Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I wonder why out of all the experts the government have chosen the **** ones.

 

I wouldn’t say that. It’s the not knowing which causes most concern. We are at war, people need to be mobilised to do the right thing and there is always going to be risks in any strategy/policy.

 

 

This from a Aussie critical care director which puts it in perspective of the knock on effect this virus will have:

 

 

In Australia, Dr Adam Visser, the director of critical care at Toowoomba hospital in regional Queensland, has posted an impassioned plea for the Australian community to take individual action to help “flatten the curve” and keep intensive care units from being overwhelmed by Covid-19 cases.

 

I’m an intensive care specialist in a small city.

 

Coronavirus isn’t just like the flu, but it’s only really very dangerous to the elderly or the already unwell. Quite a lot of people in their 80s will die, but most of the rest of us will probably be OK.

 

If you’re in your 70s and you get Coronavirus, you’ve got a really good chance of survival. If I’ve got a bed for you.

 

If you’re in your 60s and you have a heart attack, you’ve got a really good chance of survival. If I’ve got a bed for you.

 

If you’re in your 50s and need bowel cancer surgery, you’ve got a really good chance of survival. If I’ve got a bed for you.

 

If you’re in your 40s and have a bad car accident, you’ve got a really good chance of survival. If I’ve got a bed for you.

 

If you’re in your 30s and have terrible pre-eclampsia as a complication of pregnancy, you’ve got a really good chance of survival. If I’ve got a bed for you.

 

If you’re in your 20s and have a bad reaction to a party drug, you’ve got a really good chance of survival. If I’ve got a bed for you.

 

I have 7 beds equipped with life support machines. We have a plan to increase to about 25. Getting more isn’t a matter or more equipment or more money, that bit is easy. There are not enough skilled staff, even if we all work double shifts every day for six months (and we probably will).

 

If 50% of my city gets infected, that’s 75,000 people. If 5% of them need life support (which is the estimate), that’s 3750 people. For 25 beds.

 

And then I might not have a bed for you.

 

So it’s up to you to flatten the curve. Wash your hands. Stay home.

 

 

It’s important to remember that the 3750 projected cases will not happen at the same time but it illustrates the risks to people with other medical conditions and the importance to flatten the curve considering the resources available.

Link to post
Share on other sites
b2554e5bf0b5fa51b8f7aca91e0636bf.jpg

 

945fd28edd6fc712777de931658891e3.jpg

 

d8a7256a93f63af8991751c0041cb4e7.jpg

 

The 2nd chart is reassuring to an extent. The bottom chart is pretty irrelevant though as those other diseases are well established but this one still growing. There'll be loads of people still ill and/or on ventilators that may not make it. Moreover, the disease is growing in its spread and until it peaks, and cases have run their course, any stats about the number of deaths is premature.

 

Bottom chart, 3rd line down. Pneumonia. That's the complication of this disease. Pneumonia itself isn't contagious, but this disease is highly contagious, and in some cases can lead to pneumonia. Just imagine where pneumonia would be on that list if it, in itself, was a contagious air born virus? The answer is top, by a distance.

 

Putting charts to one side, the biggest indicator of the seriousness is worldwide government and WHO reaction. Countries and borders don't just close down.

Edited by egg
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well the Conservatives are currently streets ahead in the polls and the latest survey on response to the crisis shows people supporting the government's approach.

 

Then we have read different polls. It would also appear that 229 professional experts disagree with our Governments current handling of the situation too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Then we have read different polls. It would also appear that 229 professional experts disagree with our Governments current handling of the situation too.

 

I suspect any shut down will be gradual and tie-in with school Easter Holidays

Link to post
Share on other sites
My christ

I think it's the whole herd immunity point. Perception amongst some is that if 60% need to get it in order to achieve herd immunity, then some assume that 60% will get it. That's 40m or so. If the maths work back from that and 1 in 5 will get properly ill, and using Italian death rates, then it's carnage.

 

The issue though is how many of us will get it. If it is mega numbers, the death rate will be much higher as there'll be less beds and ventilators etc.

 

My personal view is that our approach will inevitably lead to widespread infection and a high death count. How many, no idea, but it won't be pretty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Professional experts in what?

Maths, statistics, everything bar infectious disease I think. That said, if our approach is correct, everyone else has got it wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Professional experts in what?

