Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
You yourself seem to be struggling with the concept of lag. If you do your shutdown on the day you have 520 cases, the very next day you're out of beds.
Of course you act before, and Sweden for example is acting, let's not make out here that it's "lockdown" or "nothing". Sweden have put lots of things in place that I listed earlier.
That sounds very strange.
Can't believe it either - it would most definitely lead to people dying in the hallway of hospitals, Spanish-style.Seriously arguing that you should only start the lockdown when the capacity is at the breaking point, i mean
No, not at all @Ekkie Thump
That is why there are so many people working on these computer models. It takes 4-7 days for symptoms to show and another 4 days to need hospitalisation, and another day or two to require ICU. That means you need to predict how many ICU beds you are going to need at least 5 days and potentially up to 2 weeks from now, and yes, this is why i keep saying governments care more about case numbers than deaths.
Absolutely. And I'm happy when governments follow these models. That's my entire point like.
They arent testing the public at wide though so the numbers they are basing them on arent an accurate reflection of whats really going on, so how can their computer model have been correct?
Would be a shit idea that no-one suggested.
Plenty said it was impossible to make them from scratch in a relevant timeframe. It will be a big PR win for Dyson after the past few years.
Where do I suggest that when you're at 600, you should wait 2 more weeks before bringing in stricter measures. I mean, that is exactly what you posted.
It's utter horseshit, GDPR doesn't apply to the deceased anyway.
They don't need to. They only need to know about the people coming into hospital and how those numbers are growing. If 90% of people have no symptoms it doesn't matter if 90% of people is 9 people or 9 million people. It's only the hospitalised patients that matter for predicting ICU utilisation.
Yes, you are suggesting it, when you support the idea of waiting a bit more for the lockdown. Waiting until when?
Didn't you just agree that lockdowns are only needed when the capacity is at it's breaking point ?
The numbers are an example.
Absolutely.
No.
and this is why the UK switched strategy. the numbers said the herd immunity strategy wasn't going to work.
Is it? It’s been verified that there are two strains, and now there are reports from Iceland about 40 different strains being detected by their scientists. What are you basing your claim on?
But how do they know 90 percent have no symptoms if they arent testing the public.
Absolutely, you don't wait till it's at the brink. You wait until the model and curve shows you it's spiking.
You can't read Bob?
If you do it when you're at the brink of capacity, you have a catastrophe on your hands in a week's time. The effects of a lockdown are only clearly visible between 7-14 days after the start of the lockdown. That's simply too late.
The problem is, certain governments still ended up prioritising 'economy' over such expert opinions.
I meant brink of capacity according to the models, not as in every single ICU bed is currently occupied. In the context of the conversation with RAB I feel that should be understood.
I fully understand the effects of lag, I felt that was obvious. RAB and I were talking about rates of infection, and when I said brink of capacity I was referring to the forecast.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
