#Coronavirus: Page 31 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

#Coronavirus

Ricky1985

And now Idris Elba has just announced he has tested positive.

MistaT

With news of another celeb testing positive (ah, see above), I actually think it's time that celebs and prominent individuals stop reporting they are infected. This isn't a deadly disease to most people and so there shouldn't be any major attention paid on individuals.

Reporting on individuals is only making it harder for people to accept that getting the virus isn't the concern, it's too many people getting it at once.

Mirth

This is probably the most balance article out there that explains both sides: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/03/coronavirus-pandemic-herd-immunity-uk-boris-johnson/608065/

Klaus

Ricky1985 wrote:
@ Klaus.

I don't think it's contentious to suggest that imposing a complete lockdown at an early stage ensures the spread of the virus remains contained for the duration of the lockdown?

I don't really feel like going back and forth on this anymore. We are not at a stage where the infection only spreads from a few visitors bringing it into the country, if we ever were at any point once we started with the testing (and there's evidence to suggest we weren't, similar to the Italians). It's irrelevant to actually locking down the whole country once it has become endemic, which is what we're discussing.

Clrnc

Klaus wrote:
Misinformation like that is so extremely dangerous and irresponsible. They're basing their numbers on the mortality rate of the virus in general, but from everything we know the mortality rate is virtually zero for the average young or middleaged person who doesn't have any other medical complications.

It seemed to be from a prominent account and anyway it's not the first time these figures are floated around here. What you are saying is true in theory but I'm not sure how much science is behind not closing schools so children don't run back to the vulnerable grandparents. I might be missing something but that theory didn't involve locking down the vulnerable segments so that they don't get the virus isn't it?

And while we are discussing all these theories UK has already sort of mini u-turned with measures starting to be "implemented" or at the very least communicated.

Mirth

Clrnc wrote:
And while we are discussing all these theories UK has already sort of mini u-turned with measures starting to be "implemented" or at the very least communicated.

Depends on what you mean by U turn - there's been a change in the communication strategy for sure. They've ramped up scare stories and waved the threat of more draconian measures.

Then you realise it's all for show because of how this 'herd immunity' thing ended up being front page news despite it never being the stated aims.

The measures that have been communicated have been outlined on the gov website since February - the question was still about timing and given that the UK is about a week behind France (who implemented closures over the weekend) it's not surprising. In fact, if you look at the virus growth trajectory, it's pretty much in line with France, Netherlands, Germany, Sweden etc - if anything it's growing slower - it's only Italy (maybe Spain?) that accelerated in a very short space of time.

Ricky1985

Klaus wrote:
Ricky1985 wrote:
@ Klaus.

I don't think it's contentious to suggest that imposing a complete lockdown at an early stage ensures the spread of the virus remains contained for the duration of the lockdown?

I don't really feel like going back and forth on this anymore. We are not at a stage where the infection only spreads from a few visitors bringing it into the country, if we ever were at any point once we started with the testing (and there's evidence to suggest we weren't, similar to the Italians). It's irrelevant to actually locking down the whole country once it has become endemic, which is what we're discussing.

I agree it's not helpful now: we are here and it's too late.

Much of my anger stems from earlier social distancing measures not being imposed when we were in a position to learn from what was happening in other countries: whether we were in an advantageous position through effective testing and contact tracing or blind luck, I think the time to be brave polictically was weeks ago when the sorts of measures we're seeing now would have enraged most of the country because most were unable to foresee what was to come.

But agreeing to disagree is a good idea.

Mirth

Here you go, France has just gone into lock down.

Remember less than a week ago Macron and his wife went for a day trip to make a point: https://www.euronews.com/2020/03/09/macron-strolls-champs-elysees-in-message-of-confidence-amid-coronavirus

Today he's announced the following measures:

[size=small][font=Helvetica, Arial, freesans, sans-serif]President Macron is announcing a raft of measures as he puts France on a war-footing to fight the virus.[/font][/size]

[size=small][font=Helvetica, Arial, freesans, sans-serif]Here are the key details:[/font][/size]

All non-essential movement to be banned from Tuesday midday for 15 days; residents must stay at home

Punishments for those flouting the regulations

Army to be used to help transport the sick to hospital

Military hospital to be used in Alsace, near German border

Borders to be closed in agreement with other European Union countries

Second round of local elections postponed

No business, regardless of size, will be allowed to fail

So what happened? Is Macron incapable of understanding virus growth? Did he make a U turn too?