 

In matters relating to serious epidemics - as opposed to people who spend their time supporting Tory policies on the Internet no matter that they may cost many lives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's the whole herd immunity point. Perception amongst some is that if 60% need to get it in order to achieve herd immunity, then some assume that 60% will get it. That's 40m or so. If the maths work back from that and 1 in 5 will get properly ill, and using Italian death rates, then it's carnage.

 

The issue though is how many of us will get it. If it is mega numbers, the death rate will be much higher as there'll be less beds and ventilators etc.

 

My personal view is that our approach will inevitably lead to widespread infection and a high death count. How many, no idea, but it won't be pretty.

 

it has contributed to the death of over 5000 people around the world with the Far East on the way down (apparently).

 

Yet, 300,000 people (or hundreds of thousands) will die in the UK alone?.....it wont get anywhere near that globally

Link to post
Share on other sites
it has contributed to the death of over 5000 people around the world with the Far East on the way down (apparently).

 

Yet, 300,000 people (or hundreds of thousands) will die in the UK alone?.....it wont get anywhere near that globally

I think the suggestion is it is far from over for countries that have seemingly recovered like China. With low immunity, its likely to have another wave I assume.
Link to post
Share on other sites
In matters relating to serious epidemics - as opposed to people who spend their time supporting Tory policies on the Internet no matter that they may cost many lives.

 

are they?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maths, statistics, everything bar infectious disease I think. That said, if our approach is correct, everyone else has got it wrong.

 

You can also add an open letter from the British Society for Immunology which is the main professional body in the field (and an open letter from behavioural scientists/psychologists questioning the assumption of “behavioural fatigue”).

Link to post
Share on other sites
In matters relating to serious epidemics - as opposed to people who spend their time supporting Tory policies on the Internet no matter that they may cost many lives.
So 200 experts in serious epidemics signed a letter opposing the government policy? Do you have a link to that because that sounds remarkable if true.
Link to post
Share on other sites
are they?

 

Yes many are Jamie. Epidemiology has its heart an understanding of statistics, dynamic modeling and complex systems. So mathematicians, network scientists and statisticians are in their element. By contrast, and paradoxically, ordinary doctors are less qualified to talk about this area.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes many are Jamie. Epidemiology has its heart an understanding of statistics, dynamic modeling and complex systems. So mathematicians, network scientists and statisticians are in their element. By contrast, and paradoxically, ordinary doctors are less qualified to talk about this area.
BBC reports that letter signed by 200 'behavioural scientists'. Not a single virologist /epidemiologist /immunologist/ global health expert that I recognise and whose opinion I'd want to hear. A credible scientific debate needs voices of experts on both sides. Stop the madness!

 

Yes, I repeat I know lots who are experts in modelling in the context of infectious diseases. Not one is on this letter. Mathematical epidemiology is a big field. The people who are experts and publishing in this field and contributed to previous epidemics need to be heard.

 

Please, see below for the list of scientists who have signed the open letter to urge the UK gov to implement stricter measures.

 

I do not recognised anybody and I have been a virologist for 15 years.

https://t.co/20WkSlTl8v

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some areas in the USA now that they are finally increasing testing are seeing over a third of all tests come back positive.

 

The USA are the ones trialling herd immunity, not us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BBC reports that letter signed by 200 'behavioural scientists'. Not a single virologist /epidemiologist /immunologist/ global health expert that I recognise and whose opinion I'd want to hear. A credible scientific debate needs voices of experts on both sides. Stop the madness!

 

Yes, I repeat I know lots who are experts in modelling in the context of infectious diseases. Not one is on this letter. Mathematical epidemiology is a big field. The people who are experts and publishing in this field and contributed to previous epidemics need to be heard.

 

You’re not up to date then: there have been three open letters (never mind the expertise informing the WHO and other national governments approaches). The letter signed by behavioural scientists is only one of them and questions only one pillar of the government’s strategy around social fatigue (on which they’re perfectly qualified to speak).

Edited by shurlock
Link to post
Share on other sites
More so than a bunch of people whose only discernible talent is for getting themselves elected to Parliament?
Whitty and Vallance- people who head up a team of many scientists- have no talent other than getting themselves elected to parliament? Fancy that!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Which is the credible letter and which one is the letter signed by people not privvy to the data and not qualified to comment?

 

They are all credible in their respective fields. You need to talk to your friends a bit more (like your Jewish mates), if you don’t understand the relationship between statistics, mathematics and epidemiology. Certainly mentioning behavioural scientists and linking to a letter signed by another group of experts in the same breath suggests you’re a bit confused about these different disciplines and branches of expertise.

