New coronavirus in/from China

[Catweazle]

Proponents of lifting lockdown sooner rather than later need to realise that *without* effective containment lockdown will just be reimposed again as exponential growth resumes.

I think the idea is that the 80% who will not be seriously affected will be unlocked, the remaining 20% will be shielded, thus the inevitable leakage to the 20% should be slow enough so as not to overwhelm the NHS, and with luck slow enough to allow a vaccine to protect them before too many die.

If a vaccine is never developed then we will have shortened many peoples lives by making it impossible for the 20% to avoid the virus long-term.

If the virus has serious affects we don't know about yet we will have let it loose on the public.

If long term immunity does not occur we will have unleashed an endemic, mutating virus, forever.

Even if we managed to isolate it Covid19 will be live around the world and easily weaponised by any wannabe jihadist with a passport.

If we lockdown much longer millions will die from the economic effects.

Face it, we're f***ed.

[vtsnowedin]

They have two hundred or more in a single building for a reason. Because that many children are involved. In what way are, by your own reckoning, day care centres going to be able to cope with the numbers of kids needing to be somewhere while their parents are at work?

Children over thirteen are quite often left to their own devises in the summer months with a neighbor or relative keeping an eye on them or in close phone contact. Older ones often act as babysitters for younger siblings. Preschoolers are going to be in a daycare year round anyway so there is about a third of the problem.
So your day cares have a small consistent group day to day and if one does get infected it would be easy to contact trace the rest and their families. But your one case that rides in on a bus to school and goes through the hallway rush between classes and the cafeteria line exposes the whole 200+ staff and their families. See the difference?

[fuzzy]

The army gets danger pay for active service, so they can run the schools and daycare centres - what could possibly go wrong?

[vtsnowedin]

Proponents of lifting lockdown sooner rather than later need to realise that *without* effective containment lockdown will just be reimposed again as exponential growth resumes.

I think the idea is that the 80% who will not be seriously affected will be unlocked, the remaining 20% will be shielded, thus the inevitable leakage to the 20% should be slow enough so as not to overwhelm the NHS, and with luck slow enough to allow a vaccine to protect them before too many die.

If a vaccine is never developed then we will have shortened many peoples lives by making it impossible for the 20% to avoid the virus long-term.

No we will have failed to extend them to where they were going to be before Covid-19 happened. We are not shortening lives the virus is.

If the virus has serious affects we don't know about yet we will have let it loose on the public.

It is already lose and whatever serious effects it gives we are going to get. like it or not.

If long term immunity does not occur we will have unleashed an endemic, mutating virus, forever.

We do not have a leash on it and it already will be with us forever.

Even if we managed to isolate it Covid19 will be live around the world and easily weaponised by any wannabe jihadist with a passport.

It is impossible to isolate it but fortunately it makes a poor weapon except for over reactions with the economy. We will learn not to give it that advantage.

If we lockdown much longer millions will die from the economic effects.

Face it, we're f***ed.

Yes, and we are ,but like an outraged debutante we will straighten up and carry on.

[Catweazle]

VT, you write as if nothing can stop this threat, but remember that we have already stopped an exponential rise and turned it to a downward trend.

We could (in the 1st world) , if we wanted to dedicate enough resources, get this under control. The cost would be enormous, it would cripple us, it will not happen because of the cost.

[vtsnowedin]

VT, you write as if nothing can stop this threat, but remember that we have already stopped an exponential rise and turned it to a downward trend.

We could (in the 1st world) , if we wanted to dedicate enough resources, get this under control. The cost would be enormous, it would cripple us, it will not happen because of the cost.

Yes that is my view of the situation. And no I don't think the west has enough resources to control it. We have created a pause or slowed it's rate but at enormous cost we can not sustain.
The lockdowns are what is crippling us. Also even with the best of efforts it will keep coming back from some backwater where it avoided eradication.
Without a highly effective vaccine and long term immunity similar to what we get with measles and small pox there is no chance of eradicating it. And this is an entirely different villain that works on different levels then small pox.

[boisdevie]

VT, you write as if nothing can stop this threat

IF you are healthy why is it a 'threat'. It's this kind of language that's led to people shitting themselves.

[Little John]

VT, you write as if nothing can stop this threat, but remember that we have already stopped an exponential rise and turned it to a downward trend.

We could (in the 1st world) , if we wanted to dedicate enough resources, get this under control. The cost would be enormous, it would cripple us, it will not happen because of the cost.

