By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Ok, so watching the newsnight interview (thx whoever suggested watching it) and it seems we are taking the approach of wanting the population to develop immunity.
A few thoughts / questions.
Is this actually our policy or was it just an opinion from an informed advisor?
If CV could kill you, why does it matter if you get it now or in say the autumn?
If there is an overall benefit from herd immunity, why are we emcouraging people of wash hands etc. We should surely be solely nessaging to isolate the vulnerable and encouraging preventative measures for those in contact with the vulnerable? (If we want herd immunity)
Tory core vote = the elderly. You haven’t thought this one through have you Herbie?
The most vulnerable are those with underlying health issues as opposed to purely the elderly, and I doubt anyone who's having to already use the NHS regularly still votes Tory.
I think they do want herd immunity but to phase it over a period of time - for obvious reasons. It would seem that for the vast majority of youngish/healthy people that they will be ill but recover ok.
The health director of Ohio has stated that probably 100,000 people in that state have it based on the maths but they only have 5 confirmed cases.
Not an optimistic viewpoint as seems a tad hyperbolic - it would mean somewhere like Wuhan would have a million cases or something.
I wonder how helpful these type of statements are.
SB
[Post edited 13 Mar 2020 12:24]
The official figures must be a massive underestimate. We have 500 cases in 60m people. And yet several in the very small cohort of prem footballers have it. Not to mention several in the very small cohort of politicians and other celebs. Seems highly unlikely statistically if only 500 in 60m have it. That's only 1 in 125000. Yet several in 300 or so prem footballers...
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett)
Tory core vote = the elderly. You haven’t thought this one through have you Herbie?
It's any and every reason to have a pop at the Tories. Whatever action is taken, Herbivore will criticise and then include a few sentences on the NHS and how evil Tory ministers are.
The official figures must be a massive underestimate. We have 500 cases in 60m people. And yet several in the very small cohort of prem footballers have it. Not to mention several in the very small cohort of politicians and other celebs. Seems highly unlikely statistically if only 500 in 60m have it. That's only 1 in 125000. Yet several in 300 or so prem footballers...
If in prem & European comps tho, they're doing a lot more travelling?
So to achieve herd immunity against the measles requires 90-95% of the population to have immunity. I'm not sure how infection rates for Covid-19 measure up but it seems to be highly infectious. Even if, say, 80% of the population contracting it would be enough then were still looking at circa 53m people being infected. At a fatality rate of 1% (it could be higher than this) that's 530,000 deaths from Covid-19. That seems a high price to pay. And is it even realistic to think you can exert any control over the spread of a disease over that much of the population in order to protect those most vulnerable to it?
So to achieve herd immunity against the measles requires 90-95% of the population to have immunity. I'm not sure how infection rates for Covid-19 measure up but it seems to be highly infectious. Even if, say, 80% of the population contracting it would be enough then were still looking at circa 53m people being infected. At a fatality rate of 1% (it could be higher than this) that's 530,000 deaths from Covid-19. That seems a high price to pay. And is it even realistic to think you can exert any control over the spread of a disease over that much of the population in order to protect those most vulnerable to it?
[Post edited 13 Mar 2020 14:48]
The mortality rate quoted is based on reported cases though, no?
Appears the govt approach is that the actual rate will be a lot lower given most infected people won’t be positively identified.
The official figures must be a massive underestimate. We have 500 cases in 60m people. And yet several in the very small cohort of prem footballers have it. Not to mention several in the very small cohort of politicians and other celebs. Seems highly unlikely statistically if only 500 in 60m have it. That's only 1 in 125000. Yet several in 300 or so prem footballers...
They said in Johnson's address yesterday that they think it is really 5-10k cases now
The mortality rate quoted is based on reported cases though, no?
Appears the govt approach is that the actual rate will be a lot lower given most infected people won’t be positively identified.
True but we can only go by reported cases at the minute, same in other countries. 1% is lower than the reported rate.
