Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner

581 - 600 of 1192 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Well, yeah, duh!

A lock down isn't going to get rid of the virus. Hence I really don't understand why it is locking down everyone, rather than locking down the vulnerable.

If we lock down the vulnerable first, then the NHS can deal with the small number of hospitalised cases from the statistical outliers of the main, robust population, and then slowly re-introduce the vulnerable groups in a series of controlled 'releases', probably best by age groups and/or specific conditions. Oldest and those with respiratory disease are 'unlocked' last.

I mean, really, FFS, is it that hard to figure out?
We're not locking down to get rid of the virus, we're locking down to get back in control. We are completely out of control. We don't know how many people have the virus, we're not even doing random tests to check our statistical calculations of how many people might have the virus. The biggest issue is that a lot of people are not locking down. Sports Direct attitude to their managers being an example of that. Outlier? I have no idea. Johnson is rudderless and so are we until we do this for real, for at least 14 days, then go from there. We're not even testing doctors and nurses who have symptoms thay have to self-isolate instead. Viruses do not respond to economic measures and businesses are nothing without staff and customers. Save people first, taking account of the economy second. Johnson is lazy and slap-dash. We need another pm. Sarah Wollaston would be my choice.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
25,291 Posts
We're not locking down to get rid of the virus, we're locking down to get back in control. We are completely out of control. We don't know how many people have the virus, we're not even doing random tests to check our statistical calculations of how many people might have the virus. The biggest issue is that a lot of people are not locking down. Sports Direct attitude to their managers being an example of that. Outlier? I have no idea. Johnson is rudderless and so are we until we do this for real, for at least 14 days, then go from there. We're not even testing doctors and nurses who have symptoms thay have to self-isolate instead. Viruses do not respond to economic measures and businesses are nothing without staff and customers. Save people first, taking account of the economy second. Johnson is lazy and slap-dash. We need another pm. Sarah Wollaston would be my choice.
I agree with the above, actually, but the response to what you've put there is not what I have put but to highlight the response of places like S Korean and Taiwan that are doing mass testing and using technology to trace the routes of the pathogen through society.

To do this right we need to do what they are doing: No lock down, minimal effect on industry, all via mass testing and diligent tracing of 'contacts'. It's what you can do if you are an advanced technological society that is centrally lead but where the leadership hands control over to the scientists when the time is needed for that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,673 Posts
My concern is that the US culture is too attached to their ‘freedom’ and also have a deep distrust of central government.
That's the problem with populism. Same thing has happened here since brexit and "people have had enough of experts". Now they don't trust or believe the government and ignore its advice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,192 Posts
Tbh I think most of us are saying the same thing

delay in lockdown was to manage the impact on NHS

Lockdown doesn’t get rid of the virus

there has been a phased approach to managing the outbreak

it hasn’t always been articulated / understood well

donald is very passionate :)

JJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,447 Posts
well if you'd read the report, you'd see that the UK response has been, and is still, almost the opposite of the WHO recommendation for "other countries with infection" - I suspect it has been driven by political reasoning rather than clinical. London should have been locked down weeks ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,192 Posts
Link?

how can it be the opposite?

We can get a new PM but the chief scientific advisor and chief medical offer remain the same so why would the direction have been any different?

what’s the political reasoning?

we have taken a slightly different approach because not every country in the world is able to do this the same.

did the WHO advice take into account a free to all health service?

JJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,192 Posts
The major objectives of the Joint Mission were as follows:
• To enhance understanding of the evolving COVID-19 outbreak in China and the nature and impact of ongoing containment measures;
• To share knowledge on COVID-19 response and preparedness measures being implemented in countries affected by or at risk of importations of COVID-19;
• To generate recommendations for adjusting COVID-19 containment and response measures in China and internationally; and
• To establish priorities for a collaborative programme of work, research and development to address critical gaps in knowledge and response and readiness tools and activities.
it doesn’t say anywhere in the reason for the report is to save lives

But in the recommendations it does say go into total lockdown but again nothing around the reason why.

ita an interesting read but hard to see what it’s overall aim is - assume its just to stop spread.

JJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
485 Posts
No. You don't understand.

I am saying we should WANT to accelerate the progression in those who will not be hospitalised because of it. Then, whatever happened to them when they had it, has been done, out of the way, move on with life.

They are all going to get it anyway when we emerge, why wait for 3 weeks if they aren't going to require hospitalisation anyway, and if there are a few that might, then better that happens at a time when the hospitals can cope. Or just send them away anyway because they're not going to die from it.
It's a great argument in principle, but falls down in reality simply because many under-50s live or work with over-50s, and a significant proportion of key workers are over 50.

So what you propose is not possible. Which is why no govt in the world is trying to implement that.

