Coronavirus Thread / New / Old / Merged

[F(f)CUK]

Clearly some people don't have elderly parents or grandparents who they love. My son was not supposed to make double figures (now 25) and has nearly died twice of pneumonia in the past 4years.  Perhaps we should catch the illness and let him die, because we should be ok. I am alright Jack.

[Holders]

Clearly some people don't have elderly parents or grandparents who they love. My son was not supposed to make double figures (now 25) and has nearly died twice of pneumonia in the past 4years.  Perhaps we should catch the illness and let him die, because we should be ok. I am alright Jack.

This.

We can only hazard a guess which posters are fit and healthy and under 40.

[Plodder]

Clearly some people don't have elderly parents or grandparents who they love. My son was not supposed to make double figures (now 25) and has nearly died twice of pneumonia in the past 4years.  Perhaps we should catch the illness and let him die, because we should be ok. I am alright Jack.

I have stayed off this thread for a number of reasons until now, but you raise a serious point which deserves a serious answer.  Coronavirus left to spread without any social measures will claim lives, and cause tragedy and suffering. However, continuing lockdown for too long will also claim lives, and cause tragedy and suffering. To take one small example, I know two 94 year old people to whom I spoke on the same day a couple of weeks ago. One already has multiple serious health problems and is unlikely to live for more than 2-3 months, the other is reasonably fit for for her age, but has some problems and knows that at 94 she is unlikely to have long left. Both of them went into isolation (and this is the admirable point) not for their own sakes, but so that they might not become coronavirus spreaders. Yet both also said (in a non-dramatic way) the same thing, namely that the current strategy has effectively stolen life from them, as everything they hold dear in life has been taken away.  One is resigned to never seeing her children or grand-children again; the other thinks it is very unlikely, and also thinks it is unlikely that she will be able to take up her volunteer work again.  All we have done is to take away what precious little time they have left to "live" rather than "exist". Sure, they are no longer likely to die from coronavirus, but still likely to die from another cause, condemned to what both describe as "pointless" existence.  Yet they are selflessly following rules for the benefit of others.  We use the word "heroes" a lot at the moment - people like these are heroes making the ultimate sacrifice.  I could mention the host of other things caused by lockdown (suicide, mental health, physical health, domestic abuse, financial ruin, homelessness, youngsters' education ruined etc. etc.), but that would take for ever.

I understand how worried you must be about your son. The point I am trying to make in a long-winded way is that there are no easy answers, and we (as a society via our elected government) have to make choices which will lead to deaths and suffering for people who (like your son, you, me and everyone else) are blameless. Too much to discuss here, but I think we have to start relaxing the restrictions after the current three week period, whilst keeping in place measures to protect those who deem themselves especially vulnerable.  People use too easily the expression "lives are more important than the economy"; the two are closely linked.  There are many people who (like myself in the emergency services) are lucky as we are in jobs which continue to be paid, but some in this situation fail to appreciate how shattering it is for individuals and families when their income suddenly disappears and they have no money.  In a way, the "Stay at Home - Protect the NHS - Save Lives" has been a victim of its own success, as it has spooked a lot of people into thinking we can't try to resume some form of "normality" for several months and made them petrified of returning to work or going out when the time comes to do so; but I think we have to start soon, otherwise the catastrophe will greater than whatever the virus is achieving.

Wishing you and everyone the best in these difficult times

[Clebi]

It is bad flu and will be non-news by the end of the Month.

I like this comment

Yes, that's one of several whereas some other posters have since done a volte-face.

Still think Andy S comment on the first page of this thread sums it up.

"If you are fit you will recover. If you're not you probably didn't have long left anyway."

Sums it up, just incorrectly. Plenty of fit people and with no underlying problems have died and more will no doubt follow. A minority of the total, but a significant minority.

I seem to recall they always suggested there would be mortality rates of about 1% or less in the fit category didn't they? So the cases your suggesting are still in line I believe if the stats maintain.

1% is across all ages and backgrounds. Even at that level there's data suggesting it will be lower - 0.37% is the last I read (from antibodies testing of c. 1,000 people in a village in Germany). If you're healthy and under 40, the mortality rate will be much lower still,  almost certainly less than 0.1% (so less than 1 in 1,000) or perhaps even 0.01% (1 in 10,000).

