Germany's R-rate reportedly back above 1 after easing lockdown, not a great sign for us.
SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
Your views simply aren't backed up by the polling though so you need to reassess. The vast majority in all polling I've seen do not consider themselves to be personally at risk, the majority think it'll all resolve itself in 2020 and they poll as feeling comfortable with socialising in smaller groups. They just don't want to support the virus in spreading more than necessary because the majority aren't stupid and understand the message to keep R low.
If you took the view of this place you'd think half of britain were out doing the conga whilst the other half shiver in fear behind their curtains.
Some in here often insinuate and confuse themselves into thinking that it's the lockdown that will crash the economy. No real fault of their own they've just yet to understand the complexity of the situation.
My post isn’t intended to counter any point. Which point do you think that was?
My post is my personal reflection on the current level of public discourse and my opinion that the level of discussion should be widened beyond daily deaths. I’m not going to summarise my thinking further, as it’s there in black and white.
I think it’s important that the public are educated more about the science going forward. It would ease the worries that I have, anecdotally, explored within my post.
That overlooks two important things.
1. The majority of those older people are getting it from the younger people they live with or have contact with. Unless you propose to isolate them even further?
2. Potential deaths from the knock on effects still pale in comparison to the actual deaths from the virus. When the UK can say 100 people or less are dying each day, maybe then that's a conversation to have. Until then it shouldn't even be entertained.
I could write that plan right now.
Not because I’m brighter than everyone in Boris’ cabinet, though that’s probably the case....
But because I’d just cherry pick from the rest of the world.
It’s half a days work for one person to lash something together that would leave the UK in better shape.
Yep fully agree, those VE Day gatherings were stupid along with that conga. I hope those people feel shamed.
I think you would need the virus to have a much higher toll for some people to take it seriously. Here half the people think it’s a hoax now because ‘they didn’t personally know anyone who died from it’. Basic maths seem too difficult to comprehend for them.
All you need to know about the UK strategy
Last edited:
This is a problem in itself. I refer to this in my initial post. People need to understand that this will have long term economics effects.
Polls also indicate that we are one of the most fearful nations in Europe, so there is some statistical credence to my anecdotal evidence of fear and anxiety.
You write in damn word circles. I don’t know if it’s deliberate or accidental. It’s not about ‘summarising your point further’. You just write poorly.
Your initial point;
- Government quotes deaths
- People focus on deaths
But you’ve got it the wrong way around. People act on messaging and policy. Not statistics. The statistics were used to say;
- This is why we have to do this
- Thanks for doing the things we asked
- This is the effect it’s having
If messaging and policy was;
- You can only leave the house with a declaration
- You must wear a mask
- You must not socialise with anyone over the age of 45 for 2 months
- Everyone in [THESE] demographics gets tests now. They can all go back to work
- We will review weekly
... People would respect and follow them.
You don’t need granular statistical breakdowns. They operate as the evidence base for decisions. Not the message.
Before you push back against any of that : The death number could be 1500 a day or 500 a day. If Boris comes on today and says “Restrictions are eased”... people will get out more.
Your entire premise is that people are focused on the death toll. They’re not. Most stopped paying attention weeks ago.
1. Do you have evidence for that? I mean, I’m willing to bet that it’s accurate. I’m also willing to bet that the majority of current transmission is taking places in hospitals and, more damningly, the care homes that we appear to have brushed under the carpet. I think it’s abundantly clear that we need to shield care homes more effectively, and that elderly people, particularly those with underlying health conditions, should be encouraged isolate where necessary. So, yes, I think shielding the most vulnerable will be important going forward.
2. What conversation are you referring to? I’m not criticising the premise of the lockdown measures. I’m thinking a lot further down the road than now, however. as I’ve explained. My worry is that many people in the country are headed into a poverty that (some of them) have yet to truly understand. People who are financially secure (generally) won’t bat an eyelid to this down the line; our recent track record on voting, as well as the the classism that exists within society, is evidence enough for this.
The quality of my writing is more than adequate. I can break down my message into smaller steps to make it more accessible for you, though. My mistake.
I believe that my premise that people are focused on the death toll is an accurate reflection. You disagree; that’s fine.
Personally, I think the suggestion that “most stopped paying attention weeks ago” is unequivocal nonsense.
Our media, understandably, refer to death tolls every day.
The government use the lowering of the number of daily deaths as part of their five-point plan to relax measures.
I believe it is time for the government to educate the public about the risk to the wider public, specific to age group, to ease the widespread anxiety. Tell us about the science we hear so much about. Adapt the messaging if and when the science changes.
I think there is a larger discussion than daily deaths. The public isn’t being prepared for that, particularly the disadvantaged that will be plunged further into poverty. I care greatly about this.
1. Most governments have said it. It's part of the reason why lockdown measures take 2-4 weeks to be reflected in case numbers - it takes that long to spread throughout a household. Countries that are on their way out of the peak i.e not the UK are saying the majority of transmission in the latter stages is healthcare workers taking it home with them.
2. Seemed you were buying into the argument that the lockdown will cost more lives than the virus. That's nowhere near true whilst the virus is killing people at the UK's current rate.
