Why is it that of all the figures the most difficult to find is hospital admissions and an idea of how NHS capacity is coping?
We are doing this to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed right? so why is it so difficult to discover how that is going?
you would also think that publishing a up to date number for people who have recovered would be very easy, every other nation manages it but not us.
Its almost as if they don;t want us to know the NHS has buckets of capacity and this absurd lockdown extension can be junked soon.
How many thousands of deaths a day would it take to make you happy?
How many million livelihoods are you prepared to sacrifice? How many trillions in debt do you want to give our grandchildren? How many deaths do you think the depression that is coming will cause while you obsess about this?
We all have moral questions to answer, you see
Grow up.
I can;t help it if you don;'t understand the basics of what our country runs on.
For god's sake, this is not about deaths alone. People like this are chomping at the bit to put people in their fifties and sixties (and, yes, forties and so on) into hospital. They're either stupid or vindictive. I actually think they are more the latter, it's ideologically driven harm that they are itching to create.
So let's turn this around. I hope he gets it and suffers in a serious way. It's the only way that the reality that this is about the lives that people lead is what matters and not having people slavering all over you on social media.
Fraser Nelson in the Telegraph reported yesterday that the latest government modelling expects around 150,000 deaths caused by the lockdown itself.
Yebbut those are not Coronavirus deaths, they don;t prrovide stories for our absurd newpapers and provide events for Piers Morgan to rail at.
In short, those are second class deaths. Consigned to that class by posters like Chris.
Why is it that of all the figures the most difficult to find is hospital admissions and an idea of how NHS capacity is coping?
We are doing this to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed right? so why is it so difficult to discover how that is going?
you would also think that publishing a up to date number for people who have recovered would be very easy, every other nation manages it but not us.
Its almost as if they don;t want us to know the NHS has buckets of capacity and this absurd lockdown extension can be junked soon.
How many thousands of deaths a day would it take to make you happy?
How many million livelihoods are you prepared to sacrifice? How many trillions in debt do you want to give our grandchildren? How many deaths do you think the depression that is coming will cause while you obsess about this?
We all have moral questions to answer, you see
Grow up.
I can;t help it if you don;'t understand the basics of what our country runs on.
I can't help it if you're a moron.
Spilttle flecked insults, insults dear fellow. You have clearly lost an argument.
For god's sake, this is not about deaths alone. People like this are chomping at the bit to put people in their fifties and sixties (and, yes, forties and so on) into hospital. They're either stupid or vindictive. I actually think they are more the latter, it's ideologically driven harm that they are itching to create.
So let's turn this around. I hope he gets it and suffers in a serious way. It's the only way that the reality that this is about the lives that people lead is what matters and not having people slavering all over you on social media.
Heaven forbid there be sceptics
The word "sceptic" is usually reserved for those who are able to present a rational argument to support their case. In the instance, though, the word "idiot" or "arsehole" is probably more appropriate.
Why is it that of all the figures the most difficult to find is hospital admissions and an idea of how NHS capacity is coping?
We are doing this to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed right? so why is it so difficult to discover how that is going?
you would also think that publishing a up to date number for people who have recovered would be very easy, every other nation manages it but not us.
Its almost as if they don;t want us to know the NHS has buckets of capacity and this absurd lockdown extension can be junked soon.
How many thousands of deaths a day would it take to make you happy?
How many million livelihoods are you prepared to sacrifice? How many trillions in debt do you want to give our grandchildren? How many deaths do you think the depression that is coming will cause while you obsess about this?
We all have moral questions to answer, you see
"Question B: Abandoning severe lockdowns at a time when the likelihood of a resurgence in infections remains high will lead to greater total economic damage than sustaining the lockdowns to eliminate the resurgence risk."
For god's sake, this is not about deaths alone. People like this are chomping at the bit to put people in their fifties and sixties (and, yes, forties and so on) into hospital. They're either stupid or vindictive. I actually think they are more the latter, it's ideologically driven harm that they are itching to create.
So let's turn this around. I hope he gets it and suffers in a serious way. It's the only way that the reality that this is about the lives that people lead is what matters and not having people slavering all over you on social media.
Fraser Nelson in the Telegraph reported yesterday that the latest government modelling expects around 150,000 deaths caused by the lockdown itself.
Because 1 in every 400 people is going to commit suicide because of the lockdown, or be battered to death by a family member because of the lockdown.
And absurd though that it, STILL it would be only a fraction of the number that would die if the lunatics had their way and allowed the virus to rip through the whole population, collapsing the NHS in the first few weeks of the process.
We have no numbers on how NHS capacity is doing, so what you say is pure speculation.
Why is it that of all the figures the most difficult to find is hospital admissions and an idea of how NHS capacity is coping?
We are doing this to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed right? so why is it so difficult to discover how that is going?
you would also think that publishing a up to date number for people who have recovered would be very easy, every other nation manages it but not us.
Its almost as if they don;t want us to know the NHS has buckets of capacity and this absurd lockdown extension can be junked soon.
How many thousands of deaths a day would it take to make you happy?
How many million livelihoods are you prepared to sacrifice? How many trillions in debt do you want to give our grandchildren? How many deaths do you think the depression that is coming will cause while you obsess about this?
We all have moral questions to answer, you see
"Question B: Abandoning severe lockdowns at a time when the likelihood of a resurgence in infections remains high will lead to greater total economic damage than sustaining the lockdowns to eliminate the resurgence risk."
For god's sake, this is not about deaths alone. People like this are chomping at the bit to put people in their fifties and sixties (and, yes, forties and so on) into hospital. They're either stupid or vindictive. I actually think they are more the latter, it's ideologically driven harm that they are itching to create.
So let's turn this around. I hope he gets it and suffers in a serious way. It's the only way that the reality that this is about the lives that people lead is what matters and not having people slavering all over you on social media.
Fraser Nelson in the Telegraph reported yesterday that the latest government modelling expects around 150,000 deaths caused by the lockdown itself.
Because 1 in every 400 people is going to commit suicide because of the lockdown, or be battered to death by a family member because of the lockdown.
Yeah, but they were going to commit suicide or be battered to death anyway, we're just moving their deaths forwards.
(sarcasm by the way, just in case.....)
This whole 'avoidable deaths' thing is the purest sophistry. What it needs is a focus now on mental health and moving those in danger of domestic violence to new accommodation (there's enough left empty at the moment), not saying 'well. we just have to let other people die instead'.
It is not an either/or.
Now media, do your job on that one next time it's mentioned.
Why is it that of all the figures the most difficult to find is hospital admissions and an idea of how NHS capacity is coping?
We are doing this to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed right? so why is it so difficult to discover how that is going?
you would also think that publishing a up to date number for people who have recovered would be very easy, every other nation manages it but not us.
Its almost as if they don;t want us to know the NHS has buckets of capacity and this absurd lockdown extension can be junked soon.
How many thousands of deaths a day would it take to make you happy?
How many million livelihoods are you prepared to sacrifice? How many trillions in debt do you want to give our grandchildren? How many deaths do you think the depression that is coming will cause while you obsess about this?
We all have moral questions to answer, you see
"Question B: Abandoning severe lockdowns at a time when the likelihood of a resurgence in infections remains high will lead to greater total economic damage than sustaining the lockdowns to eliminate the resurgence risk."
"About the IGM Economic Experts Panel This panel explores the extent to which economists agree or disagree on major public policy issues. To assess such beliefs we assembled this panel of expert economists. Statistics teaches that a sample of (say) 40 opinions will be adequate to reflect a broader population if the sample is representative of that population.
To that end, our panel was chosen to include distinguished experts with a keen interest in public policy from the major areas of economics, to be geographically diverse, and to include Democrats, Republicans and Independents as well as older and younger scholars. The panel members are all senior faculty at the most elite research universities in the United States. The panel includes Nobel Laureates, John Bates Clark Medalists, fellows of the Econometric society, past Presidents of both the American Economics Association and American Finance Association, past Democratic and Republican members of the President's Council of Economics, and past and current editors of the leading journals in the profession. This selection process has the advantage of not only providing a set of panelists whose names will be familiar to other economists and the media, but also delivers a group with impeccable qualifications to speak on public policy matters.
Finally, it is important to explain one aspect of our voting process. In some instances a panelist may neither agree nor disagree with a statement, and there can be two very different reasons for this. One case occurs when an economist is an expert on a topic and yet sees the evidence on the exact claim at hand as ambiguous. In such cases our panelists vote "uncertain". A second case relates to statements on topics so far removed from the economist's expertise that he or she feels unqualified to vote. In this case, our panelists vote "no opinion".
The Economic Experts Panel questions are emailed individually to the members of the panel, and each responds electronically at his or her convenience. Panelists may consult whatever resources they like before answering."
For god's sake, this is not about deaths alone. People like this are chomping at the bit to put people in their fifties and sixties (and, yes, forties and so on) into hospital. They're either stupid or vindictive. I actually think they are more the latter, it's ideologically driven harm that they are itching to create.
So let's turn this around. I hope he gets it and suffers in a serious way. It's the only way that the reality that this is about the lives that people lead is what matters and not having people slavering all over you on social media.
Fraser Nelson in the Telegraph reported yesterday that the latest government modelling expects around 150,000 deaths caused by the lockdown itself.
Latest government modelling? It was described as a "tentative estimate" in the Daily Mail.
For god's sake, this is not about deaths alone. People like this are chomping at the bit to put people in their fifties and sixties (and, yes, forties and so on) into hospital. They're either stupid or vindictive. I actually think they are more the latter, it's ideologically driven harm that they are itching to create.
So let's turn this around. I hope he gets it and suffers in a serious way. It's the only way that the reality that this is about the lives that people lead is what matters and not having people slavering all over you on social media.
Fraser Nelson in the Telegraph reported yesterday that the latest government modelling expects around 150,000 deaths caused by the lockdown itself.
Latest government modelling? It was described as a "tentative estimate" in the Daily Mail.
And specifically rejected by Hancock yesterday at the briefing.
And because we have shut the world, we haven't (and hopefully won't) see far more people in their thirties and forties die. Because we'd run out of centenarians quite quickly, and we'd still be seeing huge numbers of people dying, so the younger echelons would arithmetically have had to catch up (because there's so many more of them).