You say 0.37%. Of those infected or the total population? New York City has 8.77 million inhabitants and as of now 14,286 dead. That is 0.16% of the total population and we are only at the crest of the epidemic. Much more to come. So seems we are NOT talking about 0.37% of those infected that will die. In NYC it is right now more than 10% of tested cases. Yes, a lot of people are walking around asymptomatic so the true figure is certainly much below 10%. Bit it will be much more than 0.37% of those infected, that figure is more likely relevant to the whole population, which In NYC that would be mean more than 32,000. But that figure, again, will totally depend on how many get infected. So just stay indoors! As someone with a dear friend, NOT part of a "risk group", 3 weeks in hospital but since yesterday on ventilator this is just fecking awful and I am personally afraid for me, my family and friends.

[Statto]

You say 0.37%. Of those infected or the total population? New York City has 8.77 million inhabitants and as of now 14,286 dead. That is 0.16% of the total population and we are only at the crest of the epidemic. Much more to come. So seems we are NOT talking about 0.37% of those infected that will die.

I believe the death toll you've quoted is for New York state (not only the city) which has a population of 20m. A 0.37% mortality rate among those infected and 14k deaths would imply that  around 4m people, or 1 in 5 people in the state, have now been infected. I think that quite conceivable. FWIW I believe New York is by some distance the worst affected region in the developed world, proportionately.

In response to the last part of your post and some other posts above, I've not made any political or ethical points (although FWIW I think Plodder makes some good points) or disputed that people should be fearful. But a lot of the most extreme fearmongering is disconnected from the facts and numbers, (and often a little politically-motivated) and I don't see how that sort of talk can do anything positive.

[The Rational Fan]

You say 0.37%. Of those infected or the total population? New York City has 8.77 million inhabitants and as of now 14,286 dead. That is 0.16% of the total population and we are only at the crest of the epidemic. Much more to come. So seems we are NOT talking about 0.37% of those infected that will die.

I believe the death toll you've quoted is for New York state (not only the city) which has a population of 20m. A 0.37% mortality rate among those infected and 14k deaths would imply that around 4m people, or 1 in 5 people in the state, have now been infected. I think that quite conceivable. FWIW I believe New York is by some distance the worst affected region in the developed world, proportionately.

In response to the last part of your post and some other posts above, I've not made any political or ethical points (although FWIW I think Plodder makes some good points) or disputed that people should be fearful. But a lot of the most extreme fearmongering is disconnected from the facts and numbers, (and often a little politically-motivated) and I don't see how that sort of talk can do anything positive.

I completely disagree with your logic that "the lockdown should end", because the "official statistics are wrong" and the probable statistics is "a death rate of 0.37%" (based on some study) because the "official WHO figure of 21 % deaths of closed cases  (i.e 165,074 deaths / 790,276 cases closed), also the official UK figure 100% deaths of closed cases (because the UK failed to record recoveries) and even the official UK figure 13.3% deaths of all cases.

Decisions should only be based on official statistics and peer-reviewed accepted data, which for now strongly indicates a much harsher lockdown is required.

While there is a lot of creditability with your starting premise the UK figures are hopelessly wrong (which is obviously true for the UK stat of 100% deaths of the case closed as at least one person has recovered from Covid-19 in the UK), surely that leads to the logical conclusion that the UK needs to get some sane figures and then makes a decision.

As for your unofficial figures by a few experts in Germany (estimating the closed death rate is 0.37% in a non-peer reviewed study), it does seem to place doubts of WHO and UK official figures (placing the currently closed death rate between 13% and 21%), but it seems to indicate more that all the figures/estimates are all totally incorrect (including the Germany experts, WHO and UK NHS). Even the WHO estiamted the death rate was probably near 3.5%, which disagrees wildly to the death rate of closed cases of 21%, so like the UK, the WHO is clueless.

Seriously, if a real estate agent in Fulham told you a "Terrace house in Fulham" was worth £10M and a buyers agent said its worth 170k, I would have no confidence that one of them is correct. I find it amazing that with 2.4 million with the coivd-19 we have very little idea of what professional have the illness, surely knowing what professional don't contract the illiness may help us know who could go back to work first (e.g. Do many car mechanics etc catch covid-19?).

