New coronavirus in/from China

[kenneal - lagger]

Unions Join Global Conspiracy Against The Working Class

as train drivers and guards threaten to stop overcrowded trains.

[boisdevie]

Unions Join Global Conspiracy Against The Working Class

as train drivers and guards threaten to stop overcrowded trains.

It seems the the definition of 'safe' has not been changed to mean no risk, ever. The risk of death to the vast majority of people in this country is not that high but we're acting as if Covid will kill us all. It won't but killing the economy stone dead might kill quite a few people more in the long run.

[mikepepler]

According to this testing survey, 1 in 400 people in the UK were infected with virus in the two weeks to 10 May, so about 148,000. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52662066

I know some people here have spent time modelling the figures, so can anyone translate that into how many people might have actually had it so far? My gut feeling, without doing any maths, is it's looking like a relatively small proportion of the population?

[kenneal - lagger]

From Chris' post half way down page 402 and other estimates from elsewhere about 5% of the population has had the disease so still a long way to go, Mike.

[Mean Mr Mustard II]

I know some people here have spent time modelling the figures

Clean outta numbercrunchers here now, I'm afraid. V2 left, and LJ's now angry all the time and scarier than visiting a pharmacy. Alas, I'm not numerate myself, mere CSE Grade 3 Maths and a worthless degree. But I am cynical and Officially Clinically Vulnerable, and so is my wife. (This is where the Cabinet Office meets Life of Brian...)

Hot tip, folks. Go to Aldi / Lidl / Morrisons at 21.00. Six cars in the car park, thus unlikely to meet infected people, (I only saw a copper grabbing milk for the night shift, so asked him where the non-essentail aisle was, how we both laughed.) Wear an optional home-made face covering, and Stay Alert while singing Happy Birthday twice. And - Is Your Journey Really Necessary, and during the day, Dig For Victory.

[kenneal - lagger]

................................It seems the the definition of 'safe' has not been changed to mean no risk, ever. The risk of death to the vast majority of people in this country is not that high but we're acting as if Covid will kill us all. It won't but killing the economy stone dead might kill quite a few people more in the long run.

So we should hermetically seal about a million people in their houses for six months, disinfect all their food supply and then let the infection run riot through the rest of the community in the hope that massive initial doses of the virus won't give younger, fit and healthy people a serious enough infection to make a small proportion of them into hospital cases. If that small proportion were to get hostitalised it would be enough to guarantee to overwhelm the health service and push the death rate up.

That is not to mention the overloading of the health service with the consequence of more health workers being infected and dying and the other consequence of non covid cases not being seen and dying from lack of treatment. There would also be a considerable loss of health workers through exhaustion. But anything goes to save the economy because I'm relatively young and fit and it won't touch me!!

[stumuz1]

Seems to indicate that we've still got an awful long way to go....

Yes

We need to manage the opening up process very carefully....

Yes, but difficult. The NHS when giving out information leaflets on maladies, has to write the explanation leaflet to the educational level of an eleven year old. The Great British public has difficulty with nuances.

Are we capable of preventing a 2nd wave ??

Probably not. But we can reduce the incidence quite a bit.

We are going to have to get used to 'the new normal'

[Mean Mr Mustard II]

The Great British public has difficulty with nuances.

Exactly. How many 11 year olds know what a nuance is, eh. What's wrong with the kids today.

[boisdevie]

................................It seems the the definition of 'safe' has not been changed to mean no risk, ever. The risk of death to the vast majority of people in this country is not that high but we're acting as if Covid will kill us all. It won't but killing the economy stone dead might kill quite a few people more in the long run.

So we should hermetically seal about a million people in their houses for six months, disinfect all their food supply and then let the infection run riot through the rest of the community in the hope that massive initial doses of the virus won't give younger, fit and healthy people a serious enough infection to make a small proportion of them into hospital cases. If that small proportion were to get hostitalised it would be enough to guarantee to overwhelm the health service and push the death rate up.

That is not to mention the overloading of the health service with the consequence of more health workers being infected and dying and the other consequence of non covid cases not being seen and dying from lack of treatment. There would also be a considerable loss of health workers through exhaustion. But anything goes to save the economy because I'm relatively young and fit and it won't touch me!!

I really take exception to your spiteful post which implies that I have some kind of 'I'm allright Jack attitude. It really is none of your sodding business but I do 6 hours voluntary work a week and will be doing a shift at 0500 tomorrow morning. My work brings me into contact with people with mental health issues and this lockdown and the fear that the narrative has created is causing massive problems already and that's before the worst economic and financial problems hit. If we're going to get into mudslinging then do you think say a 25% reduction in GDP will not be a teeny weeny bit of a bad thing?

[stumuz1]

................................It seems the the definition of 'safe' has not been changed to mean no risk, ever. The risk of death to the vast majority of people in this country is not that high but we're acting as if Covid will kill us all. It won't but killing the economy stone dead might kill quite a few people more in the long run.

So we should hermetically seal about a million people in their houses for six months, disinfect all their food supply and then let the infection run riot through the rest of the community in the hope that massive initial doses of the virus won't give younger, fit and healthy people a serious enough infection to make a small proportion of them into hospital cases. If that small proportion were to get hostitalised it would be enough to guarantee to overwhelm the health service and push the death rate up.

