Purging former Chancellors, ministers and MPs drastically reduced not just the talent pool but also the experience pool. In this respect, Boris was the Stalinist, not Corbyn.
Corbyn did the same, of course.
many times a day, there are posts that make me go "well, quite…" but this might be the well quiteiest well quite of them all.
The main difference was that most people realised that Corbyn was not PM material. The electorate were then left with the worst kind of political Hobson's choice and Corbyn considered to be the worst horse of the two.
For Spain as a whole they are reporting 250K cases and 25,613 deaths so far, which means an even higher mortality. However, beware of the denominator! (And the numerator, for that matter).
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
(a) You've forgotten the large number who would go to hospital and need intensive treatment. (b) "It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown" Citation needed! (c) You've forgotten that shielding the vulnerable would be impossible in the scenario you outline, with so much infection around. (d) You've forgotten that casually killing off 5,000 to 7,000 healthy people under 50 might not be entirely welcomed by voters.
Interestingly, the Easter Bank Holiday saw almost no slowdown in reporting. It's the only weekend since the start of April where that's been the case (albeit possibly until the most recent one).
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
Under 50s live with and have contact with over 50s?
Purging former Chancellors, ministers and MPs drastically reduced not just the talent pool but also the experience pool. In this respect, Boris was the Stalinist, not Corbyn.
Corbyn did the same, of course.
Corbyn did not. It was often predicted, and some self-purged in anticipation of mass deselections that never came. Remember CUK and TIG?
For Spain as a whole they are reporting 250K cases and 25,613 deaths so far, which means an even higher mortality. However, beware of the denominator! (And the numerator, for that matter).
That would explain how it was that the virus was in France in December, but didn't really kick off in Europe until the Lombardy cluster much, much later.
Kinda weird to think I may have attended my last ever sporting event.
Unless you are seriously ill, very much doubt that’s going to be the case. Hope you’re not if that’s what you’re implying
My parents are approaching their seventies and my mother is on the shielding list. It is a risk I’m not taking especially as we all live under the same roof.
Your last sporting event this year then, I hope.
I hope, this vaccine cannot come soon enough.
I’m glad I listened to my father who begged me not to go the Liverpool v Atletico match at Anfield.
It is interesting indeed. Those who claimed there was no evidence of any transmission from children are clearly wrong (though it is at a significantly reduced level).
Big news today so far as the public is concerned is I expect the UK having the worst death toll in europe.
On the same day that there were reports that the Italian figure is understated by 50%. No wonder people don't trust the media.
Unfortunately for the government it is the simple fact that we have more deaths than anyone else in Europe that will stick. Few people bother to look beyond the headlines
See above:
ROME (Reuters) - Italy’s coronavirus death toll is much higher than reported, statistics bureau ISTAT said on Monday in an analysis pointing to thousands of fatalities that have never been officially attributed to COVID-19.
I'm not really disputing that, it's the fact that we have more deaths than anywhere else in Europe that people will latch on to , not the "ah, buts".
By 'people' of course you mean right thinkers like yourself not the majority who view the world much more realistically.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
(a) You've forgotten the large number who would go to hospital and need intensive treatment. (b) "It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown" Citation needed! (c) You've forgotten that shielding the vulnerable would be impossible in the scenario you outline, with so much infection around. (d) You've forgotten that casually killing off 5,000 to 7,000 healthy people under 50 might not be entirely welcomed by voters.
Otherwise, good plan!
(e) You've forgotten the mortality rate would increase dramatically as the healthcare system was overwhelmed, those with C-19 who would otherwise have survived if they had received ICU care would be left to die.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
(a) You've forgotten the large number who would go to hospital and need intensive treatment. (b) "It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown" Citation needed! (c) You've forgotten that shielding the vulnerable would be impossible in the scenario you outline, with so much infection around. (d) You've forgotten that casually killing off 5,000 to 7,000 healthy people under 50 might not be entirely welcomed by voters.
Otherwise, good plan!
(a) You're right. Let's double or treble the number. Still within capacity. (b) Continued lockdown kills in two ways. Mental health and the economy. 7.000 is a small number. (c) Why would it be impossible? It would have to be more stringent than now but doable. (d) It wouldn't be casual. It would be a rational considered decision. There would be an emotional reaction but it wouldn't be compulsary for the under 50s to go back to work and pubs and clubs. It would be optional. They would get an "under 50" badge. The small risk would be explained. It would be like the risk of driving or skiing.
Purging former Chancellors, ministers and MPs drastically reduced not just the talent pool but also the experience pool. In this respect, Boris was the Stalinist, not Corbyn.
Corbyn did the same, of course.
Corbyn did not. It was often predicted, and some self-purged in anticipation of mass deselections that never came. Remember CUK and TIG?
Not quite. Several of the CUK founders were under imminent threat. Berger basically only escaped because Watson put pressure on her CLP to not fire her while she was on maternity leave, but she would have been toast as soon as she returned (if she hadn't jumped first). Shuker and Ryan were also on their last legs.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
(a) You've forgotten the large number who would go to hospital and need intensive treatment. (b) "It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown" Citation needed! (c) You've forgotten that shielding the vulnerable would be impossible in the scenario you outline, with so much infection around. (d) You've forgotten that casually killing off 5,000 to 7,000 healthy people under 50 might not be entirely welcomed by voters.
Otherwise, good plan!
(a) You're right. Let's double or treble the number. Still within capacity. (b) Continued lockdown kills in two ways. Mental health and the economy. 7.000 is a small number. (c) Why would it be impossible? It would have to be more stringent than now but doable. (d) It wouldn't be casual. It would be a rational considered decision. There would be an emotional reaction but it wouldn't be compulsary for the under 50s to go back to work and pubs and clubs. It would be optional. They would get an "under 50" badge. The small risk would be explained. It would be like the risk of driving or skiing.
And imagine 20 something police officers having to ask women if they are really under 50.....there would be a big rise in assaults on police!
(The whole thread, especially from 15 onwards, is worth reading)
The troubling thing about that analysis, which seems highly credible, is that it confirms that the vectors which are most vulnerable to spreading the virus are the ones that we are going to find most difficult to address. How do we "fix" overcrowded and poorly maintained housing? How do we make public transport, specifically the Underground safe to use? Do we really have to give up on pubs and crowded cafes? How many offices meet the description of poorly ventilated and overcrowded with shared equipment?
It is no coincidence that although Singapore has generally been very successful at protecting its indigenous population it has failed miserably with transnational workers who live in exactly these conditions and which have formed a pool of infection which leaks into the general population.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
I think that's been considered by multiple countries, but in practice doesn't seem to work - if the virus is everywhere, eventually it gets at the oldies.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
Under 50s live with and have contact with over 50s?
Good point. We're developing a plan. You are free to work and go to pubs if you are a) under 50, b) in good health, c) have no symptoms, d) don't live with anyone over 50. This might reduce the number from 65% of the population to 50%. Still enough to get the economy moving gain, let them enjoy themselves and provide 50% herd immunity.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
(a) You've forgotten the large number who would go to hospital and need intensive treatment. (b) "It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown" Citation needed! (c) You've forgotten that shielding the vulnerable would be impossible in the scenario you outline, with so much infection around. (d) You've forgotten that casually killing off 5,000 to 7,000 healthy people under 50 might not be entirely welcomed by voters.
Otherwise, good plan!
