| Government Covid Policy 09:29 - Sep 10 with 1050 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
The Government have claimed to be "guided by science" all along, although we know that there have been political reasons for some shifts in policy. There have also been times when it has been reported that Boris was "under pressure from backbench Tory MPs". In other news, some backbench Tory MPs earn significant sums as consultants to, or board members of, big business.
The policy has been centred around the "r rate". Speed of transmission, and consequently cases per 100,000 of the population.
But all indications are that the mortality rate as a percentage of cases is dropping significantly. Whether this is as result of improved and more effective care and drug intervention, the virus mutating and becoming less lethal to humans, or of early waves of infection centring on care homes and hospitals and therefore more vulnerable and immuno-compromised patients.
So if the mortality rate is coming down significantly, isn't that the number that the Government should work to? Well, yes, it is really. If the mortality rate becomes lower than seasonal flu and we don't lock-down for that, why continue with lock-down? The answer to that is simple: not even a Cummings-led Government is willing to say "We are aiming for X number of deaths, that is the acceptable number."
So, instead we stick with whether case numbers are rising. And with a competent track and trace (lol) case numbers will inevitably rise as a direct consequence of more people who have been in proximity to a confirmed carrier being tested.
So we're stuck with a less meaningful (in terms of "how serious is the situation") infection rate figure because the more meaningful death rate or total number of deaths is seen as politically unpalatable.
But there is a solution!
In the early days of the pandemic in the UK a lot of the messaging was around protecting the NHS from being overwhelmed. The Government could therefore pivot to a new strategy based primarily around hospitisations. If hospitals in an area see a serious increase in admissions then explain why and implement local lock-downs. If cases go up, but hospital admissions don't increase significantly, then implement track and trace and quarantining of confirmed cases, but don't implement local lock-downs.
What do you all think? This approach responds to the number of serious cases, frames it in terms of protecting the NHS, and all without the Government having to come up with an "acceptable number of deaths".
|  | | |  |
| Government Covid Policy on 10:11 - Sep 10 with 1013 views | Pinewoodblue |
Think Boris has been happy to see new cases ticking over at a higher rate than his senior health advisors would have liked. Unfortunately it hasn’t worked so his two amigos are, for the t8me bring, being taken more Notice of.
Christmas is hanging over Boris head if he has to restrict numbers who can gather over the holiday period he will be toast. |  |
| |
| Government Covid Policy on 10:20 - Sep 10 with 995 views | Edmundo |
Can you be on SAGE? Makes more sense than any of the recent advice and opinions. |  |
| |
| Government Covid Policy on 11:16 - Sep 10 with 961 views | Harry_Palmer |
This line of thought certainly makes a lot of sense, which is precisely why it wont happen. |  | | |
| Government Covid Policy on 11:26 - Sep 10 with 956 views | longtimefan |
| Government Covid Policy on 11:16 - Sep 10 by Harry_Palmer |
This line of thought certainly makes a lot of sense, which is precisely why it wont happen. |
Although by waiting for hospitalisation to rise you’ve probably added a 2 week period where you’ve let the spread get out of hand and delayed any preventive measures. I believe I heard on the radio today that we are now starting to see a rise in hospitalisation linked to the last few weeks of rising cases. | | | |
| Government Covid Policy on 11:30 - Sep 10 with 956 views | Guthrum |
Couple of things:
Hospitalisation lags several days behind infection. Hosts are infectious during that period. So using that as a trigger gives an outbreak time to get more established before action is taken. Given the virus' ability to spread exponentially, a bomb could effectively have gone off before the threshold is reached.
Secondly, even if it does not result in death, the effects of suffering Covid-19 are considerably more severe - and, significantly, appear to be longer lasting - than Influenza. We also have effective ways of treating the latter and vaccines to inhibit its occurrence, none of which is yet true for C-19. Allowing it to run freely through the populace just because mortality seems to be lower is not a viable way to go.
A scenario where at any time ten or twenty percent of the population were simultaneously seriously, even dangerously ill, lasting a couple of weeks, possibly requiring hospital care and with after effects lasting months or years is simply not supportable. For each person laid up in bed (at home), it would require one or more others to take care of them - who would, in turn, have to isolate, unable to work for the duration. Other contacts would also need to quarantine. A million sick could take five or ten millions out of circulation. |  |
| |
| Government Covid Policy on 11:49 - Sep 10 with 930 views | gordon |
Under your approach policy responses would lag too far behind the virus to be effective.
The other bit is this:
"But all indications are that the mortality rate as a percentage of cases is dropping significantly."
The overwhelming driver of this apparent change will be the age profile of infections now vs March / April - the point of putting measures in place now is to prevent the virus spreading to at-risk groups as much as possible.
It's likely that the age adjusted incident fatality rate has changed a bit due to more knowledge of the disease and better treatment. The hope that the virus is becoming more benign isn't supported by much evidence that I'm aware of.
