DavidDeSchmikes
Full Member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
- Messages
- 17,279
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I can’t imagine Boris likes this one bit. If it’s effective and the numbers shrink in Wales, there will be huge question marks over why they refuse to do it in England.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
He will only not like because his normal tactics of lying or discrediting any criticism would not be effective against this comparison.I can’t imagine Boris likes this one bit. If it’s effective and the numbers shrink in Wales, there will be huge question marks over why they refuse to do it in England.
Very hard to estimate during a pandemic for a variety of reasonsIsn’t IFR basically the great unknown?
Lots of very good studies have been done on this topic including what led to the CDC numbers, and they are all coming around to a similar number.Isn’t IFR basically the great unknown?
Looks like temperature matters but not as much as we feared, which could be good news. However, as behavior based on temperature is often a large part of why winter seems to make viral transmission worse I wonder if this will necessarily be true in Europe? These figures were in China where things were locked down hard and likely a million miles from the scenes we saw in Liverpool and other places recently.
Great post, and one which was much needed in this thread. It’s scary, it’s sobering and we all need to work together to protect each other, but we have to be responsible in what we put out there, especially when so many are afraid and vulnerable.Looking at death rates from March and April is grossly inaccurate is the point.
Over the past 30 days, the US is averaging around ~650 deaths on 50k confirmed new infections daily which is a CFR of 1.3% is still a lot lower than the 3% we were seeing at the start of pandemic.
Claiming 200million deaths if we do not have a vaccine is fear-mongering (though on the vaccine note, I am happy to bet that we will see a vaccine with an efficacy of at least 50% being widely distributed by end of next March).
I pasted the CDC's estimates for IFR which is very close to the German study.
Lots of very good studies have been done on this topic including what led to the CDC numbers, and they are all coming around to a similar number.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.04.20090076v2
the estimated IFR was 0.36% [0.29%; 0.45%].
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-5352
The overall noninstitutionalized IFR was 0.26%
https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf
Across 51 locations, the median COVID-19 infection fatality rate was 0.27% (corrected 0.23%):
Yeah, I understand that. But I also understand that it is, as your post says, an estimate... aka “unknown”.Lots of very good studies have been done on this topic including what led to the CDC numbers, and they are all coming around to a similar number.
The point is that those two numbers do not reflect a representative sample of the population, so simply dividing 1m by 40m will not provide a good estimate on how many people it would kill if it infected the general population. That's really not in question at this stage. 156m men is way, way off.@SinNombre
You originally said, before changing your post:
"^ these numbers are completely incorrect and borderline irresponsible at this point.
Real CFR [my emphasis] is 0.3% right now and constantly falling as therapeutics and treatment continue to improve."
The WHO say (as of today): "there have been 39,196,259 confirmed cases of COVID-19, including 1,101,298 deaths, reported to WHO."
Dividing the the 2nd number by the 1st number does not = 0.3%. The CFR figure you gave (0.3%) is wrong - an under-estimate - by a factor of roughly 10.
However, I acknowledge that - as the WHO themselves say - the real 'CFR' is going to be lower than that indicated by the WHO figures, because some people who get infected are not reported as cases.
It varies. Mostly the borders to the big countries are open but you have to quarantine or take a test if you have been there. Getting harder to find places where you can go freely.Out of curiosity, are people allowed to travel across countries for leisure in Europe now? Is there a mandatory quarantine for these people? How many people are actually travelling? I know different countries have different policies, but I would like to know about the general picture.
Most of that stems from the fact that the government have been undermined from day one. Now everything is questioned and debated as a matter of course. It should never have been allowed to happen that way.One factor is that the public health experts have stated that additional local rules will be needed in the worst hit cities, towns and villages to be really effective, and also that local public health officials are the best placed to design them and respond to new needs. So they need local governments on board, in some way.
And it's been clear for a while now that resentment was building rapidly in the north so a dictatorial approach would lead to a political disaster and very possibly some civilian revolt. At this point it seems like a lot of local communities are on board with local governments fighting back, so if that option is taken off the table, I wouldn't be surprised to see some folks decide to just feck the rules altogether, while others would take to more formal protests. Which brings a few different risks with it.
They might do that in the end anyway but it's hardly a no brainer. You need citizens to be on board for public health policy to be effective. The stick can only do so much, especially when the prospect of police fines is being weighed up against their loss of income anyway.
And that old thing about basic democratic principles being upheld. The federal approach worked very well e.g. Germany but they did have a lot more protests too, in part because they didn't like being treated unfairly vs. their neighbours.
I watched the South Park covid special last night.
I don't watch South Park much but
How did Disney not sue them?
It’s difficult for Boris to do it now because, first, he’d have to admit they were wrong, and he doesn’t like that and, second, Keir Starmer said he should do it - and admitting that Labour were right is even worse. Of course, it’s different in Wales because the Welsh Government is Labour run.I can’t imagine Boris likes this one bit. If it’s effective and the numbers shrink in Wales, there will be huge question marks over why they refuse to do it in England.
