|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2020 19:51:05 GMT
Some of the points making reference to the lack of return to offices and the impact this is having on cities and towns are worth mentioning as this will have a direct impact on peoples livelihoods and jobs. I wasn't saying I agreed with everything she says but the comparison with other countries and the percentage of those who have returned to working in offices is worth mentioning. There will be a real threat that a lot of businesses will go under. I think that is a valid point that can be made. It was a perfectly valid link to post, and a well-written piece that drew on multiple sources to form its conclusions. I didn’t find much to disagree with when I read it this morning myself. It's superficially reasonable, but one thing I noticed is that it completely brushes aside the real cost of what is being proposed. The basic suggestion is that we shouldn't worry about controlling this disease and just let it run through the population. After all, the number of infections is low at the moment, the median age of fatalities is high, and the fatality rate amongst people who are working is fairly low. All sounds reasonable, doesn't it? And many people are actually believing it. But let's think in detail about what this actually means. The number of infections is low at the moment but only because we're working hard at keeping it there. This disease has exponential growth, and exponential growth is staggeringly fast and its mathematical limit is infinity. (Obviously in the real world it can't infect an infinite number of people so it's bounded by the population size.) It isn't something that will slow down by itself. If it's growing at all it won't slow down until it runs out of people to infect. When people point out that the infection level is low at the moment they're hoping you'll assume it will stay that way all by itself. That simply isn't true. Then there's the idea that the median age of fatalities is high so most people don't have to worry. Some people have called this the "f— the elderly" approach. It's fine if you assume that all the elderly can be isolated for as long as necessary and there is no way for the disease to jump across that isolation, but does anyone truly believe that it's possible to maintain absolute isolation in that way? Spoiler: it isn't. We've already tried and the disease still got through. And even if we could, is that a reasonable way to treat our older relatives? Personally I'm none too keen on the idea that I can never see my father or aunt again. And then there's the fatality rate of 0.5%. That sounds low, and it is low when you're talking about a few thousand infected people. But remember, this article is talking about not controlling the virus. Her whole point is that we shouldn't worry about it. We should get back to work. We should let it spread. But see my paragraph two above this one: that means it reaches nearly everyone. We're talking about 0.5% of the entire UK population dying. I'm not going to work that out for you. Work it out for yourself. See for yourself how many deaths are purportedly reasonable. And then add into the consideration the fact that we now know that this isn't a catch-it-once-and-you're-immune-forever disease. You'll keep catching it, like a cold. And each time it will have a chance of killing you. It may be that it will have a lower chance of killing you the second time around because the reason you survived the first time was because you're fitter than those who died. Or it may be more likely to kill you because we now know it causes long-term organ damage in first-time survivors that could make you more vulnerable next time. So work out how many people will die. Actually write down the number and look at it. Is it still worth it? Chances are most of the "get back to normal no matter what the cost" people simply won't accept the figures, even if they work them out for themselves. But how are they to be avoided? So far not one single person has been able to come up with any explanation of how those deaths won't happen. There's just outright denial. "I want my old life back so the deaths just can't happen." That's how things were back in April, May and June. That's not how they will be going forward, because we're keeping the disease under control now. If we don't keep a lid on this then the NHS will be overwhelmed again. I struggle to understand the reasoning that thinks the best way to make sure there are resources available for non-Covid-19 patients is to allow the number of Covid-19 sufferers to increase. Unless the approach to Covid-19 being recommended is to basically shove everyone who gets it off somewhere out of sight with no treatment and if they die then sucks to be them. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2020 20:03:39 GMT
