Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[XFool]

Warning of tens of thousands of deaths in England from Covid-19 second wave

The Guardian

Tiered lockdown system not adequate for preventing high rate of virus infections daily, epidemiologist tells MPs

[johnhemming]

The government appear to be delaying hospital figures by a day hence we now have 18th October an increase from 785 to 870 quite a big increase in the Midlands, the North still high and London ticking up.

[Wuffle]

Reflective of my social circle it may be and anecdotal but...
2 Covid related suicides (friends of friends) vs 1, 88 year old genuine Covid death (blessing) has got me questioning things more than ever.
Do not obsess about what you can measure.

W.

[Mike4]

Reflective of my social circle it may be and anecdotal but...
2 Covid related suicides (friends of friends) vs 1, 88 year old genuine Covid death (blessing) has got me questioning things more than ever.
Do not obsess about what you can measure.

W.

The thing I find most intriguing i the psychology involved. There is clearly nothing anyone can say that will convince you that CV is anything more than something that clears out the dead wood that needed to go anyway, so should really be ignored. Conversely I see it as a threat to everyone which needs massive effort to control and prevent. Not only to kill people, it has the power to massively mess with their long term health and wellbeing with serious and debilitating sequelae, colloquially known as long covid.

We are both seeing the same evidence but coming to opposing conclusions. Hard to understand.

[langley59]

"The thing I find most intriguing is the psychology involved. There is clearly nothing anyone can say that will convince you that CV policy is anything more than something that clears out the dead wood that needed to go anyway, so should really be ignored. Conversely I see it as a threat to everyone which needs massive effort to control and prevent. Not only to kill people, it has the power to massively mess with their long term health and mental wellbeing with serious and debilitating economic consequences."

There, corrected it for you.

[Mike4]

"The thing I find most intriguing is the psychology involved. There is clearly nothing anyone can say that will convince you that CV policy is anything more than something that clears out the dead wood that needed to go anyway, so should really be ignored. Conversely I see it as a threat to everyone which needs massive effort to control and prevent. Not only to kill people, it has the power to massively mess with their long term health and mental wellbeing with serious and debilitating economic consequences."

There, corrected it for you.

Very true.

But the thing is, most people seem to think either that the long term economic consequences trump everything and mean the virus must be ignored, OR that controlling the virus trumps everything, and controlling the economic consequences must be ignored.

You seem to fall into the first camp.

As I said, the psychology is fascinating. Few seem able to consider both points of view as valid.

[servodude]

"The thing I find most intriguing is the psychology involved. There is clearly nothing anyone can say that will convince you that CV policy is anything more than something that clears out the dead wood that needed to go anyway, so should really be ignored. Conversely I see it as a threat to everyone which needs massive effort to control and prevent. Not only to kill people, it has the power to massively mess with their long term health and mental wellbeing with serious and debilitating economic consequences."

There, corrected it for you.

Very true.

But the thing is, most people seem to think either that the long term economic consequences trump everything and mean the virus must be ignored, OR that controlling the virus trumps everything, and controlling the economic consequences must be ignored.

You seem to fall into the first camp.

As I said, the psychology is fascinating. Few seem able to consider both points of view as valid.

have we dumbed everything down so much that things have to be binary?
- isn't that a bit simplistic?

there's certainly a choice between action and inaction

but what if you were to look back at pandemics through history and realise that it's not health vs economy

-sd

[Nimrod103]

"The thing I find most intriguing is the psychology involved. There is clearly nothing anyone can say that will convince you that CV policy is anything more than something that clears out the dead wood that needed to go anyway, so should really be ignored. Conversely I see it as a threat to everyone which needs massive effort to control and prevent. Not only to kill people, it has the power to massively mess with their long term health and mental wellbeing with serious and debilitating economic consequences."

There, corrected it for you.

Very true.

But the thing is, most people seem to think either that the long term economic consequences trump everything and mean the virus must be ignored, OR that controlling the virus trumps everything, and controlling the economic consequences must be ignored.

You seem to fall into the first camp.

As I said, the psychology is fascinating. Few seem able to consider both points of view as valid.

have we dumbed everything down so much that things have to be binary?
- isn't that a bit simplistic?

there's certainly a choice between action and inaction

but what if you were to look back at pandemics through history and realise that it's not health vs economy

-sd

But essentially the choice is binary.

Either you go for complete eradication, which means isolating various populations in the own houses, in their districts, and in their own countries, so that there can be no spread of the virus. Even New Zealand is finding this impossible as foreign fishermen have apparently brought new infections into the country.This way leads to economic ruin for a massive open economy like the UK, because trade will wither, and normal social discourse disappear.

