‘Epidemic’ doubling every 7 days.....

[1finny]

I think we got it down low, really low, but have just let it creep back when we could have really knocked it back further. Also, hospital admissions were very low and treatment had got better by then, so all the resources would be going into few patients, so survival rate will increase for certain.

But the people do need to work, and the economy does need to tick over, so I'm not against opening things, providing we're quick and ready to react when things increase. Again though, we've been too slow though, they just didn't learnt the first time. Every week of delay, takes three weeks to get back, it's like a basic children's slide graph, steep up, slow down. As soon as the spike was noticed they should have just shut the place down for two weeks, yes the sharp pain would hurt, but then it's far, far easier to recover from, overall it's far better. Either shut down or get extreme with temp testing at shops and forced tracking and tracing, hand gelling, forced masks etc. A lot of the public are too stupid to look after themselves, which is killing others that were not stupid.

There can't be excess deaths from previous years, that's just "normal" deaths, as they're used for the average we're comparing the current excess/ inexess to now (is the opposite of excess inexess??). Deaths from Flu will probably go down though, as social distancing and hand gelling will stop flu spread, as well as other viruses. Also covid's already killed off a lot of the weak, "there might not be as much kindling left to burn" as one report put it.

Thanks for that
I guess the bit I really struggle with is It sounds like locking down merely delays the inevitable. Sage member said exactly that on BBC the other day.
On that basis there is another choice - the Swedish Example for instance.
Tough choices though

 

[Statto1]

Thanks for that
I guess the bit I really struggle with is It sounds like locking down merely delays the inevitable. Sage member said exactly that on BBC the other day.
On that basis there is another choice - the Swedish Example for instance.
Tough choices though

It is delaying the inevitable (but isn't that what we do with death/ infection anyway?), at least until there's a vaccine and better treatments, but we're getting closer by the day, treatment is miles better and better resourced and there's about 1,000 vaccines on the go, they're not far away. Another 6 months isn't a lot to ask. The good thing about delaying it, is it prolongs the life of those most at risk, and they deserve to be protected. If we push people through the system slowly, then everyone will get better treatment and the death rate will reduce. If we go too quick then the death rate goes up, and then this also risks the steep exponential curves which are catastrophic.

Sweden did no better than us, although at least they were honest with their death numbers, unlike us under reporting by 50%. We've both done pretty terrible though. Countries that locked down fastest or prevented it best are the ones to look up to. Any of Sweden's neighbours, which are the only really relatively comparable countries all did better, individually and collectively and Sweden has little to no economical benefit for their extra deaths.
Swedish model wouldn't work here either as the people are not responsible here, loads of people won't even do what they're told, over in Sweden they even did what they were not even asked to do.

We're not comparable to them though, we're more compact/ congested/ densely populated and get a lot more through trade, visitors, air travel etc. We're massive risk, extremely vulnerable, like a sitting duck, so we need to be more careful than most. We didn't listen to the experienced far east though, and then didn't listen to Italy or Spain, we wish we did now though.

 

[borolad259]

Why on earth do people think that comparing Sweden with its neighbours is sensible. Completely different demographic/geography and also initial level of infections.

As predicted though, the challenge for those countries has come when they relaxed their restrictions.

 

[1finny]

Why on earth do people think that comparing Sweden with its neighbours is sensible. Completely different demographic/geography and also initial level of infections.

As predicted though, the challenge for those countries has come when they relaxed their restrictions.

I didn’t say it was sensible - it is an option that one country has taken.
We have taken options which have given us one of the highest excess death rates.
And, people keep telling me ’it is because we are different’.

As far as I can tell the jury is out on how the ‘differences’ have impacted Sweden and others - lots of people being ‘absolute‘ in their views based on hypothesis, little backed up by science.

 

[Statto1]

Why on earth do people think that comparing Sweden with its neighbours is sensible. Completely different demographic/geography and also initial level of infections.

I've been to all of them, and worked in all of them, quite a few times, and they all seemed fairly similar, and more similar to each other than any of the other 50 countries I've been to, but that was a while ago. But who else do you want to compare them to? The other Nordic countries are probably a good starting point, most would say, unless you have some better alternatives?

The level of initial infection is pretty relative to how ignorant each country was initially, unless caught a bit off guard, but only Italy and maybe Spain have that excuse in Europe. Italy and Spain of course get a lot more visitors, thoroughfare and trade though, but it's not an excuse for them either.

As predicted though, the challenge for those countries has come when they relaxed their restrictions.

The same as everyone else, as everyone predicted, they're on an upward trend, just like Sweden.

