I assume if the 19m suggestion were remotely correct, it would imply that the lockdown was almost completely pointless, either in need or effectiveness.
I don't think that a correct interpretation.
The paper states that by their calculations the lockdown measures have reduced the R from 2.8 on March 23rd to 0.8 today.
At the former figure a much higher percentage of infected population is required for herd immunity.
But it would also put the death rate at a level which would suggest the negative consequences of the lockdown (in the way it was implemented) outweighing the positives.
The paper predicts there would have been 120 000 deaths with the original R of 2.8.
The paper does not address the socio-economic cost effectiveness of the measures, purely the transmission data.
Because of an overloaded health system? Otherwise wouldn’t rapidly acquired herd immunity (and/or a large proportion of people voluntarily self isolating/taking precautions) have led to both falls in R rate and limited deaths in the alternative scenario. Even before you consider a mixed policy of isolating care homes and segregating hospitals.
Is it me, or are others wondering how, months into this pandemic, we still have only very broad error-barred wobbly numbers on R, levels of asymptomatic infection, transmission rates, infection rates.... We don't have a clue to within tens of millions how many have had this thing in a population of 67m.
Pull your finger out, Science Guy!
Yes, we really need some population studies of antibody prevalence using a reliable test like the Roche one to know.
Otherwise we can only roughly estimate R, and only in retrospect.
Incidentally, Fox jr got a letter from NHS England yesterday, calling him for random virus swab testing. He has not been in physical contact with anyone bar me or Mrs Foxy in a month, and clinically completely well. I would be astonished if he tested positive. Not sure this the best use of swab testing capacity myself, though it must increase the tractor stats. Nonetheless, I have encouraged him to participate. I like to help science.
I have been random tested as part of that 11000 survey from the ONS. Every week there is a bit of curtain twitching as the nurse comes around and conducts a test on my driveway ! All the neighbours avoid me a lot more than 2 metres now!
I assume if the 19m suggestion were remotely correct, it would imply that the lockdown was almost completely pointless, either in need or effectiveness.
I don't think that a correct interpretation.
The paper states that by their calculations the lockdown measures have reduced the R from 2.8 on March 23rd to 0.8 today.
At the former figure a much higher percentage of infected population is required for herd immunity.
But it would also put the death rate at a level which would suggest the negative consequences of the lockdown (in the way it was implemented) outweighing the positives.
I'm more convinced than ever that the death toll from the effects of the lockdown - an accumulation of greatly increased poverty and economic distress, the huge numbers of diagnostic screenings, treatments and operations delayed and cancelled, and the numbers of acutely ill patients terrified into avoiding health services - will outweigh that from the disease.
In the general population outside of elderly care homes, the difference could easily be an order of magnitude.
EDIT: of course, because the possible death toll from the virus if we'd used the Swedish approach, or even no lockdown at all, is heavily disputed - and also because deaths attributable to lockdown will take many years to play out, and the attribution will, in many cases, also be disputed - we're probably never going to get a proper answer to the question of whether this particular lockdown was excessive or not.
It was the second mutated wave of Spanish Flu that was most deadly, particularly to younger people, with the first wave mainly affecting the elderly. Those areas hit particularly badly by the first wave, like Denmark, ended up with significantly lower mortality overall (since there was cross-immunity)
The only consolation from that piece of history is that it is believed the unusual circumstance of the world war enabled the mutated deadly virus to spread faster than the original strain.
There is such a thing asBritish llama farmers? What is their end product?
Wool? And I believe some people keep them as pets.
Wool. Leather. Very nutritious milk and cheese. Meat.
They are good guard animals, and and can also carry things about. Llama treking is quite popular.
I believe Llama excrement can be used as fuel.
Hmm. Interesting. Don't recall ever seeing llama on a menu; if I had I'd have given it a go. I like to try something different. Will I ever have the chance now, finding the Convid-19 link!
Drakeford on R4 “we tested over 1,000 care home residents and 1,000 care home staff.....last week” - I had thought he might have said “yesterday”.....sounded pleased with the effort too....
There is such a thing asBritish llama farmers? What is their end product?
Wool? And I believe some people keep them as pets.
Wool. Leather. Very nutritious milk and cheese. Meat.
