LOCKDOWN 2 - the November experience

[papasmurf]

A huge element is the test and trace infrastructure - and we have massively screwed that up

We? Serco has massively screwed up.

[BeElBeeBub]

The point is no one knows the real figures as of yet  , for all the reasons we have talked about.

so talking about "settled " figures is in my opinion a nonsense.

Im standing by my position of lockdowns and severe restrictions being  unacceptable , and the virus not being any where near as bad as the media is making out.

We can discuss it all day and we will never agree , same as i dont agree with your position on brexit till now.

When armageddon is predicted but doesnt appear , not only are you left with egg all over your face , but credibility and trust going forward disappears.

In business i was once told it takes years to build up trust , but seconds to break it.

Its clearly a lesson certain groups and individuals havent learned .

There is no single figure for IFR

It will vary over geography and time.

The IFR in Bournemouth is probably worse than Slough due to the demographics.

The IFR in early 2020 is probably (hopefully) worse than in 2025

And so on.

What we do have is a mountain of data that different groups have sifted through to get a range of IFRs

Have a look at this.



https://ibb.co/VVH83Fx (sorry I don't know how to post images in line) (Forum Admin - I did it for you)

Other than for the very young every one of those studies puts CV well above flu.

Depending on your demographics (young pop, old pop etc) the IFR will be around 1%

As I said, Lockdowns are crap.  I don't want one, let alone 2. But there comes a point when they are the only option.

Likewise severe restrictions.  I don't want them. But the higher the prevalence the more restrictions are needed just to keep things under control.

Look at NZ, S Korea, Japan.

They have CV under control and as a result you can go to bars, parties, friends etc.

Still we are where we are and our choice is between more restrictions than tier 1 or eventual meltdown.

On the plus side, there are encouraging signs that the level of restrictions around tier 3 is enough to push CV into retreat.

Paradoxically, the more we have the virus controlled the less restrictive we need to be .

A huge element is the test and trace infrastructure - and we have massively screwed that up

[Thomas]

Yeah, I never claimed 3-4%  He's not wrong that at the start of the epidemic we were seeing *case* fatality figures of 3-4%, sometimes even higher when testing was constrained.  Even back then experts cautioned that the CFR wasn't the reliable measure.

However, an *infection* fatality rate of 1% (with the caveats of age skew) has been the settled figure since April.

I take your point that some have used out of date/context figures like 3-4%

Conversely some here have done the opposite and used implausibly low figures like 0.2% to minimise the risk of CV.

I deplore both approaches.

The point is no one knows the real figures as of yet  , for all the reasons we have talked about.

so talking about "settled " figures is in my opinion a nonsense.

Im standing by my position of lockdowns and severe restrictions being  unacceptable , and the virus not being any where near as bad as the media is making out.

We can discuss it all day and we will never agree , same as i dont agree with your position on brexit till now.

When armageddon is predicted but doesnt appear , not only are you left with egg all over your face , but credibility and trust going forward disappears.

In business i was once told it takes years to build up trust , but seconds to break it.

Its clearly a lesson certain groups and individuals havent learned .

[papasmurf]

However, an *infection* fatality rate of 1% (with the caveats of age skew) has been the settled figure since April.

Settled by who? 

[BeElBeeBub]

well , on this very forum never mind elsewhere people have indeed claimed the death  rate as being 3/4%.

I will just leave this quote here for you.....


Quote from: HDQQ on November 01, 2020, 07:39:49 pm
  Since the start of the pandemic, the total figures show that 3% of people who have been confirmed as having covid-19 have died (Worldometer).

https://pol-tics.com/index.php/topic,2136.msg44626.html#msg44626


People like quack quack  are exactly who i am talking about....ramping up the fear and hysteria. He isnt the only one .

Yeah, I never claimed 3-4%  He's not wrong that at the start of the epidemic we were seeing *case* fatality figures of 3-4%, sometimes even higher when testing was constrained.  Even back then experts cautioned that the CFR wasn't the reliable measure.

However, an *infection* fatality rate of 1% (with the caveats of age skew) has been the settled figure since April.

