Forum menu
My contention is simply that the current measures are simply not sustainable.
I don't think anyone would disagree, But to be honest, this is not the pandemic you were looking for. People expect a wildfire flash of serious infection that passes through, kills and is gone. With protection afforded by a short-term hard intervention. Ebola would be good example. Mortality is so high (40+%), everyone would be hiding indoors.
What we have is a tsunami-like wall of intermediate-level morbidity, some mortality (that would be much higher, but so be it), and a huge strain on already over-stretched resources. Sadly, unlike the films, this is what real pandemic and economic disruption looks like. Not bodies in the streets and dystopia, just continuous strangling pressure that is hard to contain.
There are only least-bad options. No good ones. We are not New Zealand, we are connected to a mainland of 300M people and have a propensity for travel. It's not going away, but we will have protection from serious disease within 18 months of the outbreak. That timescale, for those in the business, is mind-blowing. OK it's all over in 125min on a film, but in real time, real world, it is staggeringly fast. My last medicine took 13 years to come to market. My next one could be 13 months!
It's all about perspective. Something the politicians have failed to provide. Boris is still running on the film timeline... Over by Christmas...
but the fact is that there isn’t one walk of life where a calculus of life-value isn’t in place even if it’s implicit
This is absolutely true.
And I totally agree that judgements to be made as regards this pandemic must change over time.
That's my daily read of the thread for today sorted.
As always, thanks for the info given guys (you know who you are) amongst the noise.
Clear information from here doesn't scare me even if it's not great news. The opposite in fact, I find the knowledge comforting.
What we have is a tsunami-like wall of intermediate-level morbidity, some mortality (that would be much higher, but so be it), and a huge strain on already over-stretched resources. Sadly, unlike the films, this is what real pandemic and economic disruption looks like. Not bodies in the streets and dystopia, just continuous strangling pressure that is hard to contain.
That's contingent upon having a healthcare system which is expected to prevent these kinds of deaths. IMHO, prior to the 19th century, this pandemic would be all but invisible. So used to death was society than it would just have been a slightly worse year.
Just some perspective, not trying to say people should be left to die.
We are not New Zealand, we are connected to a mainland of 300M people and have a propensity for travel.
Indeed, but a very hard border would just be a question of securing enough will??
I agree with both of those points i_scoff_cake.
prior to the 19th century, this pandemic would be all but invisible
No it would still be noticeable. We didn't miss the 1918 influenza epidemic. This one has lower mortality per capita, but a much higher transmissible and more susceptibles. (I accept it's 20thC, but you need to look at the Faroe Islands records for longer public health records).
Indeed, but a very hard border would just be a question of will??
And turnips. We import a LOT of food from abroad. Not to mention the connectedness of business and just-in-time supply. I'm not thinking of popular travel, we can block that relatively easily, but we are a very economically connected nation.
I do think that once vaccination is rolled out, and first protection afforded (at least from disease severity), then come virus strain evolution time, different decisions will be made. Then I would expect compromises, but not in the first wave of infection with so many susceptible. Vaccination is to to give that past infection history that so very few have.
Arguing these points on here is like playing cricket against the West Indies in the 80's. You duck and weave and wear a few but you persist because Michael Holding must tire soon. And then you'll be able to get on with scoring some........wait, they're bringing Andy Roberts on instead!
Regarding alternative strategies....
If everyone could isolate in a tent on their own for 2-3 weeks covid would be eradicated.
Not possible I know, but now we have a vaccine maybe we could vaccine all the key workers - nhs staff, police, food shop workers (a lot of the NHS had already been done).
Then have a super strict mother of all lockdowns for 4 weeks to break the transmission. E.g All shops closed. Borders closed. Food shops delivery or click and collect only, 1hr outside the house per day in family groups only. Get infection down to a level where we might have a chance to contain it and stop the ongoing risk of new variants.
4 weeks of proper lockdown with R=0.1 has the same effect as 40 weeks of R=0.9
Yeah, but what about folk who's dogs need groomed?
...and all those people for whom driving to ride their mountain bikes has become essential for their mental health.
If everyone could isolate in a tent on their own for 2-3 weeks covid would be eradicated.
The most ruthless measures were used in the middle-ages to control plague in Europe. Literally, leave your home on pain of death when an emergency was declared.
If C-19 had been preferentially killing white men aged 35 - 65 we'd have had Martial law last April and would have only eaten food that fitted through a letter box.