That is not to mention the overloading of the health service with the consequence of more health workers being infected and dying and the other consequence of non covid cases not being seen and dying from lack of treatment. There would also be a considerable loss of health workers through exhaustion. But anything goes to save the economy because I'm relatively young and fit and it won't touch me!!

I really take exception to your spiteful post which implies that I have some kind of 'I'm allright Jack attitude. It really is none of your sodding business but I do 6 hours voluntary work a week and will be doing a shift at 0500 tomorrow morning. My work brings me into contact with people with mental health issues and this lockdown and the fear that the narrative has created is causing massive problems already and that's before the worst economic and financial problems hit. If we're going to get into mudslinging then do you think say a 25% reduction in GDP will not be a teeny weeny bit of a bad thing?

Don't forget the kidney

[kenneal - lagger]

.......................I really take exception to your spiteful post which implies that I have some kind of 'I'm allright Jack attitude.

I wasn't being spiteful, I was just reacting to your seemingly nonchalant attitude to opening up the economy as if it will have no effect on large numbers of people. If you open up the economy too quickly the level of calls you get are quite likely to remain the same but to change from the current clientèle to over worked, exhausted NHS workers.

It really is none of your sodding business but I do 6 hours voluntary work a week and will be doing a shift at 0500 tomorrow morning. My work brings me into contact with people with mental health issues and this lockdown and the fear that the narrative has created is causing massive problems already and that's before the worst economic and financial problems hit.

You have made us quite aware of this but you seem to be using it as some form of qualification for promoting the stance that you are taking without taking into consideration your lack of thought about other consequences of your proposed action. There just isn't the knowledge of the virus at the moment to say which course of action will be better in the long run.

I am quite happy to take critisism for my stance but you don't seem to be. Most of the talk about one action or another is pure speculation.

If we're going to get into mudslinging then do you think say a 25% reduction in GDP will not be a teeny weeny bit of a bad thing?

It will hurt the banking industry in its present incarnation but there is no reason that the banking sector can't be reincarnated to suit. We missed out on a chance in 2008 so we should grasp the chance now. The problem with this is that it would cost a lot of very rich people a lot of money and we can't have that can we?

[vtsnowedin]

You have made us quite aware of this but you seem to be using it as some form of qualification for promoting the stance that you are taking without taking into consideration your lack of thought about other consequences of your proposed action. There just isn't the knowledge of the virus at the moment to say which course of action will be better in the long run.

I'll turn that right around on you Ken with your complete lack of thought about the consequences of the lockdowns.
At present we have about 400 people unemployed for each death. 400 lives ripped apart vs. one. Does that math escape you? End the lockdowns and yes deaths will go up. What if it triples then you would have 3 deaths vs 400 lives back to almost normal.

[UndercoverElephant]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52662066

One in 400 people in England is infected with coronavirus, a survey of 11,000 people in households suggests.

They were asked to carry out swab tests over the two weeks up to 10 May.

This indicates about 148,000 people in England could be currently infected - 0.27% of the population.

[clv101]

This in Science yestderday : https://science.sciencemag.org/content/ ... ce.abc3517

Abstract:

France has been heavily affected by the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic and went into lockdown on the 17 March 2020. Using models applied to hospital and death data, we estimate the impact of the lockdown and current population immunity. We find 3.6% of infected individuals are hospitalized and 0.7% die, ranging from 0.001% in those <20 years of age (ya) to 10.1% in those >80ya. Across all ages, men are more likely to be hospitalized, enter intensive care, and die than women. The lockdown reduced the reproductive number from 2.90 to 0.67 (77% reduction). By 11 May 2020, when interventions are scheduled to be eased, we project 2.8 million (range: 1.8–4.7) people, or 4.4% (range: 2.8–7.2) of the population, will have been infected. Population immunity appears insufficient to avoid a second wave if all control measures are released at the end of the lockdown.

They find a 0.7% fatality rate and 4.4% of population have been infected. Also that the lockdown was very effective in reducing R.

Do look at the figures, very clear impact of the lockdown in France.

[vtsnowedin]

This in Science yestderday : https://science.sciencemag.org/content/ ... ce.abc3517

Abstract:

France has been heavily affected by the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic and went into lockdown on the 17 March 2020. Using models applied to hospital and death data, we estimate the impact of the lockdown and current population immunity. We find 3.6% of infected individuals are hospitalized and 0.7% die, ranging from 0.001% in those <20 years of age (ya) to 10.1% in those >80ya. Across all ages, men are more likely to be hospitalized, enter intensive care, and die than women. The lockdown reduced the reproductive number from 2.90 to 0.67 (77% reduction). By 11 May 2020, when interventions are scheduled to be eased, we project 2.8 million (range: 1.8–4.7) people, or 4.4% (range: 2.8–7.2) of the population, will have been infected. Population immunity appears insufficient to avoid a second wave if all control measures are released at the end of the lockdown.

They find a 0.7% fatality rate and 4.4% of population have been infected. Also that the lockdown was very effective in reducing R.

Do look at the figures, very clear impact of the lockdown in France.

Effective? Yes. Expensive? Double yes! Can they afford to keep the lockdown much longer? A resounding NO!