(a) You're right. Let's double or treble the number. Still within capacity. (b) Continued lockdown kills in two ways. Mental health and the economy. 7.000 is a small number. (c) Why would it be impossible? It would have to be more stringent than now but doable. (d) It wouldn't be casual. It would be a rational considered decision. There would be an emotional reaction but it wouldn't be compulsary for the under 50s to go back to work and pubs and clubs. It would be optional. They would get an "under 50" badge. The small risk would be explained. It would be like the risk of driving or skiing.
It's not just the death rate, it's the temporary incapacitation rate. If we went for a let 'er rip strategy then a large proportion of the healthy workforce would be out of circulation for several weeks. That's what's happening anyway of course, with the lockdowns, but this way we can choose to put close to 100% of the restaurant staff and hairdressers out of work for a while, rather than 30-40% of the power generation and sewer and water staff for several weeks.
Our society can survive without restaurants, albeit as a much less happy one, indefinitely. Can it survive with critical infrastructure insufficiently staffed for weeks at a time?
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
Under 50s live with and have contact with over 50s?
Good point. We're developing a plan. You are free to work and go to pubs if you are a) under 50, b) in good health, c) have no symptoms, d) don't live with anyone over 50. This might reduce the number from 65% of the population to 50%. Still enough to get the economy moving gain, let them enjoy themselves and provide 50% herd immunity.
And what happens to the rest of the under 50s who can't now work?
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
(a) You've forgotten the large number who would go to hospital and need intensive treatment. (b) "It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown" Citation needed! (c) You've forgotten that shielding the vulnerable would be impossible in the scenario you outline, with so much infection around. (d) You've forgotten that casually killing off 5,000 to 7,000 healthy people under 50 might not be entirely welcomed by voters.
Otherwise, good plan!
(e) You've forgotten the mortality rate would increase dramatically as the healthcare system was overwhelmed, those with C-19 who would otherwise have survived if they had received ICU care would be left to die.
I'm assuming the small number of cases from the over50s wouldn't cause the heathcare system to be overwhelmed.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
(a) You've forgotten the large number who would go to hospital and need intensive treatment. (b) "It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown" Citation needed! (c) You've forgotten that shielding the vulnerable would be impossible in the scenario you outline, with so much infection around. (d) You've forgotten that casually killing off 5,000 to 7,000 healthy people under 50 might not be entirely welcomed by voters.
Otherwise, good plan!
(a) You're right. Let's double or treble the number. Still within capacity. (b) Continued lockdown kills in two ways. Mental health and the economy. 7.000 is a small number. (c) Why would it be impossible? It would have to be more stringent than now but doable. (d) It wouldn't be casual. It would be a rational considered decision. There would be an emotional reaction but it wouldn't be compulsary for the under 50s to go back to work and pubs and clubs. It would be optional. They would get an "under 50" badge. The small risk would be explained. It would be like the risk of driving or skiing.
And imagine 20 something police officers having to ask women if they are really under 50.....there would be a big rise in assaults on police!
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
I think that's been considered by multiple countries, but in practice doesn't seem to work - if the virus is everywhere, eventually it gets at the oldies.
You say in practice it doesn't seem to work. Where has it been tried?
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
Under 50s live with and have contact with over 50s?
Good point. We're developing a plan. You are free to work and go to pubs if you are a) under 50, b) in good health, c) have no symptoms, d) don't live with anyone over 50. This might reduce the number from 65% of the population to 50%. Still enough to get the economy moving gain, let them enjoy themselves and provide 50% herd immunity.
Care homes are mostly staffed by healthy under-50s.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
(a) You've forgotten the large number who would go to hospital and need intensive treatment. (b) "It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown" Citation needed! (c) You've forgotten that shielding the vulnerable would be impossible in the scenario you outline, with so much infection around. (d) You've forgotten that casually killing off 5,000 to 7,000 healthy people under 50 might not be entirely welcomed by voters.
Otherwise, good plan!
(e) You've forgotten the mortality rate would increase dramatically as the healthcare system was overwhelmed, those with C-19 who would otherwise have survived if they had received ICU care would be left to die.
I'm assuming the small number of cases from the over50s wouldn't cause the heathcare system to be overwhelmed.
Evidence for this other than a biased hope ?
As it was, even with the lock down, the health service was very nearly overwhelmed.
The policy makers have to deal with a reality that you seem to avoid, replacing by your wishes for a different world.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
(a) You've forgotten the large number who would go to hospital and need intensive treatment. (b) "It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown" Citation needed! (c) You've forgotten that shielding the vulnerable would be impossible in the scenario you outline, with so much infection around. (d) You've forgotten that casually killing off 5,000 to 7,000 healthy people under 50 might not be entirely welcomed by voters.
Otherwise, good plan!
(a) You're right. Let's double or treble the number. Still within capacity. (b) Continued lockdown kills in two ways. Mental health and the economy. 7.000 is a small number. (c) Why would it be impossible? It would have to be more stringent than now but doable. (d) It wouldn't be casual. It would be a rational considered decision. There would be an emotional reaction but it wouldn't be compulsary for the under 50s to go back to work and pubs and clubs. It would be optional. They would get an "under 50" badge. The small risk would be explained. It would be like the risk of driving or skiing.
It's not just the death rate, it's the temporary incapacitation rate. If we went for a let 'er rip strategy then a large proportion of the healthy workforce would be out of circulation for several weeks. That's what's happening anyway of course, with the lockdowns, but this way we can choose to put close to 100% of the restaurant staff and hairdressers out of work for a while, rather than 30-40% of the power generation and sewer and water staff for several weeks.
Our society can survive without restaurants, albeit as a much less happy one, indefinitely. Can it survive with critical infrastructure insufficiently staffed for weeks at a time?
Most of the infected under 50s would show no symptoms. It would be no worse than what is happening now.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
(a) You've forgotten the large number who would go to hospital and need intensive treatment. (b) "It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown" Citation needed! (c) You've forgotten that shielding the vulnerable would be impossible in the scenario you outline, with so much infection around. (d) You've forgotten that casually killing off 5,000 to 7,000 healthy people under 50 might not be entirely welcomed by voters.
Otherwise, good plan!
(a) You're right. Let's double or treble the number. Still within capacity. (b) Continued lockdown kills in two ways. Mental health and the economy. 7.000 is a small number. (c) Why would it be impossible? It would have to be more stringent than now but doable. (d) It wouldn't be casual. It would be a rational considered decision. There would be an emotional reaction but it wouldn't be compulsary for the under 50s to go back to work and pubs and clubs. It would be optional. They would get an "under 50" badge. The small risk would be explained. It would be like the risk of driving or skiing.
It's not just the death rate, it's the temporary incapacitation rate. If we went for a let 'er rip strategy then a large proportion of the healthy workforce would be out of circulation for several weeks. That's what's happening anyway of course, with the lockdowns, but this way we can choose to put close to 100% of the restaurant staff and hairdressers out of work for a while, rather than 30-40% of the power generation and sewer and water staff for several weeks.
Our society can survive without restaurants, albeit as a much less happy one, indefinitely. Can it survive with critical infrastructure insufficiently staffed for weeks at a time?
Most of the infected under 50s would show no symptoms. It would be no worse than what is happening now.
Big news today so far as the public is concerned is I expect the UK having the worst death toll in europe.
On the same day that there were reports that the Italian figure is understated by 50%. No wonder people don't trust the media.
Its the Govts they don't trust... the media just report. I doubt even the Grauniad could be that innacurate.
But the way they are reporting it is important. Right now it sounds as if the numbers are completely accurate and precise. They aren't, for any country.
And they don't trust the media, see the earlier tweet.
