Lockdown by age not region?

[BeElBeeBub]

What proportion of the population has had the disease and are therefore immune?

unknown but already factored into the figures.

The IFR is taken from data. It may be that the IFR for CV19 in a totally unexposed population is 50% and the fact we are seeing 1% is because of past exposure.  It doesn't really matter because we know the IFR is around 1% from multiple studies.(varies with age).

If 60,000 have died and the kill rate is less than 1% then more than 6 million are immune.
Studies have shown that around 1/3 of the population had T-cell immunity before the virus even arrived.
The more optimistic blitz spirit is that the IFR is nearer 0.2% as per WHO estimates and 30 million are immune, 20 million were (T-cell) immune prior to the outbreak, leaving around 15-20 million still to infect

the study you refer to is a global estimate synthesized from various studies (some of varying quality).

As we know the IFR rate varies massively with age, the demographics of your population play a big part

The IFR in an area of predominantly young people will be lower than an area with lots of elderly people.

The IFR for the UK (deaths divided by infection estimates) is around the 1% mark.

You calculation works backwards. You take and assumed IFR (0.2%) then work backwards from that to give an estimated number of infections.  For obvious reasons that is extremely sensitive to the IFR chosen and can't then be used to calculate the IFR (because you'd just get your original estimate).

Let's look at NYC. It's not dissimilar to the UK.

Population 8.4m
So far 19k deaths confirmed.

If we make the improbable assumption that everyone has been infected that makes we have 19k deaths from 8,400k infections.

Which is (conveniently) a hair over 0.2%

That ignores the 4k suspected CV deaths.

So to believe the IFR for a place like NYC (which the UK broadly is) is 0.2% we have to believe that everyone in NYC was infected.

If we believe the various studies that use various methods to estimate infections (ranging from antibodies to counting cases) they out the infection rate in NYC at somewhere less than 20%, which points to an IFR of around 1%

If we had lots of preexisting immunity then R would be lower than in the spring given the same environment as the spring (i.e. no restrictions). So how come, even with lots of restrictions R seems to be well.above 1, not e the same restrictions seem to be holding back the usual flu outbreaks (at least they seemed to in the southern hemisphere, it's a bit early in the UK as flu normally takes off around early Nov). Also note the current admission rates are way above even the peak admission rates for flu.

How does that affect the possible hospital admissions?
If the blitz spirit figures are right, another 0.2% of 15 million = 30,000 dead will see the virus tailing off nicely. The median age of those still to die and those who have died should be around 85, and they will die of natural causes.

The "we're all immune - lockdown is unnecessary" crowd also said we wouldn't have a 2nd wave yet here we are.

Confident prediction.

The "no lockdown" crowd will blame the 2nd wave on something else (misdiagnosed flu or false positives) an continue to predict it's all over even as a third wave washes over us.

[Barry]

I await the ridiculing of my using maths to analyse the problem rather than "blitz spirit"

What proportion of the population has had the disease and are therefore immune?
If 60,000 have died and the kill rate is less than 1% then more than 6 million are immune.
Studies have shown that around 1/3 of the population had T-cell immunity before the virus even arrived.
The more optimistic blitz spirit is that the IFR is nearer 0.2% as per WHO estimates and 30 million are immune, 20 million were (T-cell) immune prior to the outbreak, leaving around 15-20 million still to infect.

How does that affect the possible hospital admissions?
If the blitz spirit figures are right, another 0.2% of 15 million = 30,000 dead will see the virus tailing off nicely. The median age of those still to die and those who have died should be around 85, and they will die of natural causes.

[patman post]

At the peak of this thing the Nightingale in the Excel centre had 36 people in it. It was built to house thousands, that's what they were forecasting. The hysteresis of the epidemic will be less that the original peak

They were ready for a greater impact than the worst case with the rapid set up of Nightingale hospitals (said at the time), and that's wrong.
They were not prepared with enough protective kit — and that was wrong, even though catering for the pandemic threat was supposedly an hysterical over reaction.
Frankly, I'll take my chances with the science and use my own common sense and initiative whether the govt's on top of things or not...