Norway, 7 day deaths, moving average between 0 and 1, cases 112 - historical deaths 274- 5.4m population
Denmark, 7 day deaths, moving average between 1 and 2, cases 530 - historical deaths 650 - 5.8m population
Finland, 7 day deaths, moving average between 1 and 2, cases 105 - historical deaths 345 - 5.5m population
Total for all, 7 day deaths, moving average around 2-5, cases around 740, historical deaths 1,269 - 16.7m population

Sweden, 7 day deaths, moving average between 1 and 2, cases 422 - historical deaths 5,890 - 10.1m population

So, effectively, Sweden is currently no better, comparing populations like for like, and obviously was about 8-10x worse than those lot combined earlier in the year. So took a big hit, then and seems to have had no real benefit for it.

Denmark struggling a bit now, but a bit harder for them to contain it being more densely populated than the others, also within the main body of Europe and the effective gateway to the other Nordic countries.

 

[1finny]

I've been to all of them, and worked in all of them, quite a few times, and they all seemed fairly similar, and more similar to each other than any of the other 50 countries I've been to, but that was a while ago. But who else do you want to compare them to? The other Nordic countries are probably a good starting point, most would say, unless you have some better alternatives?

The level of initial infection is pretty relative to how ignorant each country was initially, unless caught a bit off guard, but only Italy and maybe Spain have that excuse in Europe. Italy and Spain of course get a lot more visitors, thoroughfare and trade though, but it's not an excuse for them either.



The same as everyone else, as everyone predicted, they're on an upward trend, just like Sweden.

Norway, 7 day deaths, moving average between 0 and 1, cases 112 - historical deaths 274- 5.4m population
Denmark, 7 day deaths, moving average between 1 and 2, cases 530 - historical deaths 650 - 5.8m population
Finland, 7 day deaths, moving average between 1 and 2, cases 105 - historical deaths 345 - 5.5m population
Total for all, 7 day deaths, moving average around 2-5, cases around 740, historical deaths 1,269 - 16.7m population

Sweden, 7 day deaths, moving average between 1 and 2, cases 422 - historical deaths 5,890 - 10.1m population

So, effectively, Sweden is currently no better, comparing populations like for like, and obviously was about 8-10x worse than those lot combined earlier in the year. So took a big hit, then and seems to have had no real benefit for it.

Denmark struggling a bit now, but a bit harder for them to contain it being more densely populated than the others, also within the main body of Europe and the effective gateway to the other Nordic countries.

Interesting data
There seems to be reasonable consensus that lockdown delays the inevitable.
Given that, the dilemma could be how quickly you get to the endgame.
Do we drag it out or just relax a little and take what comes?
Pros and cons to both and a really difficult PR message for any government.

The change appears to be scientists openly proposing an alternative (the letter to Johnson signed by over 20 of them).

I’m reminded of Merkel, very early in the pandemic addressing the Germans. She took time to explain what they thought was going to happen, explained the R rate and it really seemed engaging.

We got Whitty the other day putting up a graph saying ‘50000 cases a day’ - then saying ‘it wasn’t a prediction’. Just covering his asre.
I can only conclude it was designed to do one thing - frighten the shat out of everyone and tee up further measures.

Interesting latest data - room for optimism?

 

[Randy]

Interesting data
There seems to be reasonable consensus that lockdown delays the inevitable.
Given that, the dilemma could be how quickly you get to the endgame.
Do we drag it out or just relax a little and take what comes?
Pros and cons to both and a really difficult PR message for any government.

The change appears to be scientists openly proposing an alternative (the letter to Johnson signed by over 20 of them).

I’m reminded of Merkel, very early in the pandemic addressing the Germans. She took time to explain what they thought was going to happen, explained the R rate and it really seemed engaging.

We got Whitty the other day putting up a graph saying ‘50000 cases a day’ - then saying ‘it wasn’t a prediction’. Just covering his asre.
I can only conclude it was designed to do one thing - frighten the shat out of everyone and tee up further measures.

Interesting latest data - room for optimism?

Exactly what that graph was designed to do Finny.
Same with the press conference tomorrow.

 

[Expat Smoggie]

the news media loves this data — creates panic and sensationalism which sells more ads and creates more division in the nation.

 

[FabioPorkpie]

I posted this in the ‘meanwhile in Sweden’ thread but I think it’s useful here also....

Thought this was quite an interesting read, given Sweden is often discussed as a bit of an example for potentially allowing herd immunity to develop in a society and an argument for ‘not’ lock doing -

https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3765

 

[S7DiscoDown]

I'm sure I read that if it continues the way its going then everyone will of had it by new year. Isn't that a good thing?

