Time for a second lockdown?

Alvez_48 said:
From the study, I quote:-

'
There were warnings from doctors at the beginning of lockdown in March that there was a sharp drop in hospital attendance for emergencies such as heart attacks.

It was reported that at one point the number of people going to A&E had halved, while cancer referrals had plunged by 70 per cent.

Other studies have already suggested that a lack of access to urgent cancer care and a drop in referrals could lead to an extra 35,000 deaths a year.

An earlier paper published in The Lancet Oncology found some lives will be 20 years shorter due to cancers that have been missed.

This new study has raised the possibility that the wider impact of lockdown killed more people than the virus.

The finding comes from an analysis of Office of National Statistics figures by experts at the Universities of Sheffield and Loughborough, working with consultancy firm Economic Insight.

They estimate that there were 21,544 extra deaths, an average of 2,693 a week, during the first eight weeks of restrictions. '
Click to expand...
You do realise that these are quotes from the Daily Mail (and I can't find citations for this "study"). I'll happily concede it's true if I could actually read the study.

Also, I think you need to improve your critical thinking. In one sentence the words "suggested" and "could" have been used. Think about that. Also "possibility" latter on in the daily Mail article.
 
It would be relatively easy to create a risk scorecard to manage behaviour during another wave.
You could model, age, gender, existing health conditions, post code area (possibly ethnicity), to create a risk score, The target variable could be death or hospitalisation etc.
The results could then be banded;

I would recommend up to 5 bands, but the basic would be;

Lowest risk - carry on as normal as their is low risk of long term problems.
Medium Risk- carry on as normal, but may have to lock down when either the number of cases increases or the R rate increases
High Risk - should shield but when the rate is low they are able to go outside, but avoid pubs, shops etc.

Some consideration would need to be made when there multiple risks within the same house.

This could then be managed on a local level where distinct groups can be locked down depending upon the severity of the infection. This would stop a need for a national lockdown and also keeps the economy moving to some extent.

It all depends on the data being available to create a model, I haven't used NHS data but have produced these models in other industries.
 
the_smog_chorus said:
Govt's own analysis of the human cost of the illegal lockdown "In terms of relative magnitudes, the health impacts of the recession, especially on the medium/long- term, are expected to be several times greater than the health impacts of the lockdown"
https://assets.publishing.service.g...-covid-19-excess-deaths-morbidity-sage-48.pdf
Click to expand...


It is important to note that the estimates presented are based on scenarios; they do not represent forecasts. This paper was written in the middle of the pandemic; the estimates represent a point in time, using evidence from the initial months of the pandemic to model scenarios going forwards.
Click to expand...

Annexe G is quite interesting no, A comparison against the amount of Covid deaths had there been no restrictions.
 
Testing is up 60% from July.

Of course cases are rising.

The impact on health and economy from lockdown is far greater than Coronavirus.

Daft.
 
I wonder if we would find 1,000 cases of flu per day in summer if we did 300,000 tests a day?

Just wondering if it would be similar in terms of seasonality.
 
Alvez flu and covid 19 aren't really comparable on the mortality rate with flu being about 0.1% and covid between 3-4%. Those with covid, some 5% are critical compared to less than 1% for flu. Those are the main differences, I would think when it comes to controlling the spread and how damaging failing to control the spread can become.

The other big difference, is of course, that pregnant women and children are at risk from flu, more so than covid.
 
Evil said:
Testing is up 60% from July.

Of course cases are rising.

The impact on health and economy from lockdown is far greater than Coronavirus.

Daft.
Click to expand...
There's no need to add the "daft bit. That's unnecessary. I did ask Alvez what he would do to keep cases down. He said nothing yet. I guess you're similarly happy to see them rising so high?
 
Laughing said:
Alvez flu and covid 19 aren't really comparable on the mortality rate with flu being about 0.1% and covid between 3-4%. Those with covid, some 5% are critical compared to less than 1% for flu. Those are the main differences, I would think when it comes to controlling the spread and how damaging failing to control the spread can become.

The other big difference, is of course, that pregnant women and children are at risk from flu, more so than covid.
Click to expand...

I'm not comparing I'm thinking more from a seasonal perspective like I said in the post. You know like the prevalence of it in the summer time.

P.s. you got your covid mortality rates well wrong, it's 0.2-0.6%
 
Alvez_48 said:
I'm not comparing I'm thinking more from a seasonal perspective like I said in the post. You know like the prevalence of it in the summer time.

P.s. you got your covid mortality rates well wrong, it's 0.2-0.6%
Click to expand...
Yeah I know what you were doing Alvez, and yes it does seem seasonal. I got the mortality rate from the WHO site, where did you get your figures from?

It is interesting if there is such a wide difference, unless, of course, the WHO numbers I was using were old.
 
When you adjust the figures based on the increased testing, the case rate is down.

I hate sensationalism.
 
Laughing said:
Alvez flu and covid 19 aren't really comparable on the mortality rate with flu being about 0.1% and covid between 3-4%. Those with covid, some 5% are critical compared to less than 1% for flu. Those are the main differences, I would think when it comes to controlling the spread and how damaging failing to control the spread can become.

The other big difference, is of course, that pregnant women and children are at risk from flu, more so than covid.
Click to expand...

Covid 3-4% is nonsense, that’s on confirmed cases. It’s been proven more people have had the virus than have been diagnosed

it’s still higher than flu mind
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top