Only Britain reports accurately in the same way we played by the EU rules whilst other countries cocked a snook at the regulations.
Yes! This! It's all the fucking Europeans' fault.
Finally! Someone gets it!
Brainless Brexiteers were bound to blame the EU at some point. Blame anyone other than the lazy idiot that they so happily put in charge to "get Brexit done". Britain certainly has been "done" by these jingoistic buffoons. Well and truly kippered.
It's paradoxical that despite ranting against nationalism, defending a particular conception of Britishness seems to be your overriding political viewpoint.
Please expand? Not sure what your point is?
Your seem to have a very strong British identity, based on a belief that Britain represents certain ideals that you feel it is failing to live up to. This triggers a kind of existential angst or even grief as you see your own national identity being lost, but that identity was itself based on an illusory sense of exceptionalism.
An interesting hypothesis, which only my therapist might know the answer, if I had one. Your analysis isnt quite right though. My "Britishness" is based on a strong sense of history. I do not believe British people are any better than other nationalities, but I think we can be proud of ideas that have come out of all the nations of the UK that have influenced culture and democracy (whatever that is) around the world. I see nationalism, particularly the type personified by the likes of Nigel Farage, as a cancer that is destroying what is best about British political life and political culture. Nationalism (as opposed to patriotism) is an intensely negative thing that encourages division and hatred. Decent people should oppose it in all its forms.
The idea that there is such a thing as the British people is itself ideologically nationalistic, and was arguably a reaction to the partition of Ireland.
That would explain how it was that the virus was in France in December, but didn't really kick off in Europe until the Lombardy cluster much, much later.
It would also suggest the notion that the Chinese were making it as some weapon in their labs is bollocks - or at least, that the virus was better at manufacturing itself into a weapon than those Chinese scientists.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
Under 50s live with and have contact with over 50s?
Good point. We're developing a plan. You are free to work and go to pubs if you are a) under 50, b) in good health, c) have no symptoms, d) don't live with anyone over 50. This might reduce the number from 65% of the population to 50%. Still enough to get the economy moving gain, let them enjoy themselves and provide 50% herd immunity.
And what happens to the rest of the under 50s who can't now work?
They would be treated as now. They wouldn't get a badge but they could work as now under current conditions. They wouldn't get entry to pubs and clubs. They would have to be extra careful because either they are vulnerable themselves or they live with vulnerable people.
Kinda weird to think I may have attended my last ever sporting event.
Unless you are seriously ill, very much doubt that’s going to be the case. Hope you’re not if that’s what you’re implying
My parents are approaching their seventies and my mother is on the shielding list. It is a risk I’m not taking especially as we all live under the same roof.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
Under 50s live with and have contact with over 50s?
Good point. We're developing a plan. You are free to work and go to pubs if you are a) under 50, b) in good health, c) have no symptoms, d) don't live with anyone over 50. This might reduce the number from 65% of the population to 50%. Still enough to get the economy moving gain, let them enjoy themselves and provide 50% herd immunity.
This assumes the lockdown is perfect at protecting people. It's not, ask Nerys and contrarian are fond of pointing out. Somebody old, or with a comorbidity, is at far more risk if the disease is rife even during lockdown..
Plus we have no idea of the long term effects of covid on survivors. It could knock years off their life expectancy for all we know.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
Under 50s live with and have contact with over 50s?
Good point. We're developing a plan. You are free to work and go to pubs if you are a) under 50, b) in good health, c) have no symptoms, d) don't live with anyone over 50. This might reduce the number from 65% of the population to 50%. Still enough to get the economy moving gain, let them enjoy themselves and provide 50% herd immunity.
Care homes are mostly staffed by healthy under-50s.
Naming horses after Highland geography can work wonders: see under Arkle, Foinaven.
Have you noticed how many F1 drivers are named after Scottish towns?
Lewis Hamilton.
Eddie Irvine.
Stirling Moss.
Ayr Town Centre.
There's some sort of virus transmissable from Ydoethr?
That attempt at spelling my name was u-less.
Anyway, Lewis is an island
And it's also the island of Lewis and Harris to confuse things, both known separately as Isle of Lewis and Isle of Harris to further confuse things.
If I can't be a pedantic **** on here, where can I?
Just Seil along regardless ...
I Shiant let it bother me.
Which is a fecking killer Hebridean island related pun even if I say so myself.
That's Vatersay.
(Used to have the Vatersay Boys tour bus parked outside my bedroom window on Barra.... Think a Scottish folk version of Spinal Tap, where they had various bizarre causes for line-up changes.)
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
Under 50s live with and have contact with over 50s?
Good point. We're developing a plan. You are free to work and go to pubs if you are a) under 50, b) in good health, c) have no symptoms, d) don't live with anyone over 50. This might reduce the number from 65% of the population to 50%. Still enough to get the economy moving gain, let them enjoy themselves and provide 50% herd immunity.
And what happens to the rest of the under 50s who can't now work?
They would be treated as now. They wouldn't get a badge but they could work as now under current conditions. They wouldn't get entry to pubs and clubs. They would have to be extra careful because either they are vulnerable themselves or they live with vulnerable people.
My area of Yorkshire and North East now with the dubious distinction of being the one with most deaths. I do wish that people churning out UK graphs would stop and do ones for UK (without London) as well. It's giving a false sense of how things are progressing. So London, from peak to now is 180 to 38, Yorks N/E is 100 to 57 (peaks only a couple of days apart).
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
(a) You've forgotten the large number who would go to hospital and need intensive treatment. (b) "It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown" Citation needed! (c) You've forgotten that shielding the vulnerable would be impossible in the scenario you outline, with so much infection around. (d) You've forgotten that casually killing off 5,000 to 7,000 healthy people under 50 might not be entirely welcomed by voters.
Otherwise, good plan!
(a) You're right. Let's double or treble the number. Still within capacity. (b) Continued lockdown kills in two ways. Mental health and the economy. 7.000 is a small number. (c) Why would it be impossible? It would have to be more stringent than now but doable. (d) It wouldn't be casual. It would be a rational considered decision. There would be an emotional reaction but it wouldn't be compulsary for the under 50s to go back to work and pubs and clubs. It would be optional. They would get an "under 50" badge. The small risk would be explained. It would be like the risk of driving or skiing.
It's not just the death rate, it's the temporary incapacitation rate. If we went for a let 'er rip strategy then a large proportion of the healthy workforce would be out of circulation for several weeks. That's what's happening anyway of course, with the lockdowns, but this way we can choose to put close to 100% of the restaurant staff and hairdressers out of work for a while, rather than 30-40% of the power generation and sewer and water staff for several weeks.
Our society can survive without restaurants, albeit as a much less happy one, indefinitely. Can it survive with critical infrastructure insufficiently staffed for weeks at a time?
Most of the infected under 50s would show no symptoms. It would be no worse than what is happening now.
Except that those infected under 50s would probably be infecting a lot of over 50s and they would be clogging the NHS
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
(a) You've forgotten the large number who would go to hospital and need intensive treatment. (b) "It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown" Citation needed! (c) You've forgotten that shielding the vulnerable would be impossible in the scenario you outline, with so much infection around. (d) You've forgotten that casually killing off 5,000 to 7,000 healthy people under 50 might not be entirely welcomed by voters.
Otherwise, good plan!
(a) You're right. Let's double or treble the number. Still within capacity. (b) Continued lockdown kills in two ways. Mental health and the economy. 7.000 is a small number. (c) Why would it be impossible? It would have to be more stringent than now but doable. (d) It wouldn't be casual. It would be a rational considered decision. There would be an emotional reaction but it wouldn't be compulsary for the under 50s to go back to work and pubs and clubs. It would be optional. They would get an "under 50" badge. The small risk would be explained. It would be like the risk of driving or skiing.
