m2btj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 632 
Likes: 780
|
Post by m2btj on Mar 17, 2020 20:36:21 GMT
BBC reporting "Chancellor unveils £330bn lifeline for economy" I would like to see cash made available to fintech firms who will also take a sizeable hit in a collapsing economy. Fear & hysteria have added to a doomsday scenario as business readys to lay off thousands. Corona MAY kill up to 20,000 people but the social & economic costs of our fast collapsing economy are totally unknown.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Mar 17, 2020 20:43:07 GMT
However, I am starting to very slowly shift my position towards a herd-immunity response. Unless it turns out to be V shaped over a short period, the damage done by stopping everyone and everything may be greater than the thing itself. No evidence supplied - even with evidence you couldn't get enough of the subjective sort and be sure what kind of response is the most appropriate. How do you compare X hundred thousand deaths VS utter breakdown of society including riots, looting, burglaries etc? The Guardian reporting on this evening's news conference (my bold) "Sir Patrick Vallance, the government’s chief scientific adviser, says Imperial College have been working with the government all along. He says the suppression techniques need to be done in such a way that they can be released at some point. But he says no one in the world yet knows how to do this."
.. What ever angle I attempt to look at this from (health, investment, societal) I reach the conclusion that things are likely to get much worse before they get better. Today's 7pm Sky News displayed a graph showing (I believe) demand for intensive care beds rocketing up starting in Sept 2020, after the current 'lock down' was relaxed, but they mentioned it was based on a 5 month lock down not the 3 month one that Boris announced. As IFISAcava said, the embers will re-ignite.
I think Sky got their graph from this report (PDF) from Imperial College London's modelling of Coronavirus strategies.
page 11: "Once interventions are relaxed ..., infections begin to rise, resulting in a predicted peak epidemic later in the year. The more successful a strategy is at temporary suppression, the larger the later epidemic is predicted to be in the absence of vaccination, due to lesser build-up of herd immunity."
end of page 14 "A minimum policy for effective suppression is therefore population-wide social distancing combined with home isolation of cases and school and university closure. To avoid a rebound in transmission, these policies will need to be maintained until large stocks of vaccine are available to immunise the population – which could be 18 months or more."
---
I don't see people, whether 'just' those aged 70+ and certainly not everybody, agreeing to be locked down for anything like 18 months. Even 12 weeks will be a stretch once people realize it won't be making the country virus free.
---
m2btj Much as I'm tempted to agree on the P2P front, all these government 'freebies' are going to have to be paid for eventually, and I don't want to be saved now P2P-wise only to be clobbered by a later tax-rise.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Mar 17, 2020 20:44:35 GMT
Mitt Romney is suggesting giving every American adult $1,000 a month until the coronavirus crisis is over. I never dreamt I’d hear such a thing from the lips of a Republican... Anyone recall Andrew Yang's $1k/mth "Freedom Dividend" aka Universal Basic Income? Staggering initial cost (~200 million adults(?).... $200 billion a month) but declines rapidly with time 
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,388
Likes: 2,787
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Mar 17, 2020 21:00:14 GMT
But its not just re-seeding from the outside - internally it has probably been suppressed but not extinguished. If the internal lockdown is relaxed then the embers could re-ignite. will Who knows? How many were infected and recovered, how many are now immune? There must have been huge numbers infected and not reported, the virus was wild for what a couple of months before even being recognised.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Mar 17, 2020 21:05:19 GMT
There will be a growing cohort who have had and recovered from the virus will they be allowed to re-start normal society will they be given a certificate or a mark to show they're ok to be out and about? OR can they infect others? I guess it's too early for the science to say with a high probability of certainty. Given the UK has more or less given up on testing outside of hospitals (and GP surgeries - was that ever rolled out or just an idea like getting retired doctors back into service?) then what we really need is a test to say whether you have had the virus (antibody testing I assume?).