[BeElBeeBub]

Ok I'll bite

Let's say we lock down the over 60's and let everyone below go about business as normal.

Let's assume everyone under 20 is completely asymptomatic. No problems at all.

Roughly speaking there are 8.5 to 9.0m people in each decade between 20 and 60 in the UK.

The rough figures for infection to hospitalisation rate for each decade are

20's - 1.0%
30's - 3.4%
40's - 4.3%
50's - 8.0%

And as we said, we'll assume the below 20's are unaffected and the over 60's are perfectly shielded so contribute zero CV hospitalisations.

Let's also assume everyone under 60ncan recover from CV if they get treatment (drugs, oxygen etc)

Those figures give approximately 1.5m hospitalisations.

We have a little 100k acute beds in the UK, of which around 10k are available at any one time, the others being occupied by the usual heart attacks, surgery recovery, cancer etc.

So we somehow have to get 1.5m people through 10k beds.

Assuming a week per person, that's 150 weeks, or 3 years.

If we cut the NHS down and maybe freed up 30k beds, that's still a year.

Remember, if at any point you exceed the number of beds, your fatality rate goes up as the 40yo who would have recovered if they had a bed, dies because they can't get treatment.

Given the speed at which CV spreads in an unrestricted environment it's unlikely the time would be spread out so much.

Maybe 6 months? An average of 250k a month or a little under 10k a day.  Bear in mind the peak would be considerably higher.

10k a day, with a week in hospital would easily require 70k beds, leaving no space for other NHS activities.

In short, the idea to let CV run through the "young" would completely overlaid the NHS and result in soaring death rates.

At that point the economy collapses as people unilaterally start to react.

Are people going to go to pubs or crowded offices when hospitals are overflowing and bodies are stacking up in freezer trucks outside?

I await the ridiculing of my using maths to analyse the problem rather than "blitz spirit"

[T00ts]

Well, i don't trust a single Jack among them.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/30/covid-19-rates-not-surging-reveals-kings-college-research/ Just a stub, but you'll get the gist.
It seems the scientists on the SAGE committee are a bunch of aging Marxists who don't understand that those in a job need to work for a living.
I don't know how the hospitals are for capacity, but at this time of the year they are mostly under pressure.
Have a look at this: Not eactly frightening, is it?


Larger version:
https://twitter.com/Jon_statistics/status/1322231067722551297/photo/1

The bottom line is that the diversity of ideas both from individuals, scientists and Government has brought us to the point where we are. We have an elected Government whose task it is to protect society. If we are going to apply selective listening and behaviour then we will continue on the current path. BJ's biggest mistake was to assume at the very beginning of this that people would have intelligence and be sensible. He didn't play the heavy hand and as a result some don't value him.

[Nick]

I have just heard that my local hospital is almost at capacity

At the peak of this thing the Nightingale in the Excel centre had 36 people in it. It was built to house thousands, that's what they were forecasting. The hysteresis of the epidemic will be less that the original peak

[patman post]

Are you also doubtful of what the scientists are saying? I have just heard that my local hospital is almost at capacity and we are in an area of medium risk so everything is still working normally. When we first locked down the hospitals were throwing everything at Covid. Redeploying medical staff, closing other treatments etc. This time they seem set on trying to keep cancer treatments etc going, in effect reducing available covid beds.

I find it difficult to agree that the government has lost the plot while France, Germany, Belgium etc are taking similar action.

It's good news that medical staff have been rapidly learning how to treat Covid more effectively and how to also resume almost normal service. Round here (east London) another concern is the fall in take up of flu vaccinations. Local GPs are emphasising that flu can be serious enough to require hospital treatment, and will increase the problem if a Covid spike really hits.