It's not just the death rate, it's the temporary incapacitation rate. If we went for a let 'er rip strategy then a large proportion of the healthy workforce would be out of circulation for several weeks. That's what's happening anyway of course, with the lockdowns, but this way we can choose to put close to 100% of the restaurant staff and hairdressers out of work for a while, rather than 30-40% of the power generation and sewer and water staff for several weeks.
Our society can survive without restaurants, albeit as a much less happy one, indefinitely. Can it survive with critical infrastructure insufficiently staffed for weeks at a time?
Most of the infected under 50s would show no symptoms. It would be no worse than what is happening now.
Tory MP Head of Science Committee "Lack of testing is PHE's fault.
PHE wanted a centralised approach"
Nothing to do with us Gov.
Have you apologised yet for your truly disgusting remark about Hancock ?
Incidentally, what the committee head said was, that a decision was taken within PHE not to pursue the external lab route. He has asked for the basis for that decision.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
Under 50s live with and have contact with over 50s?
Good point. We're developing a plan. You are free to work and go to pubs if you are a) under 50, b) in good health, c) have no symptoms, d) don't live with anyone over 50. This might reduce the number from 65% of the population to 50%. Still enough to get the economy moving gain, let them enjoy themselves and provide 50% herd immunity.
Care homes are mostly staffed by healthy under-50s.
That's OK.
I don't think so. It makes it more likely that the virus finds its way into care homes than we have already experienced.
Doesn;t the the 7,000 deaths under 50 assume that corona achieved 100 per cent infection of the UK population, something that would never happen. Its an absolute ceiling figure right?
Some people would never get it, because they are anti-social tree surgeons or live on narrow boats or are obsessive hand washers/
And so the number of under 50 deaths is probably quite a lot lower than 7,000.
Plus the NHS figures showed that only 250 healthy people out of a sample of 20,000 had died of Corona under 60, not under fifty. And they don;t include care home deaths. Which may be understated anyway.
Naming horses after Highland geography can work wonders: see under Arkle, Foinaven.
Have you noticed how many F1 drivers are named after Scottish towns?
Lewis Hamilton.
Eddie Irvine.
Stirling Moss.
Ayr Town Centre.
There's some sort of virus transmissable from Ydoethr?
That attempt at spelling my name was u-less.
Anyway, Lewis is an island
And it's also the island of Lewis and Harris to confuse things, both known separately as Isle of Lewis and Isle of Harris to further confuse things.
If I can't be a pedantic **** on here, where can I?
Just Seil along regardless ...
I Shiant let it bother me.
Which is a fecking killer Hebridean island related pun even if I say so myself.
That's Vatersay.
(Used to have the Vatersay Boys tour bus parked outside my bedroom window on Barra.... Think a Scottish folk version of Spinal Tap, where they had various bizarre causes for line-up changes.)
I've heard tell of them but never caught one of their legendary performances.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
Under 50s live with and have contact with over 50s?
Good point. We're developing a plan. You are free to work and go to pubs if you are a) under 50, b) in good health, c) have no symptoms, d) don't live with anyone over 50. This might reduce the number from 65% of the population to 50%. Still enough to get the economy moving gain, let them enjoy themselves and provide 50% herd immunity.
This assumes the lockdown is perfect at protecting people. It's not, ask Nerys and contrarian are fond of pointing out. Somebody old, or with a comorbidity, is at far more risk if the disease is rife even during lockdown..
Plus we have no idea of the long term effects of covid on survivors. It could knock years off their life expectancy for all we know.
Hard choices under great uncertainty. There is no perfect answer or all countries would be doing it. Mine is a proposal that unlocks people and potentially minimises deaths. But there are risks.
Naming horses after Highland geography can work wonders: see under Arkle, Foinaven.
Have you noticed how many F1 drivers are named after Scottish towns?
Lewis Hamilton.
Eddie Irvine.
Stirling Moss.
Ayr Town Centre.
There's some sort of virus transmissable from Ydoethr?
That attempt at spelling my name was u-less.
Anyway, Lewis is an island
And it's also the island of Lewis and Harris to confuse things, both known separately as Isle of Lewis and Isle of Harris to further confuse things.
If I can't be a pedantic **** on here, where can I?
Just Seil along regardless ...
I Shiant let it bother me.
Which is a fecking killer Hebridean island related pun even if I say so myself.
Good one.
Shiants are owned by a interesting literary/political dynasty. Bought, I think, by Sir Harold Nicolson (of Diaries fame) for his son Nigel (Suez rebel) and then inherited by his son, the writer, Adam, who has handed it on to his own son. Vita Sackville West was Sir Harold's wife.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
Under 50s live with and have contact with over 50s?
Good point. We're developing a plan. You are free to work and go to pubs if you are a) under 50, b) in good health, c) have no symptoms, d) don't live with anyone over 50. This might reduce the number from 65% of the population to 50%. Still enough to get the economy moving gain, let them enjoy themselves and provide 50% herd immunity.
And what happens to the rest of the under 50s who can't now work?
They would be treated as now. They wouldn't get a badge but they could work as now under current conditions. They wouldn't get entry to pubs and clubs. They would have to be extra careful because either they are vulnerable themselves or they live with vulnerable people.
And that's sustainable for how long?
Once 50% of the population had been infected and were immune, R would be materially reduced. It's herd immunity for the healthier half of the population that also helps the other half. It's the vaccination effect.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
(a) You've forgotten the large number who would go to hospital and need intensive treatment. (b) "It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown" Citation needed! (c) You've forgotten that shielding the vulnerable would be impossible in the scenario you outline, with so much infection around. (d) You've forgotten that casually killing off 5,000 to 7,000 healthy people under 50 might not be entirely welcomed by voters.
Otherwise, good plan!
(a) You're right. Let's double or treble the number. Still within capacity. (b) Continued lockdown kills in two ways. Mental health and the economy. 7.000 is a small number. (c) Why would it be impossible? It would have to be more stringent than now but doable. (d) It wouldn't be casual. It would be a rational considered decision. There would be an emotional reaction but it wouldn't be compulsary for the under 50s to go back to work and pubs and clubs. It would be optional. They would get an "under 50" badge. The small risk would be explained. It would be like the risk of driving or skiing.
It's not just the death rate, it's the temporary incapacitation rate. If we went for a let 'er rip strategy then a large proportion of the healthy workforce would be out of circulation for several weeks. That's what's happening anyway of course, with the lockdowns, but this way we can choose to put close to 100% of the restaurant staff and hairdressers out of work for a while, rather than 30-40% of the power generation and sewer and water staff for several weeks.
Our society can survive without restaurants, albeit as a much less happy one, indefinitely. Can it survive with critical infrastructure insufficiently staffed for weeks at a time?
Most of the infected under 50s would show no symptoms. It would be no worse than what is happening now.
Except that those infected under 50s would probably be infecting a lot of over 50s and they would be clogging the NHS
The deal would be that only those under 50s who had no dealings with over 50s would get a badge. There would be some leakage of course, as now.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
Under 50s live with and have contact with over 50s?
Good point. We're developing a plan. You are free to work and go to pubs if you are a) under 50, b) in good health, c) have no symptoms, d) don't live with anyone over 50. This might reduce the number from 65% of the population to 50%. Still enough to get the economy moving gain, let them enjoy themselves and provide 50% herd immunity.