We haven’t tried lockdowns yet, we just have a panicky half hearted attempt to reduce spread when the hospitals are under too much pressure, that goes on for far too long, damaging the economy and costing lives.
Been said so many times already, but a short hard proper lockdown would have been more effective on the virus and less damaging to the economy. Even if we'd had to do it twice by now.
IMHO, prior to the 19th century, this pandemic would be all but invisible.
The first influenza pandemic was recorded in 1510. There may have been others before, but this was the first one to be pathologically defined. If you don't know something, feel free to either; 1. STFU or 2. ask, someone will probably know...
If we did lock down totally for 4 weeks (probably enough to allow whatever family infections would happen to burn out) the level of control and testing we would need on the borders its clearly more than this government can manage.
I have a feeling there will be 2 bug changes after this pandemic (I hope anyway). 1 that the NHS gets much more support (sadly it probably won't) and
2 there will be some interesting supply chain changes as the world realises that planet spanning supply chains are not good for critical items.
4 weeks of proper lockdown with R=0.1 has the same effect as 40 weeks of R=0.9
Realised my maths is wrong, 4 weeks of R=0.1 would have a bigger effect than 40 weeks at R=0.9
0.1^4 < 0.9^40
I think Nick really needs a week off work! I fear that is a long way away for him. Everyone play nice and STAY AT HOME.
I think people in the thick of it on here are understandably not keen on listening to, erm, "outlying" opinions shall we say.
The first influenza pandemic was recorded in 1510. There may have been others before, but this was the first one to be pathologically defined. If you don’t know something, feel free to either; 1. STFU or 2. ask, someone will probably know…
Mars was known about prior to the 19th century but it wasn't considered to have a substantial impact upon our lives.
My contention is that influenza pandemics, for example, were not substantively disruptive prior to modernity, or certainly 19th century when 'public health' becomes a thing.
They were just considered one more cause of death amongst others: famine, war, murder, thousand other illnesses etc.
Bubonic plague was on another level due to the sheer death rates. It was very much cared about in contrast.
I think the difference was mainly that the population were just so used to having occasional outbreaks of major disease that they just adapted and carried on.
The plague seems to have been an outlier as it was so dangerous.
Centuries back we had malaria and lots of other things to deal with too.
Plus the speed of travel was much lower so outbreaks would take longer to spread.
Not that it made any difference to mortality as the leeches just didn't cut it
were not substantively disruptive prior to modernity
There may have been “accepted” as part of normal life, but they were disruptive and… understandably… feared, way beyond the way they are now.
They were just considered one more cause of death amongst others: famine, war, murder, thousand other illnesses etc.
In 1800, no country had a life expectancy over 40. What’s your point? I’ve enjoyed my additional 13 years so far. Not everyone has been so lucky in my family. We are not in the 1800s. This current pandemic would be in line with 1918 were it not for intervention.
Good to see the debate is staying civilised - I don’t agree with I scoff cakes yet....but at the risk of going full gammon I do wonder what my grandfathers would have thought I thought in terms of risk - one who survived WW1 in the RFC and the other who survived being shot at, strafed and dive bombed as a dispatch rider during ww2 - I think they would have been the first people to pipe up for the interests of the young if they were still alive and with it mentally.
It is an interesting question.
I think the perception of risk and the level of acceptance or maybe the expectation of living until you are 80 plus is much stronger now.
In addition the public have a complacency that things like major infectious disease are easily controlled now.
Anyone in infectious disease research or an interest has known this would happen eventually (was discussed in my virology masters in 2002, and had been established well before that).
The baking but for me is the total dismissal of risk from this in certain parts of the population, even with some of those at higher risk. It is odd
My 91 yr old mum was a kid during the London blitz. Wasn't evacuated as her mum wouldn't let her and her brother go.
She remembers a friends being killed when a bomb took out his house, the doodle bugs, hunting for shrapnel etc.
Covid? She understands the risks and was happy to hand the vaccine.
She is worried about her grandson and baby great grandson born last march.
She hates lockdown but understands the logic.
She equates anti markers/ Covid deniers to someone refusing to put up blackout curtains during the blitz.
That's a great analogy to me if we have to go all WWII.👍
Well, I don't really have a 'point' per se other than to idly discuss our attitude to risk/death.
FYI not anti-lockdown/mask or vaccination 😀
In addition the public have a complacency that things like major infectious disease are easily controlled now.
Having worked in West Africa, that is very obvious to me now. These countries handled Ebola with a minimum of fuss and people did what they were told to do.