I see it as merely hastening a trend that was already happening. I work from home full time but I know quite a few people who, even before Covid-19, were only expected to go in to a central location a couple of days a week. No, not in the slightest. People in the City were, on the whole, working remotely maybe one or two days a week, if that. The City was packed with people every single day. Now it is a ghost town (I should know, I was in the office last week). There may have been a trend towards remote working, but it is one that has gone from 10 mph to 100 mph in a matter of weeks. That has a huge impact on so many people and so many jobs. The economic impact of this pandemic cannot be understated, as it causes so many consequential issues for so many people. Despite what some people seem to think, this is not just a medical issue, and we're now at the stage where the medical and economic impacts need to be treated as equally important, at least. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2020 21:23:55 GMT
The economic impact of this pandemic cannot be understated, as it causes so many consequential issues for so many people. Despite what some people seem to think, this is not just a medical issue, and we're now at the stage where the medical and economic impacts need to be treated as equally important, at least. Nobody thinks it's just a medical issue; that's a strawman that people keep pulling out whenever they want to argue that everything should be opened up no matter what it takes. And the economic impact is being treated seriously, which is why so many things have already reopened and why the government has launched incentive schemes to encourage people to get out and spend money. As you say, both the economic impact and the medical impact need to be considered, but you'll notice that the article linked earlier disregards the medical impact as scaremongering and glosses over the death toll as inconsequential. It's a balancing act, and it's one that needs ongoing observation and adjustment. As I understand it the government is trying to hold us right on the edge: open up as much of the economy as is possible without allowing the disease to wrest control of the situation away from us. I think that's absolutely the right approach. That's not enough for some people: they want the economic impact to be the only consideration no matter what the humanitarian cost. But you'll notice not a single one of them mentions what that cost will be. The fact that nearly every government in the world is following much the same strategy suggests that it's probably the correct one. It's not as if they're all being misled into believing in a disease that isn't actually a problem. |
|
952 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Aug 8, 2020 22:40:35 GMT
The problem is a lot of her argument doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny.
Alcohol sales up 40%, well that's off trade so are people actually drinking more or just consuming differently given their not fully back in pubs and restaurants. She doesn't say, she's just trying to find a stat that fits her opinion. At this point many companies have reopened to give workers the choice but people aren't taking it. So why does she think forcing people back to the office against their will is going to improve their mental health.
Medical experts are doom and gloom merchants to fear a second wave, and so what? How does that make their opinion wrong. She offers no real argument there. Does she really not understand why it might be a good idea to close one potential major contributor in spreading the virus if we are so committed to opening another or is it just pretending ignorance for effect.
And how would NHS care of other conditions improve if Corona started running unchecked through the population again. I'd take her more seriously there if she hadn't been supporting a government who had been underfunding the NHS for the last 10 years.
Similarly its interesting her ilk suddenly care about major city centre shops and services when they haven't given a damm about the decline of local high streets for the last 20 years.
Lifelong campaigner for equality is a bit of an over claim for someone who's only focus has been to get as many rich women on company boards as there are rich men.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2020 16:50:21 GMT
Cases have gone over 1,000 a day for the first time since the end of June. I'm hoping that this is the upsurge from a few weeks back before more lockdowns were imposed up North and in Aberdeen. Also the scorcher on the last day of July plus EID etc. But seeing the crammed bars and beaches on TV this weekend I can see the numbers going higher. We have the schools opening in Scotland this week so how that runs and early data from it will need to be watched closely.
There is no way you can let something like this run through the population as death rates would be high even if we protected the most vulnerable. Also losing a percentage of fitter people and being left with the more vulnerable might be worse than survival of the fittest. We've read how this can be fatal to perfectly healthy people or they need lots of time to recover or may never recover. It could be like other afflictions, it could weaken you long term or mean you cannot do what you did before. This would be a real issue for those with manual jobs before you factor in extra healthcare costs across the lifetimes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2020 19:10:38 GMT