Does it not mean we will build up an immunity?

 

[Lifelonfaninexile]

I'm sure I read that if it continues the way its going then everyone will of had it by new year. Isn't that a good thing?

Does it not mean we will build up an immunity?

No , It means if we believe Vallances forecast 11,000 =+ will be infected by Christmas,
The entire population of the U.K will be dead by new years day.

 

[FabioPorkpie]

I'm sure I read that if it continues the way its going then everyone will of had it by new year. Isn't that a good thing?

Does it not mean we will build up an immunity?

No it would be an horrific thing, as hospitals would be completely overwhelmed and the infection mortality rate would increase as tens, possibly hundreds of thousands would be unable to access the medical care and drugs to give them the best chance of surviving.
The infection mortality rate is debatable but is generally thought to be around 0.3-0.4% ish, but that’s with hospital attention provided to the sickest. Remove the capability to provide oxygen to many of the ‘milder’ severe cases, and they will progress to more severe cases.

 

[1finny]

I posted this in the ‘meanwhile in Sweden’ thread but I think it’s useful here also....

Thought this was quite an interesting read, given Sweden is often discussed as a bit of an example for potentially allowing herd immunity to develop in a society and an argument for ‘not’ lock doing -

https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3765

That article is an ‘argument’ by SAGE scientists.
Scientists are also humans. SAGE have put us on a track they think is correct. Pretty natural to counter a contrary approach.
They say their death’s per capita are high - they are similar to ours and we have been holed up for months.

A Swedish doctor wrote an article the other day pretty much condemning what we are doing in favour of what they are.

Take your pic we have no idea

 

[bear66]

That article is an ‘argument’ by SAGE scientists.
Scientists are also humans. SAGE have put us on a track they think is correct. Pretty natural to counter a contrary approach.
They say their death’s per capita are high - they are similar to ours and we have been holed up for months.

A Swedish doctor wrote an article the other day pretty much condemning what we are doing in favour of what they are.

Take your pic we have no idea

They are now looking at local lockdowns in Stockholm due to the recent surge in cases.
Link

 

[Statto1]

Yeah Finny,

That's the problem, they did things late and messed up, so then a lot of the public lost or have no confidence in anything. A lot of people can't make independent decisions, or can't praise a decision from an opposite party, they just look at it like "everything the tories do is bad" or "well, one decision was wrong, so they all must be wrong", neither is really the case when it comes to this, but the latter is clearly stupid, this is a bit like the "we don't believe in experts". I'm a Labour voter, but wouldn't just pick on something because it was the other party, each decision needs looking at independently without prejudice.

The bad thing is the public health bodies, advisors, WHO and government seem to have all been piled in together, like they're all "in on it".

There's a lot of different people to please and convince here, and the big problem is it's impossible to convince them all, so all that happens is you get big chunks going against the policy, which undermines the policy, then the policy fails and it snowballs, worse and worse.

Don't get me wrong mind, government policy hasn't been clear and is often changing, but I suppose it needs to change quickly to suit "R".
They should have took over the local TV and Radio stations clearly outlying the current rules, rather than using crappy slogans. Slogans only work if they're the same slogan for years like "just do it" or "I'm lovin it" etc, they don't work when it changes every month as it's not got enough time to bed in.

There's a lot of groups to please:
Forever Tory voters
New brexit Tory voters
Those massively against lock down (purely because they've been impacted badly)
Those massively against lock down (because the economy has been impacted badly, but not necessarily themselves)
Those all for lock down (financially secure)
Those all for lock down (not financially secure, but putting more interest in life than money)
Those that think protesting at this time is a good idea
Those that think protesting at this time is not a good idea
Those that think pubs at this time is a good idea
Those that think pubs at this time is a bad idea
Those that think not seeing family for a while is disastrous
Those that think not seeing family for a while is ok, considering the circumstances
Those that don't bother with their family anyway, or don't have any family
Labour voters
Other voters
Nut jobs (Covid deniers, anti vaxxers, flat earthers etc)

I've no idea how you get that lot to agree, the only way would have been to do a great job early doors like NZ and some other countries, but we've missed that boat now and there's no way back.

To me, there's a bit of a counter argument to the above mind, which I'm hoping is the case. The government should/ do actually know their slogans don't really work and that people don't know or won't obey the rules, but I bet/ hope that they factor it into the calculations. They're not going to say they allow for the idiot factor, but they all do it, and Cummings knows they exist, in big numbers, as he preyed on them all to win brexit.