They are good guard animals, and and can also carry things about. Llama treking is quite popular.
I believe Llama excrement can be used as fuel.
Hmm. Interesting. Don't recall ever seeing llama on a menu; if I had I'd have given it a go. I like to try something different. Will I ever have the chance now, finding the Convid-19 link!
Never seen them, but they have a bad rep, for sure. Trouble is, Forestry Commission go in and blitz them - and everything else too - with pesticides. Not exactly discriminatory. But it has been decided that even in times of Covid, the work of zapping them must continue.
I assume if the 19m suggestion were remotely correct, it would imply that the lockdown was almost completely pointless, either in need or effectiveness.
I don't think that a correct interpretation.
The paper states that by their calculations the lockdown measures have reduced the R from 2.8 on March 23rd to 0.8 today.
At the former figure a much higher percentage of infected population is required for herd immunity.
But it would also put the death rate at a level which would suggest the negative consequences of the lockdown (in the way it was implemented) outweighing the positives.
The paper predicts there would have been 120 000 deaths with the original R of 2.8.
The paper does not address the socio-economic cost effectiveness of the measures, purely the transmission data.
Because of an overloaded health system? Otherwise wouldn’t rapidly acquired herd immunity (and/or a large proportion of people voluntarily self isolating/taking precautions) have led to both falls in R rate and limited deaths in the alternative scenario. Even before you consider a mixed policy of isolating care homes and segregating hospitals.
No, the higher death rate would have been because of the higher R number. The paper does not consider hospital capacity. If that were to be considered, then the mortality would have been higher still.
What I didn't see in the paper was Confidence intervals on their population estimates. If they are as wide as 5 to 50 million infected, then probably best not taken too seriously.
Here’s a thought - suppose the reality is that herd immunity was the right policy from the start. But not “let it rip” but the policy as put forward by the U.K. government - ie to take measures with one main aim ie. avoiding overload of the health system, but specifically not with a side aim of suppression/elimination (beyond that required to meet the main aim). That it really was all about “timing” where the most extreme measures could actually be taken too early as well as too late.
Under this narrative the U.K. policy never changed, just the extent of the measures required to meet the main aim - once they realised the virus was spreading faster than they initially thought. And for London, the timing was almost perfect - it got a bit sticky in a couple of hospitals, but no collapse. And they are now going to reap the rewards of the virus having spread as far as they could allow. In other parts of the country however (because the lockdown was universal) the timing was too early - in some places by weeks. They could be in big trouble as the lockdown eases. Ironically the lockdown lifting could be delayed in places where it is least necessary (under this narrative - London).
And we might see the same across Europe. Countries congratulating themselves on the speed of their response, and tiny numbers of cases, could be in for a shock because they never came close to a level of infectivity where the lockdown was justified. And they now have negligible “herd immunity” benefits to be realised now they loosen restrictions. Because they’ve de facto pursued a policy of elimination for a virus which can’t be eliminated (in the short/medium term in a globalised world.
Unless there’s a vaccine.
*I should add that even if (contrary to received wisdom) the U.K. approach was actually broadly right (on a “macro” level, if you like), it doesn’t mean that many things haven’t been done badly on a “micro” level - testing, PPE etc.
I assume if the 19m suggestion were remotely correct, it would imply that the lockdown was almost completely pointless, either in need or effectiveness.
I don't think that a correct interpretation.
The paper states that by their calculations the lockdown measures have reduced the R from 2.8 on March 23rd to 0.8 today.
At the former figure a much higher percentage of infected population is required for herd immunity.
But it would also put the death rate at a level which would suggest the negative consequences of the lockdown (in the way it was implemented) outweighing the positives.
The paper predicts there would have been 120 000 deaths with the original R of 2.8.
The paper does not address the socio-economic cost effectiveness of the measures, purely the transmission data.
Because of an overloaded health system? Otherwise wouldn’t rapidly acquired herd immunity (and/or a large proportion of people voluntarily self isolating/taking precautions) have led to both falls in R rate and limited deaths in the alternative scenario. Even before you consider a mixed policy of isolating care homes and segregating hospitals.