It was a perfectly valid link to post, and a well-written piece that drew on multiple sources to form its conclusions. I didn’t find much to disagree with when I read it this morning myself. It's superficially reasonable, but one thing I noticed is that it completely brushes aside the real cost of what is being proposed. The basic suggestion is that we shouldn't worry about controlling this disease and just let it run through the population. After all, the number of infections is low at the moment, the median age of fatalities is high, and the fatality rate amongst people who are working is fairly low. All sounds reasonable, doesn't it? And many people are actually believing it. But let's think in detail about what this actually means. The number of infections is low at the moment but only because we're working hard at keeping it there. This disease has exponential growth, and exponential growth is staggeringly fast and its mathematical limit is infinity. (Obviously in the real world it can't infect an infinite number of people so it's bounded by the population size.) It isn't something that will slow down by itself. If it's growing at all it won't slow down until it runs out of people to infect. When people point out that the infection level is low at the moment they're hoping you'll assume it will stay that way all by itself. That simply isn't true. Then there's the idea that the median age of fatalities is high so most people don't have to worry. Some people have called this the "f— the elderly" approach. It's fine if you assume that all the elderly can be isolated for as long as necessary and there is no way for the disease to jump across that isolation, but does anyone truly believe that it's possible to maintain absolute isolation in that way? Spoiler: it isn't. We've already tried and the disease still got through. And even if we could, is that a reasonable way to treat our older relatives? Personally I'm none too keen on the idea that I can never see my father or aunt again. And then there's the fatality rate of 0.5%. That sounds low, and it is low when you're talking about a few thousand infected people. But remember, this article is talking about not controlling the virus. Her whole point is that we shouldn't worry about it. We should get back to work. We should let it spread. But see my paragraph two above this one: that means it reaches nearly everyone. We're talking about 0.5% of the entire UK population dying. I'm not going to work that out for you. Work it out for yourself. See for yourself how many deaths are purportedly reasonable. And then add into the consideration the fact that we now know that this isn't a catch-it-once-and-you're-immune-forever disease. You'll keep catching it, like a cold. And each time it will have a chance of killing you. It may be that it will have a lower chance of killing you the second time around because the reason you survived the first time was because you're fitter than those who died. Or it may be more likely to kill you because we now know it causes long-term organ damage in first-time survivors that could make you more vulnerable next time. So work out how many people will die. Actually write down the number and look at it. Is it still worth it? Chances are most of the "get back to normal no matter what the cost" people simply won't accept the figures, even if they work them out for themselves. But how are they to be avoided? So far not one single person has been able to come up with any explanation of how those deaths won't happen. There's just outright denial. "I want my old life back so the deaths just can't happen." That's how things were back in April, May and June. That's not how they will be going forward, because we're keeping the disease under control now. If we don't keep a lid on this then the NHS will be overwhelmed again. I struggle to understand the reasoning that thinks the best way to make sure there are resources available for non-Covid-19 patients is to allow the number of Covid-19 sufferers to increase. Unless the approach to Covid-19 being recommended is to basically shove everyone who gets it off somewhere out of sight with no treatment and if they die then sucks to be them. Too many points to address here individually, I’m afraid, but most seem to stem from the fact you think the writer doesn’t care about infection rates and is happy to prioritise economy over health at all costs. I didn’t get that from the article at all. What she is suggesting is that we take a sensible, balanced view of the COVID risks, then a sensible, balanced view of the economic risks, and decide accordingly. She makes convincing arguments about unemployment figure forecasts, and the fact the government can’t keep paying out forever - those costs will come back to us taxpayers eventually (assuming we have salaries to pay them). On the NHS - it’s been underfunded by successive governments, not just Tory ones. We’re an ageing and, crucially, unhealthy population - a factor that sadly seems to have proven significant in the outcomes of many COVID cases. If we started watching our weight/drinking less/not taking drugs/not smoking, just think how much we’d save the NHS on treating avoidable health conditions! (Can you tell I’ve been preached at by a few people who work in the NHS?!) But on delays in