Jeez - how many people are going to continue to say "because we succeeded, we've somehow proved that we didn't have to do anything in the first place"?
Worse is the implication here that the measure we take should depend on who is dying.
If someone said we shouldn't shut down because mostly those it kills are poor/brown/jewish/muslim/transexual/disabled etc there would be wide spread condemnation of that sentiment.
However it seems the fact most it kills are over 50 and it seems in some posters minds they are acceptable damage.
The problem with that analogy, comparing old people with illnesses and poor/brown/jewish/muslim/transexual/disabled, is that we dont let people die because of the things you must, but we sometimes do if people are old and ill
Anyway, I don’t think people who say the lockdown is over the top are saying it’s ok for old people to die, they’re saying they should be isolated from younger people whose lives should not be as restricted
A lot of those you so blithely throw on the scrapheap with your comment have still got two or three decades of quality life in them as their underlying conditions are manageable.
If next pandemic mainly targets 20 to 40 year olds for death i am sure you wont mind the oldies say its ok let them die they would have died eventually anyway
Who have I thrown in the scrap heap? I’m not saying anyone should be left because they’re going to die anyway
Old people and ill people are quarantined now, and I say they should still be. I am not young, my parents are quite old, my Dad has underlying conditions. Still I don’t see why younger, healthy people should have the same restrictions put upon them. That doesn’t mean no restrictions, try not to make it sound like I’m suggesting that if you can.
If you’re in a room where the music is on at volume 10 and you think it should be on at 8, that doesn’t mean you want it turned off
The difference with Corbyn is the government is trying to address the issue, not deny it.
How many times years was Corbyn asked about anti-semitism?
Not a good look when you cant apologise for lack of PPE
If she had you'd have been cheering Patel for landing Hancock in the sh*t.
Whatever they do, in your books, they cannot win.
From this starting point probably not. We are pretty much going to be 2nd worst or worst in terms of outcomes of any European country so spin that as a triumph if you wish.
As for Hancock he should go after his accusation yesterday that those on the front line are wasting precious PPE
No matter how bad our numbers are you will never point out Government failings I presume?
I've frequently criticised the government, for example for its handling of arrivals from abroad.
Earlier in this thread I wished someone asked Patel that question.
The difference is my criticism is specific, yours is general.
What difference would "an apology" have made - apart from open the government to wrongful death suits?
What constructive criticism of the government have you offered that didn't involve a time machine?
The Home Secretary could easily have said:
“These are awful times and our front line workers need all the PPE they can get. We are painfully aware that we need to get still more to them. We are doing everything we can to fulfil our responsibilities and I have unyielding admiration for the amazing work they are doing in unimaginably difficult circumstances.”
No apology but some actual empathy and a recognition of facts without an admission of responsibility for the gap.
She would never have said that. She would have said the govt were doin everythin and that she has unyieldin admiration for the amazin work they are doin.
This is a little unfair. I hate alveolar nasalization as much as the next snob, but a lot of people in this country actually talk like that, and since it has been drummed into the public that they cannot feel truly represented unless their leaders look and sound exactly like them, what's a people's government to do?
Promote someone from Worksop to be Home Secretary. As I said during the times of Dave not moving without promoting another OE into the cabinet, there are plenty of bright people around who come from places north of Leicester Forest.
The great leveller: Africa’s elite have to use their own country’s hospitals
Politicians across the continent find that Covid-19 means they can no longer fly to London or Geneva for healthcare
When Nigeria’s all-powerful presidential chief of staff tested positive last month for the coronavirus, a doctor treating him in Lagos had to apply to a private London hospital for a copy of his medical records.
Like so many others among Africa’s ageing ruling elite, Abba Kyari and his friend, President Muhammadu Buhari, have always flown abroad for medical attention rather than risk their own chronically underfunded local hospitals.
Buhari, 77, has raised eyebrows for spending months at a time in London for treatment. Paul Biya, 87, president of Cameroon for the past 37 years, prefers the hospitals — and shopping — in Switzerland, where he has been known to spend a third of the year with Chantal, his wife. Just as enthusiastic a medical tourist was Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s former president. He died last year in a hospital in Singapore.
Now, though, with their borders sealed and airports closed because of the virus, Africa’s kleptocrats are grounded like everyone else.
The irony is that, while its free-travelling ruling caste has been badly affected, Africa has, for the moment at least, appeared to lag behind the rest of the world with only 12,000 confirmed Covid-19 cases and 627 deaths being reported — as of Friday — despite warnings that its 1.2 billion people, many living in tightly packed slums without electricity or running water, face devastation from the disease.
For god's sake, this is not about deaths alone. People like this are chomping at the bit to put people in their fifties and sixties (and, yes, forties and so on) into hospital. They're either stupid or vindictive. I actually think they are more the latter, it's ideologically driven harm that they are itching to create.
So let's turn this around. I hope he gets it and suffers in a serious way. It's the only way that the reality that this is about the lives that people lead is what matters and not having people slavering all over you on social media.
Fraser Nelson in the Telegraph reported yesterday that the latest government modelling expects around 150,000 deaths caused by the lockdown itself.
Because 1 in every 400 people is going to commit suicide because of the lockdown, or be battered to death by a family member because of the lockdown.
Yeah, but they were going to commit suicide or be battered to death anyway, we're just moving their deaths forwards.
(sarcasm by the way, just in case.....)
This whole 'avoidable deaths' thing is the purest sophistry. What it needs is a focus now on mental health and moving those in danger of domestic violence to new accommodation (there's enough left empty at the moment), not saying 'well. we just have to let other people die instead'.
It is not an either/or.
Now media, do your job on that one next time it's mentioned.
There are, finally, signs of movement on mental health. Many nurses and others have been taken off crisis teams. Many patients have been cut adrift from any support, particularly those managed in the community. However, things are afoot. Several charity help lines have been roĺled into the NHS. Therapists in private practice are being brought in too.
And because we have shut the world, we haven't (and hopefully won't) see far more people in their thirties and forties die. Because we'd run out of centenarians quite quickly, and we'd still be seeing huge numbers of people dying, so the younger echelons would arithmetically have had to catch up (because there's so many more of them).
Jeez - how many people are going to continue to say "because we succeeded, we've somehow proved that we didn't have to do anything in the first place"?
Worse is the implication here that the measure we take should depend on who is dying.
If someone said we shouldn't shut down because mostly those it kills are poor/brown/jewish/muslim/transexual/disabled etc there would be wide spread condemnation of that sentiment.
However it seems the fact most it kills are over 50 and it seems in some posters minds they are acceptable damage.
The problem with that analogy, comparing old people with illnesses and poor/brown/jewish/muslim/transexual/disabled, is that we dont let people die because of the things you must, but we sometimes do if people are old and ill
Anyway, I don’t think people who say the lockdown is over the top are saying it’s ok for old people to die, they’re saying they should be isolated from younger people whose lives should not be as restricted
A lot of those you so blithely throw on the scrapheap with your comment have still got two or three decades of quality life in them as their underlying conditions are manageable.
If next pandemic mainly targets 20 to 40 year olds for death i am sure you wont mind the oldies say its ok let them die they would have died eventually anyway
Who have I thrown in the scrap heap? I’m not saying anyone should be left because they’re going to die anyway
Old people and ill people are quarantined now, and I say they should still be. I am not young, my parents are quite old, my Dad has underlying conditions. Still I don’t see why younger, healthy people should have the same restrictions put upon them. That doesn’t mean no restrictions, try not to make it sound like I’m suggesting that if you can.
If you’re in a room where the music is on at volume 10 and you think it should be on at 8, that doesn’t mean you want it turned off
Then perhaps don't retweet people who do want exactly that. You post a tweet here we assume unless you comments on it adversely that it is exactly what you support
My thoughts, this will probably annoy some people, sorry. that's not my intention. I would like somebody to enplane why this is wrong, because it is rather 'brutal'.
How this ends, I can see only 3 possibility:
1. A vaccine come out that works. 2. we track trace and isolate everybody with this so it stops spreading. 3. We reach saturation, where a sufficiently large number have become immune to stop the spread.
But there are problems with each:
1 A vaccine is the best hope, but probably still 14 months or more off, hopefully sooner, but it may a lot long and could never happen. 2. its worked so far in South Korea and Taiwan, but with probably 100,000s with it in the UK it just does not seem achievable, and if we ever what to have international travel, globally I think this is not credible. 3. Lots of people will die.
Given that its most likely to be, 3. Lots of people will die. so how many? No estimate is going to be accurate but what can we assume:
Assumptions:
R0 The infection rate is 2.6 CFR based on German study is 0.37% UK Population is 66 million
from that we can calculate:
R0 of 2.6 will need 62% infected before infections become less that 1
62% of 66 million is 41 Million people
A CFR of 0.37% over 41 Million cases is 150,000 deaths.
150,000 deaths is a huge number. Very sadly, and I hope i'm wrong but I suspect unavoidable at this stage.
If the Hospitals are over-run in an area, it will go up from that, perhaps by a lot. if not the 150,000 it is.
While this is going on we have other this happening:
1) Los of individual freedom, I know this is sounds arbitrary even irreverent to some but it matter so me. 2) increased deaths form other things, suicide is often quoted, but missed hospital treatment for other conditions will probably be bigger. 3) disruption and damage to the wider economy. 4) Disruption and damage to the education of a generation of Kids.
While the 150,000 deaths is probably 'backed in' now the other things are not and will depend on the time scale.
The risk of hospital over-running is real and should make us try to spread this out the other factors should want us to get this over with' as quickly as possible.
Balancing theses should give us a optimum infection rate to aim for.
Given the average 20-25 (I think) day lag between infection and death and the dramatic drop of in the rate of increase in deaths in last week, and that there is still some capacity in the NHS. now it the time to start to reopen the knockdown
The 0.37% CFR is not constant amusing the population: lower in young and heath people, higher in older and sick people. if we could find polices that would alaw the virus to spread quicker in the low risk groups the we can get to saturation before lots of the old/sick get the virus, and we may bring the 150,000 number down a bit.
Therefor we should open the schools, soon. to parents who wish to send there kids to school.
Remember she was in favour of the death penalty because we don't wrongly convict innocent people.
She supported hangin' and floggin' ?
Most Tory members do
It have just remembered why I am not a member of the Tory Party.