This assumes the lockdown is perfect at protecting people. It's not, ask Nerys and contrarian are fond of pointing out. Somebody old, or with a comorbidity, is at far more risk if the disease is rife even during lockdown..
Plus we have no idea of the long term effects of covid on survivors. It could knock years off their life expectancy for all we know.
That's true.
What we do know, however, are the long term effects on health of economic penury. There is plenty of research on that. Labour have spent a decade telling us austerity is a killer.
What we face now is potentially a much worse economic outlook.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
(a) You've forgotten the large number who would go to hospital and need intensive treatment. (b) "It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown" Citation needed! (c) You've forgotten that shielding the vulnerable would be impossible in the scenario you outline, with so much infection around. (d) You've forgotten that casually killing off 5,000 to 7,000 healthy people under 50 might not be entirely welcomed by voters.
Otherwise, good plan!
(a) You're right. Let's double or treble the number. Still within capacity. (b) Continued lockdown kills in two ways. Mental health and the economy. 7.000 is a small number. (c) Why would it be impossible? It would have to be more stringent than now but doable. (d) It wouldn't be casual. It would be a rational considered decision. There would be an emotional reaction but it wouldn't be compulsary for the under 50s to go back to work and pubs and clubs. It would be optional. They would get an "under 50" badge. The small risk would be explained. It would be like the risk of driving or skiing.
And imagine 20 something police officers having to ask women if they are really under 50.....there would be a big rise in assaults on police!
The under 50s would each get a badge.
Would there be different badges for other groups of people? What shape are you thinking of for these badges?
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
Under 50s live with and have contact with over 50s?
Good point. We're developing a plan. You are free to work and go to pubs if you are a) under 50, b) in good health, c) have no symptoms, d) don't live with anyone over 50. This might reduce the number from 65% of the population to 50%. Still enough to get the economy moving gain, let them enjoy themselves and provide 50% herd immunity.
This assumes the lockdown is perfect at protecting people. It's not, ask Nerys and contrarian are fond of pointing out. Somebody old, or with a comorbidity, is at far more risk if the disease is rife even during lockdown..
Plus we have no idea of the long term effects of covid on survivors. It could knock years off their life expectancy for all we know.
Hard choices under great uncertainty. There is no perfect answer or all countries would be doing it. Mine is a proposal that unlocks people and potentially minimises deaths. But there are risks.
It is good to point out that there are choices and trade offs, so even though I dont think yours is the right plan, and its a fair bit too optimistic in the results you think it would achieve, it is a useful reminder that there are alternatives.
Some of it is about emotions as well as rationality, getting parents to send children back to school will be one of the hardest parts of the resumption, despite kids being massively less likely to get it and tend to get it without complications when they do.
A gradual softly softly easing of the lockdown is needed to deal with those kind of challenges even if logically we could get many back earlier.
Naming horses after Highland geography can work wonders: see under Arkle, Foinaven.
Have you noticed how many F1 drivers are named after Scottish towns?
Lewis Hamilton.
Eddie Irvine.
Stirling Moss.
Ayr Town Centre.
There's some sort of virus transmissable from Ydoethr?
That attempt at spelling my name was u-less.
Anyway, Lewis is an island
And it's also the island of Lewis and Harris to confuse things, both known separately as Isle of Lewis and Isle of Harris to further confuse things.
If I can't be a pedantic **** on here, where can I?
Just Seil along regardless ...
I Shiant let it bother me.
Which is a fecking killer Hebridean island related pun even if I say so myself.
Good one.
Shiants are owned by a interesting literary/political dynasty. Bought, I think, by Sir Harold Nicolson (of Diaries fame) for his son Nigel (Suez rebel) and then inherited by his son, the writer, Adam, who has handed it on to his own son. Vita Sackville West was Sir Harold's wife.
Yep, Adam Nicholson wrote a very good book on the Shiants, Sea Room. I've got a lot of time for him, partly because he's very sound on how we're fcuking up the world particularly in relation to birds, and he seems to have been well respected and liked by Harris folk.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
Under 50s live with and have contact with over 50s?
Good point. We're developing a plan. You are free to work and go to pubs if you are a) under 50, b) in good health, c) have no symptoms, d) don't live with anyone over 50. This might reduce the number from 65% of the population to 50%. Still enough to get the economy moving gain, let them enjoy themselves and provide 50% herd immunity.
About 1 in 7 under 40s have a long term condition.
So you've just excluded anyone who lives with someone who has a long term condition.
Doesn;t the the 7,000 deaths under 50 assume that corona achieved 100 per cent infection of the UK population, something that would never happen. Its an absolute ceiling figure right?
Some people would never get it, because they are anti-social tree surgeons or live on narrow boats or are obsessive hand washers/
And so the number of under 50 deaths is probably quite a lot lower than 7,000.
Plus the NHS figures showed that only 250 healthy people out of a sample of 20,000 had died of Corona under 60, not under fifty. And they don;t include care home deaths. Which may be understated anyway.
Yes agreed. I said the 7,000 was topside and it would be more like 5,000 for the reasons you give. Perhaps it could be extended to healthy under 60s? Yes that would work.
Tory MP Head of Science Committee "Lack of testing is PHE's fault.
PHE wanted a centralised approach"
Nothing to do with us Gov.
Have you apologised yet for your truly disgusting remark about Hancock ?
What remark?
Has Hancock apologized for lack of PPE , not having enough testing capacity early enough and ending up with highest deaths in Europe.
Ending up? You think this is nearly over? I hope you are right.
Its clearly not but i will be surprised if our respective performance compared to others changes too much. Russia could maybe pass us if they report honestly
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
(a) You've forgotten the large number who would go to hospital and need intensive treatment. (b) "It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown" Citation needed! (c) You've forgotten that shielding the vulnerable would be impossible in the scenario you outline, with so much infection around. (d) You've forgotten that casually killing off 5,000 to 7,000 healthy people under 50 might not be entirely welcomed by voters.
Otherwise, good plan!
(a) You're right. Let's double or treble the number. Still within capacity. (b) Continued lockdown kills in two ways. Mental health and the economy. 7.000 is a small number. (c) Why would it be impossible? It would have to be more stringent than now but doable. (d) It wouldn't be casual. It would be a rational considered decision. There would be an emotional reaction but it wouldn't be compulsary for the under 50s to go back to work and pubs and clubs. It would be optional. They would get an "under 50" badge. The small risk would be explained. It would be like the risk of driving or skiing.
It's not just the death rate, it's the temporary incapacitation rate. If we went for a let 'er rip strategy then a large proportion of the healthy workforce would be out of circulation for several weeks. That's what's happening anyway of course, with the lockdowns, but this way we can choose to put close to 100% of the restaurant staff and hairdressers out of work for a while, rather than 30-40% of the power generation and sewer and water staff for several weeks.
Our society can survive without restaurants, albeit as a much less happy one, indefinitely. Can it survive with critical infrastructure insufficiently staffed for weeks at a time?
Most of the infected under 50s would show no symptoms. It would be no worse than what is happening now.
So the fact that 25% of US meat-packing plants are closed due to unconstrained COVID infections in their workforces (thanks Republican governors!) is fake news then?
Naming horses after Highland geography can work wonders: see under Arkle, Foinaven.
Have you noticed how many F1 drivers are named after Scottish towns?
Lewis Hamilton.
Eddie Irvine.
Stirling Moss.
Ayr Town Centre.
There's some sort of virus transmissable from Ydoethr?