Klaus

Ricky1985 wrote:
Much of my anger stems from earlier social distancing measures not being imposed when we were in a position to learn from what was happening in other countries: whether we were in an advantageous position through effective testing and contact tracing or blind luck, I think the time to be brave polictically was weeks ago when the sorts of measures we're seeing now would have enraged most of the country because most were unable to foresee what was to come.

Understandable Ricky. I was angry about that too initially. I thought people were underrating the risk. If it makes you feel any better though there's decent evidence that it was already endemic everywhere in Europe before we started testing all the travellers. It's just that some unfortunate countries like Italy had been infected a lot more severely than us due to the huge amount of tourism.

There's at least some evidence to suggest the virus was present in Wuhan for longer than we've thought too, and by the time it was discovered a lot of healthy young people had recovered from their symptoms, never the wiser that they had ever been infected by anything else than a common cold or a mild influenza. Then came the knock-on effect on the sick and elderly who were now getting high-risk exposure from every direction, and when they started to die was the point where we discovered the coved-19 strain.

Clrnc

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/germany-announces-sweeping-curbs-as-coronavirus-cases-jump-to-6012-death-toll-rises-to?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=sttw&utm_medium=social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1584387038

Germany has almost locked down as well.

Klaus wrote:
There's at least some evidence to suggest the virus was present in Wuhan for longer than we've thought too, and by the time it was discovered a lot of healthy young people had recovered from their symptoms, never the wiser that they had ever been infected by anything else than a common cold or a mild influenza. Then came the knock-on effect on the sick and elderly who were now getting high-risk exposure from every direction, and when they started to die was the point where we discovered the coved-19 strain.

Western media don't report it but it's a fact the virus happened much earlier than reported in Wuhan, in late november. Dr Li actually discovered the virus in late nov/early dec and through various testing with other doctors they then realised it's not just pneumonia but a new strain of virus. I think at no point did they actually think it's a flu because the first few cases was actually admitted for pnuemonia. If China listened to him in late Dec things would have been a lot better but we are way past that point now.

jones

Mirth wrote:
So what happened? Is Macron incapable of understanding virus growth? Did he make a U turn too?

Not sure if I'm misunderstanding this but yes, clearly he's made a massive U turn?

Mirth

jones wrote:
Not sure if I'm misunderstanding this but yes, clearly he's made a massive U turn?

I only like Macron slightly more than Boris Johnson so I don't want to seem like I'm defending him. I also cite France (perhaps unscientifically) because it's demographically the most similar to the UK.

This time last week, France was on just over a 1,000 cases and there was a few tentative bans on mass gatherings but not massively enforced (they had an election over the weekend). Today their on 6,000 cases and have shut the country down.

The whole debate isn't around whether lockdown measures would ever be implemented, it's when they need to be implemented. Macron knew this day was coming for a month now and I would also suggest that Boris Johnson knows he'll be closing the country down within the next week or two. The only reason I seek to highlight this is that basically most of Western Europe are approaching this in a similar manner and indeed have broadly similar growth rates.

Incidentally I see Germany have shut down as well - how's things in your neck of the woods?

jones

Klaus wrote:
Clrnc wrote:

Economies can rebound again, half a year of recession is nothing. We have 2008 before, businesses closed down and it bounced back. But once these lives are sacrificed for a "theory" there's no getting back. It just don't seem like a risk that countries should take.

With all due respect Clrnc, that video is not true. The whole point is to avoid those 277 000 projected deaths by making sure the most vulnerable groups in society won't get exposed to the virus at all. The herd immunity is to protect them, so killing them off to achieve it would defeat the whole purpose. If people just wanted to eliminate the illness then there'd be no point of herd immunity at all: we'd all just go out and get infected and the old and sick would die, and almost everyone else would get on with their lives, now immune, because the virus is not deadly to us.

Misinformation like that is so extremely dangerous and irresponsible. They're basing their numbers on the mortality rate of the virus in general, but from everything we know the mortality rate is virtually zero for the average young or middleaged person who doesn't have any other medical complications.

