Quincy Abeyie wrote:
I also think it's awkard to talk about the fatality rate since it's pretty much harmless to young people and deadly to old people. By using the 1-3 % number it doesn't sound dangerous, but if you're in the wrong demographic that doesn't help much.
The Chief Medical Officer was very clear that whilst he estimated the fatality rate around 1%, this affected different sections of the populations differently. I felt he was fair in his assessment of numbers and in what he was prepared to discuss, for example he admitted the worst case scenario they were planning on was around an 80% infection rate, when asked what they thought of Germany's 70% claims. Also stated conclusions shouldn't be drawn on coming up with stats by multiplying estimated percentages for certain aspects as it loses meaning.
Mirth wrote:
Ricky1985 wrote:
It's just drastic, not drastical btw; the latter is not a word as far as I know. Not to be rude but I thought you might prefer I let you know.
The reasoning from the government is based on two different sciences: epidemiology and behavioural. Their analysis of the former predicts that the gathering of large crowds does not have a significant impact on increasing the spread of infection; the chief science officer stated that the R0 of 2-3 persons only applied to the level of interaction seen between an infected person and his family and friends and did not apply to the level of interaction found amongst persons in crowds--which is clearly utterly ridiculous for reasons so obvious they do not need stating. Next it was calculated at the time that the infection rate had reached epidemic levels in Hubei that unless they reduced air travel from China by 95% it would only have a neglible impact on the spread of infection in the UK, and they estimated they could at best stop 50% of air travel from China because of "how the world works now"; they also said that airport screening was ineffective because of asymptomatic transmission; and the decision not to stop travel and not to screen incoming passengers has supposedly proven to be correct given the way the virus has spread in countries that did take those early measures. Finally they stated that the epidemiological science suggests that closing schools would have little effect on the spread of the virus unless they were closed for the entirety of the epidemic, and because children don't tend to get sick they believe them to be less infectious; aslo because they don't get sick they're therefore not placing them at risk by keeping them in school.
From a behavioural science point of view, the PM stated that by going too early with the more drastic measures that the science suggests they were at risk of asking the populace to change their behaviours to an extent that would not be sustainable for a long enough period of time to get through the 10-14 weeks they estimate the epidemic will last. This is also grounded in the fact that they believe building up a herd immunity is the only way to stop an untenable cycle of complete lockdown and then re-emergence of the virus on resumption of normal practices--they say that eventually people will get fed up and stop listening. The chief science officer also seems to believe that it is impossible to keep kids from seeing their friends for 14 weeks and so shutting down schools is a waste of time with that in mind. Also that parents would not be able to cope with kids being home from school and would end up leaning on grandparents, exposing a vulnerable group to the virus unnecessarily.
Edit - another point worth mentioning is that the chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, was very adamant that the fatality rate for this disease is 1%, not the 3-4% we're seeing elsewhere. I think it is this belief that is shaping the government's approach; Burnwinter linked to the article by Robert Peston in the Spectator this morning and it seems he knew what he was talking about: sacrificing 1% of the many, many thousands that catch the disease in order to build up herd immunity. That seems to be the idea behind their approach.
You need to add that the two scientific advisers were clear that they want to push the peak into the summer months i.e. May/June when there's more bandwidth in the NHS.
It's a remarkable position to take tbh - politically it would be easier to adopt some social distancing measures but the gov are either trusting science or hiding behind it and I can't really tell at the moment. Either way, the response to this crisis by the US, UK, Canada and Australia has highlighted a jarring trait of the Anglosphere for better or worse.
Also - as a caveat - everyone I've spoken to IRL are largely satisfied with the current response but we all know that could change overnight.
I'm with you. I was somewhat reassured by the press conference yesterday. I posted a link a few days ago where Johnson stated one theory was to let the virus run and was critical of that. However, I do think there was a lot of sense in what the Chief Medical and Chief Science Officer's were saying, and I do think it's difficult to question that course of action on the available evidence.
I see criticisms of the action, of the lack of measures put in place to halt or slow the spread, but this isn't an issue where there is ever going to be a consensus. People will die regardless of what action is taken. Lots and lots of people. I'm no fan of Johnson, and I in no way want to back him, but I think he does appear to be guiding quite firmly by the advice of specialists. It's not about behavioural science trumping epidemiology, we need both to work and tandem to get the best results.
I've seen comment around effectiveness of washing hands compared to using hand sanitiser. I've no idea on the science but I've seen arguments say that hand washing is more effective but harder to get people to commit to it as a habit, whereas hand sanitiser is slightly less effective but the use can be much more widespread than hand washing, so overall it can have a better effect. I think it's a fair metaphor for the epidemiology v behavioural sciences question, and course of action the government have taken. Locking up everything and stopping all contact might be the ideal way of halting the virus, but long term it's likely unsustainable and not guaranteed to work anyway.
It's a massive gamble, but at this point anything is.
jones wrote:
Not going to act like I'm an expert but that seems to contradict what a lot of virologists seem to say, especially the part about being contagious only when symptoms start to show seems highly dubious. Also claims like kids off schools gathering anyway is a massive cop-out
High school in my wife's home town has just had a confirmed case and closed. I don't see why you would see that as a cop out though, do you expect kids to just go home and not socialise for weeks at a time?
We expect to get it ourselves at some point but our main worry is for our parents (we have different sets for clarity!), as my wife's are in the over 70s age bracket and mine have a range of health issues that put them in the high risk category. The news that it is in their home town brings everything into a bit of a sharper focus.