Or, you try to live with it, making sure the health service is never overwhelmed, while waiting for a safe effective vaccine to appear. This will lead to deaths, though it looks like the second spike of deaths will be much much lower than the first. But the important strands of the economy will be preserved.

I don't see a middle way between those two courses.

[servodude]

The government appear to be delaying hospital figures by a day hence we now have 18th October an increase from 785 to 870 quite a big increase in the Midlands, the North still high and London ticking up.

I noticed it took a while to appear both the 19th's 861 being there with the 870 when I looked a while ago
I've respun plots to a post in the modelling thread on the science board
-sd

[langley59]

"The thing I find most intriguing is the psychology involved. There is clearly nothing anyone can say that will convince you that CV policy is anything more than something that clears out the dead wood that needed to go anyway, so should really be ignored. Conversely I see it as a threat to everyone which needs massive effort to control and prevent. Not only to kill people, it has the power to massively mess with their long term health and mental wellbeing with serious and debilitating economic consequences."

There, corrected it for you.

Very true.

But the thing is, most people seem to think either that the long term economic consequences trump everything and mean the virus must be ignored, OR that controlling the virus trumps everything, and controlling the economic consequences must be ignored.

You seem to fall into the first camp.

As I said, the psychology is fascinating. Few seem able to consider both points of view as valid.

Not quite, I think that the long term economic consequences plus the long term non covid health consequences must be weighed up against the consequences of the virus circulating.

[servodude]

Very true.

But the thing is, most people seem to think either that the long term economic consequences trump everything and mean the virus must be ignored, OR that controlling the virus trumps everything, and controlling the economic consequences must be ignored.

You seem to fall into the first camp.

As I said, the psychology is fascinating. Few seem able to consider both points of view as valid.

have we dumbed everything down so much that things have to be binary?
- isn't that a bit simplistic?

there's certainly a choice between action and inaction

but what if you were to look back at pandemics through history and realise that it's not health vs economy

-sd

But essentially the choice is binary.

Either you go for complete eradication, which means isolating various populations in the own houses, in their districts, and in their own countries, so that there can be no spread of the virus. Even New Zealand is finding this impossible as foreign fishermen have apparently brought new infections into the country.This way leads to economic ruin for a massive open economy like the UK, because trade will wither, and normal social discourse disappear.

Or, you try to live with it, making sure the health service is never overwhelmed, while waiting for a safe effective vaccine to appear. This will lead to deaths, though it looks like the second spike of deaths will be much much lower than the first. But the important strands of the economy will be preserved.

I don't see a middle way between those two courses.

The fishermen in NZ are not an outbreak they have been identified in quarantine: that's what it was there for ergo it has done its job
- and yes that does show how much effort mitigation strategies require

I've seen citations that the survival rate for COVID in intensive care is 35% better than it was which is a great improvement - if you can get care in an ITU

With things as they are it looks this time next month the daily admissions will be back at "peak" levels
- obviously bodies in beds will be quite a bit greater than it was (as it's the integral of the admissions)
- so I'm not sure what's going to stop the health service being overwhelmed: given the efforts required to prevent it last time

-sd

[Nimrod103]

With things as they are it looks this time next month the daily admissions will be back at "peak" levels
- obviously bodies in beds will be quite a bit greater than it was (as it's the integral of the admissions)
- so I'm not sure what's going to stop the health service being overwhelmed: given the efforts required to prevent it last time

-sd

AIUI deaths at the moment are not running in excess of the normal 5 year average. They may increase, but at least for the moment flu deaths have been replaced by Covid deaths, apparently.

[servodude]

With things as they are it looks this time next month the daily admissions will be back at "peak" levels
- obviously bodies in beds will be quite a bit greater than it was (as it's the integral of the admissions)
- so I'm not sure what's going to stop the health service being overwhelmed: given the efforts required to prevent it last time

-sd

AIUI deaths at the moment are not running in excess of the normal 5 year average. They may increase, but at least for the moment flu deaths have been replaced by Covid deaths, apparently.

Indeed
- the expectation in some places was that there would be a big dip below average deaths as those expected now would have been brought forward; that doesn't seem to have happened

The problem though isn't the deaths at the moment but that the hospitals are filling faster as time goes on
- that's what removes your capacity for treating anything

-sd

[johnhemming]

The government seem to have caught up now and we do have 19th October (from about 8pm last night) which went from 870 to 861. If anything this shows a ticking up trend in the regions which are outside the North. Both Northern NHS regions are over 200. They would be expected to respond about 2 weeks behind any changes in infection rates. A case might be made for the NW to be close to a plateau, but not so much the NE. Midlands may go over 200 soon. Others are still under 100.

