The UK response to Covid-19 [MOD WARNING 1ST POST]

meeeeh

That's not true. Germany had widespread infections but was able to deal with them because they knew where they are and who to protect. Testing is extremely important. Ireland is prime example of how lockdown without proper testing in place counts for very little. And testing will be especially important now that countries are opening up so all the outbreaks can be followed up and contacts tested and isolated.

4068ac1elhodqr

If (as Hancock says) 17% of Londoners already have Covid-19 antibodies in their system (pretty high figure).
Is the best thing to let it somewhat loose on the rest of their capital and be done with it? Perhaps this will happen anyway naturally, as restrictions ease.

bilston

Catalina Inexpensive Piano wrote: »

If (as Hancock says) 17% of Londoners already have Covid-19 antibodies in their system (pretty high figure).
Is the best thing to let it somewhat loose on the rest of their capital and be done with it? Perhaps this will happen anyway naturally, as restrictions ease.

If that 17% figure is to be believed (and it seems high), do we know if that 17% (if immune) can transmit the virus?

bilston

Hancock's claim that there may be an on the spot test that gives results in 20 minutes could prove a bit of a game changer if it came off and was mass produced.

If we never get a vaccine then one of the next best alternatives would be having some sort of test whereby people could get tested once a week or even more often.

Also going back to Hancock's claim of infection rates in the UK, he said it was estimated to be 17% in London and about 5% in the UK as a whole.

5% of the UK is about 3.5 million people. 40,000 deaths would equate to a death rate of 1.1%. if herd immunity had gone ahead and 60% of the UK population had caught the virus we'd have seen about 450,000 deaths in the UK.

This is a very serious illness

lainey_d_123

bilston wrote: »

Hancock's claim that there may be an on the spot test that gives results in 20 minutes could prove a bit of a game changer if it came off and was mass produced.

If we never get a vaccine then one of the next best alternatives would be having some sort of test whereby people could get tested once a week or even more often.

Also going back to Hancock's claim of infection rates in the UK, he said it was estimated to be 17% in London and about 5% in the UK as a whole.

5% of the UK is about 3.5 million people. 40,000 deaths would equate to a death rate of 1.1%. if herd immunity had gone ahead and 60% of the UK population had caught the virus we'd have seen about 450,000 deaths in the UK.

This is a very serious illness

Yeah. Wouldn't it have been nice if the government had taken note of what was happening in Italy in February and locked down then.

CelticRambler

meeeeh wrote: »

That's not true. Germany had widespread infections but was able to deal with them because they knew where they are and who to protect. Testing is extremely important.

Germany tested and traced at the beginning of the outbreak. That's when individual tests are useful. Once you pass a certain point, there are so many potentially infected people that a person-by-person test will miss that there's no point in doing mass testing unless you test everyone, and then control their movements/contacts afterwards.

This idea that "anyone who wants a test can have one" is nothing more than a sop to the public. It yields no useful data for epidemiologists; if anything, it just corrupts what would otherwise be useful models. This is where we're back to the relationship between the public and their choice of government. If the public hollers for quick fixes and the promise of magic potions, that's exactly what they'll get from the people they put into power. But it doesn't change the laws of nature.

Conte..

bilston wrote: »

If we never get a vaccine then one of the next best alternatives would be having some sort of test whereby people could get tested once a week or even more often.


This is a very serious illness

Mcdonalds is also working on a hydroxycloroquin shake

lainey_d_123

Catalina Inexpensive Piano wrote: »

If (as Hancock says) 17% of Londoners already have Covid-19 antibodies in their system (pretty high figure).
Is the best thing to let it somewhat loose on the rest of their capital and be done with it? Perhaps this will happen anyway naturally, as restrictions ease.

I'd believe that figure. I personally know quite a few people who have had it, with symptoms, which probably means many more have had it without. I had a really tight chest and was a bit out of breath myself in early March. Covid or just anxiety? I can't wait until I can take a test and know.

bilston

Conte.. wrote: »

Mcdonalds is also working on a hydroxycloroquin shake

This is either a strange development or you are being a sarky conte...😉

CelticRambler

bilston wrote: »

Hancock's claim that there may be an on the spot test that gives results in 20 minutes could prove a bit of a game changer if it came off and was mass produced.

And then what?

So far, the very most you can hope for from a test is that it tells you that you've either got SARS-CoV-2 or you don't. It doesn't tell you if you've got Covid-19, it doesn't tell you if you're going to get it, it doesn't tell you if you're likely to pass the virus on to other people, it doesn't tell you if you picked it up in Wuhan or Wigan, and it doesn't tell you if you're going to be immune in the future.