I take your point that some have used out of date/context figures like 3-4%

Conversely some here have done the opposite and used implausibly low figures like 0.2% to minimise the risk of CV.

I deplore both approaches.

[Thomas]

I'm not even sure I've seen anyone claim it's 3 or 4%

The 1% figure has been fairly settled since march. It was mentioned back in the earliest briefings.

It fits with the current estimates.

well , on this very forum never mind elsewhere people have indeed claimed the death  rate as being 3/4%.

I will just leave this quote here for you.....

  Since the start of the pandemic, the total figures show that 3% of people who have been confirmed as having covid-19 have died (Worldometer).

https://pol-tics.com/index.php/topic,2136.msg44626.html#msg44626


People like quack quack  are exactly who i am talking about....ramping up the fear and hysteria. He isnt the only one .

[BeElBeeBub]

the clear argument is that covid 19 isnt the threat it is being made out to be , and that the restrictions ( depending on where you are) are disporportionate to the virus.

We have went from we are all going to die in some bubonic plague type hysteria with a death rate of 40/60% (back in march) to recently covid is bad very bad but not quite the bubonic plague with a death rate of 4% , to now you arguing its around the 1 % mark.

All the while the severity is being let down gradually by the hysterics.

Tell you what we are going to look back on this in a few years time shaking heads at the hysterics who spent 4 years screaming about armageddon with brexit , to now spending the last 8 months or so doing the same over something that is slightly worse than the flu.

Your credibility , and those like you ,  is disappearing by the day .

I don't think anyone claimed it was 30%

I'm not even sure I've seen anyone claim it's 3 or 4%

The 1% figure has been fairly settled since march. It was mentioned back in the earliest briefings.

It fits with the current estimates.

Where I think there is a disconnect is people look at "1%" and think "no Biggie".

A 1% fatality rate would kill around 600k in the UK. That would make it the biggest cause of death in that year. It would kill more people than everything else put together.

If someone said "let's ignore a thing that causes more deaths than cancer, heart disease, diabetes, car accidents, strokes, accidents, murder put together" you'd think them about callous.

[BeElBeeBub]

dont agree , and another false example.

Most of us arent on the plane and by your own numbers , dont have to jump.

A small minority are on the plane that is going down and they are the ones needing help. The question is how do we provide the parachute for that minority while allowing the rest to go about their lives.

I think you may have misunderstood the analogy. Admittedly it wasn't great one.

[BeElBeeBub]

nope you are offering up a false dichotomy yet again. I havent argued that , and not many i know have either. The argument has always been lockdowns are a crude weapon that punish everyone and everything and a much better method must be found.

i wasn't saying you argued that. However some have, which is who I was responding to.

I quite agree that lockdowns arena very crude measure and they do cause all sorts of hardship (although not apparently if you are a primemisterial advisor, they you can do what you like).

The ideal response would be to keep the virus in check with a suite of measures (say banning indoor dining, max work from home,masks etc) plus a very active surveillance program (test & trace).

The exact blend of restrictions is up for debate but the lower the prevelence the lighter they can to be.  See NZ, whom have very strict measures at the border and very relaxed internal measures but when they have even a small outbreak they quickly ramp up to stamp it out. That can only work with very low prevelence.

With the virus circulating in the UK we need some restrictions otherwise the T&T system cannot cope.

If things get out of hand we need "lockdown" although that's a misnomer. We need to adjust our restrictions to reduce the outbreak.

One good bit of news is it seems the measures in place in Scotland and Liverpool have brought the R value below 1. That gives us an idea of what level is needed.

Hopefully we can avoid the 1st lockdown scenario.

[BeElBeeBub]

Quote from: BeElBeeBub on Today at 01:54:06 pm
AFAIK nobody is arguing all the UK has had it because that is patently stupid.


What are you talking about then? you mentioned it not me!

I think we might have been at cross purposes.

I mentioned it as it is the limit case.  Obviously the largest possible number of infections is the entire population.

If you take that as the infections it gives you the lowest possible IFR (in this case a hair under 0.1%).

The IFR cannot be lower than this number and is highly likely to be higher (as you mentioned, a 10% of pop infected figure is a more realistic estimate).