Conclusion: the UK needs to get some decent statistics before it ends the lockdown. The government is erroneously trying to make decisions that depending on which stats you look at it could be a "fast spread mild flu" (R0 =3.9 and Death Rate = 0.37%) or a "comparable black death" (R0 =1.4 and Death Rate = 21%). Any sensible analysis of your information is not that the death rate is low as you imply; a sensible conclusion is the WHO / UK have no idea of the real death rate and it could be either high or low.

[Statto]

I completely disagree with your logic that "the lockdown should end", because the "official statistics are wrong"

(1) I didn't say "the lockdown should end"
(2) I didn't say the "official statistics are wrong". The "official statistics" are for the number of hospitalisations and deaths, which is a completely different metric to the mortality rate of the disease. No one involved in compiling and publishing those stats is holding them out as the latter. It's like having a debate about how many Fulham fans there are worldwide and you saying the "official statistic" is 1,200 because that's how many we took to Bristol away last month.

[Holders]

The statistics that are published daily are lacking in detail; no doubt the decision-makers have much more detail at their disposal but I believe that publication of more detail (not necessarily in the daily soundbites) would be of real use to the public, not least in understanding the explanations that are given. Liam Fox (and never thought I'd ever quote him) makes some excellent points in his article on this subject today.

One that's concerned me for some time is the daily regional graph that shows London top of the "league" and the SW bottom. Clearly that's because of the relative density of population and behaviour which inevitably make the spread of the virus more likely. The reverse applies to the rural SW where we don't have tube trains but, even here, the clusters in Plymouth and Torbay point to population density as a key factor.

My point is that these regional figures need pro-rating according to relative populations, which would inevitably raise all or most of the regions up the "league". That would have the effect of countering the complacency which one encounters here in the SW (and perhaps elsewhere) where density sometimes seems to relate to degree of denial rather than numbers of people. 

So many questions could then be more clearly asked, even if not answered: 1. it would be useful to know if the regions "peak" at roughly the same time as London and whether that would remain the peak, all other things being equal, or whether they would balance up once the gates are opened. That is, whether we should expect a resurgence once the lockdown ends to approach the % level of London, i.e. whether that is a certain level that all regions will eventually need to reach - osmotically.  2. whether the "hammer" will have lowered the level merely until such time as more infection is imported during the holiday season, if it goes ahead. 3 whether there should be different opening up measures in different regions to pre-empt the latter.

There's no point in opening up too fast just to have to clamp down disruptively on the same factors again later.

[Statto]

Regional data here
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/#regions

There's a largess of publicly-available data on this. Almost all the data and expert analysis is published (in the West, at least). The man on the street can easily become as informed as central govt on most facets this (albeit perhaps not on specific issues like PPE supplies). Which admittedly, still leaves a lot of unknowns but that's a consequence of this being a novel, complex issue rather than a lack of transparency.

But most people don't want to read data, charts and academic studies. They want soundbites and (in your case) the odd Sunday Times article. 

[Holders]

Regional data here
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/#regions

There's a largess of publicly-available data on this. Almost all the data and expert analysis is published (in the West, at least). The man on the street can easily become as informed as central govt on most facets this (albeit perhaps not on specific issues like PPE supplies). Which admittedly, still leaves a lot of unknowns but that's a consequence of this being a novel, complex issue rather than a lack of transparency.

But most people don't want to read data, charts and academic studies. They want soundbites and (in your case) the odd Sunday Times article. 

Charming!

Those data don't pro-rate per population. Frankly, I'd hoped for a more constructive response from you.

[Statto]

Those data don't pro-rate per population. 

Wikipedia population data
MS Excel

2 mins

Et voila

[Holders]

Those data don't pro-rate per population. 

Wikipedia population data
MS Excel

2 mins

Et voila

Indeed, for those of us who are sufficiently motivated but my point was that it would be useful if it were readily available as it would throw interesting light for the general population and illuminate actions being taken.

[ByTheRiver]

the odd Sunday Times article. 

The odd Sunday Times article alongside medical journal The Lancet, The New Statesman, the WHO, Guardian (oh, I forgot that has an agenda...), countless publications actually - too many to name individually and hold peoples attention, almost every epidemiologist outside of the UK and, most surprising of all, a few posters here from before 'lockdown' even begun.