So you take the test and you get a result (positive or negative) - what are you going to do in the half hour afterwards? Or the next day? Or the following week? Or should the question be: what should you be forced/allowed to do in that time?

Arghus

What is this figure of 17% based on.

lainey_d_123

CelticRambler wrote: »

And then what?

So far, the very most you can hope for from a test is that it tells you that you've either got SARS-CoV-2 or you don't. It doesn't tell you if you've got Covid-19, it doesn't tell you if you're going to get it, it doesn't tell you if you're likely to pass the virus on to other people, it doesn't tell you if you picked it up in Wuhan or Wigan, and it doesn't tell you if you're going to be immune in the future.

So you take the test and you get a result (positive or negative) - what are you going to do in the half hour afterwards? Or the next day? Or the following week? Or should the question be: what should you be forced/allowed to do in that time?

Ehhh well I'd take a guess and say that someone who had just tested positive might want to not visit their granny, or go to work.

Podge201

Arghus wrote: »

What is this figure of 17% based on.

The 83%.

Arghus

Podge201 wrote: »

The 83%.

Yeah, good man.

Does anyone know?

Joe_ Public

Arghus wrote: »

Yeah, good man.

Does anyone know?

They've been doing a survey using serology tests to check for antibodies for last couple of weeks and produced results today. I dont believe those tests are particularly reliable - possibly part of that dodgy shipment they purchased a few weeks back - but maybe they accounted for that, not really sure.

Arghus

Joe_ Public wrote: »

They've been doing a survey using serology tests to check for antibodies for last couple of weeks and produced results today. I dont believe those tests are particularly reliable - possibly part of that dodgy shipment they purchased a few weeks back - but maybe they accounted for that, not really sure.

Thank you.

I was reading there in the meantime about it. It seems like a very high percentage, based on what's been found elsewhere, a small enough sample too and there's question marks about the reliability of some antibody testing. I wouldn't be taking that 17% claim to the bank.

Wouldn't be like the tories to get something wrong in relation to this.

bilston

CelticRambler wrote: »

And then what?

So far, the very most you can hope for from a test is that it tells you that you've either got SARS-CoV-2 or you don't. It doesn't tell you if you've got Covid-19, it doesn't tell you if you're going to get it, it doesn't tell you if you're likely to pass the virus on to other people, it doesn't tell you if you picked it up in Wuhan or Wigan, and it doesn't tell you if you're going to be immune in the future.

So you take the test and you get a result (positive or negative) - what are you going to do in the half hour afterwards? Or the next day? Or the following week? Or should the question be: what should you be forced/allowed to do in that time?

Well if you test positive you self isolate for 7 or 14 days therefore reducing the level of infection.

Is that not obvious?

Joe_ Public

Arghus wrote: »

Thank you.

I was reading there in the meantime about it. It seems like a very high percentage, based on what's been found elsewhere, a small enough sample too and there's question marks about the reliability of some antibody testing. I wouldn't be taking that 17% claim to the bank.

Wouldn't be like the tories to get something wrong in relation to this.

Yeah, it seems high. In Wuhan they did a survey, with more than 10,000 samples i think, and figure was 5%. Stockholm was 7% so I'm not sure what could be so particular about London that it was so much higher than that. Would have to mean a huge amount of Londoners got the virus without ever knowing about it.

Strazdas

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yeah, it seems high. In Wuhan they did a survey, with more than 10,000 samples i think, and figure was 5%. Stockholm was 7% so I'm not sure what could be so particular about London that it was so much higher than that. Would have to mean a huge amount of Londoners got the virus without ever knowing about it.

Professor Philip Nolan said this evening that his best guess is that only 1% of the Irish population have had Covid-19. If those numbers above are correct, it would suggest the rate of infection in London was much, much higher than anything seen in the Republic.

lainey_d_123

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yeah, it seems high. In Wuhan they did a survey, with more than 10,000 samples i think, and figure was 5%. Stockholm was 7% so I'm not sure what could be so particular about London that it was so much higher than that. Would have to mean a huge amount of Londoners got the virus without ever knowing about it.

Not saying I think it's accurate, but they locked down Wuhan pretty fast. The virus was circulating in London for literally weeks. At least an entire month before the lockdown was announced. London, unlike Stockholm, is a major transport hub, has far more international visitors, and far more overcrowding, including on public transport.

I now know at least 10 separate people who have had symptomatic Covid infections, which implies many more who had the virus and didn't know it. Either the people I know are very unlucky or the virus has been far more prevalent here than people realise.