Yeah, I think a lot of people would disagree with the cause or the appropriate response to it. It's not really a no brainer when the political party in power has repeatedly emphasised the importance of economic and social freedom, and their undying commitment to upholding it, in contrast to a tyrannical opposition.Most of that stems from the fact that the government have been undermined from day one. Now everything is questioned and debated as a matter of course. It should never have been allowed to happen that way.
They aren't getting personal, that's just the headline spin. They're limiting spread of a highly contagious and dangerous virus by keeping households apart. If you live with your other half then you can have endless sex for all they care. If you don't live in the same household, there were three choices you had in the summer. Move in together, accept that you may be kept apart again in the future, or break the rules. People were kept apart during lockdown and they knew a second wave was coming so not planning for this eventuality is a bit silly.The government has gone full dystopian. Some Orwell 1984 shit here:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/indoor-sex-ban-tier-2-couples-living-apart-a4571925.html
How on earth do people still believe these crazy rules are to protect anybody, I do not know. Your civil rights are being taken away little by little and some folks are not paying attention.
I doubt very much this is enforceable, and I hope neighbours don't start snitching like we're living under the Stasi or Nazi regimes.
The government is supposed to handle a public health issue, not get personal like this.
Mate I'm sad for you and all of us. It's already 1984 like if you care to step back and take a look at everything.Yeah, I think a lot of people would disagree with the cause or the appropriate response to it. It's not really a no brainer when the political party in power has repeatedly emphasised the importance of economic and social freedom, and their undying commitment to upholding it, in contrast to a tyrannical opposition.
They aren't getting personal, that's just the headline spin. They're limiting spread of a highly contagious and dangerous virus by keeping households apart. If you live with your other half then you can have endless sex for all they care. If you don't live in the same household, there were three choices you had in the summer. Move in together, accept that you may be kept apart again in the future, or break the rules. People were kept apart during lockdown and they knew a second wave was coming so not planning for this eventuality is a bit silly.
Limiting household to household transmission is a cornerstone of dealing with a pandemic. That's what public health officials say, not politicians. And every country that is losing control of the pandemic has been forced to stop people going to others' houses, regardless of their position on the ideological spectrum.
It would be 1984 if this was going to be extended beyond the specific crisis we're jn right now. Everyone knows they won't.
Is there any doubt it will be effective? If you stop people moving around then infection rates will surely drop. The question is what you do during that time so that when the lockdown (or whatever you want to call it) is lifted, you don't just go back to square one. It just buys time, and in the meantime, causes damage to businesses already struggling.I can’t imagine Boris likes this one bit. If it’s effective and the numbers shrink in Wales, there will be huge question marks over why they refuse to do it in England.
Yes living through a pandemic is a bit dystopian. Helped by the fact it's been a part of dystopian fiction for a long time.Mate I'm sad for you and all of us. It's already 1984 like if you care to step back and take a look at everything.
And no, I am not listening to those fools from Imperial College - their modelling led by that Ferguson guy has consistently been proven wrong on other past issues. You can do your own research and look it up. It's all out there. The mystery to me is why on earth the government enlisted them to tackle this issue when their track record has shown how incompetent they are. Do you even seek out other opinions from eminent scientist from Harvard, Stanford, Oxford etc? Or are you doing the group think bit and just listening to this crazy government and their cronies?
At least try and consider other points of views. You can research it.
Whilst you're at it, go and read the Coronavirus Act carefully. See if you still feel we're not entering some crazy dystopian shit.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
We watched it the other day, it was very funny. They've done some awful stuff about Disney, but then, Disney deserve it.I watched the South Park covid special last night.
I don't watch South Park much but
How did Disney not sue them?
Oh we at least agree on the economy. It's completely fecked. We are in deep trouble. Let's be honest, it's like 97 or more percent of people recover from this virus. The statistics are out there in various places (too lazy to go find them now),. My problem is in light of that recovery rate, aren't the measures disproportionate when we consider the low percentage of deaths? The deaths are horrible, but unfortunately, apart from protecting the vulnerable as much as you can, the rest of us have to get on (with precautions), but we have to live.There are people out there with cancer snd other diseases who will most certainly die because they can't get treatment. I consider cancer to be far more deadly than this virus (as bad as it gets for a small percentage). I've been reading about suicides and mental health issues, and folks losing their livelihood on account of this lockdown. It's doing more harm than good. We need to have a balance. I suspect though the government is loving having such autonomy over our lives, not to mention awarding lucrative contracts to their cronies to supply equipment and handle track and trace, which is a bloody disaster.Yes living through a pandemic is a bit dystopian. Helped by the fact it's been a part of dystopian fiction for a long time.
I do seek out opinions from other academics, yeah. There's quite a wide range of opinions on many policies, but quite a strong consensus among those who specialise in epidemiology that limiting household transmission is essential to control the R rate. Like I said it isn't the UK that have done this exclusively, based on Imperial College. It's happened in many countries with their own experts.