No, the higher death rate would have been because of the higher R number. The paper does not consider hospital capacity. If that were to be considered, then the mortality would have been higher still.
What I didn't see in the paper was Confidence intervals on their population estimates. If they are as wide as 5 to 50 million infected, then probably best not taken too seriously.
But isn’t R number about speed of spread as much as total infectivity. Are they saying total deaths would have been lower, or total deaths, at this point in time?
Here’s a thought - suppose the reality is that herd immunity was the right policy from the start. But not “let it rip” but the policy as put forward by the U.K. government - ie to take measures with one main aim ie. avoiding overload of the health system, but specifically not with a side aim of suppression/elimination (beyond that required to meet the main aim). That it really was all about “timing” where the most extreme measures could actually be taken too early as well as too late.
Under this narrative the U.K. policy never changed, just the extent of the measures required to meet the main aim - once they realised the virus was spreading faster than they initially thought. And for London, the timing was almost perfect - it got a bit sticky in a couple of hospitals, but no collapse. And they are now going to reap the rewards of the virus having spread as far as they could allow. In other parts of the country however (because the lockdown was universal) the timing was too early - in some places by weeks. They could be in big trouble as the lockdown eases. Ironically the lockdown lifting could be delayed in places where it is least necessary (under this narrative - London).
And we might see the same across Europe. Countries congratulating themselves on the speed of their response, and tiny numbers of cases, could be in for a shock because they never came close to a level of infectivity where the lockdown was justified. And they now have negligible “herd immunity” benefits to be realised now they loosen restrictions. Because they’ve de facto pursued a policy of elimination for a virus which can’t be eliminated (in the short/medium term in a globalised world.
Unless there’s a vaccine.
*I should add that even if (contrary to received wisdom) the U.K. approach was actually broadly right (on a “macro” level, if you like), it doesn’t mean that many things haven’t been done badly on a “micro” level - testing, PPE etc.
Yes, it is quite possible that (probably unintentionally!) has been the effect of government policy.
Around 70% of the population would still be at risk though, so not quite Liberty Hall.
I assume if the 19m suggestion were remotely correct, it would imply that the lockdown was almost completely pointless, either in need or effectiveness.
I don't think that a correct interpretation.
The paper states that by their calculations the lockdown measures have reduced the R from 2.8 on March 23rd to 0.8 today.
At the former figure a much higher percentage of infected population is required for herd immunity.
But it would also put the death rate at a level which would suggest the negative consequences of the lockdown (in the way it was implemented) outweighing the positives.
The paper predicts there would have been 120 000 deaths with the original R of 2.8.
The paper does not address the socio-economic cost effectiveness of the measures, purely the transmission data.
Because of an overloaded health system? Otherwise wouldn’t rapidly acquired herd immunity (and/or a large proportion of people voluntarily self isolating/taking precautions) have led to both falls in R rate and limited deaths in the alternative scenario. Even before you consider a mixed policy of isolating care homes and segregating hospitals.
No, the higher death rate would have been because of the higher R number. The paper does not consider hospital capacity. If that were to be considered, then the mortality would have been higher still.
What I didn't see in the paper was Confidence intervals on their population estimates. If they are as wide as 5 to 50 million infected, then probably best not taken too seriously.
But isn’t R number about speed of spread as much as total infectivity. Are they saying total deaths would have been lower, or total deaths, at this point in time?
R is how many people a person on average gives the virus to whilst they're infectious right now. If people decrease their contacts to a de minimus level this drops below 1. If people carry on as they did before the virus hit it goes above 1.
Here’s a thought - suppose the reality is that herd immunity was the right policy from the start. But not “let it rip” but the policy as put forward by the U.K. government - ie to take measures with one main aim ie. avoiding overload of the health system, but specifically not with a side aim of suppression/elimination (beyond that required to meet the main aim). That it really was all about “timing” where the most extreme measures could actually be taken too early as well as too late.
Under this narrative the U.K. policy never changed, just the extent of the measures required to meet the main aim - once they realised the virus was spreading faster than they initially thought. And for London, the timing was almost perfect - it got a bit sticky in a couple of hospitals, but no collapse. And they are now going to reap the rewards of the virus having spread as far as they could allow. In other parts of the country however (because the lockdown was universal) the timing was too early - in some places by weeks. They could be in big trouble as the lockdown eases. Ironically the lockdown lifting could be delayed in places where it is least necessary (under this narrative - London).
