PM Johnson warns Britons: more loved ones are going to die from coronavirus

[Logosone]

5 minutes ago, Canuck1966 said:

Just been reading about Professor Ian Donald's thoughts on the UK policy

 

The govt strategy on Coronavirus is more refined than those used in other countries and potentially very effective. But it is also riskier and based on a number of assumptions.

 

That's exactly right. I am in awe of the cold blooded 'walk it off' UK approach. You can't argue with the logic. But it is very high risk.

 

If, as the Chief Medical Advisor said, 40 million Britons will get infected, and even taken the very lowest 0.3 per cent figure, around 120,000 Britons would die. Taking a 0.9 mortality rate 360,000 people would die, which is WWII ballpark.

 

Certainly doable, but obviously very high risk.

 

I suppose at the end we will see if Italy's or the UK's strategy worked better.

[Rookiescot]

9 minutes ago, Canuck1966 said:

Just been reading about Professor Ian Donald's thoughts on the UK policy

 

The govt strategy on Coronavirus is more refined than those used in other countries and potentially very effective. But it is also riskier and based on a number of assumptions. They need to be correct, and the measures they introduce need to work when they are supposed to.

A UK starting assumption is that a high number of the population will inevitably get infected whatever is done – up to 80%. As you can’t stop it, so it is best to manage it.

There are limited health resources so the aim is to manage the flow of the seriously ill to these.

The Italian model the aims to stop infection. The UKs wants infection BUT of particular categories of people. The aim of the UK is to have as many lower risk people.

 

That's herd immunity. Based on this idea, at the moment the govt wants people to get infected, up until hospitals begin to reach capacity. At that they want to reduce, but not stop infection rate. Ideally they balance it so the numbers entering hospital = the number leaving.

That balance is the big risk. All the time people are being treated, other mildly ill people are recovering and the population grows a higher percent of immune people who can’t infect. They can also return to work and keep things going normally - and go to the pubs.

The risk is being able to accurately manage infection flow relative to health case resources. Data on infection rates needs to be accurate, the measures they introduce need to work and at the time they want them to and to the degree they want, or the system is overwhelmed.

Schools: Kids generally won’t get very ill, so the govt can use them as a tool to infect others when you want to increase infection. When you need to slow infection, that tap can be turned off – at that point they close the schools. Politically risky for them to say this.

The same for large scale events - stop them when you want to slow infection rates; turn another tap off. This means schools etc are closed for a shorter period and disruption generally is therefore for a shorter period, AND with a growing immune population. This is sustainable

After a while most of the population is immune, the seriously ill have all received treatment and the country is resistant. The more vulnerable are then less at risk. This is the end state the govt is aiming for and could achieve.

BUT a key issue during this process is protection of those for whom the virus is fatal. It's not clear the full measures there are to protect those people. It assumes they can measure infection, that their behavioural expectations are met - people do what they think they will

The Italian (and others) strategy is to stop as much infection as possible - or all infection. This is appealing, but then what? The restrictions are not sustainable for months. So the will need to be relaxed. But that will lead to reemergence of infections.

Then rates will then start to climb again. So they will have to reintroduce the restrictions each time infection rates rise. That is not a sustainable model and takes much longer to achieve the goal of a largely immune population with low risk of infection of the vulnerable.

This is probably the best strategy, but they should explain it more clearly. It relies on a lot of assumptions, so it would be good to know what they are - especially behavioural. 

 

Looks like this could drag on for a long time.... and we are all going to get a dose eventually!

 

It also assumes that you cant  get reinfected and that the virus will not mutate.

[Canuck1966]

13 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

It also assumes that you cant  get reinfected and that the virus will not mutate.

I think reinfection is extremely low and therefore has been taken out of the equation in this policy

The mutation part is definitely an issue though

[Tayaout]

22 hours ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

Only 7 days quarantine Boris?  Are you using Trump logic?  Trying to get rid

of the old pensioners?  How  nice!

Geezer

What I understood is 7 days quarantine. If symptoms worsen then go to the hospital. This protocol help reduce the load on the healthcare system. 

[mngmn]

22 hours ago, AlexRich said:

You’re ignorance knows no limits. Imagine the best equipped hospital in Lombardy, with 20 icu beds with ventilators. 100 patients arrive this week with viral pneumonia, all requiring a ventilator. Antibiotics have no effect on a virus. That’s what is going on in Italy, and went on in Wuhan. Iran is worse because it has even less facilities.

 

The problem with common sense I see that it isn’t that common.

 

 

 

Look on the bright side. This is going to be a massive 'Darwin' event that will see the surviving human race, younger, smarter and less likely to elect morons or vote for idiotic policies.

 

Bye Boomer ????

[sharksy]

20 hours ago, Logosone said:

70,000 people flocked to Cheltenham.

 

But they cancel football matches.

 

So good to see it's all highly co-ordinated and organised. Makes total sense.

Cheltenham is a rather one-off, compared with regular (and multiple) football matches.

The town is heaving with customers, many not afraid to spend.  I live there.