No we do not
Sorry BigG. it is there in black and white for us all to see, straight from the keyboard of the Chair and spokesperson for Epping and Theydon Bois Conservatives.
There was a YouGov poll of Tory members last year that had support for the death penalty at just under 60%.
I suspect capital punishment, were it ever adopted as policy by the Party, could be a big pull to keep the former red-wall Tory voters on board, and a few million new former Labour voters too!
For god's sake, this is not about deaths alone. People like this are chomping at the bit to put people in their fifties and sixties (and, yes, forties and so on) into hospital. They're either stupid or vindictive. I actually think they are more the latter, it's ideologically driven harm that they are itching to create.
So let's turn this around. I hope he gets it and suffers in a serious way. It's the only way that the reality that this is about the lives that people lead is what matters and not having people slavering all over you on social media.
Fraser Nelson in the Telegraph reported yesterday that the latest government modelling expects around 150,000 deaths caused by the lockdown itself.
Because 1 in every 400 people is going to commit suicide because of the lockdown, or be battered to death by a family member because of the lockdown.
Yeah, but they were going to commit suicide or be battered to death anyway, we're just moving their deaths forwards.
(sarcasm by the way, just in case.....)
This whole 'avoidable deaths' thing is the purest sophistry. What it needs is a focus now on mental health and moving those in danger of domestic violence to new accommodation (there's enough left empty at the moment), not saying 'well. we just have to let other people die instead'.
It is not an either/or.
Now media, do your job on that one next time it's mentioned.
There are, finally, signs of movement on mental health. Many nurses and others have been taken off crisis teams. Many patients have been cut adrift from any support, particularly those managed in the community. However, things are afoot. Several charity help lines have been roĺled into the NHS. Therapists in private practice are being brought in too.
Regarding the "Human trials of a coronavirus vaccine" (the previous thread), if the Oxford group vaccine passes its Stage 1 safety trails it would need to enter Stage 2 trials to determine its efficacy. I wonder if some NHS workers would be interested in enrolling in the trials. If the vaccine worked they could reduce their risk of getting the virus, to which they have a high risk of exposure.
For god's sake, this is not about deaths alone. People like this are chomping at the bit to put people in their fifties and sixties (and, yes, forties and so on) into hospital. They're either stupid or vindictive. I actually think they are more the latter, it's ideologically driven harm that they are itching to create.
So let's turn this around. I hope he gets it and suffers in a serious way. It's the only way that the reality that this is about the lives that people lead is what matters and not having people slavering all over you on social media.
Fraser Nelson in the Telegraph reported yesterday that the latest government modelling expects around 150,000 deaths caused by the lockdown itself.
Because 1 in every 400 people is going to commit suicide because of the lockdown, or be battered to death by a family member because of the lockdown.
Yeah, but they were going to commit suicide or be battered to death anyway, we're just moving their deaths forwards.
(sarcasm by the way, just in case.....)
This whole 'avoidable deaths' thing is the purest sophistry. What it needs is a focus now on mental health and moving those in danger of domestic violence to new accommodation (there's enough left empty at the moment), not saying 'well. we just have to let other people die instead'.
It is not an either/or.
Now media, do your job on that one next time it's mentioned.
There are, finally, signs of movement on mental health. Many nurses and others have been taken off crisis teams. Many patients have been cut adrift from any support, particularly those managed in the community. However, things are afoot. Several charity help lines have been roĺled into the NHS. Therapists in private practice are being brought in too.
"Fraser Nelson in the Telegraph reported yesterday that the latest government modelling expects around 150,000 deaths caused by the lockdown itself."
Yes, but that includes deaths from people not getting standard NHS treatments/scans/early tests for cancer etc etc and further down the line due to the economic catastrophe caused by lockdown.
For god's sake, this is not about deaths alone. People like this are chomping at the bit to put people in their fifties and sixties (and, yes, forties and so on) into hospital. They're either stupid or vindictive. I actually think they are more the latter, it's ideologically driven harm that they are itching to create.
So let's turn this around. I hope he gets it and suffers in a serious way. It's the only way that the reality that this is about the lives that people lead is what matters and not having people slavering all over you on social media.
Fraser Nelson in the Telegraph reported yesterday that the latest government modelling expects around 150,000 deaths caused by the lockdown itself.
Latest government modelling? It was described as a "tentative estimate" in the Daily Mail.
The great leveller: Africa’s elite have to use their own country’s hospitals
Politicians across the continent find that Covid-19 means they can no longer fly to London or Geneva for healthcare
When Nigeria’s all-powerful presidential chief of staff tested positive last month for the coronavirus, a doctor treating him in Lagos had to apply to a private London hospital for a copy of his medical records.
Like so many others among Africa’s ageing ruling elite, Abba Kyari and his friend, President Muhammadu Buhari, have always flown abroad for medical attention rather than risk their own chronically underfunded local hospitals.
Buhari, 77, has raised eyebrows for spending months at a time in London for treatment. Paul Biya, 87, president of Cameroon for the past 37 years, prefers the hospitals — and shopping — in Switzerland, where he has been known to spend a third of the year with Chantal, his wife. Just as enthusiastic a medical tourist was Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s former president. He died last year in a hospital in Singapore.
Now, though, with their borders sealed and airports closed because of the virus, Africa’s kleptocrats are grounded like everyone else.
The irony is that, while its free-travelling ruling caste has been badly affected, Africa has, for the moment at least, appeared to lag behind the rest of the world with only 12,000 confirmed Covid-19 cases and 627 deaths being reported — as of Friday — despite warnings that its 1.2 billion people, many living in tightly packed slums without electricity or running water, face devastation from the disease.
The great leveller: Africa’s elite have to use their own country’s hospitals
Politicians across the continent find that Covid-19 means they can no longer fly to London or Geneva for healthcare
When Nigeria’s all-powerful presidential chief of staff tested positive last month for the coronavirus, a doctor treating him in Lagos had to apply to a private London hospital for a copy of his medical records.
Like so many others among Africa’s ageing ruling elite, Abba Kyari and his friend, President Muhammadu Buhari, have always flown abroad for medical attention rather than risk their own chronically underfunded local hospitals.
Buhari, 77, has raised eyebrows for spending months at a time in London for treatment. Paul Biya, 87, president of Cameroon for the past 37 years, prefers the hospitals — and shopping — in Switzerland, where he has been known to spend a third of the year with Chantal, his wife. Just as enthusiastic a medical tourist was Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s former president. He died last year in a hospital in Singapore.
Now, though, with their borders sealed and airports closed because of the virus, Africa’s kleptocrats are grounded like everyone else.
The irony is that, while its free-travelling ruling caste has been badly affected, Africa has, for the moment at least, appeared to lag behind the rest of the world with only 12,000 confirmed Covid-19 cases and 627 deaths being reported — as of Friday — despite warnings that its 1.2 billion people, many living in tightly packed slums without electricity or running water, face devastation from the disease.
For god's sake, this is not about deaths alone. People like this are chomping at the bit to put people in their fifties and sixties (and, yes, forties and so on) into hospital. They're either stupid or vindictive. I actually think they are more the latter, it's ideologically driven harm that they are itching to create.
So let's turn this around. I hope he gets it and suffers in a serious way. It's the only way that the reality that this is about the lives that people lead is what matters and not having people slavering all over you on social media.
Fraser Nelson in the Telegraph reported yesterday that the latest government modelling expects around 150,000 deaths caused by the lockdown itself.
Because 1 in every 400 people is going to commit suicide because of the lockdown, or be battered to death by a family member because of the lockdown.
Yeah, but they were going to commit suicide or be battered to death anyway, we're just moving their deaths forwards.
(sarcasm by the way, just in case.....)
This whole 'avoidable deaths' thing is the purest sophistry. What it needs is a focus now on mental health and moving those in danger of domestic violence to new accommodation (there's enough left empty at the moment), not saying 'well. we just have to let other people die instead'.
It is not an either/or.
Now media, do your job on that one next time it's mentioned.
There are, finally, signs of movement on mental health. Many nurses and others have been taken off crisis teams. Many patients have been cut adrift from any support, particularly those managed in the community. However, things are afoot. Several charity help lines have been roĺled into the NHS. Therapists in private practice are being brought in too.
Citation for the 1 in 400 suicide prediction?
I think it was a joke. An assumption that every one of the 150K deaths would be suicide thanks to being locked in the house.
My thoughts, this will probably annoy some people, sorry. that's not my intention. I would like somebody to enplane why this is wrong, because it is rather 'brutal'.
How this ends, I can see only 3 possibility:
1. A vaccine come out that works. 2. we track trace and isolate everybody with this so it stops spreading. 3. We reach saturation, where a sufficiently large number have become immune to stop the spread.
But there are problems with each:
1 A vaccine is the best hope, but probably still 14 months or more off, hopefully sooner, but it may a lot long and could never happen. 2. its worked so far in South Korea and Taiwan, but with probably 100,000s with it in the UK it just does not seem achievable, and if we ever what to have international travel, globally I think this is not credible. 3. Lots of people will die.
Given that its most likely to be, 3. Lots of people will die. so how many? No estimate is going to be accurate but what can we assume:
Assumptions:
R0 The infection rate is 2.6 CFR based on German study is 0.37% UK Population is 66 million
from that we can calculate:
R0 of 2.6 will need 62% infected before infections become less that 1
62% of 66 million is 41 Million people
A CFR of 0.37% over 41 Million cases is 150,000 deaths.
150,000 deaths is a huge number. Very sadly, and I hope i'm wrong but I suspect unavoidable at this stage.
If the Hospitals are over-run in an area, it will go up from that, perhaps by a lot. if not the 150,000 it is.
While this is going on we have other this happening:
1) Los of individual freedom, I know this is sounds arbitrary even irreverent to some but it matter so me. 2) increased deaths form other things, suicide is often quoted, but missed hospital treatment for other conditions will probably be bigger. 3) disruption and damage to the wider economy. 4) Disruption and damage to the education of a generation of Kids.
While the 150,000 deaths is probably 'backed in' now the other things are not and will depend on the time scale.
The risk of hospital over-running is real and should make us try to spread this out the other factors should want us to get this over with' as quickly as possible.
Balancing theses should give us a optimum infection rate to aim for.