Call me Al

Strazdas wrote: »

Professor Philip Nolan said this evening that his best guess is that only 1% of the Irish population have had Covid-19. If those numbers above are correct, it would suggest the rate of infection in London was much, much higher than anything seen in the Republic.

In which case it would be significantly reflected in the Uk (or London) hospitalisation rates. Maybe there are stats on this. But it would need to be many multiples of our rate for 17% to be remotely accurate.

Joe_ Public

Call me Al wrote: »

In which case it would be significantly reflected in the Uk (or London) hospitalisation rates. Maybe there are stats on this. But it would need to be many multiples of our rate for 17% to be remotely accurate.

I did read that London has a disproportionately low number of care homes compared to rest of country so that could be a reason why it has higher infection but lower death rate. Also a younger population. Whether that would explain the discrepancy in the figures is another matter entirely, though. I think they'd need a bigger sample.

Strazdas

Call me Al wrote: »

In which case it would be significantly reflected in the Uk (or London) hospitalisation rates. Maybe there are stats on this. But it would need to be many multiples of our rate for 17% to be remotely accurate.

Prof Nolan also said he is very sceptical of the idea of vast numbers of people being asymptomatic. His belief is that for every symptomatic case, you might also have one asymptomatic one.....he thinks scientific studies that indicate otherwise are dubious and untrustworthy.

Enzokk

Catalina Inexpensive Piano wrote: »

If (as Hancock says) 17% of Londoners already have Covid-19 antibodies in their system (pretty high figure).
Is the best thing to let it somewhat loose on the rest of their capital and be done with it? Perhaps this will happen anyway naturally, as restrictions ease.

If this number was worked out by the same people that think the UK only has 25% of deaths in care homes compared to other countries who are reporting around 40%-60%, then I will wait for them to publish the data and have other scientists look at it first before believing it.

It is interesting the other countries and other experts are coming to different numbers and it would be instructive to see how each arrived at their positions and then to learn and adjust or just gather data on other areas. I don't know if 25% infection rate is an aberration as it could be what other cities will find as well, but I fear they are hoping it is this number as it will give them some cover for their handling of the crises at the start and to build up some immunity in the population.

This is the problem with fudging numbers and adding tests when they have not been done yet to reach a goal. You cannot be sure that what you are seeing is reality or the reality those in charge want you to see.

CelticRambler

Strazdas wrote: »

Prof Nolan also said he is very sceptical of the idea of vast numbers of people being asymptomatic. His belief is that for every symptomatic case, you might also have one asymptomatic one.....he thinks scientific studies that indicate otherwise are dubious and untrustworthy.

For the coronaviruses I work with, 20 asymptomatic carriers for one overt infection would be normal, and one severe infection for anything from 20 to 100 mild infections, depending on the level of stress in the community being observed.

bilston wrote: »

Well if you test positive you self isolate for 7 or 14 days therefore reducing the level of infection.

Is that not obvious?

Nope, not at all. Unless you're advocating continual testing for everyone, symptomatic or not, and total enforced confinement for everyone who tests postive. And re-testing at a defined interval after confinement - so is that 7 or 14 days? Or should it be 21 days, which is the outer limit of the typical contagious period, or 28 days which includes the rare exceptions?

And are you going to enforce confinement for everyone that the positive person has had contact with in the last ten days? And if not, how often are you going to test them if they're negative - once a day for three weeks, or just lock them up for the three weeks during which they might, potentially, be incubating?

When managing this kind of outbreak, there's no point issuing wish-washy suggestions as guidelines: you need hard and fast rules that take proper account of biological reality. That's where the UK government really failed in their duty to the public at the beginning, and they're failing again now with all their "if possible" guidance coupled with circumstances that are guaranteed to encourage people to decide that "if possible" doesn't apply to them.

Zubeneschamali

So what do we think? The UK reopens, widespread complacency, 2nd wave, another 60,000 deaths by September?

theological

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So what do we think? The UK reopens, widespread complacency, 2nd wave, another 60,000 deaths by September?

Do you predict this for the whole of Europe?

The steps so far have been extremely cautious in comparison to other European countries. The only bit of liberty I have now versus the lockdown is that I can sit with someone in the park.

Deaths are on the decline, cases are on the decline. So far so good and there's still a fair while before we get to June 1st.

What I could see is that there will be second wave potentially in the autumn or the winter, but it is hardly likely to be localised to the UK. Hopefully the apparatus to deal with this will be ready soon.

robinph

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So what do we think? The UK reopens, widespread complacency, 2nd wave, another 60,000 deaths by September?