And we might see the same across Europe. Countries congratulating themselves on the speed of their response, and tiny numbers of cases, could be in for a shock because they never came close to a level of infectivity where the lockdown was justified. And they now have negligible “herd immunity” benefits to be realised now they loosen restrictions. Because they’ve de facto pursued a policy of elimination for a virus which can’t be eliminated (in the short/medium term in a globalised world.
Unless there’s a vaccine.
*I should add that even if (contrary to received wisdom) the U.K. approach was actually broadly right (on a “macro” level, if you like), it doesn’t mean that many things haven’t been done badly on a “micro” level - testing, PPE etc.
Yes, it is quite possible that (probably unintentionally!) has been the effect of government policy.
Around 70% of the population would still be at risk though, so not quite Liberty Hall.
Indeed.
And we need a better more palatable phrase for the populus than boffinesque 'herd immunity.'
You don't win over the people by telling them they're wildebeests.
I assume if the 19m suggestion were remotely correct, it would imply that the lockdown was almost completely pointless, either in need or effectiveness.
I don't think that a correct interpretation.
The paper states that by their calculations the lockdown measures have reduced the R from 2.8 on March 23rd to 0.8 today.
At the former figure a much higher percentage of infected population is required for herd immunity.
But it would also put the death rate at a level which would suggest the negative consequences of the lockdown (in the way it was implemented) outweighing the positives.
The paper predicts there would have been 120 000 deaths with the original R of 2.8.
The paper does not address the socio-economic cost effectiveness of the measures, purely the transmission data.
Because of an overloaded health system? Otherwise wouldn’t rapidly acquired herd immunity (and/or a large proportion of people voluntarily self isolating/taking precautions) have led to both falls in R rate and limited deaths in the alternative scenario. Even before you consider a mixed policy of isolating care homes and segregating hospitals.
No, the higher death rate would have been because of the higher R number. The paper does not consider hospital capacity. If that were to be considered, then the mortality would have been higher still.
What I didn't see in the paper was Confidence intervals on their population estimates. If they are as wide as 5 to 50 million infected, then probably best not taken too seriously.
But isn’t R number about speed of spread as much as total infectivity. Are they saying total deaths would have been lower, or total deaths, at this point in time?
R is how many people a person on average gives the virus to whilst they're infectious right now. If people decrease their contacts to a de minimus level this drops below 1. If people carry on as they did before the virus hit it goes above 1.
Yes, I know what it is a measure of. But there are two different things about R numbers and what they imply. There is the R number in “normal state” and R number with suppression measures in place. The R number in normal state says something about how far a virus will spread (and whether it will become an epidemic, pandemic - ultimately endemic etc).
Low obviously being good (especially if combined with being relatively benign). However if it is high in normal state but only reduced by suppression measures, then (unless those measures are pursued to the point of elimination) those measures will arguably only act as a delay. Once they are lifted the R number will increase back up to something closer to normal state.
And overall infections/deaths will be the same just stretched over longer period (excluding other factors like overwhelmed health service etc).
Here’s a thought - suppose the reality is that herd immunity was the right policy from the start. But not “let it rip” but the policy as put forward by the U.K. government - ie to take measures with one main aim ie. avoiding overload of the health system, but specifically not with a side aim of suppression/elimination (beyond that required to meet the main aim). That it really was all about “timing” where the most extreme measures could actually be taken too early as well as too late.
Under this narrative the U.K. policy never changed, just the extent of the measures required to meet the main aim - once they realised the virus was spreading faster than they initially thought. And for London, the timing was almost perfect - it got a bit sticky in a couple of hospitals, but no collapse. And they are now going to reap the rewards of the virus having spread as far as they could allow. In other parts of the country however (because the lockdown was universal) the timing was too early - in some places by weeks. They could be in big trouble as the lockdown eases. Ironically the lockdown lifting could be delayed in places where it is least necessary (under this narrative - London).