Given the average 20-25 (I think) day lag between infection and death and the dramatic drop of in the rate of increase in deaths in last week, and that there is still some capacity in the NHS. now it the time to start to reopen the knockdown
The 0.37% CFR is not constant amusing the population: lower in young and heath people, higher in older and sick people. if we could find polices that would alaw the virus to spread quicker in the low risk groups the we can get to saturation before lots of the old/sick get the virus, and we may bring the 150,000 number down a bit.
Therefor we should open the schools, soon. to parents who wish to send there kids to school.
And because we have shut the world, we haven't (and hopefully won't) see far more people in their thirties and forties die. Because we'd run out of centenarians quite quickly, and we'd still be seeing huge numbers of people dying, so the younger echelons would arithmetically have had to catch up (because there's so many more of them).
Jeez - how many people are going to continue to say "because we succeeded, we've somehow proved that we didn't have to do anything in the first place"?
Worse is the implication here that the measure we take should depend on who is dying.
If someone said we shouldn't shut down because mostly those it kills are poor/brown/jewish/muslim/transexual/disabled etc there would be wide spread condemnation of that sentiment.
However it seems the fact most it kills are over 50 and it seems in some posters minds they are acceptable damage.
The problem with that analogy, comparing old people with illnesses and poor/brown/jewish/muslim/transexual/disabled, is that we dont let people die because of the things you must, but we sometimes do if people are old and ill
Anyway, I don’t think people who say the lockdown is over the top are saying it’s ok for old people to die, they’re saying they should be isolated from younger people whose lives should not be as restricted
A lot of those you so blithely throw on the scrapheap with your comment have still got two or three decades of quality life in them as their underlying conditions are manageable.
If next pandemic mainly targets 20 to 40 year olds for death i am sure you wont mind the oldies say its ok let them die they would have died eventually anyway
Who have I thrown in the scrap heap? I’m not saying anyone should be left because they’re going to die anyway
Old people and ill people are quarantined now, and I say they should still be. I am not young, my parents are quite old, my Dad has underlying conditions. Still I don’t see why younger, healthy people should have the same restrictions put upon them. That doesn’t mean no restrictions, try not to make it sound like I’m suggesting that if you can.
If you’re in a room where the music is on at volume 10 and you think it should be on at 8, that doesn’t mean you want it turned off
Then perhaps don't retweet people who do want exactly that. You post a tweet here we assume unless you comments on it adversely that it is exactly what you support
I just have an open mind on it and am interested in hearing all points of view. On here we only have support for the lockdown or criticism it’s not strict enough, so posting alternative POVs is a good thing
Right....I'm going to go back to lurking for a while.....
My parting shot is that the Govt has to protect the NHS...we can deal with this virus bubbling away, provided it doesn't overwhelm the NHS...and until we get a vaccine....
The Times Story today was that we could get a vaccine by September...it's embarrassing...we are at least 1 and a half years from a vaccine...anyone who has engaged in any meaningful research study of any kind would know that....
Just think of the logistics of this kind of study...you need to identify your cohort, you vaccine some, you placebo the others, you control group another who you do nothing with..you have to identify somewhere out of lockdown where the virus is in the population...you monitor and record these three groups and you collate the results...and you peer review...who will undoubtedly push back with some questions......
Anyway I'm off for now...I'm going to use my lockdown for the foreseeable to listen to music, tidy my manuscripts, and read novels....
The great leveller: Africa’s elite have to use their own country’s hospitals.... Now, though, with their borders sealed and airports closed because of the virus, Africa’s kleptocrats are grounded like everyone else.
For god's sake, this is not about deaths alone. People like this are chomping at the bit to put people in their fifties and sixties (and, yes, forties and so on) into hospital. They're either stupid or vindictive. I actually think they are more the latter, it's ideologically driven harm that they are itching to create.
So let's turn this around. I hope he gets it and suffers in a serious way. It's the only way that the reality that this is about the lives that people lead is what matters and not having people slavering all over you on social media.
Fraser Nelson in the Telegraph reported yesterday that the latest government modelling expects around 150,000 deaths caused by the lockdown itself.
Because 1 in every 400 people is going to commit suicide because of the lockdown, or be battered to death by a family member because of the lockdown.
Yeah, but they were going to commit suicide or be battered to death anyway, we're just moving their deaths forwards.
(sarcasm by the way, just in case.....)
This whole 'avoidable deaths' thing is the purest sophistry. What it needs is a focus now on mental health and moving those in danger of domestic violence to new accommodation (there's enough left empty at the moment), not saying 'well. we just have to let other people die instead'.
It is not an either/or.
Now media, do your job on that one next time it's mentioned.
There are, finally, signs of movement on mental health. Many nurses and others have been taken off crisis teams. Many patients have been cut adrift from any support, particularly those managed in the community. However, things are afoot. Several charity help lines have been roĺled into the NHS. Therapists in private practice are being brought in too.
I just have an open mind on it and am interested in hearing all points of view. On here we only have support for the lockdown or criticism it’s not strict enough, so posting alternative POVs is a good thing
But can't you see the obvious flaw in the tweet? It's only because of what is being done is that it hasn't got a lot worse.
My thoughts, this will probably annoy some people, sorry. that's not my intention. I would like somebody to enplane why this is wrong, because it is rather 'brutal'.
How this ends, I can see only 3 possibility:
1. A vaccine come out that works. 2. we track trace and isolate everybody with this so it stops spreading. 3. We reach saturation, where a sufficiently large number have become immune to stop the spread.
But there are problems with each:
1 A vaccine is the best hope, but probably still 14 months or more off, hopefully sooner, but it may a lot long and could never happen. 2. its worked so far in South Korea and Taiwan, but with probably 100,000s with it in the UK it just does not seem achievable, and if we ever what to have international travel, globally I think this is not credible. 3. Lots of people will die.
Given that its most likely to be, 3. Lots of people will die. so how many? No estimate is going to be accurate but what can we assume:
Assumptions:
R0 The infection rate is 2.6 CFR based on German study is 0.37% UK Population is 66 million
from that we can calculate:
R0 of 2.6 will need 62% infected before infections become less that 1
62% of 66 million is 41 Million people
A CFR of 0.37% over 41 Million cases is 150,000 deaths.
150,000 deaths is a huge number. Very sadly, and I hope i'm wrong but I suspect unavoidable at this stage.
If the Hospitals are over-run in an area, it will go up from that, perhaps by a lot. if not the 150,000 it is.
While this is going on we have other this happening:
1) Los of individual freedom, I know this is sounds arbitrary even irreverent to some but it matter so me. 2) increased deaths form other things, suicide is often quoted, but missed hospital treatment for other conditions will probably be bigger. 3) disruption and damage to the wider economy. 4) Disruption and damage to the education of a generation of Kids.
While the 150,000 deaths is probably 'backed in' now the other things are not and will depend on the time scale.
The risk of hospital over-running is real and should make us try to spread this out the other factors should want us to get this over with' as quickly as possible.
Balancing theses should give us a optimum infection rate to aim for.
Given the average 20-25 (I think) day lag between infection and death and the dramatic drop of in the rate of increase in deaths in last week, and that there is still some capacity in the NHS. now it the time to start to reopen the knockdown
The 0.37% CFR is not constant amusing the population: lower in young and heath people, higher in older and sick people. if we could find polices that would alaw the virus to spread quicker in the low risk groups the we can get to saturation before lots of the old/sick get the virus, and we may bring the 150,000 number down a bit.
Therefor we should open the schools, soon. to parents who wish to send there kids to school.
Am I just being callous? or does the logic hold?
iirc Denmark is opening primary schools.
Anyone know the maximum lag between infection and death? I'm curious to know if I had it very mildly 2-3 wks ago. If I'm immune I could volunteer to help other oldies collect prescriptions, etc.
One day in mid-Feb I was sitting across a dinner table from the doctor who later died of it; was he shedding virus particles by then? His family certainly don't think he was protected enough
On twitter there is an interesting discussion on ICU percentage usage.
The NHS used to publish this data, but very strangely it has stopped.
Underneath there are posts suggesting that after ramping up capacity, the tumbleweed is blowing through some of these facilities.
Hopefully.
The most positive thing the Government / NHS has achieved is a rapid increase in ICU capacity
Nobody should be critical of over provision of capacity
Yes but you don't know because they are not telling you. You have no idea. You don;t know if ICU usage is 10% or 90%. You are completely ignorant of that number aren;t you?
Right....I'm going to go back to lurking for a while.....
My parting shot is that the Govt has to protect the NHS...we can deal with this virus bubbling away, provided it doesn't overwhelm the NHS...and until we get a vaccine....
The Times Story today was that we could get a vaccine by September...it's embarrassing...we are at least 1 and a half years from a vaccine...anyone who has engaged in any meaningful research study of any kind would know that....
Just think of the logistics of this kind of study...you need to identify your cohort, you vaccine some, you placebo the others, you control group another who you do nothing with..you have to identify somewhere out of lockdown where the virus is in the population...you monitor and record these three groups and you collate the results...and you peer review...who will undoubtedly push back with some questions......
Anyway I'm off for now...I'm going to use my lockdown for the foreseeable to listen to music, tidy my manuscripts, and read novels....
Or as someone said earlier there is good news and bad news on the vaccine
Tripe ... Marketing ... Board @TripeUK Good news: A vaccine for Coronavirus could be available in the UK by September. Bad news: Matt Hancock will be in charge of distribution.
I just have an open mind on it and am interested in hearing all points of view. On here we only have support for the lockdown or criticism it’s not strict enough, so posting alternative POVs is a good thing
Apart from my personal anxiety, I do see an argument for getting those non-Covid patients who need urgent surgery or treatment back into the medical system given we now have some facilities away from main hospitals or other temporary field hospitals.
If there is available capacity, I'd have no issue with it being used to help those people with chronic or urgent non-Covid conditions who need proper care and treatment.
That's NOT the same as saying the lock down should be ended, wholly or partially, at this time.
From NW3 - have to report quite a few people wandering about now, not ostensibly exercising or shopping. First time this has happened. Lockdown possibly on the slide here. Disappointing.
I just have an open mind on it and am interested in hearing all points of view. On here we only have support for the lockdown or criticism it’s not strict enough, so posting alternative POVs is a good thing
Apart from my personal anxiety, I do see an argument for getting those non-Covid patients who need urgent surgery or treatment back into the medical system given we now have some facilities away from main hospitals or other temporary field hospitals.