That attempt at spelling my name was u-less.
Anyway, Lewis is an island
And it's also the island of Lewis and Harris to confuse things, both known separately as Isle of Lewis and Isle of Harris to further confuse things.
If I can't be a pedantic **** on here, where can I?
Just Seil along regardless ...
I Shiant let it bother me.
Which is a fecking killer Hebridean island related pun even if I say so myself.
Good one.
Shiants are owned by a interesting literary/political dynasty. Bought, I think, by Sir Harold Nicolson (of Diaries fame) for his son Nigel (Suez rebel) and then inherited by his son, the writer, Adam, who has handed it on to his own son. Vita Sackville West was Sir Harold's wife.
Yep, Adam Nicholson wrote a very good book on the Shiants, Sea Room. I've got a lot of time for him, partly because he's very sound on how we're fcuking up the world particularly in relation to birds, and he seems to have been well respected and liked by Harris folk.
Very impressive columnar basalt cliffs there as well. I spent an hour or so off a yacht many years ago.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
(a) You've forgotten the large number who would go to hospital and need intensive treatment. (b) "It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown" Citation needed! (c) You've forgotten that shielding the vulnerable would be impossible in the scenario you outline, with so much infection around. (d) You've forgotten that casually killing off 5,000 to 7,000 healthy people under 50 might not be entirely welcomed by voters.
Otherwise, good plan!
(a) You're right. Let's double or treble the number. Still within capacity. (b) Continued lockdown kills in two ways. Mental health and the economy. 7.000 is a small number. (c) Why would it be impossible? It would have to be more stringent than now but doable. (d) It wouldn't be casual. It would be a rational considered decision. There would be an emotional reaction but it wouldn't be compulsary for the under 50s to go back to work and pubs and clubs. It would be optional. They would get an "under 50" badge. The small risk would be explained. It would be like the risk of driving or skiing.
And imagine 20 something police officers having to ask women if they are really under 50.....there would be a big rise in assaults on police!
The under 50s would each get a badge.
Would there be different badges for other groups of people? What shape are you thinking of for these badges?
No - just the under 50s. We could have a design competition.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
(a) You've forgotten the large number who would go to hospital and need intensive treatment. (b) "It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown" Citation needed! (c) You've forgotten that shielding the vulnerable would be impossible in the scenario you outline, with so much infection around. (d) You've forgotten that casually killing off 5,000 to 7,000 healthy people under 50 might not be entirely welcomed by voters.
Otherwise, good plan!
(a) You're right. Let's double or treble the number. Still within capacity. (b) Continued lockdown kills in two ways. Mental health and the economy. 7.000 is a small number. (c) Why would it be impossible? It would have to be more stringent than now but doable. (d) It wouldn't be casual. It would be a rational considered decision. There would be an emotional reaction but it wouldn't be compulsary for the under 50s to go back to work and pubs and clubs. It would be optional. They would get an "under 50" badge. The small risk would be explained. It would be like the risk of driving or skiing.
And imagine 20 something police officers having to ask women if they are really under 50.....there would be a big rise in assaults on police!
The under 50s would each get a badge.
There would be a cohort of women in their 50s who would never vote for the party of government that introduced such a policy for the rest of their days.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
Under 50s live with and have contact with over 50s?
Good point. We're developing a plan. You are free to work and go to pubs if you are a) under 50, b) in good health, c) have no symptoms, d) don't live with anyone over 50. This might reduce the number from 65% of the population to 50%. Still enough to get the economy moving gain, let them enjoy themselves and provide 50% herd immunity.
About 1 in 7 under 40s have a long term condition.
So you've just excluded anyone who lives with someone who has a long term condition.
Yes. I've reduced the 65% who are under 50 to the 50% who are under 50 and don't live with a vulnerable person.
Naming horses after Highland geography can work wonders: see under Arkle, Foinaven.
Have you noticed how many F1 drivers are named after Scottish towns?
Lewis Hamilton.
Eddie Irvine.
Stirling Moss.
Ayr Town Centre.
There's some sort of virus transmissable from Ydoethr?
That attempt at spelling my name was u-less.
Anyway, Lewis is an island
And it's also the island of Lewis and Harris to confuse things, both known separately as Isle of Lewis and Isle of Harris to further confuse things.
If I can't be a pedantic **** on here, where can I?
Just Seil along regardless ...
I Shiant let it bother me.
Which is a fecking killer Hebridean island related pun even if I say so myself.
Good one.
Shiants are owned by a interesting literary/political dynasty. Bought, I think, by Sir Harold Nicolson (of Diaries fame) for his son Nigel (Suez rebel) and then inherited by his son, the writer, Adam, who has handed it on to his own son. Vita Sackville West was Sir Harold's wife.
Yep, Adam Nicholson wrote a very good book on the Shiants, Sea Room. I've got a lot of time for him, partly because he's very sound on how we're fcuking up the world particularly in relation to birds, and he seems to have been well respected and liked by Harris folk.
Very impressive columnar basalt cliffs there as well. I spent an hour or so off a yacht many years ago.
Never got closer than the Uig-Tarbert ferry unfortunately!
It is interesting indeed. Those who claimed there was no evidence of any transmission from children are clearly wrong (though it is at a significantly reduced level).
The problem is that it needs sustained proximity and there are two places where children spend a lot of time. At home they have few contacts but in the other...... We've had skewed results because of the nature of the spread. Adults travelling internationally being up and front, leading to lockdowns (either mandated or undertaken by the public themselves) successfully stopped the spread in most institutions. You need to look at care homes to see the worst possible location, continued community contact, indoor small spaces, susceptible age range. They are the massive canary in the coalmine really. Even without that worst possible mix it's a major problem going forwards,
My area of Yorkshire and North East now with the dubious distinction of being the one with most deaths. I do wish that people churning out UK graphs would stop and do ones for UK (without London) as well. It's giving a false sense of how things are progressing. So London, from peak to now is 180 to 38, Yorks N/E is 100 to 57 (peaks only a couple of days apart).
Doesn;t the the 7,000 deaths under 50 assume that corona achieved 100 per cent infection of the UK population, something that would never happen. Its an absolute ceiling figure right?
Some people would never get it, because they are anti-social tree surgeons or live on narrow boats or are obsessive hand washers/
And so the number of under 50 deaths is probably quite a lot lower than 7,000.
Plus the NHS figures showed that only 250 healthy people out of a sample of 20,000 had died of Corona under 60, not under fifty. And they don;t include care home deaths. Which may be understated anyway.
Surely 90% of the working population are aged <60?
Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, an independently-minded NHS doctor, said on his blog weeks ago that for such reasons the lockdown was counterproductive.
We're set to spend ~3x the annual NHS budget on one pandemic. If life is suddenly this precious, why wasn't the NHS budget raised 10 years ago and kept in line with those of countries like Iceland, Norway, Germany, Sweden?
Naming horses after Highland geography can work wonders: see under Arkle, Foinaven.
Have you noticed how many F1 drivers are named after Scottish towns?
Lewis Hamilton.
Eddie Irvine.
Stirling Moss.
Ayr Town Centre.
There's some sort of virus transmissable from Ydoethr?
That attempt at spelling my name was u-less.
Anyway, Lewis is an island
And it's also the island of Lewis and Harris to confuse things, both known separately as Isle of Lewis and Isle of Harris to further confuse things.
If I can't be a pedantic **** on here, where can I?
Just Seil along regardless ...
I Shiant let it bother me.
Which is a fecking killer Hebridean island related pun even if I say so myself.