Edited by shurlock
Link to post
Share on other sites
They are all credible in their respective fields. You need to talk to your friends a bit more (like your Jewish mates), if you don’t understand the relationship between statistics, mathematics and epidemiology. Mentioning behavioural scientists and linking to the letter signed by another group of experts suggests you’re a bit confused about the different branches of expertise.

 

Where did I refute that there was a link? You need to be clearer about which specific letter you are talking about that is signed by experts who are more credible in this field than the team of epidemiologists currently shaping the government's response.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Where did I refute that there was a link? You need to be clearer about which specific letter you are talking about that is signed by experts who are more credible in this field than the team of epidemiologists currently shaping the government's response.

 

You mentioned behavioural scientists and then linked to a letter signed by mathematicians and biostatisticians. They are completely different. I think you’re the one who needs to be clearer pal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Some areas in the USA now that they are finally increasing testing are seeing over a third of all tests come back positive.

 

The USA are the ones trialling herd immunity, not us.

 

Who are they testing though? Everyone or people with symptoms? If the latter, then that's a low figure. If the former then it might be good news (already high levels of immunity and significant coverage without intensive care being overwhelmed).

 

I am an amateur at this, mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whitty and Vallance- people who head up a team of many scientists- have no talent other than getting themselves elected to parliament? Fancy that!

 

How many would that be exactly? How come the advice they are giving is at odds with many other professionals and the rest of Europe? How many of these people advising the Government get to make the final decisions of had Johnson given them to crack in and just keep him in the picture every now and again?

Link to post
Share on other sites
You mentioned behavioural scientists and then linked to a letter signed by mathematicians and biostatisticians. They are completely different. I think you’re the one who needs to be clearer pal.
You've said there are three letters. Kindly show me which letter you are referring to so we can discuss it properly. Presumably you are referring to a letter that contains signatures of individuals who are more qualified to discuss this strategy than the team of scientists that the government are following.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That is idiotic on so many levels.

 

They only want to keep the oldies out of intensive care beds so that they can reserve them for themselves.

 

You only have to ask yourself whose welfare they are concerned about. It’s not the over-70s

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the benefit of some, there have been three letters - each bringing something distinctive to the table given the problem is inherently multidisciplinary.

 

-one signed by mathematicians and biostatisticians who are experts in modeling complex, dynamic systems and how phenomena like pandemics are likely to spread through the population;

-one signed by behavioural scientists who can talk credibly about the behavioural assumptions underpinning the government’s strategy - namely the idea of social fatigue, the idea that, if implemented too early, measures limiting social contact will be undermined just when they are most needed because the public will find it difficult to stay the course and accept long-term restrictions on its behaviour;

-and a third letter signed by the country’s main professional body of immunologists who understand at a biological level how immune systems work and interact with viruses like covid-19, so can evaluate the government’s emphasis on herd immunity.

Edited by shurlock
Link to post
Share on other sites
How many would that be exactly? How come the advice they are giving is at odds with many other professionals and the rest of Europe? How many of these people advising the Government get to make the final decisions of had Johnson given them to crack in and just keep him in the picture every now and again?
We don't have all the data, we don't know what the best strategy is for the UK based on the availability of beds, the age of the population, our behaviours, the desire to keep deaths in the medium and long term to a minimum.

 

You know precisely nothing about the qualifications of the team of people advising our current strategy which is based on our very specific set of circumstances. In your weird little world it's the evil tories led by Boris making this sort of thing up as he goes along when the reality is clearly the complete opposite of that. Our strategy may be wrong but it is clear that the people actually qualified in epidemiology in the UK have not spoken out publically against the current strategy and we have clear reasons for doing what we are doing.

 

Putting it another way, do you really think that the government would do something so different from other countries without following clear advice and without a clear justification? Why would they take the political risk of just doing something different for no reason? Very obviously they are being advised by extremely qualified experts about what to do. Like I said, you just hate it because there's a Conservative government in charge, let's just be glad that the likes of yourself and most of twitter aren't in charge of anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Timothy Gowers, possibly one of the brightest people in this country, is currently arguing for a complete lockdown now. His twitter feed is well worth a read.

 

Meanwhile, Patrick Vallance is writing his latest information for us in a Sun article :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
it has contributed to the death of over 5000 people around the world with the Far East on the way down (apparently).