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,716
Likes: 2,986
|
Post by michaelc on Mar 17, 2020 21:18:49 GMT
I hadn't realised the number of people being tested was also being published: www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-the-public (scroll down to number of cases) So if those people were chosen randomly and I don't believe they all were, that would mean around 3.8% of the country already infected. I believe a large proportion of those tested were those apparently showing symptoms. It may be assumed by the esteemed and learned experts that the covid penetration is lower than this 3.8% for that reason. However, is it possible that this 3.8% is actually an underestimate? Most people that have the virus supposedly have mild symptoms and many/most of those may not go to the hospital so their positive infections won't count. On the other hand lots of people who don't have covid but do have severe symptoms will most definitely go to hospital and add to the negatives tally when they are likely tested. |
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,626
Likes: 6,439
|
Post by registerme on Mar 17, 2020 21:24:55 GMT
"Page not found" 
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Mar 17, 2020 21:30:05 GMT
Who knows? How many were infected and recovered, how many are now immune? There must have been huge numbers infected and not reported, the virus was wild for what a couple of months before even being recognised. I recall seeing one article that estimated that 95% of the community DON'T have immunity - because of the lockdown. While I used the word "could" in an earlier post, I'm very much of the opinion that "will" is the right standpoint. Or of course, the other possibility is that the number of infections and deaths is an order or two magnitude greater than advertised, and hence there is a level of community immunity.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,716
Likes: 2,986
|
Post by michaelc on Mar 17, 2020 21:32:49 GMT
"Page not found" Cheers for telling me - it was the text I added after the link that did it even though I put a space inbetween. Anyway, works now.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Mar 17, 2020 21:56:47 GMT
The Guardian reporting on this evening's news conference (my bold) "Sir Patrick Vallance, the government’s chief scientific adviser, says Imperial College have been working with the government all along. He says the suppression techniques need to be done in such a way that they can be released at some point. But he says no one in the world yet knows how to do this."
.. What ever angle I attempt to look at this from (health, investment, societal) I reach the conclusion that things are likely to get much worse before they get better. Today's 7pm Sky News displayed a graph showing (I believe) demand for intensive care beds rocketing up starting in Sept 2020, after the current 'lock down' was relaxed, but they mentioned it was based on a 5 month lock down not the 3 month one that Boris announced. As IFISAcava said, the embers will re-ignite.
I think Sky got their graph from this report (PDF) from Imperial College London's modelling of Coronavirus strategies.
page 11: "Once interventions are relaxed ..., infections begin to rise, resulting in a predicted peak epidemic later in the year. The more successful a strategy is at temporary suppression, the larger the later epidemic is predicted to be in the absence of vaccination, due to lesser build-up of herd immunity."
end of page 14 "A minimum policy for effective suppression is therefore population-wide social distancing combined with home isolation of cases and school and university closure. To avoid a rebound in transmission, these policies will need to be maintained until large stocks of vaccine are available to immunise the population – which could be 18 months or more."
---
I don't see people, whether 'just' those aged 70+ and certainly not everybody, agreeing to be locked down for anything like 18 months. Even 12 weeks will be a stretch once people realize it won't be making the country virus free.
---
m2btj Much as I'm tempted to agree on the P2P front, all these government 'freebies' are going to have to be paid for eventually, and I don't want to be saved now P2P-wise only to be clobbered by a later tax-rise. I have stopped listening to all those screaming for the most draconian measures ASAP as they really aren't able to see the long game, they can't see the potential harms the counter-measures may have, and they don't have to make the awfully difficult decisions that the CMO and CSA are faced with and live with the consequences. I hear people abroad who think the UK have been "idiots" in how they managed this. Well, there is no easy answer, and time will tell whether those countries who suppressed hard and early get the same larger second peak as happened with Spanish flu. It's a real possibility. Protect the elderly, protect the NHS (and its workers, who are lacking protection at the moment and who WILL burnout unless we are careful - I speak as one of them) and try really hard to listen to the experts and follow their advice.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Mar 17, 2020 21:59:51 GMT
However, I am starting to very slowly shift my position towards a herd-immunity response. Unless it turns out to be V shaped over a short period, the damage done by stopping everyone and everything may be greater than the thing itself. No evidence supplied - even with evidence you couldn't get enough of the subjective sort and be sure what kind of response is the most appropriate. How do you compare X hundred thousand deaths VS utter breakdown of society including riots, looting, burglaries etc? Upto this point my brain has coped quite well with analysing events and building a risk model. Nothing that has occured couldn't reasonably have been expected by studying events in China late Jan/early Feb, though I underestimated timescales and probabilities badly, as well as Trump's capacity for refusing to listen to experts. But where we are today just leaves my brain churning like car tyres in slush. That underestimating timescales is key, a vaccine (if it is possible which is by no means certain) was always going to take c. 18 months but the world has now backed itself into a lockdown corner until herd immunity is achieved (by mass exposure over years to allow health services to cope, or a vaccine also in a timescale of years).