Good one.
Shiants are owned by a interesting literary/political dynasty. Bought, I think, by Sir Harold Nicolson (of Diaries fame) for his son Nigel (Suez rebel) and then inherited by his son, the writer, Adam, who has handed it on to his own son. Vita Sackville West was Sir Harold's wife.
Yep, Adam Nicholson wrote a very good book on the Shiants, Sea Room. I've got a lot of time for him, partly because he's very sound on how we're fcuking up the world particularly in relation to birds, and he seems to have been well respected and liked by Harris folk.
Very impressive columnar basalt cliffs there as well. I spent an hour or so off a yacht many years ago.
Never got closer than the Uig-Tarbert ferry unfortunately!
I was very lucky. My school had MoD-subsidised sailing cruises in the easter and summer hols and I continued for a few years even after I left. I managed to get to a fair proportion of the islands between Islay and Westray over the years, and more since.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
(a) You've forgotten the large number who would go to hospital and need intensive treatment. (b) "It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown" Citation needed! (c) You've forgotten that shielding the vulnerable would be impossible in the scenario you outline, with so much infection around. (d) You've forgotten that casually killing off 5,000 to 7,000 healthy people under 50 might not be entirely welcomed by voters.
Otherwise, good plan!
(a) You're right. Let's double or treble the number. Still within capacity. (b) Continued lockdown kills in two ways. Mental health and the economy. 7.000 is a small number. (c) Why would it be impossible? It would have to be more stringent than now but doable. (d) It wouldn't be casual. It would be a rational considered decision. There would be an emotional reaction but it wouldn't be compulsary for the under 50s to go back to work and pubs and clubs. It would be optional. They would get an "under 50" badge. The small risk would be explained. It would be like the risk of driving or skiing.
It's not just the death rate, it's the temporary incapacitation rate. If we went for a let 'er rip strategy then a large proportion of the healthy workforce would be out of circulation for several weeks. That's what's happening anyway of course, with the lockdowns, but this way we can choose to put close to 100% of the restaurant staff and hairdressers out of work for a while, rather than 30-40% of the power generation and sewer and water staff for several weeks.
Our society can survive without restaurants, albeit as a much less happy one, indefinitely. Can it survive with critical infrastructure insufficiently staffed for weeks at a time?
Most of the infected under 50s would show no symptoms. It would be no worse than what is happening now.
So the fact that 25% of US meat-packing plants are closed due to unconstrained COVID infections in their workforces (thanks Republican governors!) is fake news then?
I don't know what % absentees leads to closure. It could be 5% or it could be 50%. I don't have enough information to interpret. I haven't seen that report but I wouldn't claim it is fake news!
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
(a) You've forgotten the large number who would go to hospital and need intensive treatment. (b) "It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown" Citation needed! (c) You've forgotten that shielding the vulnerable would be impossible in the scenario you outline, with so much infection around. (d) You've forgotten that casually killing off 5,000 to 7,000 healthy people under 50 might not be entirely welcomed by voters.
Otherwise, good plan!
(a) You're right. Let's double or treble the number. Still within capacity. (b) Continued lockdown kills in two ways. Mental health and the economy. 7.000 is a small number. (c) Why would it be impossible? It would have to be more stringent than now but doable. (d) It wouldn't be casual. It would be a rational considered decision. There would be an emotional reaction but it wouldn't be compulsary for the under 50s to go back to work and pubs and clubs. It would be optional. They would get an "under 50" badge. The small risk would be explained. It would be like the risk of driving or skiing.
And imagine 20 something police officers having to ask women if they are really under 50.....there would be a big rise in assaults on police!
The under 50s would each get a badge.
There would be a cohort of women in their 50s who would never vote for the party of government that introduced such a policy for the rest of their days.
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
Under 50s live with and have contact with over 50s?
Good point. We're developing a plan. You are free to work and go to pubs if you are a) under 50, b) in good health, c) have no symptoms, d) don't live with anyone over 50. This might reduce the number from 65% of the population to 50%. Still enough to get the economy moving gain, let them enjoy themselves and provide 50% herd immunity.
This assumes the lockdown is perfect at protecting people. It's not, ask Nerys and contrarian are fond of pointing out. Somebody old, or with a comorbidity, is at far more risk if the disease is rife even during lockdown..
Plus we have no idea of the long term effects of covid on survivors. It could knock years off their life expectancy for all we know.
That's true.
What we do know, however, are the long term effects on health of economic penury. There is plenty of research on that. Labour have spent a decade telling us austerity is a killer.
What we face now is potentially a much worse economic outlook.
One of the things we've discovered in much of the US, however, is that lifting the lockdown (if people don't feel safe) doesn't mean economic activity bounces back.
My area of Yorkshire and North East now with the dubious distinction of being the one with most deaths. I do wish that people churning out UK graphs would stop and do ones for UK (without London) as well. It's giving a false sense of how things are progressing. So London, from peak to now is 180 to 38, Yorks N/E is 100 to 57 (peaks only a couple of days apart).
Does this help -
It's the current r0 that is the key. Not where we are now but how long it has taken different regions to get where we are now. London is at near 20% of its height, Yorks/NE at 57%. That means the latter is not being as effective and it'd be nice to get some answers (living in that area concentrates the mind).
This was written in The Mirror 13 years ago. Has there ever been a more cliche ridden match report? Would the stereotyping make it past the editor now?
If the average fatality rate for Covid-19 is say 1%, then if it ripped through the UK it would produce 700,000 deaths. (Probably nearer 500,000 because of the immunity effect).
But only approx 1% of Covid-19 deaths are under 50s with no co-morbidities.
That would be approx 7,000 healthy under 50 deaths.
Suppose all healthy under 50s (65% of the population) were allowed to go back to work as normal, travel, go to pubs and restaurants etc and the virus ripped through them. Approx 5-7,000 would die. It wouldn't overwhelm the NHS. It compares with an average 32,000 deaths a year of the under 50s. It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown. The elderly and vulnerable would have to be protected as now. The economy would recover.
What's wrong with my proposal?
Under 50s live with and have contact with over 50s?
Good point. We're developing a plan. You are free to work and go to pubs if you are a) under 50, b) in good health, c) have no symptoms, d) don't live with anyone over 50. This might reduce the number from 65% of the population to 50%. Still enough to get the economy moving gain, let them enjoy themselves and provide 50% herd immunity.
This assumes the lockdown is perfect at protecting people. It's not, ask Nerys and contrarian are fond of pointing out. Somebody old, or with a comorbidity, is at far more risk if the disease is rife even during lockdown..
Plus we have no idea of the long term effects of covid on survivors. It could knock years off their life expectancy for all we know.
That's true.
What we do know, however, are the long term effects on health of economic penury. There is plenty of research on that. Labour have spent a decade telling us austerity is a killer.
What we face now is potentially a much worse economic outlook.
One of the things we've discovered in much of the US, however, is that lifting the lockdown (if people don't feel safe) doesn't mean economic activity bounces back.
How do you get people to feel safe? Maybe you should stop telling them a disease threatens them when it patently doesn't.
But the government cannot do that because it would undermine their whole policy and put them in the dock for what is to come.
The absurd pretence of the threat, Dominic Raab's 'new normal' is what you get from the government's position.
Seriously, has anybody, anybody considered the effects of that 'new normal' he is talking about?
Just had an update from a family friend who has family who work in a care home.
I predict that the social care system will finally have to be overhauled well before the Virus Public Inquiry, which is going to have devastating analysis of what happened in care homes.