 

Although I did wonder if it would be cancelled, I guess it came to Cheltenham just in time, before more events are banned.

[Logosone]

Well, they banned football matches, but in the West-end thousands of people are still congregating to see musicals.

 

So none of this really makes sense.

[URMySunshine]

29 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Well, they banned football matches, but in the West-end thousands of people are still congregating to see musicals.

 

So none of this really makes sense.

Mass gatherings widely touted to be banned by next weekend. The economic fallout out from this is going to be huge and unprecedented in peacetime. 

[URMySunshine]

9 hours ago, mngmn said:

Look on the bright side. This is going to be a massive 'Darwin' event that will see the surviving human race, younger, smarter and less likely to elect morons or vote for idiotic policies.

 

Bye Boomer ????

Wishing on the early demise of anyone just shows you to be heartless loathsome creature. Well done. 

[evadgib]

1 hour ago, URMySunshine said:

Mass gatherings widely touted to be banned by next weekend. The economic fallout out from this is going to be huge and unprecedented in peacetime. 

The London marathon among others has copped it. I have no idea where this will end but it seems like a monumental over reaction to me & it will vanish along with the bluebells.

[Logosone]

I have a gut feeling it is an overreaction as well. They said most people don't die from this. Yes, it is very contagious, but it is not Ebola. For most people it's a cough and some fever. 

 

Is the cure worse than the disease?

[URMySunshine]

9 minutes ago, Logosone said:

I have a gut feeling it is an overreaction as well. They said most people don't die from this. Yes, it is very contagious, but it is not Ebola. For most people it's a cough and some fever. 

 

Is the cure worse than the disease?

Why do you think that country after country would lock their countries down for flu ? Boris is listening and acting upon the advice of his chief scientists and medical officers not some bloke in the pub thankfully. 

Edited March 14, 2020 by URMySunshine

[DannyCarlton]

12 hours ago, Logosone said:

 

That's exactly right. I am in awe of the cold blooded 'walk it off' UK approach. You can't argue with the logic. But it is very high risk.

 

If, as the Chief Medical Advisor said, 40 million Britons will get infected, and even taken the very lowest 0.3 per cent figure, around 120,000 Britons would die. Taking a 0.9 mortality rate 360,000 people would die, which is WWII ballpark.

 

Certainly doable, but obviously very high risk.

 

I suppose at the end we will see if Italy's or the UK's strategy worked better.

The mortality rate is currently being calculated at 3.6% It's been in that ball park for some time now. So you're actually looking at nearer 1.5 million dead. As a large majority of those are elderly and, by rote, traditionally Tory voters, it's a very risky strategy indeed. We may have Labour in power sooner than we thought.

[URMySunshine]

13 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

The mortality rate is currently being calculated at 3.6% It's been in that ball park for some time now. So you're actually looking at nearer 1.5 million dead. As a large majority of those are elderly and, by rote, traditionally Tory voters, it's a very risky strategy indeed. We may have Labour in power sooner than we thought.

Plus all those EU citizens who have applied and got British citizenship.

[evadgib]

36 minutes ago, Logosone said:

I have a gut feeling it is an overreaction as well. They said most people don't die from this. Yes, it is very contagious, but it is not Ebola. For most people it's a cough and some fever. 

 

Is the cure worse than the disease?

TBH i'm beginning to suspect that I had it back in Feb before anyone had given it a name. I have recovered and so has everyone else that was poleaxed at the time. As it is perfectly normal for Jan-Feb I didn't seek any help.

Edited March 14, 2020 by evadgib

[DaRoadrunner]

On 3/13/2020 at 4:57 AM, webfact said:

"There are currently about 590 cases identified in the UK and there are more than 20 patients on intensive care units," chief scientific adviser Patrick Vallance said.

 

"If you calculate what that really means in terms of the total number, it is much more likely that you have somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 people infected at the moment."

If Boris has got his figures right we are in deep <deleted>.

 

Makes you wonder what the true figures are in Thailand?.... Ignorance is bliss???

[URMySunshine]

14 minutes ago, DaRoadrunner said:

If Boris has got his figures right we are in deep <deleted>.

 

Makes you wonder what the true figures are in Thailand?.... Ignorance is bliss???

Good job we've got that money back from for the EU for the NHS then. We're going to need it. 

[Logosone]

On 3/15/2020 at 12:03 AM, DannyCarlton said:

The mortality rate is currently being calculated at 3.6% It's been in that ball park for some time now. So you're actually looking at nearer 1.5 million dead. As a large majority of those are elderly and, by rote, traditionally Tory voters, it's a very risky strategy indeed. We may have Labour in power sooner than we thought.

 

That's not the mortality rate. You have to go beyond identified cases and take the ten to twenty times multiplier suggested by the UK chief health advisor. 

 

If you do that you will see the mortality rate is below 1%.

[Opl]

below: link to the publication of a government-commissioned report from Imperial College London’s COVID-19 Response Team, which models different strategies and outcomes, focusing in particular on the UK and the US.

That Imperial coronavirus report, in detail