If there is available capacity, I'd have no issue with it being used to help those people with chronic or urgent non-Covid conditions who need proper care and treatment.
That's NOT the same as saying the lock down should be ended, wholly or partially, at this time.
Yes but nobody knows anything about capacity or utilisation do they? And they don;t want you know in case you start asking awkward questions about why people with other serious conditions are not being treated.
From NW3 - have to report quite a few people wandering about now, not ostensibly exercising or shopping. First time this has happened. Lockdown possibly on the slide here. Disappointing.
You can walk to the park or down the street and take exercise, you do not have to be doing starjumps, as long as you are not in a big group it does not matter
Right....I'm going to go back to lurking for a while.....
My parting shot is that the Govt has to protect the NHS...we can deal with this virus bubbling away, provided it doesn't overwhelm the NHS...and until we get a vaccine....
The Times Story today was that we could get a vaccine by September...it's embarrassing...we are at least 1 and a half years from a vaccine...anyone who has engaged in any meaningful research study of any kind would know that....
Just think of the logistics of this kind of study...you need to identify your cohort, you vaccine some, you placebo the others, you control group another who you do nothing with..you have to identify somewhere out of lockdown where the virus is in the population...you monitor and record these three groups and you collate the results...and you peer review...who will undoubtedly push back with some questions......
Anyway I'm off for now...I'm going to use my lockdown for the foreseeable to listen to music, tidy my manuscripts, and read novels....
Or as someone said earlier there is good news and bad news on the vaccine
Tripe ... Marketing ... Board @TripeUK Good news: A vaccine for Coronavirus could be available in the UK by September. Bad news: Matt Hancock will be in charge of distribution.
The future is already here, just not very well distributed.
It does not really matter what people think, the government (which still has 4 years left of its term and has a majority) will act on scientists advice when to end the lockdown and the police will enforce the lockdown until then
On twitter there is an interesting discussion on ICU percentage usage.
The NHS used to publish this data, but very strangely it has stopped.
Underneath there are posts suggesting that after ramping up capacity, the tumbleweed is blowing through some of these facilities.
Hopefully.
The most positive thing the Government / NHS has achieved is a rapid increase in ICU capacity
Nobody should be critical of over provision of capacity
Yes but you don't know because they are not telling you. You have no idea. You don;t know if ICU usage is 10% or 90%. You are completely ignorant of that number aren;t you?
Ask yourself why.
Well i know the numbers at my local hospitals ICU
2 weeks ago 1 ventilated Covid 19 patient 7 others 1 week ago 6 Covid 19 and 2 others last night 18 and 1
Original ventilator capacity was 22 can go up to 32 by using theatres but no further due to pipe capacity at maximum
The number of deaths at the hospital was 1/15/31 over same time period
It does not really matter what people think, the government (which still has 4 years left of its term and has a majority) will act on scientists advice when to end the lockdown and the police will enforce the lockdown until then
The politics of it don't matter very much in all honesty. The question isn't so much when as how the lockdown will be eased.
Some countries (Austria, Germany, Denmark) are already moving to a limited relaxation of restrictions.
I suppose we could see how they fare in terms of new cases before making a similar move.
On twitter there is an interesting discussion on ICU percentage usage.
The NHS used to publish this data, but very strangely it has stopped.
Underneath there are posts suggesting that after ramping up capacity, the tumbleweed is blowing through some of these facilities.
Hopefully.
The most positive thing the Government / NHS has achieved is a rapid increase in ICU capacity
Nobody should be critical of over provision of capacity
Yes but you don't know because they are not telling you. You have no idea. You don;t know if ICU usage is 10% or 90%. You are completely ignorant of that number aren;t you?
Ask yourself why.
Well i know the numbers at my local hospitals ICU
2 weeks ago 1 ventilated Covid 19 patient 7 others 1 week ago 6 Covid 19 and 2 others last night 18 and 1
Original ventilator capacity was 22 can go up to 32 by using theatres but no further due to pipe capacity at maximum
The number of deaths at the hospital was 1/15/31 over same time period
Why is it that of all the figures the most difficult to find is hospital admissions and an idea of how NHS capacity is coping?
We are doing this to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed right? so why is it so difficult to discover how that is going?
you would also think that publishing a up to date number for people who have recovered would be very easy, every other nation manages it but not us.
Its almost as if they don;t want us to know the NHS has buckets of capacity and this absurd lockdown extension can be junked soon.
How many thousands of deaths a day would it take to make you happy?
How many million livelihoods are you prepared to sacrifice? How many trillions in debt do you want to give our grandchildren? How many deaths do you think the depression that is coming will cause while you obsess about this?
We all have moral questions to answer, you see
You seem to assume there is some sort of easy way out of this. There isn't . It is not a case of "when" we return to normal, it is a case of "if" we return to normal.
Until we find a vaccine which could be a year or more away this is the new "normal". Lock down will get relaxed somewhat but the life we had before is not returning any time soon.
It is simplistic nonsense to imagine everything would have been hunky dory if we had only been allowed to keep going down the pub and to the footy.
The virus was going to crash the economy whatever action we took. Those are are doing best are those that took even more drastic action.
There's something else important that we need to remember with respect to the duration of the lockdown, beyond the issues both of the necessity to maintain suppression and of public consent (an important contributor to the latter of which is tested by this poll.)
We would expect, and indeed the Government and its advisors have confirmed as much in recent daily briefings, that work is going on behind the scenes to quantify the likely impact of the lockdown on public health - both directly through the deferment and cancellation of treatments and appointments, due to capacity pressures created by the coronavirus, and indirectly through the consequences of the lockdown measures, and the longer-term impact on incomes and rates of poverty that they are bound to create.
So, what happens if the numbers are crunched and at some point in May it is revealed that the effects of the lockdown will harm or kill more people than the coronavirus itself? Everyone cares right now about people falling victim to Covid-19, because it is an immediate fatal event and is easily directly linked to this disaster; nobody presently gives a stuff about the sixty-year-old woman who's going to die next year because her routine breast screening was scrapped and her cancer wasn't spotted early enough, or about the fifteen-year-old boy who's going to kill himself in ten years' time because his prospects of a decent income and standard of living were ruined by an economic depression, and no-one beyond their immediate social circles will know or care when those personal tragedies eventually come to pass.
Basically, if the estimates suggest that we can save 100,000 lives over five years by easing restrictions in such a way that 10,000 extra people who would otherwise have dodged the coronavirus bullet will be struck down by it, mostly within the next few months, then logically those particular restrictions ought to be eased. If, on the other hand, those numbers are reversed then they ought not to be.
The decision to which the Government comes when armed with this new data - and especially if the numbers point towards the need to ease lockdown and deliberately sacrifice citizens for the greater long-term good - will be the acid test of whether or not it is truly committed to following scientific advice. We might, perhaps, have some sympathy for Boris Johnson for being the poor bugger who's going to end up having to make that choice.
On twitter there is an interesting discussion on ICU percentage usage.
The NHS used to publish this data, but very strangely it has stopped.
Underneath there are posts suggesting that after ramping up capacity, the tumbleweed is blowing through some of these facilities.
So you'd rather more of us were critically ill to fill up those ICU beds?
Pathetic.
We don;t know that loosening the lockdown would cause that.
What we do know is it would save a portion of the two million people set to lose their jobs from losing them.
It woud save our public finances from going completely out of control.
It would save the lives of some of the people who might die from the depression a long lockdown would cause.
Those are givens.
The trouble is that loosening the lockdown would appear to cause nothing to happen (except that the virus would start to grow exponentially) for two weeks. Then we'd be back to where we were with cases followed by deaths again growing exponentially. Maybe you should look up what 'exponentially' means.
It does not really matter what people think, the government (which still has 4 years left of its term and has a majority) will act on scientists advice when to end the lockdown and the police will enforce the lockdown until then
The politics of it don't matter very much in all honesty. The question isn't so much when as how the lockdown will be eased.
Some countries (Austria, Germany, Denmark) are already moving to a limited relaxation of restrictions.
I suppose we could see how they fare in terms of new cases before making a similar move.
The Austrian lockdown is interesting. Their case rate is still growing (albeit at a slow rate), and they're beginning to relax restrictions on Monday. I wonder if that might be a bit early.
There's something else important that we need to remember with respect to the duration of the lockdown, beyond the issues both of the necessity to maintain suppression and of public consent (an important contributor to the latter of which is tested by this poll.)
We would expect, and indeed the Government and its advisors have confirmed as much in recent daily briefings, that work is going on behind the scenes to quantify the likely impact of the lockdown on public health - both directly through the deferment and cancellation of treatments and appointments, due to capacity pressures created by the coronavirus, and indirectly through the consequences of the lockdown measures, and the longer-term impact on incomes and rates of poverty that they are bound to create.
So, what happens if the numbers are crunched and at some point in May it is revealed that the effects of the lockdown will harm or kill more people than the coronavirus itself? Everyone cares right now about people falling victim to Covid-19, because it is an immediate fatal event and is easily directly linked to this disaster; nobody presently gives a stuff about the sixty-year-old woman who's going to die next year because her routine breast screening was scrapped and her cancer wasn't spotted early enough, or about the fifteen-year-old boy who's going to kill himself in ten years' time because his prospects of a decent income and standard of living were ruined by an economic depression, and no-one beyond their immediate social circles will know or care when those personal tragedies eventually come to pass.
Basically, if the estimates suggest that we can save 100,000 lives over five years by easing restrictions in such a way that 10,000 extra people who would otherwise have dodged the coronavirus bullet will be struck down by it, mostly within the next few months, then logically those particular restrictions ought to be eased. If, on the other hand, those numbers are reversed then they ought not to be.
The decision to which the Government comes when armed with this new data - and especially if the numbers point towards the need to ease lockdown and deliberately sacrifice citizens for the greater long-term good - will be the acid test of whether or not it is truly committed to following scientific advice. We might, perhaps, have some sympathy for Boris Johnson for being the poor bugger who's going to end up having to make that choice.
It really is an unenviable choice. However, the alternative to lock down is almost certainly still economic depression. I had already closed by shop by the time the Govt. closed all of them. Most pubs and restaurants would have struggled to survive people voting with their feet, etc etc
Why is it that of all the figures the most difficult to find is hospital admissions and an idea of how NHS capacity is coping?