Let's just say that the plan to infect only people who can deal with the virus works even 90%. That remaining 10% of infections would destroy literally every single healthcare system in Europe, bar none. Ask any nurse or doctor who's worked in a hospital in the last te 10/15 years and they'll tell you they operate at capacity, what do you do with these additional pneumonia cases?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/15/epidemiologist-britain-herd-immunity-coronavirus-covid-19

jones

Mirth wrote:
jones wrote:
Not sure if I'm misunderstanding this but yes, clearly he's made a massive U turn?

I only like Macron slightly more than Boris Johnson so I don't want to seem like I'm defending him. I also cite France (perhaps unscientifically) because it's demographically the most similar to the UK.

This time last week, France was on just over a 1,000 cases and there was a few tentative bans on mass gatherings but not massively enforced (they had an election over the weekend). Today their on 6,000 cases and have shut the country down.

The whole debate isn't around whether lockdown measures would ever be implemented, it's when they need to be implemented. Macron knew this day was coming for a month now and I would also suggest that Boris Johnson knows he'll be closing the country down within the next week or two. The only reason I seek to highlight this is that basically most of Western Europe are approaching this in a similar manner and indeed have broadly similar growth rates.

Incidentally I see Germany have shut down as well - how's things in your neck of the woods?

So far nothing visible at least. Businesses are supposed to close this week but there's a seriously long list of exceptions. Also normally in Sundays stores are supposed to be closed, an age old law that's been tried to be overturned for years now finally it is to spread shopping habits.

I'm still skeptical. Germans tend to underrate this stuff and I wouldn't say solidarity is peak priority for most although that's the case everywhere else too I guess. I have a friend who's a urologist and she asked to be tested today because she's experiencing flu symptoms. She was in my home like a week ago, if she's infected and gave it to me too I'm going to kill her. Remember vividly arguing with her about the seriosity of all of this, if because of her attitude I really can't leave the house, not babysit my sister's kids or help out my ill father I'll be seriously pissed off.

Kel Varnsen

jones wrote:
Klaus wrote:
With all due respect Clrnc, that video is not true. The whole point is to avoid those 277 000 projected deaths by making sure the most vulnerable groups in society won't get exposed to the virus at all. The herd immunity is to protect them, so killing them off to achieve it would defeat the whole purpose. If people just wanted to eliminate the illness then there'd be no point of herd immunity at all: we'd all just go out and get infected and the old and sick would die, and almost everyone else would get on with their lives, now immune, because the virus is not deadly to us.

Misinformation like that is so extremely dangerous and irresponsible. They're basing their numbers on the mortality rate of the virus in general, but from everything we know the mortality rate is virtually zero for the average young or middleaged person who doesn't have any other medical complications.

Let's just say that the plan to infect only people who can deal with the virus works even 90%. That remaining 10% of infections would destroy literally every single healthcare system in Europe, bar none. Ask any nurse or doctor who's worked in a hospital in the last te 10/15 years and they'll tell you they operate at capacity, what do you do with these additional pneumonia cases?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/15/epidemiologist-britain-herd-immunity-coronavirus-covid-19

10% of infected do not need hospitalization. That estimate is based on confirmed cases and on poor health care systems, which are not comparable to the UK. The real estimate is probably closer to 1% of those infected (see the South Korean numbers, as that is the only country in which confirmed cases are even remotely close to the real number of infected cases).

Ricky1985

Mirth wrote:
So what happened? Is Macron incapable of understanding virus growth? Did he make a U turn too?

He was clearly acting incredibly irresponsibly a week ago when he went to the cinema; perhaps even trying to lessen the effects of the incoming economic disaster at the expense of the lives of French citizens? Which is my interpretation of the actions of the British government in the past 6 weeks.

It was conservatively estimated that there were 5k-10k cases at the time of the last COBR meeting, it's 10k-20k now: it will be 20k-40k in 5 days time and probably 50k+ by the time the UK follows other countries and goes into full lockdown: if the plan is the same, why are we waiting?

Klaus

jones wrote:
Klaus wrote:
With all due respect Clrnc, that video is not true. The whole point is to avoid those 277 000 projected deaths by making sure the most vulnerable groups in society won't get exposed to the virus at all. The herd immunity is to protect them, so killing them off to achieve it would defeat the whole purpose. If people just wanted to eliminate the illness then there'd be no point of herd immunity at all: we'd all just go out and get infected and the old and sick would die, and almost everyone else would get on with their lives, now immune, because the virus is not deadly to us.