The Guardian reporting on this evening's news conference (my bold) "Sir Patrick Vallance, the government’s chief scientific adviser, says Imperial College have been working with the government all along. He says the suppression techniques need to be done in such a way that they can be released at some point. But he says no one in the world yet knows how to do this."
A breakdown in society is what concerns me most at this point, a repeat of the August 2011 riots is not an outlandish prospect. Nothing the chancellor can do in the background is going to solve the problem of a bored and frustrated population required to stay at home, particularly as the weather heats up the big cities. What ever angle I attempt to look at this from (health, investment, societal) I reach the conclusion that things are likely to get much worse before they get better. 100%. Which is why you need population buy in, which is better than just punitive enforcement, why you don't impose too radical controls too early when in any case they are less effective, and why you do care about social and economic consequences of your actions as well as direct (and indirect) health effects.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,626
Likes: 6,439
|
Post by registerme on Mar 17, 2020 22:01:07 GMT
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Mar 17, 2020 22:03:36 GMT
Who knows? How many were infected and recovered, how many are now immune? There must have been huge numbers infected and not reported, the virus was wild for what a couple of months before even being recognised. I recall seeing one article that estimated that 95% of the community DON'T have immunity - because of the lockdown. While I used the word "could" in an earlier post, I'm very much of the opinion that "will" is the right standpoint. Or of course, the other possibility is that the number of infections and deaths is an order or two magnitude greater than advertised, and hence there is a level of community immunity. but when there was even the most tentative mention of herd immunity as something that would he helpful during the second wave, there were screams of the government's policy just being to "let us all die" and "throw us to the wolves". it is really hard to get a message across when we are now so used to polarisation and extremes and to inferring the worst of motives in our political opponents.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Mar 17, 2020 22:08:47 GMT
Interesting a propos bernythedolt that they come to estimate a case fatality rate of under 1% - which was what I was suggesting was likely (though by no means certain) back when we were discussing the figures from China. There are also suggestions of different strains having different CFRs. As we know, however, the fatalities also come from an overwhelmed health service that can't treat other eminently treatable conditions when it is dealing with tens of thousands of SARS-CoV-2 cases |
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Mar 17, 2020 22:16:24 GMT
Upto this point my brain has coped quite well with analysing events and building a risk model. Nothing that has occured couldn't reasonably have been expected by studying events in China late Jan/early Feb, though I underestimated timescales and probabilities badly, as well as Trump's capacity for refusing to listen to experts. But where we are today just leaves my brain churning like car tyres in slush. That underestimating timescales is key, a vaccine (if it is possible which is by no means certain) was always going to take c. 18 months but the world has now backed itself into a lockdown corner until herd immunity is achieved (by mass exposure over years to allow health services to cope, or a vaccine also in a timescale of years).
The Guardian reporting on this evening's news conference (my bold) "Sir Patrick Vallance, the government’s chief scientific adviser, says Imperial College have been working with the government all along. He says the suppression techniques need to be done in such a way that they can be released at some point. But he says no one in the world yet knows how to do this."
A breakdown in society is what concerns me most at this point, a repeat of the August 2011 riots is not an outlandish prospect. Nothing the chancellor can do in the background is going to solve the problem of a bored and frustrated population required to stay at home, particularly as the weather heats up the big cities. What ever angle I attempt to look at this from (health, investment, societal) I reach the conclusion that things are likely to get much worse before they get better. 100%. Which is why you need population buy in, which is better than just punitive enforcement, why you don't impose too radical controls too early when in any case they are less effective, and why you do care about social and economic consequences of your actions as well as direct (and indirect) health effects. <reminder I'm in Spain> after 3 tiny days of not being allowed to even go for a frigging walk, I can assure you that you're both right about the risks of societal breakdown and the need for buy in. I am open-minded as to which approach is the least worst in terms of health/mortality but I can see myself being somewhat depressed in the near future with this one* This is me talking from a tiny quiet island, trying to imagine the same in Madrid living in a shoebox apartment with temps going up to 40....hmmm.. *ok, the G & T's probably aren't helping, but still..
|
|