We are doing this to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed right? so why is it so difficult to discover how that is going?
you would also think that publishing a up to date number for people who have recovered would be very easy, every other nation manages it but not us.
Its almost as if they don;t want us to know the NHS has buckets of capacity and this absurd lockdown extension can be junked soon.
How many thousands of deaths a day would it take to make you happy?
How many million livelihoods are you prepared to sacrifice? How many trillions in debt do you want to give our grandchildren? How many deaths do you think the depression that is coming will cause while you obsess about this?
We all have moral questions to answer, you see
You seem to assume there is some sort of easy way out of this. There isn't . It is not a case of "when" we return to normal, it is a case of "if" we return to normal.
Until we find a vaccine which could be a year or more away this is the new "normal". Lock down will get relaxed somewhat but the life we had before is not returning any time soon.
It is simplistic nonsense to imagine everything would have been hunky dory if we had only been allowed to keep going down the pub and to the footy.
The virus was going to crash the economy whatever action we took. Those are are doing best are those that took even more drastic action.
We don't even know how long any acquired immunity would last.
These morons could have us sacrifice half a million lives to their ignorance, and for all we know the same thing might happen all over again next year.
So, what happens if the numbers are crunched and at some point in May it is revealed that the effects of the lockdown will harm or kill more people than the coronavirus itself? Everyone cares right now about people falling victim to Covid-19, because it is an immediate fatal event and is easily directly linked to this disaster; nobody presently gives a stuff about the sixty-year-old woman who's going to die next year because her routine breast screening was scrapped and her cancer wasn't spotted early enough, or about the fifteen-year-old boy who's going to kill himself in ten years' time because his prospects of a decent income and standard of living were ruined by an economic depression, and no-one beyond their immediate social circles will know or care when those personal tragedies eventually come to pass.
The decision to which the Government comes when armed with this new data - and especially if the numbers point towards the need to ease lockdown and deliberately sacrifice citizens for the greater long-term good - will be the acid test of whether or not it is truly committed to following scientific advice. We might, perhaps, have some sympathy for Boris Johnson for being the poor bugger who's going to end up having to make that choice.
First, apologies for snipping some of your excellent response.
It comes down to some simple questions: Is my life worth more than yours? Is my death more significant because in laying down my life I help GDP just a little by giving someone else a chance?
That's the logical end point of your argument - dress it up however you like but have we not lost something when we value all life simply in economic terms?
My prediction was that about 6 weeks was what people would put up with.
This. This, x 100 times.
Those who were screaming for lockdown weeks ago, and those like Owen Jones who now say it was a mistake not to lockdown weeks ago, have to accept that the fundamental problem is that people are social animals and they can't stand it.
The decision to which the Government comes when armed with this new data - and especially if the numbers point towards the need to ease lockdown and deliberately sacrifice citizens for the greater long-term good - will be the acid test of whether or not it is truly committed to following scientific advice. We might, perhaps, have some sympathy for Boris Johnson for being the poor bugger who's going to end up having to make that choice.
What are they going to do to get those people who are to be sacrificed to acquiesce? Force them out of their homes? Refuse them financial assistance (when others have been given it. to stop them going out)? This is where the freedom questions spins around, those who are desperate to not be under a lockdown seem awfully keen to stop others from being so.
From NW3 - have to report quite a few people wandering about now, not ostensibly exercising or shopping. First time this has happened. Lockdown possibly on the slide here. Disappointing.
You can walk to the park or down the street and take exercise, you do not have to be doing starjumps, as long as you are not in a big group it does not matter
That's reasonable. Some of those people may be on their way shopping rather than coming back with bags; others may be walking for exercise. There is nothing to say you have to be running or on a bike, and a lot of people aren't fit enough to do anything strenuous even if they felt inclined to do so.
FWIW nearly everything I see out and about around here continues to suggest very high levels of observance. The streets and open spaces are very quiet and road traffic is light; you only see significant concentrations of people gathering to do their shopping (where they are all now being arranged into well-ordered but very slow-moving queues outside the supermarkets.)
So, what happens if the numbers are crunched and at some point in May it is revealed that the effects of the lockdown will harm or kill more people than the coronavirus itself? Everyone cares right now about people falling victim to Covid-19, because it is an immediate fatal event and is easily directly linked to this disaster; nobody presently gives a stuff about the sixty-year-old woman who's going to die next year because her routine breast screening was scrapped and her cancer wasn't spotted early enough, or about the fifteen-year-old boy who's going to kill himself in ten years' time because his prospects of a decent income and standard of living were ruined by an economic depression, and no-one beyond their immediate social circles will know or care when those personal tragedies eventually come to pass.
The decision to which the Government comes when armed with this new data - and especially if the numbers point towards the need to ease lockdown and deliberately sacrifice citizens for the greater long-term good - will be the acid test of whether or not it is truly committed to following scientific advice. We might, perhaps, have some sympathy for Boris Johnson for being the poor bugger who's going to end up having to make that choice.
First, apologies for snipping some of your excellent response.
It comes down to some simple questions: Is my life worth more than yours? Is my death more significant because in laying down my life I help GDP just a little by giving someone else a chance?
That's the logical end point of your argument - dress it up however you like but have we not lost something when we value all life simply in economic terms?
If we lose 50,000 lives to Coronavirus now, or 50,000 lives to suicides, other serious illnesses, poverty, etc, over the course of the next five years, you have a point.
Who is to judge which lives are more valuable? (Although, as you hint, if you want to be really hard headed about it, age and futue economic productivity should give you a clue).
However, if it turns out the economic consequences of the lockdown are an order of magnitude greater than the virus itself, say, 10,000 extra lives lost to the virus now if we ease restrictions, vs 100,000 lives lost later if we do not, the choice is obvious.
I fear the consequences of the virus are very "known" at this point whereas the depth and potential consequences of economic depression are very unknown and could be very severe indeed.
If, for example, damage to the economy caused by each extra day or week in lockdown is exponential, not linear, we will be in a world of pain by the time it lifts.
When the furlough ends after three months. When rent and mortgage holidays end. When the redundancies start. When high street names go to the wall. Small businesses fold. Who knows how much damage will be done. It is a complete unknown.
Iceland has tested one-tenth of its population for coronavirus at random and found that half of people have the disease without realising.
They also discovered that 1,600 people have been infected with Covid-19 since the start of the outbreak. Of these cases, there were only seven deaths, indicating a fatality rate of just 0.004 per cent, which is significantly lower than other countries, including the UK.
From NW3 - have to report quite a few people wandering about now, not ostensibly exercising or shopping. First time this has happened. Lockdown possibly on the slide here. Disappointing.
I saw the same yesterday as well on my way back from Waitrose.
There's something else important that we need to remember with respect to the duration of the lockdown, beyond the issues both of the necessity to maintain suppression and of public consent (an important contributor to the latter of which is tested by this poll.)
We would expect, and indeed the Government and its advisors have confirmed as much in recent daily briefings, that work is going on behind the scenes to quantify the likely impact of the lockdown on public health - both directly through the deferment and cancellation of treatments and appointments, due to capacity pressures created by the coronavirus, and indirectly through the consequences of the lockdown measures, and the longer-term impact on incomes and rates of poverty that they are bound to create.
So, what happens if the numbers are crunched and at some point in May it is revealed that the effects of the lockdown will harm or kill more people than the coronavirus itself? Everyone cares right now about people falling victim to Covid-19, because it is an immediate fatal event and is easily directly linked to this disaster; nobody presently gives a stuff about the sixty-year-old woman who's going to die next year because her routine breast screening was scrapped and her cancer wasn't spotted early enough, or about the fifteen-year-old boy who's going to kill himself in ten years' time because his prospects of a decent income and standard of living were ruined by an economic depression, and no-one beyond their immediate social circles will know or care when those personal tragedies eventually come to pass.
Basically, if the estimates suggest that we can save 100,000 lives over five years by easing restrictions in such a way that 10,000 extra people who would otherwise have dodged the coronavirus bullet will be struck down by it, mostly within the next few months, then logically those particular restrictions ought to be eased. If, on the other hand, those numbers are reversed then they ought not to be.
The decision to which the Government comes when armed with this new data - and especially if the numbers point towards the need to ease lockdown and deliberately sacrifice citizens for the greater long-term good - will be the acid test of whether or not it is truly committed to following scientific advice. We might, perhaps, have some sympathy for Boris Johnson for being the poor bugger who's going to end up having to make that choice.
It is encouraging that people are becoming aware of the socio-economic determinants of premature death, whether suicide or from cancer. I hope people consider these to be important once the current pandemic abates, rather than go back to their pursuit of mammon and devil take the hindmost.
PPE and testing is where the government and the comms side have utterly messed up.
And I say that has been largely supportive of the government’s handling of Covid-19.
The thing that worries me about the testing now is the political pressure means that testing will be ramped up regardless of whether it is being focused where it is needed. It's all about increasing numbers over using it effectively at the moment.
PPE and testing is where the government and the comms side have utterly messed up.
And I say that has been largely supportive of the government’s handling of Covid-19.
widespread testing is a necessary thing for the ending of lockdown and a return to localised disease suppression.
It is hard to see why we remain so pisspoor at increasing the numbers. Nearly every country has ramped up the numbers. I cannot believe that Iceland has a very large baseline diagnostics base.
following on from MM's moth announcements, a list of the birds I have seen or heard from my property since the lockdown started. Anything seen or heard when I was outside my bounds had been excluded
Blackbird Blackcap Wren Robin Blue tit Great tit Long tailed tit Song Thrush Chaffinch Goldcrest Greenfinch Chiffchaff House sparrow Swallow Starling Pied Wagtail Magpie Rook Carrion crow Pheasant Partridge Canada goose Greylag goose Red Kite Buzzard Kestrel Mallard (Actually this is a pet) Woodpigeon Collared dove Tawny Owl Domestic Fowl Running Ducks
There are a few more but I lack the skill to identify their calls although I am getting better at that.
The decision to which the Government comes when armed with this new data - and especially if the numbers point towards the need to ease lockdown and deliberately sacrifice citizens for the greater long-term good - will be the acid test of whether or not it is truly committed to following scientific advice. We might, perhaps, have some sympathy for Boris Johnson for being the poor bugger who's going to end up having to make that choice.