Spot on. Irresponsible and dangerous messaging, and unsurprisingly mostly from the pro-tory, pro-brexit papers too.
https://lbo-news.com/2020/05/09/measuring-the-carnage/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
About US unemployment numbers
About US unemployment numbers
1. That would make sense. It would further reinforce just how dismal our PPE strategy has been, given the likelihood that transmission has been a cycle of hospital to home and home to community.
2. No, I think it’s important to create a distinction between lockdown costing lives and the virus costing lives. The lockdown has been a necessary measure to save lives; part of a wider (non) plan to suppress the virus. Without the lockdown measures, deaths would, no doubt, be much higher. I do think that the economic effects of the virus will cost lives, though. Recessions cost lives in some form or another. The changes to society we have made, and will need to continue, will close businesses, end livelihoods and plunge households either a) into growing debt or b) further into poverty. I don’t trust this government to support those people out of it either. The number of lives that will negatively affect won’t be known for a long time, however. A little bit like the austerity-related deaths that, let’s be honest, were shrugged off by many members of society.
You’re bloviating over something you saw on Andrew Marr this morning.
You decided someone was clever, and extrapolated your new piece of information as a framework to say people don’t already know these things.
I’m saying : The public just wants the best and safest version of normal, as soon as possible.
Every single person I know, sees this as something we will learn to live with, before we ever eradicate or vaccinate against.
You’ve picked an odd point of position that doesn’t seem to exist.
Vulnerable members of society need to be insulated. Less vulnerable members need to be protected. If they feel protected, they’ll get themselves back to work.
Edit ::: Purely anecdotal, but text and ask 3 people the death total for the last week, day by day. I just ran a crass test myself. None were anywhere near. 490, 280, 750, 250, 602, 504.... Novody is getting the Hundred value right more than one day, which is probably luck. It’s not the focus you think it is.
Last edited:
Chapeau!
Careless. Talks. Costs Lives.
What time is boris discussing the lockdown
Seven tonight.
The scientist on Marr made many good points that I agreed with. I suggested people listen to the interview.
People don’t know these things. I had no idea that there had been 28 COVID-related deaths within the tens of millions of people living under the age of 25. His explanation of numbers was far more granular than what government provides us.
My position, which I’m having to repeat, is that the government use a daily death toll as a yardstick by which to assess the relaxation of lockdown measures. I feel many people are consumed by the figures and there is a lost opportunity to educate the public in a responsible, adult way. Anxiety is therefore increased, perhaps unnecessarily. You disagree again; that’s also fine.
I agree that everybody wants a safe version of normal. The issue, not for you or I, is that people are going to have different views on what that normal should look like. Communication will be important; more nuanced than daily deaths.
To be frank, I’m not willing to engage in this discussion with you a great deal further. I think you have a habit of rampaging around this thread with an inherently argumentative agenda, with views that aren’t particularly well thought out:
Perhaps my views aren’t well thought out either. I’m not a politician, or a scientist, and I won’t pretend for a second that I truly understand the complexity of this situation. Good luck to you in writing your plan, however.
Hard to tell if it's some colleagues briefing against Johnson or his side formulating policy by testing public/media reaction to leaks again.
You couldn't set out out deliberately to make a bigger mess of the messaging though, it's remarkable.
Looks like he's being set up as the fall guy here. Hancock might have fecked up but at least he came out to face the press whilst the rest of them ran for cover.
I listened to what David Spiegelhalter, I agreed with a lot of it. Especially the part of number theatrics. Interestingly I note that statisticians get a lot of coverage but not a lot of them are working with patients, wonder what the opinions of emergency medics, anaesthetists, ITU consultants would be on what's going to happen from tomorrow onwards after this evening's announcement
What I disagree with and its a huge problem is that nuance has to take into account how COVID19 operates in terms of morbidity and clinical course with implications of health service and not solely focus on nuance on the mortality aspect
The lockdown has undoubtedly saved countless lives and impacted the economy for the better. As a slightly overweight Asian background frontline doctor working in COVID wards with inadequate PPE if you throw in the fact that without a lockdown I'm grateful that my risk of catching it in the community has been low.
Why the only focus on death? Why not mention that yes that while the case fatality rate of this disease is lower and higher exponentially depending on age and co-morbidities how about mention that even for the mild-to-moderate patients it means 3-4 weeks of refractory fevers, chills, SOB, fatigue and the impact of a widespread infection rate would have had in terms of time off work.
Then there are those in hospitals who do not die but require ventilators, a fairly substantial amount, percentage wise sure not a lot in total but significant enough in a short period of time to impact the economy. And the knock-on effect of without a lockdown a potential second peak of this thing means in terms of ventilator shortage in terms of mortality and morbidity.
And even if you survive on a ventilator what about if you get a thromboembolic event like a stroke? Or a lung clot? Or inflammation of the heart? Or the effect this has on the central nervous system in patients?
Plenty of those who dont die will also suffer a decrease in lung capacity and function post-recovery and post-ARDS. We don't yet know if they get that lung function back and what impact will that have on their occupation in terms of functionality, manual labour etc?