This particularly policy is pretty mild as it goes. I happen to think destroying the economy is a bit more drastic than preventing couples living apart from fecking, given it affects a wider group of people for a much longer period of time and has much more severe consequences. But I can see the argument even in favour of that, given the alternative.
I've had loads. Unless it says you need to isolate you're good.Just got a "Possible covid 19 exposure" notification from the UK NHS Test and trace app and apparently I need to wait for a second notification on whether I'm good or I need to self isolate. Anyone had it before and know how long it takes?
Well worth posting. The FT have done a great job presenting statistics right from the start, and I applaud their decision to make them free to view on-line as well.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Good read. Thanks for sharing.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It also stops hospitals reaching maximum capacity, so reduces deaths.Is there any doubt it will be effective? If you stop people moving around then infection rates will surely drop. The question is what you do during that time so that when the lockdown (or whatever you want to call it) is lifted, you don't just go back to square one. It just buys time, and in the meantime, causes damage to businesses already struggling.
Thanks mateI've had loads. Unless it says you need to isolate you're good.
I think we're all asking the question "are the measures proportionate?" over and over again, as often as our brain allows us too without making us insane. It's a constant backdrop even when we're not actively mulling over it. I think it's important to bear in mind that applies to everyone, including the decision makers. Unless you can think of a particularly persuasive conspiracy theory for why so many governments simultaneously want to destroy their own economies, then you have to acknowledge the fact they feel forced to do this. It doesn't follow a particular political ideology, it doesn't depend on the experts consulted, it doesn't even relate much to the size of the economy before or duing the pandemic. The restrictions you're complaining about are largely ubiquitous in countries in similar situations.Oh we at least agree on the economy. It's completely fecked. We are in deep trouble. Let's be honest, it's like 97 or more percent of people recover from this virus. The statistics are out there in various places (too lazy to go find them now),. My problem is in light of that recovery rate, aren't the measures disproportionate when we consider the low percentage of deaths? The deaths are horrible, but unfortunately, apart from protecting the vulnerable as much as you can, the rest of us have to get on (with precautions), but we have to live.There are people out there with cancer snd other diseases who will most certainly die because they can't get treatment. I consider cancer to be far more deadly than this virus (as bad as it gets for a small percentage). I've been reading about suicides and mental health issues, and folks losing their livelihood on account of this lockdown. It's doing more harm than good. We need to have a balance. I suspect though the government is loving having such autonomy over our lives, not to mention awarding lucrative contracts to their cronies to supply equipment and handle track and trace, which is a bloody disaster.
It is a mess.
Released shortly after the announcement, minutes from the meeting of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) - which feeds into UK government decision making - stated the advisers had called for the immediate introduction of a short national lockdown three weeks ago.
The papers also showed the scientists suggested:
Of all the measures proposed by the advisory group, just one - advising those who can work from home to do so - was implemented by the government at the time.
- banning all contact inside homes with members of other households
- closing all bars, restaurants, cafes, indoor gyms and hairdressers
- requiring all university and college teaching to take place online
...
Cases are increasing across the whole of the country and the number of people in hospital is now higher than before the full lockdown in March. We are at a critical stage in the epidemic. It is at this moment the gulf between the official scientific advice and the decisions made by government has been laid bare.
It is the case that "advisers advise and ministers decide". When considering new measures to stop Covid, government must also take into account the harms they cause to our health and the economy. But there is some concern the government is doing too little, too late. And that we can either choose the terms for controlling the virus now, or wait and the virus will force our hand as it did with lockdown in March.
...
The newly released Sage documents also showed advisers said NHS Test and Trace was only having a "marginal impact" and this would "likely decline further" unless the system expanded to keep up with the rise in cases and people were given support to enable them to self-isolate.
A separate document from 17 September stated that Sage believed curfews in bars, pubs, cafes and restaurants were also "likely to have a marginal impact". A 22:00 closing time was introduced for all hospitality venues in England from 24 September.
A Sage document from 21 September warned that "single interventions by themselves are unlikely to be able to bring the R below one" and both local and national measures are needed.
However, a document examining measures including a "circuit-breaker" of two to three weeks, said this step, if it was "as strict and well-adhered to as the restrictions in late May", could "put the epidemic back by approximately 28 days or more". "Multiple circuit-breaks might be necessary to maintain low levels of incidence," it added.
More testing is going on in a day than back then in a week. The number of deaths is still on dozens per day, while in April it went to almost a thousand.Understand Italy has had its highest number of daily cases and no longer confined to particular regions. Unless we accept draconian lockdown measures as per
China model Europe is well and truly fecked.
I do not get your point.Yeah, I understand that. But I also understand that it is, as your post says, an estimate... aka “unknown”.
Has there been a pandemic that we actually know the exact IFR for?