 

[Jonny Ingbar]

Yeah Finny,

That's the problem, they did things late and messed up, so then a lot of the public lost or have no confidence in anything. A lot of people can't make independent decisions, or can't praise a decision from an opposite party, they just look at it like "everything the tories do is bad" or "well, one decision was wrong, so they all must be wrong", neither is really the case when it comes to this, but the latter is clearly stupid, this is a bit like the "we don't believe in experts". I'm a Labour voter, but wouldn't just pick on something because it was the other party, each decision needs looking at independently without prejudice.

The bad thing is the public health bodies, advisors, WHO and government seem to have all been piled in together, like they're all "in on it".

There's a lot of different people to please and convince here, and the big problem is it's impossible to convince them all, so all that happens is you get big chunks going against the policy, which undermines the policy, then the policy fails and it snowballs, worse and worse.

Don't get me wrong mind, government policy hasn't been clear and is often changing, but I suppose it needs to change quickly to suit "R".
They should have took over the local TV and Radio stations clearly outlying the current rules, rather than using crappy slogans. Slogans only work if they're the same slogan for years like "just do it" or "I'm lovin it" etc, they don't work when it changes every month as it's not got enough time to bed in.

There's a lot of groups to please:
Forever Tory voters
New brexit Tory voters
Those massively against lock down (purely because they've been impacted badly)
Those massively against lock down (because the economy has been impacted badly, but not necessarily themselves)
Those all for lock down (financially secure)
Those all for lock down (not financially secure, but putting more interest in life than money)
Those that think protesting at this time is a good idea
Those that think protesting at this time is not a good idea
Those that think pubs at this time is a good idea
Those that think pubs at this time is a bad idea
Those that think not seeing family for a while is disastrous
Those that think not seeing family for a while is ok, considering the circumstances
Those that don't bother with their family anyway, or don't have any family
Labour voters
Other voters
Nut jobs (Covid deniers, anti vaxxers, flat earthers etc)

I've no idea how you get that lot to agree, the only way would have been to do a great job early doors like NZ and some other countries, but we've missed that boat now and there's no way back.

To me, there's a bit of a counter argument to the above mind, which I'm hoping is the case. The government should/ do actually know their slogans don't really work and that people don't know or won't obey the rules, but I bet/ hope that they factor it into the calculations. They're not going to say they allow for the idiot factor, but they all do it, and Cummings knows they exist, in big numbers, as he preyed on them all to win brexit.

And thats why the populist approach affects policy and decision making.
Tell people what they want to hear, rather than set responsible policy, based on the greatest good. Its why the tories followed the Brexit approach so aggressively.

 

[Statto1]

A Swedish doctor wrote an article the other day pretty much condemning what we are doing in favour of what they are.

Even if it was the right method for them, which I don't believe is, then it's irrelevant anyway, as it can't work here, it's literally impossible.

We have just about the most ignorant bunch of people in the world (after USA), who have been hell bent on going against expert advice for the last 5 years or whatever it is.

Some of our people:
Can't do as they're told
Are extremely selfish
Do not understand that if they impact on others, that it will come back around to impact them
Will not do something for the good of the people, off their own back, unless it immediately benefits them
Think they're a lot smarter than they are, despite having no qualifications or any other way of backing these thoughts up
They do not understand that if they make a choice it has a big impact, they think they're just 1/100. They are, but if everyone makes the same choice as them it's 100/100 (and a massive mess)

From what I've seen and know of Swedish people:
They seem very "good" people, at least every one I've met
They're sensible (or a lot more sensible)
They will try to make the right choice for them, as well as others, even if not asked to do so

 

[FabioPorkpie]

That article is an ‘argument’ by SAGE scientists.
Scientists are also humans. SAGE have put us on a track they think is correct. Pretty natural to counter a contrary approach.
They say their death’s per capita are high - they are similar to ours and we have been holed up for months.

A Swedish doctor wrote an article the other day pretty much condemning what we are doing in favour of what they are.

Take your pic we have no idea

It’s actually not by Sage at all. It’s an argument by Independent Sage, who have not directed policy. That’s quite an important distinction.

I agree scientists are also humans and they make mistakes, but they are generally coming from a better informed position than the majority of us.

I’m not arguing for us having handled this correctly, or from a pro lockdown position, by the way.
I’m just disagreeing with the whole Sweden direction, as I don’t think it’s applicable here and I don’t think it’s been successful, at all.

 

[Statto1]

And thats why the populist approach affects policy and decision making.
Tell people what they want to hear, rather than set responsible policy, based on the greatest good. Its why the tories followed the Brexit approach so aggressively.