In any case, even if it ends up as low as 0.1% (which seems unlikely) then 53,000 deaths to achieve herd immunity looks rather high. And if measures aren't put in place to ensure that the most vulnerable are amongst the population who don't contract it then we'll end up with many more people dying.
To say that it's a gamble on herd immunity and minimal intervention from the government would be an understatement. I am struggling to see how this is a viable policy.
They said in Johnson's address yesterday that they think it is really 5-10k cases now
That article posted yesterday that was largely dismissed on here has some important information on actual versus reported infections. In the early stages of the spread in Hubei, the number of real cases was about 15 times the number of reported cases, so there could easily by 5-10k people in the UK who have symptoms but are yet to be diagnosed. And then there will also be people with mild cases who will never seek a test and not be captured in the stats.
True but we can only go by reported cases at the minute, same in other countries. 1% is lower than the reported rate.
In any case, even if it ends up as low as 0.1% (which seems unlikely) then 53,000 deaths to achieve herd immunity looks rather high. And if measures aren't put in place to ensure that the most vulnerable are amongst the population who don't contract it then we'll end up with many more people dying.
To say that it's a gamble on herd immunity and minimal intervention from the government would be an understatement. I am struggling to see how this is a viable policy.
[Post edited 13 Mar 2020 14:55]
Prof. John Ashton, former Director of Public Health for NW England, couldn't have been more scathing in what he said on QT last night about the way this Government are dealing with the crisis:-
That article posted yesterday that was largely dismissed on here has some important information on actual versus reported infections. In the early stages of the spread in Hubei, the number of real cases was about 15 times the number of reported cases, so there could easily by 5-10k people in the UK who have symptoms but are yet to be diagnosed. And then there will also be people with mild cases who will never seek a test and not be captured in the stats.
Here's my take, having watched all of Boris' emergency press conference live yesterday, and having had a chat with a member of the House of Lords who has read Department of Health briefings:
They want 60 to 80% of the population to catch the virus, but as gradually as possible.
They want the fittest 60 to 80% of the population to catch the virus, and for the most vulnerable to avoid it altogether.
They don't want to make people make huge changes to their lifestyle if those changes will only have minimal impact.
They don't want to shutdown completely, slow transmission to almost zero, then come out of shutdown with everyone thinking it was a fuss about nothing, then have a second outbreak and people be "precaution fatigued" and no longer follow advice.
So schools are to stay open because, in the main, those children and young people and their parents are best able to catch the disease and recover. So, bit by bit, the 60 to 80% figure required for herd immunity will be built up. As said elsewhere, if schools close and grandparents care for children who may have the early stages of infection, when they are contagious but may not be displaying obvious symptoms, then a higher risk group will be exposed than if schools stayed open.
This is a percentages exercise. Some children and young people, and some parents, will be seriously ill, and some will die. But that would always be the case with a virus which we have no historic immunity to. The hope is that by trying to minimise infection of those in higher risk categories, the number of people who develop severe complications will be minimised, and so the NHS' capacity of ventilator beds and specialist staff will not be overwhelmed, so the number of seriously ill people who die will be minimised.
Here's my take, having watched all of Boris' emergency press conference live yesterday, and having had a chat with a member of the House of Lords who has read Department of Health briefings:
They want 60 to 80% of the population to catch the virus, but as gradually as possible.
They want the fittest 60 to 80% of the population to catch the virus, and for the most vulnerable to avoid it altogether.
They don't want to make people make huge changes to their lifestyle if those changes will only have minimal impact.
They don't want to shutdown completely, slow transmission to almost zero, then come out of shutdown with everyone thinking it was a fuss about nothing, then have a second outbreak and people be "precaution fatigued" and no longer follow advice.
So schools are to stay open because, in the main, those children and young people and their parents are best able to catch the disease and recover. So, bit by bit, the 60 to 80% figure required for herd immunity will be built up. As said elsewhere, if schools close and grandparents care for children who may have the early stages of infection, when they are contagious but may not be displaying obvious symptoms, then a higher risk group will be exposed than if schools stayed open.