Yeah, think that's something that I mentioned very very early on in this thread - back last February when we were dealing with "we have the best science, the biggliest science" arrogant bullshit - how Africa was way ahead of us in terms of coping with and understanding pandemics.
coupled with a generally younger demographic better able to withstand the disease and a warmer climate therefore less time spent indoors.
That might help a bit, but rampant overcrowding and poor living conditions would probably push it back a bit.
Accurate population data over the next few years will show the true impact, its going to be scientifically interesting but horrible from a human point of view
FYI not anti-lockdown/mask or vaccination
I view debate and challenge as very healthy. I view lockdown as the least worst option until protection of some form can be afforded by either infection (was not good for me) or vaccination.
Anti-mask behaviours strike me as being petty really.
What I dislike is the absence of clear communication of the gravity, the realistic likelihood of resolution over what timeframe, and the challenges of decision making with incomplete information. The government are provided with that solid foundation, but it is not communicated. That is a political choice. I try and provide it here. Take what you will. Everything I say is in the public domain.
the realistic likelihood of resolution over what timeframe
“back to normal by Christmas”
I still think we should be paying you a subscription TiRed… our repeated thanks isn’t enough.
Thanks again though.
What I dislike is the absence of clear communication of the gravity, the realistic likelihood of resolution over what timeframe,
That was either deliberate (because the Gov was worried about short term polls after having delivered 'bad news'), or it reflects a non-decision. Either way, it's not confidence-boosting.
Lol, that went well the first time.
I would like them to define what this future normal actually is or might look like.
At least if we have that it might get people used to the idea that masks will remain fairly common and a level of space will be expected.
i_scoff_cake
Free Member
Well, I don’t really have a ‘point’ per se other than to idly discuss our attitude to risk/death.FYI not anti-lockdown/mask or vaccination
I know that from your posts buddy.👍 Genuinely not a dig at you or anyone else. Just wanted to add my mother's take on the situation.
One of the worst things about this pandemic, is agreeing constantly with Piers Morgan…
https://twitter.com/snb19692/status/1352722236529123328?s=21
I would like them to define what this future normal actually is or might look like.
At least if we have that it might get people used to the idea that masks will remain fairly common and a level of space will be expected.
Not like this then?
https://twitter.com/PeterWestmacott/status/1352658172037787649?s=20
Bloody hell, was that pic really today?
That's awful
Usual caveats about cameras lenses and foreshortening apply. Still looks like a lot of folk in that space, and a closer looks shows many aren't even wearing a mask properly.
Also, it's completely mandatory- you've got to go through those lines, and there's no possible way to keep any sort of distancing while you do it, the system is built to prevent it. I mean, equally, everyone in the queue is going to spend a couple of hours at least in a sealed metal tube so the queue probably isn't the point, but still. With airports at reduced capacity how is this not avoidable?
You've got to be some sort of god-awful arsehole to both be flying during the pandemic and also deliberately not wearing your mask right though.
You’ve got to be some sort of god-awful arsehole to both be flying during the pandemic and also deliberately not wearing your mask right though.
Ironically this minority seem to be the ones that moan loudest about lockdown yet sacrifice the least, prolonging the misery of the silent majority that just get on with it.
Yep even if there is the much celebrated 'foreshortening' going on....the overwhelming majority of people whose mask you can clearly see, aren't wearing it properly ffs.
4 weeks of proper lockdown with R=0.1 has the same effect as 40 weeks of R=0.9
4 weeks @ 0.1 is actually about 100x MORE effective (in terms of end result) than 40 @ 0.9.
But makes more sense to think of it in terms of how many people get infected in each scenario in which case r=0.1 is about 10x better:
With R=0.1 and starting at 1m infected (latest ONS) then it means about 1.1m more people will get infected before we get to low levels. If R=0.9, then 10m more people will get infected. (Rough assumptions, doesn't consider vaccination, immunity etc).
So yes - it is much better to lock down harder for a shorter period. And SAGE were saying since July that short, sharp and TIMELY lockdowns would be enough to keep prevalence low, but we have just had too little too late - just enough to keep us all distracted while BoJo and co complete their ideologically pure Brexit. Sorry for getting onto politics, but there is no way of understanding the govts handling without it. I don't actually think Johnson is as much of an idiot as he claims to be - he KNEW what he was doing and did it anyway. Why do you think "lockdown 3.0" came on the same day 6bn euro of trading left the city?