 

Yet, 300,000 people (or hundreds of thousands) will die in the UK alone?.....it wont get anywhere near that globally

I hope you're right, but the response of Western governments suggests otherwise.

 

For every person fearing armageddon, there are several more in the "it's just a cold" and "flu kills more, so what's all the fuss" camps. The truth is China have suppressed this and conducted mass testing. When they come fully out of lock down, who knows what will happen but if it means another spike, at least the suppression period has given teh medics time to traleat. We've done neither of those and whilst I'm no medic or expert, common sense tells me that our policy of limited testing and minimal suppression is bound to lead to mass spread, thus mass impact on the NHS, and a high death count.

 

I've no idea where you plucked the 300k death figure from, but this isn't a subject to be falsely attributing comments to people - if you must post in that style, do it on irrelevant stuff like football.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope you're right, but the response of Western governments suggests otherwise.

 

For every person fearing armageddon, there are several more in the "it's just a cold" and "flu kills more, so what's all the fuss" camps. The truth is China have suppressed this and conducted mass testing. When they come fully out of lock down, who knows what will happen but if it means another spike, at least the suppression period has given teh medics time to traleat. We've done neither of those and whilst I'm no medic or expert, common sense tells me that our policy of limited testing and minimal suppression is bound to lead to mass spread, thus mass impact on the NHS, and a high death count.

 

I've no idea where you plucked the 300k death figure from, but this isn't a subject to be falsely attributing comments to people - if you must post in that style, do it on irrelevant stuff like football.

 

the 300k was following on from initial response to Saint86 (which you replied to) who said hundreds of thousands will die in the UK.

lets say a very conservative 30m people in the UK get it, 1% of those will die (apparently), that is a huge amount of people, which is extremely unlikely, given it is about 5000 people globally with the far east on the way down.

 

Does it mean that Southampton alone will lose around half of the total number of those already perished globally?

Edited by Batman
Link to post
Share on other sites
the 300k was following on from initial response to Saint86 (which you replied to) who said hundreds of thousands will die in the UK.

lets say a very conservative 30m people in the UK get it, 1% of those will die (apparently), that is a huge amount of people, which is extremely unlikely, given it is about 5000 people globally with the far east on the way down.

 

Does it mean that Southampton alone will lose around half of the total number of those already perished globally?

 

As I've said, I have no idea on the numbers that will get it. It's the government that have thrown out the 60% of the population figure for herd immunisation. Merkel has speculated that a higher figure of Germans could it. Its been said that 1 in 5 will get seriously ill. The number that will die, will depend on the number that are get it and that comes down to government policy. We're using a different approach to others and I don't mind admitting I think it's stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's currently too many unknowns. Much depends on the assumption that the Chinese part of the pandemic is now over. If it resurfaces again in China and South Korea then clearly that's a different situation and I'm guessing no one really knows at the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There's currently too many unknowns. Much depends on the assumption that the Chinese part of the pandemic is now over. If it resurfaces again in China and South Korea then clearly that's a different situation and I'm guessing no one really knows at the moment.

 

Yep. If the suppression has somehow halted the spread then great. Either way, I'm struggling to see how exposing more people as we're doing slows our peak and helps keep the pressure off the medics. It feels counter intuitive, and is contrary to what the Chinese and others have done.

 

Either way, there's nothing we can do other than what we're advised and take sensible precautions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boris could personally find a cure & produce a vaccine and the usually suspects on here would moan “what’s taken him so long, a dozen people have died whilst he was fannying around”. Imagine if he had a Government Chief Scientific Adviser & a Chief Medical Officer and then proceeded to ignore their advice, Soggy and his gang of soft arrested lefties would be going nuts. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.

 

The 2 guys CV’s make pretty impressive reading, admittedly they’d probably get Watford relegated & Professor Chris Whitty’s Life Stories would be a pretty ****ty TV programme , but they’re highly expert in their field, and more importantly, are aware of the whole picture and all the facts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep. If the suppression has somehow halted the spread then great. Either way, I'm struggling to see how exposing more people as we're doing slows our peak and helps keep the pressure off the medics. It feels counter intuitive, and is contrary to what the Chinese and others have done.

 

Either way, there's nothing we can do other than what we're advised and take sensible precautions.