Misinformation like that is so extremely dangerous and irresponsible. They're basing their numbers on the mortality rate of the virus in general, but from everything we know the mortality rate is virtually zero for the average young or middleaged person who doesn't have any other medical complications.

Let's just say that the plan to infect only people who can deal with the virus works even 90%. That remaining 10% of infections would destroy literally every single healthcare system in Europe, bar none. Ask any nurse or doctor who's worked in a hospital in the last te 10/15 years and they'll tell you they operate at capacity, what do you do with these additional pneumonia cases?

Yep, that was a point that the epidemiologist made on tv this morning too. A rough, probably slightly pessimistic estimate is that 5-6 percent of those 60% who end up being sick will have severe symptoms, and less than one or two percent will require hospitalisaton - which is still a lot obviously. That's exactly why they don't want everything to hit at once, instead maintaining a steady low flow across the next 8-12 months. It's the only chance the healthcare system has. So they're eager not to create more large peaks beyond the initial one that, for us, is expected to arrive within the next 1-3 weeks.

Klaus

Clrnc wrote:
Klaus wrote:
There's at least some evidence to suggest the virus was present in Wuhan for longer than we've thought too, and by the time it was discovered a lot of healthy young people had recovered from their symptoms, never the wiser that they had ever been infected by anything else than a common cold or a mild influenza. Then came the knock-on effect on the sick and elderly who were now getting high-risk exposure from every direction, and when they started to die was the point where we discovered the coved-19 strain.

Western media don't report it but it's a fact the virus happened much earlier than reported in Wuhan, in late november. Dr Li actually discovered the virus in late nov/early dec and through various testing with other doctors they then realised it's not just pneumonia but a new strain of virus. I think at no point did they actually think it's a flu because the first few cases was actually admitted for pnuemonia. If China listened to him in late Dec things would have been a lot better but we are way past that point now.

Sounds reasonable, Clrnc. I read earlier today about how China didn't want any information to come out about the disease initially and ordered samples and information to be destroyed. It was only thanks to Li, and a few other Wuhan doctors that he warned though a private WeChat chat, that the world was made aware of the virus at the beginning of January.

Kel Varnsen

Klaus wrote:
jones wrote:
Let's just say that the plan to infect only people who can deal with the virus works even 90%. That remaining 10% of infections would destroy literally every single healthcare system in Europe, bar none. Ask any nurse or doctor who's worked in a hospital in the last te 10/15 years and they'll tell you they operate at capacity, what do you do with these additional pneumonia cases?

Yep, that was a point that the epidemiologist made on tv this morning too. A rough, probably slightly pessimistic estimate is that 5-6 percent of those 60% who end up being sick will have severe symptoms, and less than one or two percent will require hospitalisaton - which is still a lot obviously. That's exactly why they don't want everything to hit at once, instead maintaining a steady low flow across the next 8-12 months. It's the only chance the healthcare system has. So they're eager not to create more large peaks beyond the initial one that, for us, is expected to arrive within the next 1-3 weeks.

Norwegian FHI estimate that only about 1/3 of those infected will get sick (primarily based on numbers from South Korea and Diamond Princess).

Klaus

Ricky1985 wrote:
Kel Varnsen wrote:
10% of infected do not need hospitalization. That estimate is based on confirmed cases and on poor health care systems, which are not comparable to the UK. The real estimate is probably closer to 1% of those infected.

16% have required intensive care treatment in Italy, let alone hospitlisation (the percentage for which I do not have the figure); and Italy's healthcare system is ranked second in the world by the W.H.O: far higher than the UK or US.

Italy was (and is) also much worse off though due to the severity of the spread before the virus was known. They were well behind the curve when they started with every proactive measure. That's why so many from the high risk groups ended up getting infected. You're not seeing the same mortality rate in the UK right now compared to the corresponding point in time for Italy, despite similar-sized populations.

Kel Varnsen wrote:
Norwegian FHI estimate that only about 1/3 of those infected will get sick (primarily based on numbers from South Korea and Diomond Princess).

I hadn't heard about that, but that's good news if true.

« Previous Page Next Page »