Corona Virus

[StanSP]

[Crinklyfox]

The only way that this virus will be beaten to a level at which populaces can be comfortable is for there to be world-wide herd immunity.  Under those circumstances there will no longer be sufficient people to infect to cause another pandemic.  I've seen estimates of 60 - 70% of the population as the minimum for herd immunity.

 

Herd immunity can result from letting everyone catch the virus and develop antibodies or die.  That to my mind is how it has been perceived which is what makes it so unacceptable.  But the other way is for a vaccine to be widely available which will promote us all developing antibodies such that Covid-19 cannot take hold, also resulting in herd immunity.  So we are in the hands of the scientists.

 

Any reduction of lockdown prior to development of herd immunity will most likely result in increased deaths.

[Nick]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

It's important to at least have a plan as the Chancellor keeps saying. It appears that there isn't one at the moment. 

I think the plan will be another 3 week lockdown extension. During this period the government will take a look at the ‘r’ rating from other countries who are slowly allowing some school ages to return to school, some workers to return with social distancing and some retail outlets to re-open. Our exit strategy will I would be imagine based entirely on that pans out for others who are ahead of us.

 

They simply don’t want to get people’s hopes up that it’ll be all over in 3 weeks....

 

I reckon they may allude to this tonight following COBRA meeting.

 

Whats missing from this governments narrative is an acknowledgment that they dropped the ball early doors in their preparations for testing, PPE acquisition and distribution. The rest of it they are doing their best with - it’s just getting awkward as they keep deflecting questions with rhetoric which is possibly more damaging than just acknowledging some failures and then moving on to the positives.

Edited 16 April 2020 by Swan Lesta

[Nick]

3 minutes ago, Crinklyfox said:

The only way that this virus will be beaten to a level at which populaces can be comfortable is for there to be world-wide herd immunity.  Under those circumstances there will no longer be sufficient people to infect to cause another pandemic.  I've seen estimates of 60 - 70% of the population as the minimum for herd immunity.

 

Herd immunity can result from letting everyone catch the virus and develop antibodies or die.  That to my mind is how it has been perceived which is what makes it so unacceptable.  But the other way is for a vaccine to be widely available which will promote us all developing antibodies such that Covid-19 cannot take hold, also resulting in herd immunity.  So we are in the hands of the scientists.

 

Any reduction of lockdown prior to development of herd immunity will most likely result in increased deaths.

Yep even if the lockdown is lifted we’ll all be social distancing until there’s a vaccine - anything else in terms of an approach is pretty sociopathic!

[Sampson]

52 minutes ago, MattP said:

Belgium now has the highest death rate per head of population in the World.

 

20 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

I had to look into it because I couldn’t believe how high it was.

 

Turns out, they’ve been extremely generous with their figures it seems:

 

‘Belgium is one of few countries in Europe that includes in its daily tally of coronavirus-related deaths all non-hospitalised people who displayed symptoms of the disease even if they had not been confirmed as having had it.

That may help to explain why Belgium, a small country of about 11.5 million people, now has the fifth highest coronavirus death toll in Europe, ahead of more populous nations like Germany and the Netherlands.’

 

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8222647/amp/Nursing-homes-account-HALF-coronavirus-deaths-Belgium-lockdown-extended-May.html

Yeah I read that the other day and was pretty baffled by it.

 

Belgium probably overestimates their death rates other than the other european nations who underestimate it because it includes a load of deaths which have nothing to do with it. Basically anyone with a cough or fever which could  be anything.

 

I don't understand it. Surely, even if there is a long delay in reporting due to testing, post-mortem and bureaucracy, that's better than bad data, which is what Belgium's count surely is?

[Guest Fktf]

50 minutes ago, murphy said:

I will come back to it, (everybody will be so pleased), but right now I'm being harassed to do stuff.

 

Yes, that is not the same as herd immunity.  You have to put measures in to reduce transmission to keep below capacity so that anyone who needs treatment can get it.  It is assumed that the virus cannot be stopped after we left the containment phase.