This is a percentages exercise. Some children and young people, and some parents, will be seriously ill, and some will die. But that would always be the case with a virus which we have no historic immunity to. The hope is that by trying to minimise infection of those in higher risk categories, the number of people who develop severe complications will be minimised, and so the NHS' capacity of ventilator beds and specialist staff will not be overwhelmed, so the number of seriously ill people who die will be minimised.
Now wash your hands.
It's a strategy that sounds good on paper but I don't see how it's workable in the slightest. They don't seem to be doing much proactively to try to make this scenario happen either, it's all incredibly inactive.
Here's my take, having watched all of Boris' emergency press conference live yesterday, and having had a chat with a member of the House of Lords who has read Department of Health briefings:
They want 60 to 80% of the population to catch the virus, but as gradually as possible.
They want the fittest 60 to 80% of the population to catch the virus, and for the most vulnerable to avoid it altogether.
They don't want to make people make huge changes to their lifestyle if those changes will only have minimal impact.
They don't want to shutdown completely, slow transmission to almost zero, then come out of shutdown with everyone thinking it was a fuss about nothing, then have a second outbreak and people be "precaution fatigued" and no longer follow advice.
So schools are to stay open because, in the main, those children and young people and their parents are best able to catch the disease and recover. So, bit by bit, the 60 to 80% figure required for herd immunity will be built up. As said elsewhere, if schools close and grandparents care for children who may have the early stages of infection, when they are contagious but may not be displaying obvious symptoms, then a higher risk group will be exposed than if schools stayed open.
This is a percentages exercise. Some children and young people, and some parents, will be seriously ill, and some will die. But that would always be the case with a virus which we have no historic immunity to. The hope is that by trying to minimise infection of those in higher risk categories, the number of people who develop severe complications will be minimised, and so the NHS' capacity of ventilator beds and specialist staff will not be overwhelmed, so the number of seriously ill people who die will be minimised.
Now wash your hands.
Well it's good to have a concise, clear & logical explan anyway - that makes sense to me (whereas Johnson's speech didn't!) - thanks cc ðŸ‘
Here's my take, having watched all of Boris' emergency press conference live yesterday, and having had a chat with a member of the House of Lords who has read Department of Health briefings:
They want 60 to 80% of the population to catch the virus, but as gradually as possible.
They want the fittest 60 to 80% of the population to catch the virus, and for the most vulnerable to avoid it altogether.
They don't want to make people make huge changes to their lifestyle if those changes will only have minimal impact.
They don't want to shutdown completely, slow transmission to almost zero, then come out of shutdown with everyone thinking it was a fuss about nothing, then have a second outbreak and people be "precaution fatigued" and no longer follow advice.
So schools are to stay open because, in the main, those children and young people and their parents are best able to catch the disease and recover. So, bit by bit, the 60 to 80% figure required for herd immunity will be built up. As said elsewhere, if schools close and grandparents care for children who may have the early stages of infection, when they are contagious but may not be displaying obvious symptoms, then a higher risk group will be exposed than if schools stayed open.
This is a percentages exercise. Some children and young people, and some parents, will be seriously ill, and some will die. But that would always be the case with a virus which we have no historic immunity to. The hope is that by trying to minimise infection of those in higher risk categories, the number of people who develop severe complications will be minimised, and so the NHS' capacity of ventilator beds and specialist staff will not be overwhelmed, so the number of seriously ill people who die will be minimised.
Now wash your hands.
Yes this is very clearly the approach.
There is an element here of putting the house on red. We’ll see which approach proves better at safeguarding the population.
Ours or everybody else’s. I’m not ruling ours out.
But CC's was explained in a much, much better way, "that makes sense to *me*".
[Post edited 13 Mar 2020 17:45]
He’s condensed into one post what the CMO and CSA dis in a concise and clear way last night.