And we might see the same across Europe. Countries congratulating themselves on the speed of their response, and tiny numbers of cases, could be in for a shock because they never came close to a level of infectivity where the lockdown was justified. And they now have negligible “herd immunity” benefits to be realised now they loosen restrictions. Because they’ve de facto pursued a policy of elimination for a virus which can’t be eliminated (in the short/medium term in a globalised world.
Unless there’s a vaccine.
*I should add that even if (contrary to received wisdom) the U.K. approach was actually broadly right (on a “macro” level, if you like), it doesn’t mean that many things haven’t been done badly on a “micro” level - testing, PPE etc.
Yes, it is quite possible that (probably unintentionally!) has been the effect of government policy.
Around 70% of the population would still be at risk though, so not quite Liberty Hall.
Indeed.
And we need a better more palatable phrase for the populus than boffinesque 'herd immunity.'
You don't win over the people by telling them they're wildebeests.
It served quite sufficiently for years when discussing the need for children’s vaccines etc. The constant need to come up with new words or phrases because the old perfectly adequate ones get a negative connotation (often media driven) is somewhat silly. You have a phrase that describes something perfectly, has sufficed for centuries, and the in a couple of weeks becomes unusable for ever. Without any better phrase to replace it.
Here’s a thought - suppose the reality is that herd immunity was the right policy from the start. But not “let it rip” but the policy as put forward by the U.K. government - ie to take measures with one main aim ie. avoiding overload of the health system, but specifically not with a side aim of suppression/elimination (beyond that required to meet the main aim). That it really was all about “timing” where the most extreme measures could actually be taken too early as well as too late.
Under this narrative the U.K. policy never changed, just the extent of the measures required to meet the main aim - once they realised the virus was spreading faster than they initially thought. And for London, the timing was almost perfect - it got a bit sticky in a couple of hospitals, but no collapse. And they are now going to reap the rewards of the virus having spread as far as they could allow. In other parts of the country however (because the lockdown was universal) the timing was too early - in some places by weeks. They could be in big trouble as the lockdown eases. Ironically the lockdown lifting could be delayed in places where it is least necessary (under this narrative - London).
And we might see the same across Europe. Countries congratulating themselves on the speed of their response, and tiny numbers of cases, could be in for a shock because they never came close to a level of infectivity where the lockdown was justified. And they now have negligible “herd immunity” benefits to be realised now they loosen restrictions. Because they’ve de facto pursued a policy of elimination for a virus which can’t be eliminated (in the short/medium term in a globalised world.
Unless there’s a vaccine.
*I should add that even if (contrary to received wisdom) the U.K. approach was actually broadly right (on a “macro” level, if you like), it doesn’t mean that many things haven’t been done badly on a “micro” level - testing, PPE etc.
Yes, it is quite possible that (probably unintentionally!) has been the effect of government policy.
Around 70% of the population would still be at risk though, so not quite Liberty Hall.
This is right I think. Given what was known there was and is only one general policy available. The policy has to be open to both a world in which there is one day a reliable vaccine, so the fewest cases =fewest deaths etc. It has to be open also to a world without vaccine, so it was and is vital we don't all get it at once. And the policy has to keep open the chance of a future civilised and social existence.
Apart from a loony fringe there is little argument about macro policy of taking big steps to limit the spread. The rows are about micro detail, for people who enjoy the subject, and about competence. Competence, not policy, is the Achilles heel of an open, liberal, diverse and slightly anarchist society.
Here’s a thought - suppose the reality is that herd immunity was the right policy from the start. But not “let it rip” but the policy as put forward by the U.K. government - ie to take measures with one main aim ie. avoiding overload of the health system, but specifically not with a side aim of suppression/elimination (beyond that required to meet the main aim). That it really was all about “timing” where the most extreme measures could actually be taken too early as well as too late.
Under this narrative the U.K. policy never changed, just the extent of the measures required to meet the main aim - once they realised the virus was spreading faster than they initially thought. And for London, the timing was almost perfect - it got a bit sticky in a couple of hospitals, but no collapse. And they are now going to reap the rewards of the virus having spread as far as they could allow. In other parts of the country however (because the lockdown was universal) the timing was too early - in some places by weeks. They could be in big trouble as the lockdown eases. Ironically the lockdown lifting could be delayed in places where it is least necessary (under this narrative - London).