Medical staff are still working long hours in difficult conditions despite their greater knowledge, and those I know are praying for another lockdown to keep the hospitalisations down to a manageable level...

[Javert]

It seems the scientists on the SAGE committee are a bunch of aging Marxists

That's one theory.

Let's hope they are not a bunch of highly qualified PHD level people who know a bit more about pandemics than Barry who just read a stub in the daily Telegraph, which in any case is basically "Command comic" for the Tory voters.

[Barry]

Are you also doubtful of what the scientists are saying? I have just heard that my local hospital is almost at capacity and we are in an area of medium risk so everything is still working normally. When we first locked down the hospitals were throwing everything at Covid. Redeploying medical staff, closing other treatments etc. This time they seem set on trying to keep cancer treatments etc going, in effect reducing available covid beds.

I find it difficult to agree that the government has lost the plot while France, Germany, Belgium etc are taking similar action.

Well, i don't trust a single Jack among them.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/30/covid-19-rates-not-surging-reveals-kings-college-research/ Just a stub, but you'll get the gist.
It seems the scientists on the SAGE committee are a bunch of aging Marxists who don't understand that those in a job need to work for a living.
I don't know how the hospitals are for capacity, but at this time of the year they are mostly under pressure.
Have a look at this: Not eactly frightening, is it?


Larger version:
https://twitter.com/Jon_statistics/status/1322231067722551297/photo/1

[Sheepy]

Lockdown by age won't happen, although sensible vulnerable people will be taking all possible steps to avoid contagion.
As I am neither sensible or vulnerable, apparently, I have to be drip fed rumours of a lockdown, leaked from a Cabinet like a sieve, causing consternation around the country and a return to panic buying.
Another lockdown will just push back the dateline of the virus diminishing naturally. It's not as if we need 3 weeks for a vaccine to be administered, because, so far, there isn't one.
This government has lost the plot.

This government like all the others think you won't see fascism coming and in actual fact a great deal of people are already inclined to accept it, apparently this is my problem, I don't think so, if they are stupid enough to like it, be it on their own heads.

[T00ts]

Lockdown by age won't happen, although sensible vulnerable people will be taking all possible steps to avoid contagion.
As I am neither sensible or vulnerable, apparently, I have to be drip fed rumours of a lockdown, leaked from a Cabinet like a sieve, causing consternation around the country and a return to panic buying.
Another lockdown will just push back the dateline of the virus diminishing naturally. It's not as if we need 3 weeks for a vaccine to be administered, because, so far, there isn't one.
This government has lost the plot.

Are you also doubtful of what the scientists are saying? I have just heard that my local hospital is almost at capacity and we are in an area of medium risk so everything is still working normally. When we first locked down the hospitals were throwing everything at Covid. Redeploying medical staff, closing other treatments etc. This time they seem set on trying to keep cancer treatments etc going, in effect reducing available covid beds.

I find it difficult to agree that the government has lost the plot while France, Germany, Belgium etc are taking similar action.

[Barry]

Lockdown by age won't happen, although sensible vulnerable people will be taking all possible steps to avoid contagion.
As I am neither sensible or vulnerable, apparently, I have to be drip fed rumours of a lockdown, leaked from a Cabinet like a sieve, causing consternation around the country and a return to panic buying.
Another lockdown will just push back the dateline of the virus diminishing naturally. It's not as if we need 3 weeks for a vaccine to be administered, because, so far, there isn't one.
This government has lost the plot.

[HDQQ]

Is this an Irish delicacy...?

I don't know. You'll have to ask an Irish person. For a definitive answer, you could try asking around in a pub in a rougher part of Dublin on a Saturday night. 

[patman post]

What about bog rolls and eggs?

Is this an Irish delicacy...?

[HDQQ]

Yes me too ,I always try to make sure there is 4 cases of Rioja ,8 bottles of Grey Goose and a barrel of Holsten on standby  . Trouble is I keep drinking it 

What about bog rolls and eggs?