Stop being hyperbolic. It's not a "threat" to 80% of the population

Based on the official known data drawn from several countries and provided to you in the chart I posted earlier, which part of the CFR (I have used the worst data available for each age group):

0% of children between 0 and 9 years
0.2% of children between 10 and 19 years
0.22% of adults between 20 and 29
0.3% of adults between 30 and 39
0.4% of adults between 40 and 49
1.3% of adults between 50 and 59
3.6% of adults between the ages of 60 and 69
12.8% of adults between the ages of 70 and 79
20.2% of adults between the ages of 80 and 89

do you not understand?

Additionally, to repeat, the above data is based on the case fatality rate. Given there will be a reservoir of unreported cases, the infection fatality rate is likely to be lower still

[clv101]

Well for one thing it does not grow exponentially and the word is used to scare people. We can not lock down a second time as we can not afford it emotionally or financially.

Of course it's grows exponentially, thats what R>1 means. It's a horribly misused term, but I use it correctly here.

I guarantee additional restrictions will be reimposed if, after lockdown is lifted R increases significantly above 1 again, as evidenced by exponentially rising hospital admissions.

The key is to avoid that scenario, by a decent programme of testing, tracing, isolation and wearing of masks in public. That's the toolkit that facilitates freedom *without* increasing R. Any country unlocking without that in place is on the fast track to rapid spread and a second lockdown.

[Little John]

Well for one thing it does not grow exponentially and the word is used to scare people. We can not lock down a second time as we can not afford it emotionally or financially.

Of course it's grows exponentially, thats what R>1 means. It's a horribly misused term, but I use it correctly here.

I guarantee additional restrictions will be reimposed if, after lockdown is lifted R increases significantly above 1 again, as evidenced by exponentially rising hospital admissions.

The key is to avoid that scenario, by a decent programme of testing, tracing, isolation and wearing of masks in public. That's the toolkit that facilitates freedom *without* increasing R. Any country unlocking without that in place is on the fast track to rapid spread and a second lockdown.

So, explain why the locking down of the elderly and those with co-morbidities, whilst leaving the rest of the country to become infected and recover, leads to "exponentially rising" hospital admissions given that, in CFR terms, the following people die of Covid 19 (the numbers are based on the worst possible data available for each age group):

0% of children between 0 and 9 years
0.2% of children between 10 and 19 years
0.22% of adults between 20 and 29
0.3% of adults between 30 and 39
0.4% of adults between 40 and 49
1.3% of adults between 50 and 59
3.6% of adults between the ages of 60 and 69
12.8% of adults between the ages of 70 and 79
20.2% of adults between the ages of 80 and 89

Additionally, to repeat yet again, the above data is based on the case fatality rate. Given there will be a reservoir of unreported cases, the infection fatality rate is likely to be lower still

[Little John]

I'm still waiting for an answer CLV

So, explain why the locking down of the elderly and those with co-morbidities, whilst leaving the rest of the country to become infected and recover, leads to "exponentially rising" hospital admissions given that, in CFR terms, the following people die of Covid 19 (the numbers are based on the worst possible data available for each age group):

0% of children between 0 and 9 years
0.2% of children between 10 and 19 years
0.22% of adults between 20 and 29
0.3% of adults between 30 and 39
0.4% of adults between 40 and 49
1.3% of adults between 50 and 59
3.6% of adults between the ages of 60 and 69
12.8% of adults between the ages of 70 and 79
20.2% of adults between the ages of 80 and 89

Additionally, to repeat yet again, the above data is based on the case fatality rate. Given there will be a reservoir of unreported cases, the infection fatality rate is likely to be lower still

[Catweazle]

Stop being hyperbolic. It's not a "threat" to 80% of the population

If it's a threat to 20% of the population then it's a threat.

You really do write some rubbish recently, have a look at your older rational,
reasonable posts for evidence of your decline.

[Little John]

Stop being hyperbolic. It's not a "threat" to 80% of the population

If it's a threat to 20% of the population then it's a threat.

You really do write some rubbish recently, have a look at your older rational,
reasonable posts for evidence of your decline.

Nobody on here has said it is not a threat to the elderly and those with comorbidities. You have yet to explain, however, why anyone other than the elderly and those with comorbidities should be locked down. Care to do that now?

Or, are you going to continue to attempt to aim ever more silly comments at the messenger as opposed to address the message?

We both know why you are going down that road though, don't we. It's because it's all you have left now the evidence is clear. A total lock-down, as well as being economically disastrous for the generations to come, having no end in sight until herd immunity is reached in any event and not even being necessary for 80% of the population, is heralding a real life enactment of Orwell's 1984.

Stop digging would be my advice. Not that you'll take it, of course. So emotionally invested are you in your chosen narrative, the cognitive dissonance of admitting your mistake is now too great to allow for that.