That we have people on a football message board saying that a poster, with all due respect to CC, is explaining the current strategy in a “better way” than the CMO and CSA ,is mind blowing.
Edit. I mean can you imagine if the two of them, alongside the PM, got up and read out CC’s post and then walked away? Jeez Ryorry.
He’s condensed into one post what the CMO and CSA dis in a concise and clear way last night.
That we have people on a football message board saying that a poster, with all due respect to CC, is explaining the current strategy in a “better way” than the CMO and CSA ,is mind blowing.
Edit. I mean can you imagine if the two of them, alongside the PM, got up and read out CC’s post and then walked away? Jeez Ryorry.
[Post edited 13 Mar 2020 17:47]
This really isn't the time to pick an argument over what I find clearer is it (rhetorical question, no need for you to reply).
Here's my take, having watched all of Boris' emergency press conference live yesterday, and having had a chat with a member of the House of Lords who has read Department of Health briefings:
They want 60 to 80% of the population to catch the virus, but as gradually as possible.
They want the fittest 60 to 80% of the population to catch the virus, and for the most vulnerable to avoid it altogether.
They don't want to make people make huge changes to their lifestyle if those changes will only have minimal impact.
They don't want to shutdown completely, slow transmission to almost zero, then come out of shutdown with everyone thinking it was a fuss about nothing, then have a second outbreak and people be "precaution fatigued" and no longer follow advice.
So schools are to stay open because, in the main, those children and young people and their parents are best able to catch the disease and recover. So, bit by bit, the 60 to 80% figure required for herd immunity will be built up. As said elsewhere, if schools close and grandparents care for children who may have the early stages of infection, when they are contagious but may not be displaying obvious symptoms, then a higher risk group will be exposed than if schools stayed open.
This is a percentages exercise. Some children and young people, and some parents, will be seriously ill, and some will die. But that would always be the case with a virus which we have no historic immunity to. The hope is that by trying to minimise infection of those in higher risk categories, the number of people who develop severe complications will be minimised, and so the NHS' capacity of ventilator beds and specialist staff will not be overwhelmed, so the number of seriously ill people who die will be minimised.
Now wash your hands.
Actually, I have a question.
There are reports of people becoming ill for a second time. So I assume the approach described enables immune systems with a history of fighting the virus and therefore better equipped second time around?
Not only is our science different to other country's science, we now have conflicting advice. If we want herd immunity of 60% getting the virus surely healthy young people should be told not to wash their hands?
Not only is our science different to other country's science, we now have conflicting advice. If we want herd immunity of 60% getting the virus surely healthy young people should be told not to wash their hands?
This is the thing. If they want herd immunity then they should be actively encouraging healthy people to contract it whilst putting measures in place to protect those who are vulnerable. 60% also isn't enough to create herd immunity, even assuming that immunity is possible given there have been reports of people recontracting it and of there being a few different strands of it. I don't really get our strategy.
There are reports of people becoming ill for a second time. So I assume the approach described enables immune systems with a history of fighting the virus and therefore better equipped second time around?
If you end up with a situation where the vast majority of the frail, elderly and sickest in society die, of course the number of victims will decrease the next time it hits, because all the vulnerable are already dead!
I'd be amazed if someone in government doesn't see this as an opportunity to help resolve social care issue, even if they don't actually go down that road and intend to do it. I just wouldn't put it past some people who are in the government.
I strongly suspect that they've decided to choose the economy as being more important than the death toll and lets be blunt, the elderly and the sick are a drain on government finances so if they take a short term pain of a high death number, the long term it will benefit the country from all the money they save. Sorry if this seems harsh and particularly blunt, but keeping elderly and seriously ill people alive is expensive.
Personally I think this country has got it very wrong and in years to come if they really do go down this road, it will be seen as a black mark in our history. When someone writes the history books about Brexit and coronavirus it will show a country that has pretty much gone off the rails and took leave of it's senses.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