If it's already run through the care homes and vulnerable population would there be another 60,000 who would catch it? If its run through the healthy population and they didn't notice then who would die next time round? Or would it need a mutation to come back and take out more people?

meeeeh

CelticRambler wrote: »

When managing this kind of outbreak, there's no point issuing wish-washy suggestions as guidelines: you need hard and fast rules that take proper account of biological reality. That's where the UK government really failed in their duty to the public at the beginning, and they're failing again now with all their "if possible" guidance coupled with circumstances that are guaranteed to encourage people to decide that "if possible" doesn't apply to them.

I might be wrong but WHO, countries dealing with Corona more successfully are all advocating aggressive testing for when the lockdown is eased so you can spot possible outbreaks. I actually don't see how not testing is still viable for some despite all the evidence of mess in countries where they didn't test enough. Unless you want to implement perpetual lockdown. Then you don't need testing because you just leave everyone locked in.

Professor Moriarty

robinph wrote: »

If it's already run through the care homes and vulnerable population would there be another 60,000 who would catch it? If its run through the healthy population and they didn't notice then who would die next time round? Or would it need a mutation to come back and take out more people?

The problem, as elsewhere, is that if numbers begin to increase again, then people won't be as willing to go back into lockdown. So the more cautious you are about easing restrictions now the less chance you have of a significant resurgence. The British government has given very mixed and watery messages about going back to work, social distancing etc. Thus the jump from lockdown to relative normality might be too quick. Hopefully not, but it is a distinct danger.

lainey_d_123

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So what do we think? The UK reopens, widespread complacency, 2nd wave, another 60,000 deaths by September?

Who really knows?

I think the UK are always going to be harder hit than other countries because of the culture. Look at the idiots interviewed standing on the beach saying that the lockdown should have been stricter to make sure people don't go to the beach. There's such a lack of personal and civic responsibility here, it's astounding. Along with a poor education system, lack of common sense and 'it won't happen to me' attitude.

I can't think of another European country with such a large proportion of people who want to actively sabotage everything. The difference in attitudes between Ireland and the UK is enormous.

meeeeh

Every country had a share of those. Many countries have mass anit lockdown protests (I think scheduled today for all over Germany). Uk was hit because of bad government response at beginning not because of a few people on the beach. People broke rules everywhere and it didn't cause 40k or 50k deaths.

lainey_d_123

robinph wrote: »

If it's already run through the care homes and vulnerable population would there be another 60,000 who would catch it? If its run through the healthy population and they didn't notice then who would die next time round? Or would it need a mutation to come back and take out more people?

It hasn't, though. Most vulnerable people have been shielding, but they can't do that forever.

Timberrrrrrrr

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Who really knows?

I think the UK are always going to be harder hit than other countries because of the culture. Look at the idiots interviewed standing on the beach saying that the lockdown should have been stricter to make sure people don't go to the beach. There's such a lack of personal and civic responsibility here, it's astounding. Along with a poor education system, lack of common sense and 'it won't happen to me' attitude.

I can't think of another European country with such a large proportion of people who want to actively sabotage everything. The difference in attitudes between Ireland and the UK is enormous.

Lol

Showing your ignorance again.

lainey_d_123

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Lol

Showing your ignorance again.

Yeah, I only spent several years teaching at a British university, and another year as a classroom assistant in a secondary school before that. Sure, what would I know about the education system?

:rolleyes:

Timberrrrrrrr

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Yeah, I only spent several years teaching at a British university, and another year as a classroom assistant in a secondary school before that. Sure, what would I know about the education system?

:rolleyes:

Of course you did

Joe_ Public

Well, who'd a thunk it? Seems testing numbers may not be all they are cracked up to be. Shocked, i tells you. Shocked!

What this suggests, though, is that even the people tested daily figure is almost certainly fictitious and who knows what the true figure might be? Not sure what official information you are supposed to trust anymore, are there no civil servants who will openly oppose this?

https://twitter.com/fascinatorfun/status/1263600268576358400?s=20

lainey_d_123

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

.........
I think the UK are always going to be harder hit than other countries because of the culture. Look at the idiots interviewed standing on the beach saying that the lockdown should have been stricter to make sure people don't go to the beach. There's such a lack of personal and civic responsibility here, it's astounding. Along with a poor education system, lack of common sense and 'it won't happen to me' attitude. ..............

But you are mad keen to visit both Barcelona and Greece asap?

lainey_d_123

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Of course you did

I know what I did, so I couldn't give a flying fcuk what some person on the internet thinks.

Timberrrrrrrr

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Of course you did

They might have been teaching at a university but they sure as fnck aren't a lecturer anyway.

lainey_d_123

Augeo wrote: »

But you are mad keen to visit both Barcelona and Greece asap?