I think what they are thinking is that by introducing more draconian measures at a later point you'll be able to make them stick more effectively for a shorter period without overwhelming the NHS. It's a big assumption though and if their initial inaction leads to more deaths than necessary they will get slaughtered for it. I assume these experts are staking their careers on being right so it's not a path they would be taking lightly.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The snap dragon showed me this, don’t know where she got it from, but it’s probably the best explanation I’ve seen of the Government’s policy and the difference between that & what others are doing.

 

 

“ The govt strategy on Coronavirus is more refined than those used in other countries and potentially very effective. But it is also riskier and based on a number of assumptions. They need to be correct, and the measures they introduce need to work when they are supposed to.UK starting assumption is that a high number of the population will inevitably get infected whatever is done – up to 80%. As you can’t stop it, so it is best to manage it. There are limited health resources so the aim is to manage the flow of the seriously ill to these.

 

The Italian model the aims to stop infection. The UKs wants infection BUT of particular categories of people. The aim of the UK is to have as many lower risk people infected as possible. Immune people cannot infect others; the more there are the lower the risk of infection? Based on this idea, at the moment the govt wants people to get infected, up until hospitals begin to reach capacity. At that they want to reduce, but not stop infection rate. Ideally they balance it so the numbers entering hospital = the number leaving.The risk is being able to accurately manage infection flow relative to health case resources. Data on infection rates needs to be accurate, the measures they introduce need to work and at the time they want them to and to the degree they want, or the system is overwhelmed.

 

 

Kids generally won’t get very ill, so the govt can use them as a tool to infect others when you want to increase infection. When you need to slow infection, that tap can be turned off – at that point they close the schools. Politically risky for them to say this.

The same for large scale events - stop them when you want to slow infection rates; turn another tap off. This means schools etc are closed for a shorter period and disruption generally is therefore for a shorter period, AND with a growing immune population. This is sustainable

 

After a while most of the population is immune, the seriously ill have all received treatment and the country is resistant. The more vulnerable are then less at risk. This is the end state the govt is aiming for and could achieve.

 

 

The Italian (and others) strategy is to stop as much infection as possible - or all infection. This is appealing, but then what? The restrictions are not sustainable for months. So the will need to be relaxed. But that will lead to reemergence of infections.Then rates will then start to climb again. So they will have to reintroduce the restrictions each time infection rates rise. That is not a sustainable model and takes much longer to achieve the goal of a largely immune population with low risk of infection of the vulnerable

 

 

As the government tries to achieve equilibrium between hospitalisations and infections, more interventions will appear. It's perhaps why there are at the moment few public information films on staying at home. They are treading a tight path, but possibly a sensible one.This is probably the best strategy, but they should explain it more clearly. It relies on a lot of assumptions, so it would be good to know what they are - especially behavioural. Most encouraging, it's way too clever for Johnson to have had any role in developing it.”

 

 

783eb7979cf72db1331f95a87a7ed065.jpg

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites
The snap dragon showed me this, don’t know where she got it from, but it’s probably the best explanation I’ve seen of the Government’s policy and the difference between that & what others are doing.

 

 

“ The govt strategy on Coronavirus is more refined than those used in other countries and potentially very effective. But it is also riskier and based on a number of assumptions. They need to be correct, and the measures they introduce need to work when they are supposed to.UK starting assumption is that a high number of the population will inevitably get infected whatever is done – up to 80%. As you can’t stop it, so it is best to manage it. There are limited health resources so the aim is to manage the flow of the seriously ill to these.

 

The Italian model the aims to stop infection. The UKs wants infection BUT of particular categories of people. The aim of the UK is to have as many lower risk people infected as possible. Immune people cannot infect others; the more there are the lower the risk of infection? Based on this idea, at the moment the govt wants people to get infected, up until hospitals begin to reach capacity. At that they want to reduce, but not stop infection rate. Ideally they balance it so the numbers entering hospital = the number leaving.The risk is being able to accurately manage infection flow relative to health case resources. Data on infection rates needs to be accurate, the measures they introduce need to work and at the time they want them to and to the degree they want, or the system is overwhelmed.

 

 

Kids generally won’t get very ill, so the govt can use them as a tool to infect others when you want to increase infection. When you need to slow infection, that tap can be turned off – at that point they close the schools. Politically risky for them to say this.

The same for large scale events - stop them when you want to slow infection rates; turn another tap off. This means schools etc are closed for a shorter period and disruption generally is therefore for a shorter period, AND with a growing immune population. This is sustainable

 

After a while most of the population is immune, the seriously ill have all received treatment and the country is resistant. The more vulnerable are then less at risk. This is the end state the govt is aiming for and could achieve.

