doomsday panic the next and we've been made aware that this is a marathon and not a sprint.

It pretty much comes down not only to science but also politics. A lot of state leaders right now are the populist kind that will say and do anything people want to hear in every given moment rather than sticking with an idea even if there's some occasional public criticism. Swedish prime minister Löfven is no world beater and not full of radical ideas but he is very modest and a vacuum personality wise, which is pretty different from the flamboyant "radical" Trump-types that are currently in fashion (in arguably the worst possible time to have leaders like that).

 

[beorhthelm]

For me the critical things we have to do are:

1. Ensure we don't get to the point where the health system is again overwhelmed by covid patients (bad for thse with covid, bad for those with other health problems)

2. Keep schools open.

3. Keep levels in the community low enough that more vulnerable people can stay safe without removing themselves entirely from society (I agree, 'house arrest' is not acceptable or sustainable, but if levels of infection are very high, the risk calculation for vulnerable people is different to where we are now)

what if these points are compatible? if the best way to protect the NHS and keep schools open is to keep vulnerable in a supported, semi-locked down state?

so far the policy seems to be to keep every one out of maxium lockdown, until we reach a point needing to keep everyone in increasing levels of lockdown. if we focus on who needs to be in lockdown, we have more leeway. that is what the science tells us btw.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Keeping schools open is something that is vital, but it’s not going to happen if the government continue with the policy of sending entire year groups home to self isolate for 2 weeks when one student tests positive,

I was asked what Germany is doing different. One example is from the Frau’s school as a child (or his family; can’t remember) was positive and then a huge contact tracing and testing operation of the pupil bubble,teachers, family, etc directed by the local authorities, swung into action. This identified two positive households; they self-isolated, everyone else was back in school within a couple of days. She said it’s quite impressive the way the protocol just swings into action. She (a teacher) had training before the term started....and has been tested herself twice so far.

 

[Megazone]

It's still an anecdote you've put on here without any evidencerl]

How can I prove that the Lanes and North Laine were crammed yesterday and the 2m social distancing was not being respected?

That was my point. E77's point was that the vast majority of people are obeying the rules.

 

[Guinness Boy]

How can I prove that the Lanes and North Laine were crammed yesterday and the 2m social distancing was not being respected?

That was my point. E77's point was that the vast majority of people are obeying the rules.

And you haven't disproved it in any way. Were the people in John St at that same time social distancing? Were there more or less people in John St? How about The Level? Portland Road? Bellingham Crescent? Did you take a photo of this shocking breach?

 

[beorhthelm]

I was asked what Germany is doing different. One example is from the Frau’s school as a child (or his family; can’t remember) was positive and then a huge contact tracing and testing operation of the pupil bubble,teachers, family, etc directed by the local authorities, swung into action. This identified two positive households; they self-isolated, everyone else was back in school within a couple of days. She said it’s quite impressive the way the protocol just swings into action. She (a teacher) had training before the term started....and has been tested herself twice so far.

we are supposed to have simialr policy. bizarrely the standard procedures for infectious diesease control, supposed to managed by local health authorities has been dispensed with and noone seems to know why or when this changed.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

thanks. doesnt match the pie chart though, wheres that from? i suspect the source has done cumulative numbers. though the report shows a large spike of over 85 in that week.

Let me try and find it again

This sort of follows the same lines

https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1308352230316179457?s=20

 

[Weststander]

Depends what you mean by 'harsh'

I suspect we may disagree a bit, but not by as much as the crude divisions of opinion on 'lockdown vs no lockdown' encouraged by social media would suggest.

For me the critical things we have to do are:

1. Ensure we don't get to the point where the health system is again overwhelmed by covid patients (bad for thse with covid, bad for those with other health problems)

2. Keep schools open.

3. Keep levels in the community low enough that more vulnerable people can stay safe without removing themselves entirely from society (I agree, 'house arrest' is not acceptable or sustainable, but if levels of infection are very high, the risk calculation for vulnerable people is different to where we are now)

4. Follow science. Not just the selected bits of science that support what we want to hear, but the full body of informed opinion which enables assessment of potential scenarios and risks. From a broad reading of evidence, it's clear to me that there is very little certainty about anything yet. And that uncertainty now includes the long term implications on people's health from covid, and the associated impact that could have on the already overloaded health system. Uncertainty is unsurprising, given that we are only nine months into this pandemic. So 'following the science' in practice means making judgements and balancing a very wide range of risks.