treatment - I’m sure they’ll still be happening, sadly. For example, I still can’t get a face-to-face GP appointment (nor even on video) and neither can my elderly parents. People usually get sent to a hospital specialist because their GP spots something that may be concerning from a cancer/heart/whatever point of view. So... no GP appointments is bound to equate to a drop in diagnoses of serious conditions. I’m also genuinely interested to know if the NHS was ever overwhelmed by COVID cases? I keep hearing it being claimed anecdotally but are there definitive figures? My sense is that it wasn’t - the emergency hospitals mostly stood empty or treated small numbers of cases (though crucially they’re there if we need them in any second wave). I’m sure hospitals were busier and I know some retired/former staff volunteered to support (sometimes at great risk to themselves). But were any hospitals in the UK ever in a situation where, say, they had to choose which patients to ventilate and which were not worth saving (as I believe happened in Italy)? Is there a non-partisan definition of ‘NHS overwhelmed’, and have we measured against it? |
|
2,762 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by n1david on Aug 9, 2020 21:05:30 GMT
|
|
87 posts
|
Post by justinj on Aug 9, 2020 21:46:09 GMT
I know that cases have gone up but so has the number of people being tested so it's hard to quantify the rise. However what is easy to quantify is the number of people currently in Hospital and also the number of people on ventilators. This has gone down week on week since the peak with no show so far of any rises. From coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcareLatest figures are from 6/7 August There are currently 1067 patients in hospital in the UK with COVID-19 There are currently 67 patients on mechanical ventilators in the UK (because of COVID-19) One week prior to the above dates There were 1183 patients in hospital and 91 on mechanical ventilators. So we can see that it is progressing downwards. I know that it will take a while for cases to progress to hospital admissions but we haven't seen any increases since the pubs opened, the protests, or lockdown was eased so I'm taking it as a positive. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2020 0:30:00 GMT
I know that cases have gone up but so has the number of people being tested so it's hard to quantify the rise. However what is easy to quantify is the number of people currently in Hospital and also the number of people on ventilators. This has gone down week on week since the peak with no show so far of any rises. From coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcareLatest figures are from 6/7 August There are currently 1067 patients in hospital in the UK with COVID-19 There are currently 67 patients on mechanical ventilators in the UK (because of COVID-19) One week prior to the above dates There were 1183 patients in hospital and 91 on mechanical ventilators. So we can see that it is progressing downwards. I know that it will take a while for cases to progress to hospital admissions but we haven't seen any increases since the pubs opened, the protests, or lockdown was eased so I'm taking it as a positive. Details are here, although number of people tested is lagged, so last figures are for two weeks ago. The two measures that will show any uptick are number of new cases and weekly positivity rate. Hospitalisations are dependent on age profile. covidtracker.uksouth.cloudapp.azure.com |
|
87 posts
|
Post by justinj on Aug 10, 2020 7:38:27 GMT
I know that cases have gone up but so has the number of people being tested so it's hard to quantify the rise. However what is easy to quantify is the number of people currently in Hospital and also the number of people on ventilators. This has gone down week on week since the peak with no show so far of any rises. From coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcareLatest figures are from 6/7 August There are currently 1067 patients in hospital in the UK with COVID-19 There are currently 67 patients on mechanical ventilators in the UK (because of COVID-19) One week prior to the above dates There were 1183 patients in hospital and 91 on mechanical ventilators. So we can see that it is progressing downwards. I know that it will take a while for cases to progress to hospital admissions but we haven't seen any increases since the pubs opened, the protests, or lockdown was eased so I'm taking it as a positive. Details are here, although number of people tested is lagged, so last figures are for two weeks ago. The two measures that will show any uptick are number of new cases and weekly positivity rate. Hospitalisations are dependent on age profile. covidtracker.uksouth.cloudapp.azure.comThe issues with cases though are false positives, targeted testing etc. There can be no arguing with the number of people hospitalised or those on ventilators. Effectively if you have covid-19 seriously enough you will be in hospital. |
|
4,810 posts
|
Post by Mark on Aug 10, 2020 7:50:49 GMT
The hospital numbers are probably the best measure of how things are in the country, and as long as those numbers remain low and manageable that is a good sign.