 

 

The Italian (and others) strategy is to stop as much infection as possible - or all infection. This is appealing, but then what? The restrictions are not sustainable for months. So the will need to be relaxed. But that will lead to reemergence of infections.Then rates will then start to climb again. So they will have to reintroduce the restrictions each time infection rates rise. That is not a sustainable model and takes much longer to achieve the goal of a largely immune population with low risk of infection of the vulnerable

 

 

As the government tries to achieve equilibrium between hospitalisations and infections, more interventions will appear. It's perhaps why there are at the moment few public information films on staying at home. They are treading a tight path, but possibly a sensible one.This is probably the best strategy, but they should explain it more clearly. It relies on a lot of assumptions, so it would be good to know what they are - especially behavioural. Most encouraging, it's way too clever for Johnson to have had any role in developing it.”

 

 

783eb7979cf72db1331f95a87a7ed065.jpg

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's a viral post from twitter yesterday by a professor.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The snap dragon showed me this, don’t know where she got it from, but it’s probably the best explanation I’ve seen of the Government’s policy and the difference between that & what others are doing.

 

 

“ The govt strategy on Coronavirus is more refined than those used in other countries and potentially very effective. But it is also riskier and based on a number of assumptions. They need to be correct, and the measures they introduce need to work when they are supposed to.UK starting assumption is that a high number of the population will inevitably get infected whatever is done – up to 80%. As you can’t stop it, so it is best to manage it. There are limited health resources so the aim is to manage the flow of the seriously ill to these.

 

The Italian model the aims to stop infection. The UKs wants infection BUT of particular categories of people. The aim of the UK is to have as many lower risk people infected as possible. Immune people cannot infect others; the more there are the lower the risk of infection? Based on this idea, at the moment the govt wants people to get infected, up until hospitals begin to reach capacity. At that they want to reduce, but not stop infection rate. Ideally they balance it so the numbers entering hospital = the number leaving.The risk is being able to accurately manage infection flow relative to health case resources. Data on infection rates needs to be accurate, the measures they introduce need to work and at the time they want them to and to the degree they want, or the system is overwhelmed.

 

 

Kids generally won’t get very ill, so the govt can use them as a tool to infect others when you want to increase infection. When you need to slow infection, that tap can be turned off – at that point they close the schools. Politically risky for them to say this.

The same for large scale events - stop them when you want to slow infection rates; turn another tap off. This means schools etc are closed for a shorter period and disruption generally is therefore for a shorter period, AND with a growing immune population. This is sustainable

 

After a while most of the population is immune, the seriously ill have all received treatment and the country is resistant. The more vulnerable are then less at risk. This is the end state the govt is aiming for and could achieve.

 

 

The Italian (and others) strategy is to stop as much infection as possible - or all infection. This is appealing, but then what? The restrictions are not sustainable for months. So the will need to be relaxed. But that will lead to reemergence of infections.Then rates will then start to climb again. So they will have to reintroduce the restrictions each time infection rates rise. That is not a sustainable model and takes much longer to achieve the goal of a largely immune population with low risk of infection of the vulnerable

 

 

As the government tries to achieve equilibrium between hospitalisations and infections, more interventions will appear. It's perhaps why there are at the moment few public information films on staying at home. They are treading a tight path, but possibly a sensible one.This is probably the best strategy, but they should explain it more clearly. It relies on a lot of assumptions, so it would be good to know what they are - especially behavioural. Most encouraging, it's way too clever for Johnson to have had any role in developing it.”

 

783eb7979cf72db1331f95a87a7ed065.jpg

 

I'm not qualified to critique the different approaches - but it seems to me that the Chinese / Taiwanese / Italian approach buys you more time to get health services prepared. Matt Hancock was saying this morning the UK only has 5,000 ventilators, needs "many more times that number" and is desperately trying to source more and train staff to use them. Delaying the peak till month 9 rather than month 4 would be an enormous help presumably.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not qualified to critique the different approaches - but it seems to me that the Chinese / Taiwanese / Italian approach buys you more time to get health services prepared.

 

Also to create, test, and produce a vaccine. Presumably the Chinese, Italian, and all other foreign Governments are listening to their experts, and basing their action plans on the advice they receive.

Edited by badgerx16
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})