What was most surprising (and important) about The Sunday Times article is that it was The Times. One of their own. Essentially their own parish newsletter. Surely now, no one could deny or overlook what's been going on? Oh. I see. Okay...

[Holders]

the odd Sunday Times article. 

The odd Sunday Times article alongside medical journal The Lancet, The New Statesman, the WHO, Guardian (oh, I forgot that has an agenda...), countless publications actually - too many to name individually and hold peoples attention, almost every epidemiologist outside of the UK and, most surprising of all, a few posters here from before 'lockdown' even begun.

What was most surprising (and important) about The Sunday Times article is that it was The Times. One of their own. Essentially their own parish newsletter. Surely now, no one could deny or overlook what's been going on? Oh. I see. Okay...

That is a key point and one of the reasons I posted the reference - the fact that it was in the Murdoch press. We wait in anticipation to see how the Sun continues to see the issue, any change there would be a real game changer. I don't make this point politically but the Sun is undoubtedly a (if not the) major influence on public opinion in this country.

Anyone who's read the Sunday Times article should also read the government's response (published yesterday) for balance and I'd also suggest Liam Fox's article today.

[Statto]

Surely now, no one could deny or overlook what's been going on? Oh. I see. Okay...

As a supplement to my current routine of sitting in my study all day pretending to work remotely, I'd love nothing more than a thoughtful discussion of "what's been going on"

But that would involve you articulating something specific and reasoned, with reference to facts and data. Some numbers, dates, direct quotes, coherent explanation, independent analysis... that sort of thing. Which hasn't been your forte thus far.

[ByTheRiver]

the odd Sunday Times article. 

The odd Sunday Times article alongside medical journal The Lancet, The New Statesman, the WHO, Guardian (oh, I forgot that has an agenda...), countless publications actually - too many to name individually and hold peoples attention, almost every epidemiologist outside of the UK and, most surprising of all, a few posters here from before 'lockdown' even begun.

What was most surprising (and important) about The Sunday Times article is that it was The Times. One of their own. Essentially their own parish newsletter. Surely now, no one could deny or overlook what's been going on? Oh. I see. Okay...

We wait in anticipation to see how the Sun continues to see the issue

Sadl, they have already answered. The front page is doing the rounds on socials today in disbelief: 30% of page somethings about the pop band Little Mix
60% of the page a photo of beer with 'pubs closed to Christmas!' in a scaremongering/raising the pressure attempt for an early relase from lockdown which they have already said has hit sales hard
10% a little box with 'Boris anger at smears'.

Sigh. And on it goes then... 'Fake news' etc.

[ByTheRiver]

Surely now, no one could deny or overlook what's been going on? Oh. I see. Okay...

As a supplement to my current routine of sitting in my study all day pretending to work remotely, I'd love nothing more than a thoughtful discussion of "what's been going on"

But that would involve you articulating something specific and reasoned, with reference to facts and data. Some numbers, dates, direct quotes, coherent explanation, independent analysis... that sort of thing. Which hasn't been your forte thus far.

As you rightly point out; numbers, dates, direct quotes, coherent explanation and analysis are not really my forte. So I simply draw your attention to articles in the publications referenced in my previous post. They should contain all you need (if read with an open mind).

[FFC1987]

Surely now, no one could deny or overlook what's been going on? Oh. I see. Okay...

As a supplement to my current routine of sitting in my study all day pretending to work remotely, I'd love nothing more than a thoughtful discussion of "what's been going on"

But that would involve you articulating something specific and reasoned, with reference to facts and data. Some numbers, dates, direct quotes, coherent explanation, independent analysis... that sort of thing. Which hasn't been your forte thus far.

As you rightly point out; numbers, dates, direct quotes, coherent explanation and analysis are not really my forte. So I simply draw your attention to articles in the publications referenced in my previous post. They should contain all you need (if read with an open mind).

Having read your last few posts, you've linked articles, but not really an opinion. Whats the actual point being argued here?

[F(f)CUK]

Clearly some people don't have elderly parents or grandparents who they love. My son was not supposed to make double figures (now 25) and has nearly died twice of pneumonia in the past 4years.  Perhaps we should catch the illness and let him die, because we should be ok. I am alright Jack.