What are they going to do to get those people are being sacrificed to acquiesce? Force thenm out of their homes? Refuse them financial assistance (when others have been given it. to stop them going out)? This is where the freedom questions spins around, those who are desperate to not be under a lockdown seem awfully keen to stop others from being so.
I would expect that the easing of lockdown, when it comes, will be gradual and will probably begin with the re-opening of discretionary retail, followed by the schools. The hospitality industry will probably be shuttered for many months and will bear the brunt of the longer-term economic damage, because even when it is allowed to start back up many businesses will already have failed, and those that survive will be made to implement social distancing protocols which will substantially reduce the number of customers they can serve at any one time.
I think it highly likely that the shielded group and the over-70s will essentially be told to stay in lockdown until a vaccine is developed or herd immunity is achieved, although how many people in those groups will be able to bear being isolated for that long is open to question. I also think that the instruction to work from home for all those able to do so will remain in place for the duration, because it's one of the most effective social distancing measures available and the least damaging one economically (indeed, it has net positive benefits for some workers and businesses, and arguably for the environment too,) so it makes sense to leave it alone.
The point that I was trying to get over is that all relaxations of the lockdown are liable to increase the number of coronavirus cases amongst the population, but on the other hand most or all of the lockdown measures have significant negative consequences for public health as well. The Government is placed in the unenviable position of trying to find the least worst way to balance these conflicting pressures. Put at its crudest, we can't continue as we are indefinitely because the economy will eventually collapse, taking the healthcare system down with it, and people will be dying left, right and centre of preventable illnesses and starvation. So the lockdown will have to be eased, it's simply a matter of by what degree and on what timescale.
None of this implies a mass forcible ejection of vulnerable persons out into the community if they are determined to remain at home and/or it is deemed essential for them to do so. In practice, however, there are bound to be meaningful numbers of people who are both medically vulnerable and have occupations where they would otherwise be expected to return to work, who are going to have to rely on understanding employers to keep them on if they are unable to fulfil those roles remotely. Generous employers with deep pockets willing to sign people off long-term sick, in combination with the furlough scheme, should rescue a lot of them, but a fraction are bound to end up unemployed and potentially in severe financial difficulty as a result. That will just be one more part of the immensely difficult and complex calculation that Government is bound to undertake.
On twitter there is an interesting discussion on ICU percentage usage.
The NHS used to publish this data, but very strangely it has stopped.
Underneath there are posts suggesting that after ramping up capacity, the tumbleweed is blowing through some of these facilities.
Hopefully.
The most positive thing the Government / NHS has achieved is a rapid increase in ICU capacity
Nobody should be critical of over provision of capacity
Yes but you don't know because they are not telling you. You have no idea. You don;t know if ICU usage is 10% or 90%. You are completely ignorant of that number aren;t you?
Ask yourself why.
No. YOU have no idea. Not a bloody clue.
According to the data that have been released, deaths in ICU represent only a small fraction of deaths from COVID in hospital.
The total number of deaths in hospital announced on 9 April was 7978.
Evidently less than half of even the hospital patients who had died had been admitted to ICU. Perhaps as few as 11%.
Half the patients admitted to ICU were 61 or younger. Three quarters were 69 or younger. This is a disease known to have the highest fatality rate in those in their 70s and above. If the ICUs are keeping their heads above water at all it is because of ruthless targeting of resources towards the younger patients with better prospects.
The idea that 90% of ICU capacity could be going unused is as offensive piece of ignorant fantasy as I've ever heard.
Comments
In short, those are second class deaths. Consigned to that class by posters like Chris.
57% strongly agree, 32% agree, 11% Uncertain, 0% disagree, 0% strongly disagree.
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/policy-for-the-covid-19-crisis/
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/
*as in publicly made available for free download, with a URL that ensures that google will make them finable. That kind of hidden.
(sarcasm by the way, just in case.....)
This whole 'avoidable deaths' thing is the purest sophistry. What it needs is a focus now on mental health and moving those in danger of domestic violence to new accommodation (there's enough left empty at the moment), not saying 'well. we just have to let other people die instead'.
It is not an either/or.
Now media, do your job on that one next time it's mentioned.
This panel explores the extent to which economists agree or disagree on major public policy issues. To assess such beliefs we assembled this panel of expert economists. Statistics teaches that a sample of (say) 40 opinions will be adequate to reflect a broader population if the sample is representative of that population.
To that end, our panel was chosen to include distinguished experts with a keen interest in public policy from the major areas of economics, to be geographically diverse, and to include Democrats, Republicans and Independents as well as older and younger scholars. The panel members are all senior faculty at the most elite research universities in the United States. The panel includes Nobel Laureates, John Bates Clark Medalists, fellows of the Econometric society, past Presidents of both the American Economics Association and American Finance Association, past Democratic and Republican members of the President's Council of Economics, and past and current editors of the leading journals in the profession. This selection process has the advantage of not only providing a set of panelists whose names will be familiar to other economists and the media, but also delivers a group with impeccable qualifications to speak on public policy matters.
Finally, it is important to explain one aspect of our voting process. In some instances a panelist may neither agree nor disagree with a statement, and there can be two very different reasons for this. One case occurs when an economist is an expert on a topic and yet sees the evidence on the exact claim at hand as ambiguous. In such cases our panelists vote "uncertain". A second case relates to statements on topics so far removed from the economist's expertise that he or she feels unqualified to vote. In this case, our panelists vote "no opinion".
The Economic Experts Panel questions are emailed individually to the members of the panel, and each responds electronically at his or her convenience. Panelists may consult whatever resources they like before answering."
Old people and ill people are quarantined now, and I say they should still be. I am not young, my parents are quite old, my Dad has underlying conditions. Still I don’t see why younger, healthy people should have the same restrictions put upon them. That doesn’t mean no restrictions, try not to make it sound like I’m suggesting that if you can.
If you’re in a room where the music is on at volume 10 and you think it should be on at 8, that doesn’t mean you want it turned off
Politicians across the continent find that Covid-19 means they can no longer fly to London or Geneva for healthcare
When Nigeria’s all-powerful presidential chief of staff tested positive last month for the coronavirus, a doctor treating him in Lagos had to apply to a private London hospital for a copy of his medical records.
Like so many others among Africa’s ageing ruling elite, Abba Kyari and his friend, President Muhammadu Buhari, have always flown abroad for medical attention rather than risk their own chronically underfunded local hospitals.
Buhari, 77, has raised eyebrows for spending months at a time in London for treatment. Paul Biya, 87, president of Cameroon for the past 37 years, prefers the hospitals — and shopping — in Switzerland, where he has been known to spend a third of the year with Chantal, his wife. Just as enthusiastic a medical tourist was Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s former president. He died last year in a hospital in Singapore.
Now, though, with their borders sealed and airports closed because of the virus, Africa’s kleptocrats are grounded like everyone else.
The irony is that, while its free-travelling ruling caste has been badly affected, Africa has, for the moment at least, appeared to lag behind the rest of the world with only 12,000 confirmed Covid-19 cases and 627 deaths being reported — as of Friday — despite warnings that its 1.2 billion people, many living in tightly packed slums without electricity or running water, face devastation from the disease.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/the-great-leveller-africas-elite-have-to-use-their-own-countrys-hospitals-c36xw0j89
How this ends, I can see only 3 possibility:
1. A vaccine come out that works.
2. we track trace and isolate everybody with this so it stops spreading.
3. We reach saturation, where a sufficiently large number have become immune to stop the spread.
But there are problems with each:
1 A vaccine is the best hope, but probably still 14 months or more off, hopefully sooner, but it may a lot long and could never happen.
2. its worked so far in South Korea and Taiwan, but with probably 100,000s with it in the UK it just does not seem achievable, and if we ever what to have international travel, globally I think this is not credible.
3. Lots of people will die.
Given that its most likely to be, 3. Lots of people will die. so how many? No estimate is going to be accurate but what can we assume:
Assumptions:
R0 The infection rate is 2.6
CFR based on German study is 0.37%
UK Population is 66 million
from that we can calculate:
R0 of 2.6 will need 62% infected before infections become less that 1
62% of 66 million is 41 Million people
A CFR of 0.37% over 41 Million cases is 150,000 deaths.
150,000 deaths is a huge number. Very sadly, and I hope i'm wrong but I suspect unavoidable at this stage.
If the Hospitals are over-run in an area, it will go up from that, perhaps by a lot. if not the 150,000 it is.
While this is going on we have other this happening:
1) Los of individual freedom, I know this is sounds arbitrary even irreverent to some but it matter so me.
2) increased deaths form other things, suicide is often quoted, but missed hospital treatment for other conditions will probably be bigger.
3) disruption and damage to the wider economy.
4) Disruption and damage to the education of a generation of Kids.
While the 150,000 deaths is probably 'backed in' now the other things are not and will depend on the time scale.
The risk of hospital over-running is real and should make us try to spread this out the other factors should want us to get this over with' as quickly as possible.
Balancing theses should give us a optimum infection rate to aim for.
Given the average 20-25 (I think) day lag between infection and death and the dramatic drop of in the rate of increase in deaths in last week, and that there is still some capacity in the NHS. now it the time to start to reopen the knockdown
The 0.37% CFR is not constant amusing the population: lower in young and heath people, higher in older and sick people. if we could find polices that would alaw the virus to spread quicker in the low risk groups the we can get to saturation before lots of the old/sick get the virus, and we may bring the 150,000 number down a bit.
Therefor we should open the schools, soon. to parents who wish to send there kids to school.
Am I just being callous? or does the logic hold?
Yes, but that includes deaths from people not getting standard NHS treatments/scans/early tests for cancer etc etc and further down the line due to the economic catastrophe caused by lockdown.
The NHS used to publish this data, but very strangely it has stopped.
Underneath there are posts suggesting that after ramping up capacity, the tumbleweed is blowing through some of these facilities.
The uglier side knows that people will be thrown out of the hospitals at gun point to clear a space for the Great Men.
https://twitter.com/Harryb22/status/1248994294121345025
No i meant an actual number
"Three hundred thousand thirty four nine hundred seventy four thousand tests". Wow thats quite a few!! mind you tbf she got 9 am spot on
What possible incentive could it have to report Coronavirus deaths properly. Especially if they are falling?
Three small things...