[papasmurf]

Well, if you are fit and well

You really are bloody annoying, I am 72 years old with multiple health problems and was shielding for weeks before Bojo-The-Clown's letter arrived.
I have stayed shielding and will stay that way until the madding crowd of badly behaved, ignoring all the regulations  tourists buggers off back up country.
I am fed up with stupid bastards like you.
I am able to go out without coming into contact or even anywhere near anyone else.
You need to grow up.

[Thomas]

What are you on about? (Seriously.)

well if you understand english  , its not diffcult to comprehend what he is saying on between all the frothing about tories and american insurance companies.

[Thomas]

Clearly we did.

you are arguing that CV isnt a big threat so we don't need these restrictions by using the low number of deaths due to there being restrictions as an argument for how unlikely you are to die from CV.

If we let CV run unrestricted it would be the biggest casue of death in the UK for 2020.

Is that dangerous enough?

the clear argument is that covid 19 isnt the threat it is being made out to be , and that the restrictions ( depending on where you are) are disporportionate to the virus.

We have went from we are all going to die in some bubonic plague type hysteria with a death rate of 40/60% (back in march) to recently covid is bad very bad but not quite the bubonic plague with a death rate of 4% , to now you arguing its around the 1 % mark.

All the while the severity is being let down gradually by the hysterics.

Tell you what we are going to look back on this in a few years time shaking heads at the hysterics who spent 4 years screaming about armageddon with brexit , to now spending the last 8 months or so doing the same over something that is slightly worse than the flu.

Your credibility , and those like you ,  is disappearing by the day .

[papasmurf]

We are letting the bug run unrestricted because there is nothing we can do about it.

What are you on about? (Seriously.)

[Thomas]

AFAIK nobody is arguing all the UK has had it because that is patently stupid.

What are you talking about then? you mentioned it not me!

If we take the 10% ONS figure you mention (which is reasonable) then we have around 6.5m infections and 54k deaths which implies an IFR of just over 0.8%, well above flu and not that far from the oft quoted 1% and well above the 1/780 figure mentioned.

where is the 54 k covid 19 deaths from? am i missing something?

the uk popualtion is 66.65 million , so ten per cent infected approx is 6. 650 000 million.

deaths with people being tested within 28 days for covid 19 is around just over 0.7 % , 46 853.

The figure being bandied about isnt around 1 % its 3/4 % which is what i often pick hysterics like quack quack up opn this forum . and you have mentioned it too from memory.

So to recap what i have consistently said , no where near as bad as is being made out and somewhere just over the flu but not as bad as armageddon being screamed about.

My point is that there is a large strand of argument that says "2nd lockdown is all unnecessary because enough of us had it asymptomatically in the 1st wave we have reached herd immunity".

nope you are offering up a false dichotomy yet again. I havent argued that , and not many i know have either. The argument has always been lockdowns are a crude weapon that punish everyone and everything and a much better method must be found.

that's an excellent question but there are reasonable prospects of a vaccine being forthcoming.  Several are on phase 3 trials.

The WHO and various politicians and governments have repeatedly stressed that we shouldnt be sitting around hopeing and waiting for a magic vaccine bullet.

Lockdowns are a sign of failure.

fully agree. Lockdowns are a sign of governments hysterical knee jerk reaction when they have lost control

I don't want them any more than I want to jump out of an aeroplane with a parachute.  but if the plane is going down then we have no option.

dont agree , and another false example.

Most of us arent on the plane and by your own numbers , dont have to jump.

A small minority are on the plane that is going down and they are the ones needing help. The question is how do we provide the parachute for that minority while allowing the rest to go about their lives.

what political point am i scoring?  This isnt a left or right issue.

The most political point I could make is the current government has royally ballsed this up.  Are you going to ride to Johnson's defence?

no because what i am saying is i can see it from an outsiders point of view. Johnson isnt in control of my countrys health , and yet similar people are making similar point scoring against sturgeon and her government.

The point is this isnt soley a uk government issue either , all countries more or less are in a similar boat .

You keep singling out johnson as though the grass is greener everywhere else when it isnt.

Hence my remakrs about your poltical point scoring....starmer wouldnt do any better........is labour run wales a model of health and free of covid 19?