[dealtn]

Not only to kill people, it has the power to massively mess with their long term health and wellbeing with serious and debilitating sequelae, colloquially known as long covid.

I'm not sure it has been properly documented how big this is. Long isn't very well defined, and its very early to really know. Research will be needed to establish how different this is to other viruses, which also have a "long" tail in many cases. (I am one - and very unlikely to be Covid, as the initial infection was Oct/Nov 2019).

"Long" in most cases appears to refer to general lethargy, etc. rather than pain or disability. Not to be dismissed, but not to be casually used in arguments in the same way as "short" Covid medical implications.

[bungeejumper]

Not only to kill people, it has the power to massively mess with their long term health and wellbeing with serious and debilitating sequelae, colloquially known as long covid.

"Long" in most cases appears to refer to general lethargy, etc. rather than pain or disability. Not to be dismissed, but not to be casually used in arguments in the same way as "short" Covid medical implications.

My understanding is that it seems it might mess with your liver and kidneys, which are rather more long-term matters than a bit of temporary brain fog.

As you've suggested, this is all a bit conjectural at present, because we just don't have enough information yet. But the thought of the twenty-something generation going down with later-life diabetes (or whatever), because Covid didn't seem to flatten them at the outset, is not particularly comforting.

I imagine there must be a large body of research going on on these issues in many other countries, but all I ever seem to see in Britain is people talking about the specific experience in the UK. (Plus Great Barrington, obviously, for whatever that's worth. )

BJ

[servodude]

Not only to kill people, it has the power to massively mess with their long term health and wellbeing with serious and debilitating sequelae, colloquially known as long covid.

"Long" in most cases appears to refer to general lethargy, etc. rather than pain or disability. Not to be dismissed, but not to be casually used in arguments in the same way as "short" Covid medical implications.

My understanding is that it seems it might mess with your liver and kidneys, which are rather more long-term matters than a bit of temporary brain fog.

As you've suggested, this is all a bit conjectural at present, because we just don't have enough information yet. But the thought of the twenty-something generation going down with later-life diabetes (or whatever), because Covid didn't seem to flatten them at the outset, is not particularly comforting.

I imagine there must be a large body of research going on on these issues in many other countries, but all I ever seem to see in Britain is people talking about the specific experience in the UK. (Plus Great Barrington, obviously, for whatever that's worth. )

BJ

TBH most of the "long COVID" clinical research I've seen has been around the "ground glass opacities" showing up on chest scams, even on asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic cases.
Those are worrying as they are an indication of fibrosis, and can be easily missed: you don't heal scars on your lungs (without a transplant)
you might not notice that you've lost 20% of your lung capacity when it happens while... until you do. The closest similar thing we've seen in recent history would be asbestosis.
Thing that offends me most about this though - is the guys currently paying my wages see it as an opportunity to sell more biPAP to the home market.

-sd

[scotia]

. The closest similar thing we've seen in recent history would be asbestosis.

Or pneumoconiosis. The men that operated the coal cutters in the 1930s worked in a cloud of coal dust while they undercut the coal seam with cutters that were effectively two foot long chain saws. It didn't seem to affect them at the time, but twenty years on, they found that they were short of breath, and couldn't walk up a hill. And as the lung disease progressed they found that they couldn't climb a stair, then even walking around the home was difficult, and they became bedridden with an oxygen cylinder beside them. When they were moved to hospital they found themselves in special units (colloquially known as the NCB wards) where they met with others who had worked alongside them, many years before, on the coal cutters. Often lung cancer was the final stage.
I fervently hope that damage done to young lungs by Covid-19 does not progress in a similar fashion.

[XFool]

Why it's so difficult to protect older people from Covid-19

New Statesman

Data analysis shows that segmenting the population does not stop cases from rising across the population as a whole.

[zico]

Watched a Sky news report from a bingo hall about 15% full, which was a large place with lots of social distancing, yet it's set to close, depriving many older people of a chance to get out of the house and see other people. Presumably the nearby Wetherspoon's will stay open with far less social distancing, because it sells food.

It just seemed wrong, because the underlying principle is about keeping people apart from each other, and a bingo hall doesn't seem to be high-risk at all. Certainly not compared with gyms, where people will be breathing heavily, and almost certainly not keeping their masks on unless they've been warned the local H&S inspector is about to do a spot check. Then they'll share showering and changing facilities. Yet gyms are allowed to remain open.