The most positive thing the Government / NHS has achieved is a rapid increase in ICU capacity
Nobody should be critical of over provision of capacity
Great Prominent
Iron Prominent
Pale Pinion
Herald
Small Phoenix
Here's a Great Prominent, unusually with its wings wide open (they usually have their wings wrapped around their body):
My parting shot is that the Govt has to protect the NHS...we can deal with this virus bubbling away, provided it doesn't overwhelm the NHS...and until we get a vaccine....
The Times Story today was that we could get a vaccine by September...it's embarrassing...we are at least 1 and a half years from a vaccine...anyone who has engaged in any meaningful research study of any kind would know that....
Just think of the logistics of this kind of study...you need to identify your cohort, you vaccine some, you placebo the others, you control group another who you do nothing with..you have to identify somewhere out of lockdown where the virus is in the population...you monitor and record these three groups and you collate the results...and you peer review...who will undoubtedly push back with some questions......
Anyway I'm off for now...I'm going to use my lockdown for the foreseeable to listen to music, tidy my manuscripts, and read novels....
You cant tell me can you?
https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/how-close-are-we-to-a-covid-19-vaccine/
One day in mid-Feb I was sitting across a dinner table from the doctor who later died of it; was he shedding virus particles by then? His family certainly don't think he was protected enough
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-family-of-first-nhs-surgeon-to-die-from-covid-19-speaks-out-after-his-death-11966377
Ask yourself why.
Tripe ... Marketing ... Board
@TripeUK
Good news: A vaccine for Coronavirus could be available in the UK by September.
Bad news: Matt Hancock will be in charge of distribution.
If there is available capacity, I'd have no issue with it being used to help those people with chronic or urgent non-Covid conditions who need proper care and treatment.
That's NOT the same as saying the lock down should be ended, wholly or partially, at this time.
Pathetic.
What we do know is it would save a portion of the two million people set to lose their jobs from losing them.
It woud save our public finances from going completely out of control.
It would save the lives of some of the people who might die from the depression a long lockdown would cause.
Those are givens.
2 weeks ago 1 ventilated Covid 19 patient 7 others
1 week ago 6 Covid 19 and 2 others
last night 18 and 1
Original ventilator capacity was 22 can go up to 32 by using theatres but no further due to pipe capacity at maximum
The number of deaths at the hospital was 1/15/31 over same time period
Some countries (Austria, Germany, Denmark) are already moving to a limited relaxation of restrictions.
I suppose we could see how they fare in terms of new cases before making a similar move.
29.3.20 - 11 cases
4.4.20 - 62 cases
10.4.20 - 155 cases
You seem to assume there is some sort of easy way out of this. There isn't .
It is not a case of "when" we return to normal, it is a case of "if" we return to normal.
Until we find a vaccine which could be a year or more away this is the new "normal". Lock down will get relaxed somewhat but the life we had before is not returning any time soon.
It is simplistic nonsense to imagine everything would have been hunky dory if we had only been allowed to keep going down the pub and to the footy.
The virus was going to crash the economy whatever action we took. Those are are doing best are those that took even more drastic action.
We would expect, and indeed the Government and its advisors have confirmed as much in recent daily briefings, that work is going on behind the scenes to quantify the likely impact of the lockdown on public health - both directly through the deferment and cancellation of treatments and appointments, due to capacity pressures created by the coronavirus, and indirectly through the consequences of the lockdown measures, and the longer-term impact on incomes and rates of poverty that they are bound to create.
So, what happens if the numbers are crunched and at some point in May it is revealed that the effects of the lockdown will harm or kill more people than the coronavirus itself? Everyone cares right now about people falling victim to Covid-19, because it is an immediate fatal event and is easily directly linked to this disaster; nobody presently gives a stuff about the sixty-year-old woman who's going to die next year because her routine breast screening was scrapped and her cancer wasn't spotted early enough, or about the fifteen-year-old boy who's going to kill himself in ten years' time because his prospects of a decent income and standard of living were ruined by an economic depression, and no-one beyond their immediate social circles will know or care when those personal tragedies eventually come to pass.
Basically, if the estimates suggest that we can save 100,000 lives over five years by easing restrictions in such a way that 10,000 extra people who would otherwise have dodged the coronavirus bullet will be struck down by it, mostly within the next few months, then logically those particular restrictions ought to be eased. If, on the other hand, those numbers are reversed then they ought not to be.
The decision to which the Government comes when armed with this new data - and especially if the numbers point towards the need to ease lockdown and deliberately sacrifice citizens for the greater long-term good - will be the acid test of whether or not it is truly committed to following scientific advice. We might, perhaps, have some sympathy for Boris Johnson for being the poor bugger who's going to end up having to make that choice.
Maybe you should look up what 'exponentially' means.
Strange
They volunteer to take the risk of getting the virus and giving it to their friends and family?
These morons could have us sacrifice half a million lives to their ignorance, and for all we know the same thing might happen all over again next year.
Stupidity really can be fatal.
It comes down to some simple questions: Is my life worth more than yours? Is my death more significant because in laying down my life I help GDP just a little by giving someone else a chance?
That's the logical end point of your argument - dress it up however you like but have we not lost something when we value all life simply in economic terms?
Those who were screaming for lockdown weeks ago, and those like Owen Jones who now say it was a mistake not to lockdown weeks ago, have to accept that the fundamental problem is that people are social animals and they can't stand it.
FWIW nearly everything I see out and about around here continues to suggest very high levels of observance. The streets and open spaces are very quiet and road traffic is light; you only see significant concentrations of people gathering to do their shopping (where they are all now being arranged into well-ordered but very slow-moving queues outside the supermarkets.)
UK is now 57th
1 week ago we were 50th
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
we have now done
https://twitter.com/Harryb22/status/1248994294121345025
Who is to judge which lives are more valuable? (Although, as you hint, if you want to be really hard headed about it, age and futue economic productivity should give you a clue).
However, if it turns out the economic consequences of the lockdown are an order of magnitude greater than the virus itself, say, 10,000 extra lives lost to the virus now if we ease restrictions, vs 100,000 lives lost later if we do not, the choice is obvious.
I fear the consequences of the virus are very "known" at this point whereas the depth and potential consequences of economic depression are very unknown and could be very severe indeed.
If, for example, damage to the economy caused by each extra day or week in lockdown is exponential, not linear, we will be in a world of pain by the time it lifts.
When the furlough ends after three months. When rent and mortgage holidays end. When the redundancies start. When high street names go to the wall. Small businesses fold. Who knows how much damage will be done. It is a complete unknown.
Iceland has tested one-tenth of its population for coronavirus at random and found that half of people have the disease without realising.
They also discovered that 1,600 people have been infected with Covid-19 since the start of the outbreak. Of these cases, there were only seven deaths, indicating a fatality rate of just 0.004 per cent, which is significantly lower than other countries, including the UK.
And I say that as someone who has been largely supportive of the government’s handling of Covid-19.
It is hard to see why we remain so pisspoor at increasing the numbers. Nearly every country has ramped up the numbers. I cannot believe that Iceland has a very large baseline diagnostics base.
following on from MM's moth announcements, a list of the birds I have seen or heard from my property since the lockdown started. Anything seen or heard when I was outside my bounds had been excluded
Blackbird
Blackcap
Wren
Robin
Blue tit
Great tit
Long tailed tit
Song Thrush
Chaffinch
Goldcrest
Greenfinch
Chiffchaff
House sparrow
Swallow
Starling
Pied Wagtail
Magpie
Rook
Carrion crow
Pheasant
Partridge
Canada goose
Greylag goose
Red Kite
Buzzard
Kestrel
Mallard (Actually this is a pet)
Woodpigeon
Collared dove
Tawny Owl
Domestic Fowl
Running Ducks
There are a few more but I lack the skill to identify their calls although I am getting better at that.
I think it highly likely that the shielded group and the over-70s will essentially be told to stay in lockdown until a vaccine is developed or herd immunity is achieved, although how many people in those groups will be able to bear being isolated for that long is open to question. I also think that the instruction to work from home for all those able to do so will remain in place for the duration, because it's one of the most effective social distancing measures available and the least damaging one economically (indeed, it has net positive benefits for some workers and businesses, and arguably for the environment too,) so it makes sense to leave it alone.
The point that I was trying to get over is that all relaxations of the lockdown are liable to increase the number of coronavirus cases amongst the population, but on the other hand most or all of the lockdown measures have significant negative consequences for public health as well. The Government is placed in the unenviable position of trying to find the least worst way to balance these conflicting pressures. Put at its crudest, we can't continue as we are indefinitely because the economy will eventually collapse, taking the healthcare system down with it, and people will be dying left, right and centre of preventable illnesses and starvation. So the lockdown will have to be eased, it's simply a matter of by what degree and on what timescale.
None of this implies a mass forcible ejection of vulnerable persons out into the community if they are determined to remain at home and/or it is deemed essential for them to do so. In practice, however, there are bound to be meaningful numbers of people who are both medically vulnerable and have occupations where they would otherwise be expected to return to work, who are going to have to rely on understanding employers to keep them on if they are unable to fulfil those roles remotely. Generous employers with deep pockets willing to sign people off long-term sick, in combination with the furlough scheme, should rescue a lot of them, but a fraction are bound to end up unemployed and potentially in severe financial difficulty as a result. That will just be one more part of the immensely difficult and complex calculation that Government is bound to undertake.
According to the data that have been released, deaths in ICU represent only a small fraction of deaths from COVID in hospital.
The figure documented by ICNARC (reported up to 9 April) is 871 deaths, from 3883 admissions. (At that date, outcomes had been reported for 43% of the patients admitted to ICU.)
https://www.icnarc.org/DataServices/Attachments/Download/41bbc4bb-2c7b-ea11-9124-00505601089b
The total number of deaths in hospital announced on 9 April was 7978.
Evidently less than half of even the hospital patients who had died had been admitted to ICU. Perhaps as few as 11%.
Half the patients admitted to ICU were 61 or younger. Three quarters were 69 or younger. This is a disease known to have the highest fatality rate in those in their 70s and above. If the ICUs are keeping their heads above water at all it is because of ruthless targeting of resources towards the younger patients with better prospects.
The idea that 90% of ICU capacity could be going unused is as offensive piece of ignorant fantasy as I've ever heard.