|
|
2,342 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Aug 10, 2020 7:53:56 GMT
I read somewhere that in the league table of western nations percentage spent on the health of total gdp, Blairs investment only took us up to fighting for european places (upper mid table). Under Thatcher we were fighting relegation and we returned to that point under the coalition. Wonder what Thatcher's 1987 spend was all about? |
|
87 posts
|
Post by justinj on Aug 10, 2020 9:13:27 GMT
The hospital numbers are probably the best measure of how things are in the country, and as long as those numbers remain low and manageable that is a good sign. Yup, I don't think you can argue with the numbers which makes them the best measure in my opinion. |
|
395 posts
|
Post by lichtie on Aug 10, 2020 9:30:46 GMT
The hospital numbers are probably the best measure of how things are in the country, and as long as those numbers remain low and manageable that is a good sign. Yup, I don't think you can argue with the numbers which makes them the best measure in my opinion. It's in keeping with the observation that the demographic of those currently infected has skewed rather dramatically towards younger people (20-40), who we know are less affected, and therefore less likely to need hospitilisation. The danger is that those people transmit it to those at greater risk which is what the local lockdowns are trying to limit (the Preston tag line of don't kill granny perhaps summing it up crudely but accurately). |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2020 11:07:44 GMT
Details are here, although number of people tested is lagged, so last figures are for two weeks ago. The two measures that will show any uptick are number of new cases and weekly positivity rate. Hospitalisations are dependent on age profile. covidtracker.uksouth.cloudapp.azure.comThe issues with cases though are false positives, targeted testing etc. There can be no arguing with the number of people hospitalised or those on ventilators. Effectively if you have covid-19 seriously enough you will be in hospital. False negatives are much more likely. False positives can only lead to people unnecessarily taking safety measures but false negatives are dangerous, as people go around thinking they are clear. The presymptomatic period is particularly a problem. I presume this is why there are many more tests than people tested, many countries test negatives twice as a matter of course. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/895843/S0519_Impact_of_false_positives_and_negatives.pdfThe big problem with hospitalisations is that it doesn’t pick up what has been happening in areas such as around here with tightened measures. Many younger people who are not as ill as older people would be. It also suggests a larger number of asymptomatic cases alongside that (percentage is still unknown with some saying as many again, others much less than that). |
|
87 posts
|
Post by justinj on Aug 10, 2020 11:13:43 GMT
Agreed on that hospitalisations don’t pick up the cases of young people as they aren’t as ill. But these cases may have previously gone undetected. It’s only because of increased testing that these are now being uncovered.
This is why I think that it’s hard to say we are seeing another spike.
If you don’t test you don’t uncover the positives. But the fact that hospitalisations continue to drop as do those on ventilators seems to suggest that the situation is improving.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2020 11:54:39 GMT
Agreed on that hospitalisations don’t pick up the cases of young people as they aren’t as ill. But these cases may have previously gone undetected. It’s only because of increased testing that these are now being uncovered. This is why I think that it’s hard to say we are seeing another spike. If you don’t test you don’t uncover the positives. But the fact that hospitalisations continue to drop as do those on ventilators seems to suggest that the situation is improving. We can only say they *were* improving as both your measures are lagging indicators. They don’t show what is happening now. |
|
87 posts
|
Post by justinj on Aug 10, 2020 13:06:39 GMT
Agreed, but unless there are not any variables then we cant say that the situation is worsening.
|
|
2,504 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Aug 11, 2020 9:46:15 GMT
Putin said Russia has become the first country to grant regulatory approval to a Covid-19 vaccine
President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday that Russia had become the first country in the world to grant regulatory approval to a Covid-19 vaccine after less than two months of human testing, Reuters reports.
Speaking at a government meeting on state television, Putin said the vaccine, developed by Moscow’s Gamaleya Institute, was safe and that it had even been administered to one of his daughters.
“I know that it works quite effectively, forms strong immunity, and I repeat, it has passed all the needed checks,” Putin added.
|
|
5,073 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Aug 11, 2020 17:36:32 GMT
What a great job Putin has done, to already have a vaccine available this quickly and to give it to his daughter. Also amazing they have had 3 times the cases that the UK, have had and only a 1/3 of the amount of deaths, bravo, what a brilliant job, standing ovation from me.
I am just about to do my evening tea, which I need a pinch of salt.
|
|
19,803 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 11, 2020 19:46:44 GMT
I hear Mr Putin will be administering the vaccine personally to every citizen, from the saddle of a horse with his top off.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2020 19:56:49 GMT
Even if all the hype that's undoubtedly been added is stripped away this is going to be something of an embarrassment to Trump, whose leadership* has resulted in a situation where the US now has more new cases each week than we've had in total.
* Possibly the most inaccurate use of the word ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2020 0:13:44 GMT
If our hospital numbers are staying lower then hopefully the mistakes of earlier in the crisis have been learnt from and our mortality rate and hospital admission rates will stay lower and more in line per case numbers with other countries.
|
|
410 posts
|
Post by maggiem on Aug 12, 2020 14:02:12 GMT
I hear Mr Putin will be administering the vaccine personally to every citizen, from the saddle of a horse with his top off. I was thinking more of a flying pig. |
|
2,041 posts
|
Post by 49thand8th on Aug 12, 2020 20:05:46 GMT
Your move, Pasek and Paul!
|
|