I have stayed off this thread for a number of reasons until now, but you raise a serious point which deserves a serious answer.  Coronavirus left to spread without any social measures will claim lives, and cause tragedy and suffering. However, continuing lockdown for too long will also claim lives, and cause tragedy and suffering. To take one small example, I know two 94 year old people to whom I spoke on the same day a couple of weeks ago. One already has multiple serious health problems and is unlikely to live for more than 2-3 months, the other is reasonably fit for for her age, but has some problems and knows that at 94 she is unlikely to have long left. Both of them went into isolation (and this is the admirable point) not for their own sakes, but so that they might not become coronavirus spreaders. Yet both also said (in a non-dramatic way) the same thing, namely that the current strategy has effectively stolen life from them, as everything they hold dear in life has been taken away.  One is resigned to never seeing her children or grand-children again; the other thinks it is very unlikely, and also thinks it is unlikely that she will be able to take up her volunteer work again.  All we have done is to take away what precious little time they have left to "live" rather than "exist". Sure, they are no longer likely to die from coronavirus, but still likely to die from another cause, condemned to what both describe as "pointless" existence.  Yet they are selflessly following rules for the benefit of others.  We use the word "heroes" a lot at the moment - people like these are heroes making the ultimate sacrifice.  I could mention the host of other things caused by lockdown (suicide, mental health, physical health, domestic abuse, financial ruin, homelessness, youngsters' education ruined etc. etc.), but that would take for ever.

I understand how worried you must be about your son. The point I am trying to make in a long-winded way is that there are no easy answers, and we (as a society via our elected government) have to make choices which will lead to deaths and suffering for people who (like your son, you, me and everyone else) are blameless. Too much to discuss here, but I think we have to start relaxing the restrictions after the current three week period, whilst keeping in place measures to protect those who deem themselves especially vulnerable.  People use too easily the expression "lives are more important than the economy"; the two are closely linked.  There are many people who (like myself in the emergency services) are lucky as we are in jobs which continue to be paid, but some in this situation fail to appreciate how shattering it is for individuals and families when their income suddenly disappears and they have no money.  In a way, the "Stay at Home - Protect the NHS - Save Lives" has been a victim of its own success, as it has spooked a lot of people into thinking we can't try to resume some form of "normality" for several months and made them petrified of returning to work or going out when the time comes to do so; but I think we have to start soon, otherwise the catastrophe will greater than whatever the virus is achieving.

Wishing you and everyone the best in these difficult times

Hi Plodder. An interesting and thoughtful response and yes I feel pity for all sorts of people, including myself as in order to keep my son alive, I will have to remain isolated for far longer than most. The position changed approximately 3-4 weeks ago when the Govt models showed that without lockdown the NHS would be overwhelmed and approximately 250,000 people would die as a result. The govt was trying to hold the numbers to 20,000, which they will probably miss.

Clearly the restrictions will slowly be lifted but this has to be done carefully and the message has to be retained that we cannot just get back to normal, otherwise we will just get a rebound 4-6 weeks later.

[ByTheRiver]

Surely now, no one could deny or overlook what's been going on? Oh. I see. Okay...

As a supplement to my current routine of sitting in my study all day pretending to work remotely, I'd love nothing more than a thoughtful discussion of "what's been going on"

But that would involve you articulating something specific and reasoned, with reference to facts and data. Some numbers, dates, direct quotes, coherent explanation, independent analysis... that sort of thing. Which hasn't been your forte thus far.

As you rightly point out; numbers, dates, direct quotes, coherent explanation and analysis are not really my forte. So I simply draw your attention to articles in the publications referenced in my previous post. They should contain all you need (if read with an open mind).

Having read your last few posts, you've linked articles, but not really an opinion. Whats the actual point being argued here?

Really? You've not looked at enough of my posts then. My point was (and it was made prior to this recent run of articles saying the same thing) that the government have handled this appallingly, from start to finish and have contributed through, at best incompetence and/or arrogance or, at worst, wilful negligence, towards the shockingly high number of deaths and death of frontline care staff.

I didn't want to go down this route and point it out so obviously as it may be provocative still for some, but you asked.