Excellent post, totally agree.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

There HAS to be support for these jobs or millions are out of work.

 

[Megazone]

And you haven't disproved it in any way. Were the people in John St at that same time social distancing? Were there more or less people in John St? How about The Level? Portland Road? Bellingham Crescent? Did you take a photo of this shocking breach?

I only mentioned the Lanes and North Laine were crammed and it didn't look like the vast majority in these areas were respecting the 2m social distancing in relation to someone saying the vast majority are respecting the rules?
Where have I mentioned all these other places you've mentioned?

The level has had a fun fair going on it so I don't see your point there? Portland Rd, St John Street and Bellingham Crescent aren’t places in the city centre where people will go shopping and eat out. 2m social distancing on empty streets is a forgone conclusion. It's like trying to compare Wembley stadium to Withdean stadium in crowd noise. A ridiculous comparison.

E77 said the vast majority are respecting the rules. Why aren't you challenging him with the same approach with Proof?

You were doing so well GB yesterday. You didn't jump on any of my posts. Don't let it slip.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

BJ just mentioned in the House of Commons 'military support' for the police where necessary

 

[Weststander]

I'll follow up, that Anders Tegnell, Sweden's chief epidemiologist and the architect of their approach, was interviewed by Andrew Neill recently and it was an interesting watch.

First of all Tegnell himself stated that no-one has "done well," before describing the Swedish model. Key points he made:

- Every country is different and has different challenges (he noted, when asked why the UK had moved away from a Swedish-style to a harsher set of restrictions, that in the UK, infections and hospitalisations had started shooting upwards, while in Sweden, they'd had a slower rate to contend with and were able to impose less restrictions)

- The idea is to find the minimum set of restrictions that stop the virus increasing its spread and start to bring it down - and STICK WITH THEM. No chopping and changing, no increases, decreases, and re-increases. With a sustained set, people can adapt to them.

- It does mean you take more deaths and economic damage up front, but it can be more sustainable in the longer term.

So, based on Tegnell's thinking, what should the UK model should look like?

As we're having a surge in cases and hospitalisations, it suggests that the level of restrictions as of August and early September is not at the minimum level needed to control the virus. Under the Swedish Model, we now need to increase restrictions to the level that the spread just about starts to come down, and then stick with that level. No lifting unless or until we are absolutely certain that the virus won't surge again.

So, for example, the Rule of Six should be here to stay. If we need to increase restrictions today, as seems likely, the Swedish model suggests that they should remain in place. The aim is not to overshoot the minimum amount of restrictions needed to start bringing the virus spread down.

Advocates of the Swedish model seem to think it's a case of "something-something-less restrictions and for some magic reason it all goes away." It's really not that.

To clarify, I don't think you're advocating Tegnell's overall strategy from start to finish in any way, instead picking up that it could be a good thing to not flip on restrictions as the waves come and go?

I'd be interested to know how exactly the Danes for example have managed this so well? Do they reimpose restrictions or not?

 

[Guinness Boy]

I only mentioned the Lanes and North Laine were crammed and it didn't look like the vast majority in these areas were respecting the 2m social distancing in relation to someone saying the vast majority are respecting the rules?
Where have I mentioned all these other places you've mentioned?

The level has had a fun fair going on it so I don't see your point there? Portland Rd, St John Street and Bellingham Crescent aren’t places in the city centre where people will go shopping and eat out. 2m social distancing on empty streets is a forgone conclusion. It's like trying to compare Wembley stadium to Withdean stadium in crowd noise. A ridiculous comparison.

E77 said the vast majority are respecting the rules. Why aren't you challenging him with the same approach with Proof?

You were doing so well GB yesterday. You didn't jump on any of my posts. Don't let it slip.

I'm jumping on this one because you're talking bollocks. If the majority of people were disobeying the rules I'd expect you to be able to state that with more than one personal anecdote. If the majorty are not breaching them then, by natural mathematical default, the majority are observing the rules. But you've conveniently ignored the example of Bolton i gave you with source documented which appears to show the virus can be "super spread" by a relatvely small number of people.

Frankly, if everyone was disobeying the rules I'd expect Whittey to be talking about a lot more cases than 50K a day. However, I expect you'd be doing exactly as you please and thus not have anything to complain about on here.