Yeah, exactly, there's far too much of "Tell people what they want to hear", it's too soft, needs to be firmer, more real. It's like they're trying to peddle the "human rights" approach, yet don't realise that allowing people to die is worse than annoying a few people.

The thing is, I sort of also still think they're pushing this herd immunity thing, as if they really wanted to stop it they could have just constantly shown videos of the covid wards at all of our hospitals, to make it really hit home. There's too many people that are ignorant that this is happening, and because they can't see it, they don't believe it.

 

[Laughing]

Yeah Finny,

That's the problem, they did things late and messed up, so then a lot of the public lost or have no confidence in anything. A lot of people can't make independent decisions, or can't praise a decision from an opposite party, they just look at it like "everything the tories do is bad" or "well, one decision was wrong, so they all must be wrong", neither is really the case when it comes to this, but the latter is clearly stupid, this is a bit like the "we don't believe in experts". I'm a Labour voter, but wouldn't just pick on something because it was the other party, each decision needs looking at independently without prejudice.

The bad thing is the public health bodies, advisors, WHO and government seem to have all been piled in together, like they're all "in on it".

There's a lot of different people to please and convince here, and the big problem is it's impossible to convince them all, so all that happens is you get big chunks going against the policy, which undermines the policy, then the policy fails and it snowballs, worse and worse.

Don't get me wrong mind, government policy hasn't been clear and is often changing, but I suppose it needs to change quickly to suit "R".
They should have took over the local TV and Radio stations clearly outlying the current rules, rather than using crappy slogans. Slogans only work if they're the same slogan for years like "just do it" or "I'm lovin it" etc, they don't work when it changes every month as it's not got enough time to bed in.

There's a lot of groups to please:
Forever Tory voters
New brexit Tory voters
Those massively against lock down (purely because they've been impacted badly)
Those massively against lock down (because the economy has been impacted badly, but not necessarily themselves)
Those all for lock down (financially secure)
Those all for lock down (not financially secure, but putting more interest in life than money)
Those that think protesting at this time is a good idea
Those that think protesting at this time is not a good idea
Those that think pubs at this time is a good idea
Those that think pubs at this time is a bad idea
Those that think not seeing family for a while is disastrous
Those that think not seeing family for a while is ok, considering the circumstances
Those that don't bother with their family anyway, or don't have any family
Labour voters
Other voters
Nut jobs (Covid deniers, anti vaxxers, flat earthers etc)

I've no idea how you get that lot to agree, the only way would have been to do a great job early doors like NZ and some other countries, but we've missed that boat now and there's no way back.

To me, there's a bit of a counter argument to the above mind, which I'm hoping is the case. The government should/ do actually know their slogans don't really work and that people don't know or won't obey the rules, but I bet/ hope that they factor it into the calculations. They're not going to say they allow for the idiot factor, but they all do it, and Cummings knows they exist, in big numbers, as he preyed on them all to win brexit.

There is a fair bit there that requires comment. Let me start with the groups that need pleasing. That is just plain wrong. In a pandemic you have a commitment to save as many people as possible, keeping the entire country safe is a minimum requirement of government. It doesn't matter who voted for you and what their political persuasion. You choose the right policies to save as many as you can, the government clearly did not do this on multiple levels. They compromised lockdown, it was too late, they compromised frontline staff by enriching donors who has no experience of the contracts they were handed for PPE and a tracing app. They compromised keeping control of the spread by farming out testing to another party donor when the NHS were ideally placed to manage testing and tracking.

This had absolutely NOTHING to do with pleasing any section of the electorate.

Next lets look at they are all in it together comment. Well you know what they are, the government appointed scientific advisers are exactly that, government appointed. When the government ignored advice or compromised it, those same experts should have made it known the advice was ignored or watered down. Trotting the same experts out to frighten folks into accepting another partial lockdown with made up stats and charrs, equally doesn't sit well with most of us. When experts toe the party line, yup they are in on it.

Policy needs to change quickly to suite the R. Yes it does, and the way to do that is to announce legislation on a Sunday evening with no parliamentary announcement and no time for employers to make sure they comply with the legislation, or, and I am just thinking aloud here, perhaps that is a crappy mechanism. Add in to the mix Johnson doesn't even understand the rule of 6, how is anyone else expected to understand it.

To get them all to agree, to use your term, you put the right policies in place, you are consistent and you put lives before profit. What you do not do is take the opportunity of people dying to enrich your friends, feather your nest and abandon the most vulnerable in society.