And we might see the same across Europe. Countries congratulating themselves on the speed of their response, and tiny numbers of cases, could be in for a shock because they never came close to a level of infectivity where the lockdown was justified. And they now have negligible “herd immunity” benefits to be realised now they loosen restrictions. Because they’ve de facto pursued a policy of elimination for a virus which can’t be eliminated (in the short/medium term in a globalised world.
Unless there’s a vaccine.
*I should add that even if (contrary to received wisdom) the U.K. approach was actually broadly right (on a “macro” level, if you like), it doesn’t mean that many things haven’t been done badly on a “micro” level - testing, PPE etc.
Yes, it is quite possible that (probably unintentionally!) has been the effect of government policy.
Around 70% of the population would still be at risk though, so not quite Liberty Hall.
Indeed.
And we need a better more palatable phrase for the populus than boffinesque 'herd immunity.'
You don't win over the people by telling them they're wildebeests.
It served quite sufficiently for years when discussing the need for children’s vaccines etc. The constant need to come up with new words or phrases because the old perfectly adequate ones get a negative connotation (often media driven) is somewhat silly. You have a phrase that describes something perfectly, has sufficed for centuries, and the in a couple of weeks becomes unusable for ever. Without any better phrase to replace it.
Nah it's shit. And the problem with it is that it actually led to a backlash against the concept behind it. People, understandably, revolted against the notion that they were wildebeest out on the Serengeti waiting for lions to pick off the stragglers whilst the stronger animals trundled on to their watering hole.
Your example re. children's vaccines beautifully illustrates the problem with scientists, or rather one of them. No one, I guarantee no one, in the real normal world outside of laboratories ever in a zillion years used, let alone had listened to, the expression 'herd immunity.'
It's a really shit phrase that has caused immense damage to the cause behind it.
Is it me, or are others wondering how, months into this pandemic, we still have only very broad error-barred wobbly numbers on R, levels of asymptomatic infection, transmission rates, infection rates.... We don't have a clue to within tens of millions how many have had this thing in a population of 67m.
Pull your finger out, Science Guy!
I think the ongoing "we don't know and are only guessing" response from the Scientific Field regarding this coronavirus outbreak will save the Government at any enquiry into their handling of the outbreak.
Here’s a thought - suppose the reality is that herd immunity was the right policy from the start. But not “let it rip” but the policy as put forward by the U.K. government - ie to take measures with one main aim ie. avoiding overload of the health system, but specifically not with a side aim of suppression/elimination (beyond that required to meet the main aim). That it really was all about “timing” where the most extreme measures could actually be taken too early as well as too late.
Under this narrative the U.K. policy never changed, just the extent of the measures required to meet the main aim - once they realised the virus was spreading faster than they initially thought. And for London, the timing was almost perfect - it got a bit sticky in a couple of hospitals, but no collapse. And they are now going to reap the rewards of the virus having spread as far as they could allow. In other parts of the country however (because the lockdown was universal) the timing was too early - in some places by weeks. They could be in big trouble as the lockdown eases. Ironically the lockdown lifting could be delayed in places where it is least necessary (under this narrative - London).
And we might see the same across Europe. Countries congratulating themselves on the speed of their response, and tiny numbers of cases, could be in for a shock because they never came close to a level of infectivity where the lockdown was justified. And they now have negligible “herd immunity” benefits to be realised now they loosen restrictions. Because they’ve de facto pursued a policy of elimination for a virus which can’t be eliminated (in the short/medium term in a globalised world.
Unless there’s a vaccine.
*I should add that even if (contrary to received wisdom) the U.K. approach was actually broadly right (on a “macro” level, if you like), it doesn’t mean that many things haven’t been done badly on a “micro” level - testing, PPE etc.
Yes, it is quite possible that (probably unintentionally!) has been the effect of government policy.
Around 70% of the population would still be at risk though, so not quite Liberty Hall.
This is right I think. Given what was known there was and is only one general policy available. The policy has to be open to both a world in which there is one day a reliable vaccine, so the fewest cases =fewest deaths etc. It has to be open also to a world without vaccine, so it was and is vital we don't all get it at once. And the policy has to keep open the chance of a future civilised and social existence.