Hypothetical solutions are useful analytical tools, but no more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Slow the spread and gain information and understanding specific to our own country. Mostly slow the spread. A new PM because Johnson isn't up to this. He's painfully unclear and waffly. We should have gone into lockdown a couple of weeks ago. It takes days to lock down in any meaningful way, we've seen this from other countries where it's been ignored at first. His faffing about allowed companies to lay people off so that they become an issue for the state instead. Suddenly, instead of telling companies to pay their staff and that the financial solutions are coming, people are having to register for Universal Credit which is barely staying on the rails as it is. People are ignoring the "advice" (which should be an order) to stay at home because they are worried they won't get paid. In the case of shite companies like Sports Direct, they've been told they won't get paid unless they go to their closed store. They refuse, the company sacks them, more for the govt to have to do. When this is over I'm not going to any shopping arcade that has a Sports Direct in it and others will do the same. Honestly it goes on and on. He's a clown, and nobody is taking him seriously. He's a populist who naturally makes statements that can be taken both ways so people assume he means it the way they want it to be. It's his nature, being clear and unequivocal goes against his grain.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,332 Posts
Here is a good website if you want the figures to inform rather than emotions and wild speculation etc etc.


Scroll down to get the clickable table of countries.

Click on the UK link in the spreadsheet and there are some very interesting/sobering graphs. One is the recovery rate for serious cases currently 3 out of 4 die and the other is the daily number of deaths which has had a one day drop - too early to say if that is a trend or just random variation. UK Death rate on reported cases is currently running at 4.8%. (as of 26 March 465 deaths and 9529 total cases). So either we have a very vulnerable population or an under reporting of mild cases or some combination of both; or something else as causes to be away from the global average mortality percentage. UK Serious critical has gone for 20 to 163 in a day so the daily death figure may well rise again.

For a balanced view of UK policy go here:

Making sense of coronavirus — what the science is telling us, and what you can do

and for the game changer paper of 16 March 2020 that shows trying to get some herd immunity would result in the NHS ICU capability being overwhelmed 8 times over go here:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

Note in the paper it is five months of restrictions of some kind rather than three weeks so mentally and physically prepare for a long haul. If we can keep the economy ticking over by allowing limited folk to go to work and at the same time using it to build herd immunity then home isolation could prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed and our eventual overall recovery could come more easily than for countries that have gone for total lock-down sooner. The working popualtion should contain fewer vulnerable individuals. It is a tightrope dance and we may or may not fall off, only time will tell.

I have a vulnerable 96 year old mother needing support, so go shopping several days before I go and see her in order to reduce the risk of infection as the WHO guidance for the average incubation period is 5 days on best information available. Apart from seeing Mum once a week and shopping doing self-isolation for the duration. That seems to be feasible risk reduction while maintaining support. She is too frail to be able to run her own household without help. She has told me if she catches it and it becomes a serious risk of death, she only wants end of life care so a younger person can be treated/saved instead of her.

If you have elderly relatives who have the same wishes make sure you get a Health Enduring Power of Attorney (EPA) in place so you can instruct medical staff if your relative is unable to do so for themselves. Takes about 10 weeks to get a EPA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
485 Posts
You scenario is fair to ask. And the answer is that for those under 50's who are in routine intimate contact with over 50's (or anyone also in isolation) they have to isolate too. They are not in the 'general population', they are specifically located 'within' the isolation group.

People who are connecting with others in isolation need to be in isolation themselves.
Isn't this basically what we are doing now? Almost everyone will connect into this isolation group in some way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
485 Posts
Hey, maybe it is a high number? I think it is closer to zero. Why are we being treated like mushrooms and this information is not being made available to figure this sort of stuff out for ourselves?
....because what would be the benefit to society? Social media would make all sorts of misinterpretations which would go viral and we'd end up with people behaving in the wrong ways. (Like collecting toilet roll, for example.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
485 Posts
It would be nice though to have an idea of the statistical breakdown of ages / deaths / recovery etc - you can't help feeling that that info is being held back (or not being generated which seems absurd) to nudge us in whichever direction the gov feels fit. Probably for good reason, but still, it may stop some of the arguments on here.
I understand the frustration, but the general population isn't good with data and it would just lead to misinterpretation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
485 Posts
It’s out there if you care to use your Google Machine:


Albeit we don’t have the full picture yet as testing has been limited, even for deaths.

However, if we take these figures we can see that the death rate for under 50s totals 1%. So that’s around 600,000 people in the UK.

Of course this is before the hospitals and ICUs are overwhelmed and people are left to die on a trolley or the car park of the hospital.
Those of you asking for data, can see the problems of misinterpretation just from this one post.

You can't take a death rate on reported cases and then extrapolate it to the whole population, as we have no understanding of how many unreported cases there are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
485 Posts
Am I the only one who thought this point in that report was a bit strange:
"Speaking from a personal experience, this so-called virus has taken the life of my 21-year-old daughter."
Were those her actual words or did the reporter misquote? Either way it seems a bit odd - is this a widely held view? (That it's something other than a virus.)
I may be wrong, but I assumed that this grieving parent in her mind has always defined a virus as something that just gives you a cold or flu, not something that could actually kill you. Hence all those people in tourist sites last weekend. (The fact that flu kills thousands every year is not widely understood.)
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
25,291 Posts
it doesn’t say anywhere in the reason for the report is to save lives

But in the recommendations it does say go into total lockdown but again nothing around the reason why.

ita an interesting read but hard to see what it’s overall aim is - assume its just to stop spread.

JJ
At last .. others can see my point!!!! OK, just one for now, but it is a start! ;)
 
581 - 600 of 1192 Posts
Top