That way at least some of the terrible blame heading ministerial way can be massaged.
My area of Yorkshire and North East now with the dubious distinction of being the one with most deaths. I do wish that people churning out UK graphs would stop and do ones for UK (without London) as well. It's giving a false sense of how things are progressing. So London, from peak to now is 180 to 38, Yorks N/E is 100 to 57 (peaks only a couple of days apart).
Does this help -
It's the current r0 that is the key. Not where we are now but how long it has taken different regions to get where we are now. London is at near 20% of its height, Yorks/NE at 57%. That means the latter is not being as effective and it'd be nice to get some answers (living in that area concentrates the mind).
Or it means that London had many more excess deaths than Y&NE.
Naming horses after Highland geography can work wonders: see under Arkle, Foinaven.
Have you noticed how many F1 drivers are named after Scottish towns?
Lewis Hamilton.
Eddie Irvine.
Stirling Moss.
Ayr Town Centre.
There's some sort of virus transmissable from Ydoethr?
That attempt at spelling my name was u-less.
Anyway, Lewis is an island
And it's also the island of Lewis and Harris to confuse things, both known separately as Isle of Lewis and Isle of Harris to further confuse things.
If I can't be a pedantic **** on here, where can I?
Just Seil along regardless ...
I Shiant let it bother me.
Which is a fecking killer Hebridean island related pun even if I say so myself.
Good one.
Shiants are owned by a interesting literary/political dynasty. Bought, I think, by Sir Harold Nicolson (of Diaries fame) for his son Nigel (Suez rebel) and then inherited by his son, the writer, Adam, who has handed it on to his own son. Vita Sackville West was Sir Harold's wife.
Yep, Adam Nicholson wrote a very good book on the Shiants, Sea Room. I've got a lot of time for him, partly because he's very sound on how we're fcuking up the world particularly in relation to birds, and he seems to have been well respected and liked by Harris folk.
I've read it. The good news about the Shiants is that it has been subject to a successful rat eradication project recently. Which should be good news for the seabird population there. The hope is that with no egg/chick eating rats birds like storm petrels may start nesting and it should give a boost to the numbers of puffins etc which are already there, albeit in depleted numbers due to said rats.
Just had an update from a family friend who has family who work in a care home.
I predict that the social care system will finally have to be overhauled well before the Virus Public Inquiry, which is going to have devastating analysis of what happened in care homes.
That way at least some of the terrible blame heading ministerial way can be massaged.
"We had to protect the NHS" will be the excuse from people at various levels.
Comments
Write 100 times
28,734/190,854 is higher than 25,613/250,561
Which is a fecking killer Hebridean island related pun even if I say so myself.
(b) "It would prevent far more deaths than from continued lockdown" Citation needed!
(c) You've forgotten that shielding the vulnerable would be impossible in the scenario you outline, with so much infection around.
(d) You've forgotten that casually killing off 5,000 to 7,000 healthy people under 50 might not be entirely welcomed by voters.
Otherwise, good plan!
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/may-day-bank-holiday-date-change-2020-ve-day-second-world-war-75-a9491841.html
Interestingly, the Easter Bank Holiday saw almost no slowdown in reporting. It's the only weekend since the start of April where that's been the case (albeit possibly until the most recent one).
BBC4 9pm Andrew Marr on Churchill: Blood, Sweat and Oil Paint (repeat).
https://www.radiotimes.com/tv-programme/e/dqyx27/andrew-marr-on-churchill-blood-sweat-and-oil-paint/
PHE wanted a centralised approach"
Nothing to do with us Gov.
I’m glad I listened to my father who begged me not to go the Liverpool v Atletico match at Anfield.
Those who claimed there was no evidence of any transmission from children are clearly wrong (though it is at a significantly reduced level).
https://twitter.com/mugecevik/status/1257392368325623809
(b) Continued lockdown kills in two ways. Mental health and the economy. 7.000 is a small number.
(c) Why would it be impossible? It would have to be more stringent than now but doable.
(d) It wouldn't be casual. It would be a rational considered decision. There would be an emotional reaction but it wouldn't be compulsary for the under 50s to go back to work and pubs and clubs. It would be optional. They would get an "under 50" badge. The small risk would be explained. It would be like the risk of driving or skiing.
It is no coincidence that although Singapore has generally been very successful at protecting its indigenous population it has failed miserably with transnational workers who live in exactly these conditions and which have formed a pool of infection which leaks into the general population.
I think that's been considered by multiple countries, but in practice doesn't seem to work - if the virus is everywhere, eventually it gets at the oldies.
Our society can survive without restaurants, albeit as a much less happy one, indefinitely. Can it survive with critical infrastructure insufficiently staffed for weeks at a time?
Evidence for this other than a biased hope ?
As it was, even with the lock down, the health service was very nearly overwhelmed.
The policy makers have to deal with a reality that you seem to avoid, replacing by your wishes for a different world.
Do I get bonus points for shoehorning in subtly introducing my home town?
Plus we have no idea of the long term effects of covid on survivors. It could knock years off their life expectancy for all we know.
(Used to have the Vatersay Boys tour bus parked outside my bedroom window on Barra.... Think a Scottish folk version of Spinal Tap, where they had various bizarre causes for line-up changes.)
https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-similarities-and-differences-covid-19-and-influenza
Has Hancock apologized for lack of PPE , not having enough testing capacity early enough and ending up with highest deaths in Europe.
Some people would never get it, because they are anti-social tree surgeons or live on narrow boats or are obsessive hand washers/
And so the number of under 50 deaths is probably quite a lot lower than 7,000.
Plus the NHS figures showed that only 250 healthy people out of a sample of 20,000 had died of Corona under 60, not under fifty. And they don;t include care home deaths. Which may be understated anyway.
WTF is the point ?
Shiants are owned by a interesting literary/political dynasty. Bought, I think, by Sir Harold Nicolson (of Diaries fame) for his son Nigel (Suez rebel) and then inherited by his son, the writer, Adam, who has handed it on to his own son. Vita Sackville West was Sir Harold's wife.
What we do know, however, are the long term effects on health of economic penury. There is plenty of research on that. Labour have spent a decade telling us austerity is a killer.
What we face now is potentially a much worse economic outlook.
Luckily they didn’t show all cause mortality comparisons because that’s a horror show compared to other countries .
Some of it is about emotions as well as rationality, getting parents to send children back to school will be one of the hardest parts of the resumption, despite kids being massively less likely to get it and tend to get it without complications when they do.
A gradual softly softly easing of the lockdown is needed to deal with those kind of challenges even if logically we could get many back earlier.
So you've just excluded anyone who lives with someone who has a long term condition.
A big if!!
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1257705522821816321?s=20
Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, an independently-minded NHS doctor, said on his blog weeks ago that for such reasons the lockdown was counterproductive.
We're set to spend ~3x the annual NHS budget on one pandemic. If life is suddenly this precious, why wasn't the NHS budget raised 10 years ago and kept in line with those of countries like Iceland, Norway, Germany, Sweden?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/charlton-2-0-newcastle-707515
But the government cannot do that because it would undermine their whole policy and put them in the dock for what is to come.
The absurd pretence of the threat, Dominic Raab's 'new normal' is what you get from the government's position.
Seriously, has anybody, anybody considered the effects of that 'new normal' he is talking about?
It will stop any economic recovery in its tracks.
I predict that the social care system will finally have to be overhauled well before the Virus Public Inquiry, which is going to have devastating analysis of what happened in care homes.
That way at least some of the terrible blame heading ministerial way can be massaged.