Apart from a loony fringe there is little argument about macro policy of taking big steps to limit the spread. The rows are about micro detail, for people who enjoy the subject, and about competence. Competence, not policy, is the Achilles heel of an open, liberal, diverse and slightly anarchist society.
I think this slight misses the point of my original post. Which is not about being prepared to consider “big measures” (lockdown) etc. But whether they should be implemented at the earliest opportunity to minimise “first wave spread” - and effectively attempting a policy of elimination - or whether they should be a finely judged matter of timing - delayed as late as possible with the aim of infecting the maximum number of people without overloading health capacity.
The U.K. Govt tries to argue that the latter has been their policy. Other countries locked down very early. It is obvious that the former will have fewer deaths (all things being equal) as a result (in the initial phase). But if so then judging the U.K. on the basis of high deaths and “not implementing measures quickly enough” may look like a mistake in the longer term. Because they do not definitively represent a policy failure on the side of the U.K. govt.
This was the basis of Johnson’s mocked claim that we have “avoided the tragedy befalling eg. Italy and Spain” ie. their health systems were overwhelmed ours weren’t. Of course there is the separate debate about how that was achieved (emptying hospitals, people dying at home etc...)
Here’s a thought - suppose the reality is that herd immunity was the right policy from the start. But not “let it rip” but the policy as put forward by the U.K. government - ie to take measures with one main aim ie. avoiding overload of the health system, but specifically not with a side aim of suppression/elimination (beyond that required to meet the main aim). That it really was all about “timing” where the most extreme measures could actually be taken too early as well as too late.
Under this narrative the U.K. policy never changed, just the extent of the measures required to meet the main aim - once they realised the virus was spreading faster than they initially thought. And for London, the timing was almost perfect - it got a bit sticky in a couple of hospitals, but no collapse. And they are now going to reap the rewards of the virus having spread as far as they could allow. In other parts of the country however (because the lockdown was universal) the timing was too early - in some places by weeks. They could be in big trouble as the lockdown eases. Ironically the lockdown lifting could be delayed in places where it is least necessary (under this narrative - London).
And we might see the same across Europe. Countries congratulating themselves on the speed of their response, and tiny numbers of cases, could be in for a shock because they never came close to a level of infectivity where the lockdown was justified. And they now have negligible “herd immunity” benefits to be realised now they loosen restrictions. Because they’ve de facto pursued a policy of elimination for a virus which can’t be eliminated (in the short/medium term in a globalised world.
Unless there’s a vaccine.
*I should add that even if (contrary to received wisdom) the U.K. approach was actually broadly right (on a “macro” level, if you like), it doesn’t mean that many things haven’t been done badly on a “micro” level - testing, PPE etc.
One of the big problems with this, apart from the killing hundreds of thousands of people aspect, is that the cheapest method for preventing the spread, cluster tracing, is only really practical if the number of cases is small. So if you want to keep letting the thing spread then slowing it down again, your slowing-down phases are likely to be big, expensive, disruptive interventions like the one you just had.
Meanwhile in East Asia where we've been aiming at getting as few cases as possible as quickly as is reasonable, we've been able to avoid the worst of the economic disruption and the loss of freedom that you guys have had.
European governments left the response too late so they may not have had any option but to turn the disruption up to 11, but I find it hard to believe that anybody would consciously choose your approach over ours.
There is such a thing asBritish llama farmers? What is their end product?
Wool? And I believe some people keep them as pets.
Wool. Leather. Very nutritious milk and cheese. Meat.
They are good guard animals, and and can also carry things about. Llama treking is quite popular.
I believe Llama excrement can be used as fuel.
Hmm. Interesting. Don't recall ever seeing llama on a menu; if I had I'd have given it a go. I like to try something different. Will I ever have the chance now, finding the Convid-19 link!
There is such a thing asBritish llama farmers? What is their end product?
Wool? And I believe some people keep them as pets.
Wool. Leather. Very nutritious milk and cheese. Meat.
They are good guard animals, and and can also carry things about. Llama treking is quite popular.
I believe Llama excrement can be used as fuel.