In addition if you are on a ventilator you will likely develop withdrawal symptoms from heavy sedation or PTSD. Or a nasty haematoma or granuloma post-extubation which needs operating on. My cousin's got one suspected, there's a huge waiting list to get operated on given the number of people suffering and also that ENT with anaesthetics swamped. What about damage to one's voice as a result of the tubes? My cousin again is having speech and language input, not sure if he'll regain his voice, he's a barrister (incidentally in his 30s and no health issues prior to this), had to be intubated, re-extubated 3 times, got meningitis but then recovered and is home but having tracheostomy complications, nowhere near ready for work and likely won't be for a while. There are plenty like him not measured in the "but young people don't die" narrative.
What the lockdown has done is flattened the peak, bought us time to advance therapeutics, get more information and evidence-base around the disease. It should have been earlier. We are seeing from the government some semblance of an infrastructure to advance track and trace and mass testing in addition to policies around quarantining.
I fear though that we are ending the lockdown too early, I want it to be eased of course. But those of us who are fighting this disease we are very worried about easing too much, easing too quickly, ineffective comms sending the wrong message and what implications that will have in terms of spread
By the way with this lockdown I haven't seen anybody apart from my work team since just after the lockdown start and even if it eased off will probably not want to risk my family catching it, especially with Eid coming up and anticipation of a possible peak for many months more. Because of that and anxieties of working on a covid ward with second tier PPE I'm on a waiting list for CBT. I'm lucky to have an income, but I wouldn't class this as a luxury. And my advocating of strict social distancing, isolation measures even in the absence of a lockdown is predicated on what I know about this disease.
My day job is a GP trainee but I'm working in psycho-oncology with cancer patients. What we have been able to do by flattening the peak is keep chemo, radio and surgical intervention going for most stage III or IV patients, 2 week urgent diagnostic clinics running. I think its not accurate that the lockdown has potentiated cancer deaths, by keeping more NHS healthcare workers away from redeployment away from their day jobs (and also alive) and they are able to work with cancer patients, MacMillan nurses are able to offer help still. What a second peak will do is overwhelm our hospital beds for covid patients, kill off elderly consultants who are vital as lead clinicians in subspecialties in addition to radiographers or radiologists being sick or CT scanning capacity reduced to them being hot zones for covid patients.
Its an awful situation with how this virus is, the make-up of our country in terms of demographics and population density along with a really slow, ineffective government but medics especially who are advocates of this lockdown don't do it without considering this economy. We need to move beyond it and ease things obviously but if we heading towards congas and street parties then its an indication that there isn't any way a nuanced approach won't be adopted en masse enough to prevent this from getting out of hand for a second peak, and with political will diminished from reinstating strict measures due to actual or perceived population fatigue then that will honestly be catastrophic.
I guess in addition to that, Raab has done a fantastic job at coming out and not answering every question he's been asked.
They certainly hope so.
I don’t have time for an economic lesson and it’s quite complicated.
I hope the PL has deep enough pockets for all the lawsuits that'll come their way when something inevitably goes wrong. If a club gets relegated/misses CL because their player(s) missed games due to the virus they'll be tied up in a lawsuit for years. If one of the bigger players in the league catches this and something goes horribly wrong, they'll be paying out 100s of millions to both the club (for the loss in transfer fee) and the player (for loss of earnings).
In my view yes.
The majority of the more 'popular' paper's are full of made up news and sensational headlines.
They are only about circulation and anything they can do to sell a few more copies is all they care about.
Not sure how that would suppress news when by definition, their so called news is always way out of date.
Save your money and spend it on something useful.
If media outlets are concerned that newspaper sales will plummet as a result of Covid-19, then they have clearly had their heads under a rock for the last 10-15 years.
With or without the pandemic, their industry would be dead in the next 5-10 years anyway. Clutching at straws against the inevitable tide. A world without tabloid papers? Good fecking riddance.
With or without the pandemic, their industry would be dead in the next 5-10 years anyway. Clutching at straws against the inevitable tide. A world without tabloid papers? Good fecking riddance.
You can only run a country on bullshit and vacuous slogans for so long. Even worse when you vote for idiots.
You could see Hancock would be made a scapegoat a mile off.
So stay alert equals stay at home.What a waste.
They hate us.
If we still can't see the contempt that the politician and media class have for us after all this then it really seems that this place is beyond all hope.
Yes, but with the caveat that this explanation underplayed the ideological agenda of many titles. An arrogance that as the 'voice of the people's they should be a driving force of policy etc...
Pardon my ignorance but Germany are fully equipped to handle a large increase in hospitalised patients with a reasonable survival rate, right? Plus, warnings are in place for at risk people to stay at home and stay safe from family members going out?
Does this not mean that herd immunity is in play in a controlled manner?
Didn't it jump above 1 last week only to settle down again? There is a degree of natural variation and you need to look at the trend over a bit of time.
I didn't think it would be possible for this shit government to make a bigger mess of this than they already have...but it seems at 7pm, Boris will officially do that.