The Government has handled the whole thing awfully (the moonshot thing is a disgraceful waste of time fwiw), but it's absolutely right that the next few weeks are very, very important in determining how severe the winter is. [Post edited 10 Sep 2020 11:50]
|  | | |
| Government Covid Policy on 11:50 - Sep 10 with 924 views | gordon |
| Government Covid Policy on 11:16 - Sep 10 by Harry_Palmer |
This line of thought certainly makes a lot of sense, which is precisely why it wont happen. |
It really doesn't make sense. | | | |
| Government Covid Policy on 13:32 - Sep 10 with 869 views | ElephantintheRoom |
You could add that Sweden look to be world-beaters at the moment.... infection rates way below those of other European countries, including their Scando neighbours. And all because they chose to follow their sceince.
The trouble is nobody knows... and the UK situation is not helped by an incompetent charlatan who thinks a few brazen lies can beat a pandemic... 'project moonshot' being his latest farcical bluster.
While winter approaches quite predictably with the knowledge that the UK's sheltering vulnerable are still vulnerable - plus the NHS will be swamped by flu and a winter vomiting bug... its probably right to try and get a decent percentage of the population to behave with a modicum of responsibility. As always though with this government - its too little too late and comes right on the heals of advice to the polar opposisite. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Government Covid Policy on 16:39 - Sep 10 with 810 views | BlueBadger |
| Government Covid Policy on 11:49 - Sep 10 by gordon |
Under your approach policy responses would lag too far behind the virus to be effective.
The other bit is this:
"But all indications are that the mortality rate as a percentage of cases is dropping significantly."
The overwhelming driver of this apparent change will be the age profile of infections now vs March / April - the point of putting measures in place now is to prevent the virus spreading to at-risk groups as much as possible.
It's likely that the age adjusted incident fatality rate has changed a bit due to more knowledge of the disease and better treatment. The hope that the virus is becoming more benign isn't supported by much evidence that I'm aware of.
The Government has handled the whole thing awfully (the moonshot thing is a disgraceful waste of time fwiw), but it's absolutely right that the next few weeks are very, very important in determining how severe the winter is. [Post edited 10 Sep 2020 11:50]
|
If [redacted] is anything to go by, we are already at winter pressures. The last two nights I've worked have seen us turning the ambulatory care unit into a temporary bedded unit in an effort to try and fit everyone in. Winter is, frankly, shaping up to be an utter cluster*ck. I can see further full lockdowns occurring.
Add into this, an increasingly likely no-deal EU crash out, with all the implications for supply chains and costs and long-term effects on recruitment and I fear the worst for this winter. |  |
| |
| Government Covid Policy on 17:06 - Sep 10 with 793 views | gordon |
| Government Covid Policy on 16:39 - Sep 10 by BlueBadger |
If [redacted] is anything to go by, we are already at winter pressures. The last two nights I've worked have seen us turning the ambulatory care unit into a temporary bedded unit in an effort to try and fit everyone in. Winter is, frankly, shaping up to be an utter cluster*ck. I can see further full lockdowns occurring.
Add into this, an increasingly likely no-deal EU crash out, with all the implications for supply chains and costs and long-term effects on recruitment and I fear the worst for this winter. |
You forgot that we could be under trade sanctions as well soon for breaking international law. The only thing that can save us is a Mr. M Hancock successfully delivering project Moonshot and a Mr. B Johnson popping that deal back in the oven. | | | |
| Government Covid Policy on 19:29 - Sep 10 with 725 views | gordon |
There's the uptick in admissions - remember that admissions lag positive tests, so there is likely a bigger rise coming as admissions catch up with the big increase in positive tests over the last few days. | | | |
| Government Covid Policy on 20:46 - Sep 10 with 682 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Government Covid Policy on 11:49 - Sep 10 by gordon |
Under your approach policy responses would lag too far behind the virus to be effective.
The other bit is this:
"But all indications are that the mortality rate as a percentage of cases is dropping significantly."
The overwhelming driver of this apparent change will be the age profile of infections now vs March / April - the point of putting measures in place now is to prevent the virus spreading to at-risk groups as much as possible.
It's likely that the age adjusted incident fatality rate has changed a bit due to more knowledge of the disease and better treatment. The hope that the virus is becoming more benign isn't supported by much evidence that I'm aware of.
The Government has handled the whole thing awfully (the moonshot thing is a disgraceful waste of time fwiw), but it's absolutely right that the next few weeks are very, very important in determining how severe the winter is. [Post edited 10 Sep 2020 11:50]
|
Interestingly though the case fatality rate is in decline across all age groups, at least according to this German data.
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/declining-covid-19-case-fatality-rates-across-all- | | | |
| Government Covid Policy on 20:48 - Sep 10 with 680 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Government Covid Policy on 17:06 - Sep 10 by gordon |
You forgot that we could be under trade sanctions as well soon for breaking international law. The only thing that can save us is a Mr. M Hancock successfully delivering project Moonshot and a Mr. B Johnson popping that deal back in the oven. |
I wonder who is behind this mass daily testing idea, strange how they are not saying but guess it is one of Boris's chums. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