Yes, I'm happy to travel as soon as it is advised it's safe to do so. I'll be taking every possible precaution and making decisions based on careful research and planning. Tell me again how this is remotely related to people drinking on a crowded beach?

I'm not even saying it's wrong to be at the beach, BTW. What I'm talking about is the attitude of 'the government should have told us we shouldn't be doing this'. As if it's impossible to make your own decisions like a grown adult, and you need Boris telling you what to do.

If the man really believed that it was so dangerous for people to be at the beach, then why the fcuk was he there?! It's just beyond comprehension. "I'm going to do this thing I think is a really bad idea, and then complain that I wasn't told not to do it." I mean, honestly? This is why other countries' approach of letting the public decide for themselves what's acceptable just isn't working here.

lainey_d_123

Augeo wrote: »

They might have been teaching at a university but they sure as fnck aren't a lecturer anyway.

What qualifies you to make that assumption?

lainey_d_123

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

What qualifies you to make that assumption?

You constantly sh1te on about being on crap money & being in sh1t jobs & studied a load of t0ss iirc.

lainey_d_123

Augeo wrote: »

You constantly sh1te on about being on crap money & being in sh1t jobs & studied a load of t0ss iirc.

Yes, higher education pay is crap and the majority of the jobs available, especially for younger people, are insecure rolling contracts. That's why I left to retrain as a software developer, and am now on good money.

Anything else you'd like me to explain for you?

robinph

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

It hasn't, though. Most vulnerable people have been shielding, but they can't do that forever.

But once the general population is back out an about again, people are wearing face masks in more situations and mostly keeping a bit more distance from people where appropriate there is no reason to think it would spread the same as before... unless something else changes as well.

Has there been a major second peak in China yet?

lainey_d_123

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

........ and am now on good money.........

Fabulous, well done.

robinph

Has there been any identifiable peaks caused by people not doing what they were told, or things not having shut down soon enough throughout this?

Any hot spots caused by Cheltenham, Stereophonics gig in Cardiff, Bath Half Marathon?
Any peaks caused by people being overcrowded on the underground in the first week as train numbers were reduced that just meant less trains being just as crowded as before?
Any peaks caused by people congregating in parks over the various Easter and other bank holiday weekends?
Any peaks caused by VE day street parties?
Any peaks caused by people gradually starting to return to work?

There have been many instances through the last few months where some picture of people seemingly crowded in small spaces have been splashed across front pages and predictions of doom and gloom in three weeks time were made. Did any of these things come to pass?

robinph

robinph wrote: »

...........predictions of doom and gloom in three weeks time were made. Did any of these things come to pass?

1500 people have died in Ireland Ireland, the lockdown was introduced as folk weren't adhering to social distancing guidance.

36k deaths in the UK .............. is that not gloomy enough for you?

Dave0301

robinph wrote: »

Has there been any identifiable peaks caused by people not doing what they were told, or things not having shut down soon enough throughout this?

Any hot spots caused by Cheltenham, Stereophonics gig in Cardiff, Bath Half Marathon?
Any peaks caused by people being overcrowded on the underground in the first week as train numbers were reduced that just meant less trains being just as crowded as before?
Any peaks caused by people congregating in parks over the various Easter and other bank holiday weekends?
Any peaks caused by VE day street parties?
Any peaks caused by people gradually starting to return to work?

There have been many instances through the last few months where some picture of people seemingly crowded in small spaces have been splashed across front pages and predictions of doom and gloom in three weeks time were made. Did any of these things come to pass?

Is having the highest death toll in Europe not specific enough for you?

There was talk of allowing the Liverpool A. Madrid match to go ahead being a possible cause of a spike in deaths in the city of Liverpool. I don't know of any concrete studies on that event or any of the ones you listed though.

Dave0301

robinph wrote: »

Has there been any identifiable peaks caused by people not doing what they were told, or things not having shut down soon enough throughout this?

Any hot spots caused by Cheltenham, Stereophonics gig in Cardiff, Bath Half Marathon?
Any peaks caused by people being overcrowded on the underground in the first week as train numbers were reduced that just meant less trains being just as crowded as before?
Any peaks caused by people congregating in parks over the various Easter and other bank holiday weekends?
Any peaks caused by VE day street parties?
Any peaks caused by people gradually starting to return to work?

There have been many instances through the last few months where some picture of people seemingly crowded in small spaces have been splashed across front pages and predictions of doom and gloom in three weeks time were made. Did any of these things come to pass?

Not the tube, but there is to be an investigation as to why 33 TfL bus workers have died of Covid-19.

Link: BBC News