Hmm. Interesting. Don't recall ever seeing llama on a menu; if I had I'd have given it a go. I like to try something different. Will I ever have the chance now, finding the Convid-19 link!
Comments
The only consolation from that piece of history is that it is believed the unusual circumstance of the world war enabled the mutated deadly virus to spread faster than the original strain.
A huarizo is a cross between a male llama and a female alpaca.
Will I ever have the chance now, finding the Convid-19 link!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_processionary
I see llamaburgers are on offer.
It's what he'd have wanted.
What I didn't see in the paper was Confidence intervals on their population estimates. If they are as wide as 5 to 50 million infected, then probably best not taken too seriously.
Under this narrative the U.K. policy never changed, just the extent of the measures required to meet the main aim - once they realised the virus was spreading faster than they initially thought. And for London, the timing was almost perfect - it got a bit sticky in a couple of hospitals, but no collapse. And they are now going to reap the rewards of the virus having spread as far as they could allow. In other parts of the country however (because the lockdown was universal) the timing was too early - in some places by weeks. They could be in big trouble as the lockdown eases. Ironically the lockdown lifting could be delayed in places where it is least necessary (under this narrative - London).
And we might see the same across Europe. Countries congratulating themselves on the speed of their response, and tiny numbers of cases, could be in for a shock because they never came close to a level of infectivity where the lockdown was justified. And they now have negligible “herd immunity” benefits to be realised now they loosen restrictions. Because they’ve de facto pursued a policy of elimination for a virus which can’t be eliminated (in the short/medium term in a globalised world.
Unless there’s a vaccine.
*I should add that even if (contrary to received wisdom) the U.K. approach was actually broadly right (on a “macro” level, if you like), it doesn’t mean that many things haven’t been done badly on a “micro” level - testing, PPE etc.
https://twitter.com/HurstLlama/status/1260160560995459072?s=19
Around 70% of the population would still be at risk though, so not quite Liberty Hall.
If people decrease their contacts to a de minimus level this drops below 1. If people carry on as they did before the virus hit it goes above 1.
And we need a better more palatable phrase for the populus than boffinesque 'herd immunity.'
You don't win over the people by telling them they're wildebeests.
Low obviously being good (especially if combined with being relatively benign). However if it is high in normal state but only reduced by suppression measures, then (unless those measures are pursued to the point of elimination) those measures will arguably only act as a delay. Once they are lifted the R number will increase back up to something closer to normal state.
And overall infections/deaths will be the same just stretched over longer period (excluding other factors like overwhelmed health service etc).
Apart from a loony fringe there is little argument about macro policy of taking big steps to limit the spread. The rows are about micro detail, for people who enjoy the subject, and about competence. Competence, not policy, is the Achilles heel of an open, liberal, diverse and slightly anarchist society.
Let's watch Real Housewives instead.
Your example re. children's vaccines beautifully illustrates the problem with scientists, or rather one of them. No one, I guarantee no one, in the real normal world outside of laboratories ever in a zillion years used, let alone had listened to, the expression 'herd immunity.'
It's a really shit phrase that has caused immense damage to the cause behind it.
https://www.countrylife.co.uk/out-and-about/dogs/matthew-parris-llamas-theyre-interested-everything-humans-201741
The U.K. Govt tries to argue that the latter has been their policy. Other countries locked down very early. It is obvious that the former will have fewer deaths (all things being equal) as a result (in the initial phase). But if so then judging the U.K. on the basis of high deaths and “not implementing measures quickly enough” may look like a mistake in the longer term. Because they do not definitively represent a policy failure on the side of the U.K. govt.
This was the basis of Johnson’s mocked claim that we have “avoided the tragedy befalling eg. Italy and Spain” ie. their health systems were overwhelmed ours weren’t. Of course there is the separate debate about how that was achieved (emptying hospitals, people dying at home etc...)
If this is true, the world is weird and we are probably living in a simulation.
Meanwhile in East Asia where we've been aiming at getting as few cases as possible as quickly as is reasonable, we've been able to avoid the worst of the economic disruption and the loss of freedom that you guys have had.
European governments left the response too late so they may not have had any option but to turn the disruption up to 11, but I find it hard to believe that anybody would consciously choose your approach over ours.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBWI11vbObs