[clv101]

I'm still waiting for an answer CLV

So, explain why the locking down of the elderly and those with co-morbidities, whilst leaving the rest of the country to become infected and recover, leads to "exponentially rising" hospital admissions given that, in CFR terms, the following people die of Covid 19 (the numbers are based on the worst possible data available for each age group)...

You still get exponentially rising admissions (just at a lower absolute amount) if ever the R is over 1, even if you manage to partially (it would only ever be partially) shield the the majority of those worst effected. I suggested such a shielding of the vulnerable myself several hundred pages back and it may well come to that, but I don't think it works.

Say we need 70% of population to have been infected to achieve heard immunity in the UK - you're suggesting we can achieve that whilst locking down the elderly and those with co-morbidities. This doesn't work. The population is not 'well mixed', it's no good having 70% of the whole population being immune if only 3% of the over 70s are because they were locked down. The virus will get into their community and spread unchecked through the clubs, societies, churches, care homes etc.

Such a lock down is very problematic - we've already failed badly within the care home setting, why weren't we able to effectively isolate those very obvious and already highly controlled vulnerables? By their nature the elderly and those with co-morbidities rely on significant contact with others for either essential support or the social draw of grand children.

Nice idea but I don't think it works. No need to reinvent the wheel, growing list of counties now showing what does work.

[Little John]

I'm still waiting for an answer CLV

So, explain why the locking down of the elderly and those with co-morbidities, whilst leaving the rest of the country to become infected and recover, leads to "exponentially rising" hospital admissions given that, in CFR terms, the following people die of Covid 19 (the numbers are based on the worst possible data available for each age group)...

You still get exponentially rising admissions (just at a lower absolute amount) if ever the R is over 1, even if you manage to partially (it would only ever be partially) shield the the majority of those worst effected. I suggested such a shielding of the vulnerable myself several hundred pages back and it may well come to that, but I don't think it works.

Say we need 70% of population to have been infected to achieve heard immunity in the UK - you're suggesting we can achieve that whilst locking down the elderly and those with co-morbidities. This doesn't work. The population is not 'well mixed', it's no good having 70% of the whole population being immune if only 3% of the over 70s are because they were locked down. The virus will get into their community and spread unchecked through the clubs, societies, churches, care homes etc.

Such a lock down is very problematic - we've already failed badly within the care home setting, why weren't we able to effectively isolate those very obvious and already highly controlled vulnerables? By their nature the elderly and those with co-morbidities rely on significant contact with others for either essential support or the social draw of grand children.

Nice idea but I don't think it works. No need to reinvent the wheel, growing list of counties now showing what does work.

I have already stated, times too numerous to calculate, that nobody here is suggesting a completely unnatenuated let it rip scenario. Which is what you are implying above. Instead, the elderly and comorbid should continue to be locked down whilst allowing the other 80% of the population to become infected. In which case, if enacted properly, there would be no "exponential rise" in hospital admissions and you know it. abnd, if your response to that is that it would be done badly, then by what metric do you calculate it would be done any better with a full, far more logistically challenging full lock-down. But, then, you already know the answer to that. It would be done terribly since that is where we currently are.

If the lock-down is applied to a limited 20% of the population, the logistics involved will be significantly reduced in complexity. And as for the reason why the care sector has been so badly hit, that is due to care workers being the primary vector, not relatives. And the reason that care workers have been such serious vectors is due to a lack of proper PPE. Again, something that would logistically be far easier to manage with only 20% of the population. Finally for those elderly not in care homes, the most frail of them (which are the bulk of Covid-19 deaths) are all visited by those same care workers with all of the problems of infection I have mentioned above. Again, not relatives as the main vectors.

But, no. Your preferred solution is to enact "tracking and tracing" in perpetuity - which is just a euphemism for surveillance in perpetuity of the entire population - which will not end until herd immunity is reached at some indeterminate point in the future. Or, to put it another way - never.

All in order to "protect us" of course.

But, then, none of this surprises me. It's an entirely predictable position of the liberal left who are, of course, neither liberal or left when push comes to shove. We learned that between 2016 and 2019. The "liberal left" are, in fact, something much older. They are the bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie. This is true whether or not it is understood by them or acknowledged.

Their allegiance is always to power and authority - especially if it validates their own bigotry - and their function is to be hand wringing apologists for it at best and unabashed cheerleaders for it at worst.

They adopt different cultural masks to suit the zeitgeist of the day. But, their true allegiances never change underneath. Today, that mask takes the form of liberal leftism. But, in case anyone hasn't already noticed, the mask is slipping.

It slipped in 2016 and it is slipping now.