 

Herd immunity is a very different thing altogether of allowing the virus to simply play out.

It seems from this comment that you don't fully understand what herd immunity is. It is about having enough people with immunity to the disease, such that it is difficult for the disease to spread between people. 

 

As a concept, herd immunity says nothing about how you build up this immunity in a population. We usually do it through vaccines, but there isn't one for COVID-19. So the only way to achieve herd immunity is by letting the disease spread. One option would be to simply 'let the virus play out',  but it would be catastrophic in terms of death rate. So the current plan to achieve herd immunity is by managing the spread across population - which we hear as the sound bite of flatten and broaden the curve.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Swan Lesta said:

I think the plan will be another 3 week lockdown extension. During this period the government will take a look at the ‘r’ rating from other countries who are slowly allowing some school ages to return to school, some workers to return with social distancing and some retail outlets to re-open. Our exit strategy will I would be imagine based entirely on that pans out for others who are ahead of us.

 

They simply don’t want to get people’s hopes up that it’ll be all over in 3 weeks....

 

I reckon they may allude to this tonight following COBRA meeting.

 

Whats missing from this governments narrative is an acknowledgment that they dropped the ball early doors in their preparations for PPE acquisition and distribution. The rest of it they are doing their best with - it’s just getting awkward as they keep deflecting questions with rhetoric which is possibly more damaging than just acknowledging some failures and then moving on to the positives.

I totally agree with this, and for me that is and should be where most criticism lies. They got caught with their pants down on PPE and have been chasing their tails ever since.

I’ve heard rumours that a lot of care homes were sent expired PPE with stickers over the expiration date, I don’t know how true it is mind.

[murphy]

7 minutes ago, Fktf said:

It seems from this comment that you don't fully understand what herd immunity is. It is about having enough people with immunity to the disease, such that it is difficult for the disease to spread between people. 

 

As a concept, herd immunity says nothing about how you build up this immunity in a population. We usually do it through vaccines, but there isn't one for COVID-19. So the only way to achieve herd immunity is by letting the disease spread. One option would be to simply 'let the virus play out',  but it would be catastrophic in terms of death rate. So the current plan to achieve herd immunity is by managing the spread across population - which we hear as the sound bite of flatten and broaden the curve.

I would disagree with you there.  We know what herd immunity is.  The government's detractors insist that herd immunity is a policy rather than a by-product, hence misquoting Boris' take it on the chin comment.  I have always said that herd immunity may be a way of effectively ending this but that the government have never said this was a policy to allow contagion to spread.

 

The policy is to manage patients through the NHS, herd immunity may be a by-product that saves us, but don't take my word for it.  Patrick Vallance was on our screens this week saying categorically that herd immunity was never the plan.  

[brucey]

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-review-to-be-launched-into-why-ethnic-minorities-worst-hit-by-covid-19-11974116

[brucey]

22 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I’ve heard rumours that a lot of care homes were sent expired PPE with stickers over the expiration date, I don’t know how true it is mind.

NHS hospitals are being sent the same, which has contributed to the widespread PPE angst. My understanding is that it's just a date put on by the manufacturers and the dates can be extended by testing one mask out of the box, and if it passes quality checks, the whole box is recertified for another 5 years or so. That's what the official line is anyway

[st albans fox]

3 minutes ago, brucey said:

NHS hospitals are being sent the same, which has contributed to the widespread PPE angst. My understanding is that it's just a date put on by the manufacturers and the dates can be extended by testing one mask out of the box, and if it passes quality checks, the whole box is recertified for another 5 years or so. That's what the official line is anyway

Can’t see why nearly all  PPE would have a use by date - if it’s not been left in direct sunlight, extreme heat or extreme cold then it should be fine for ten years at least 

 

There are rumours that masks will be compulsory once lockdown is eased - there simply isn’t enough availability for this to happen. So the govt have approx three/four weeks to get enough surgical type masks into the country and suitably distributed .... and they’re not supposed to be used for a long period and certainly not more than a day 

 

Otherwise we have to make our own and wash them daily  !

 

current lead time for these masks from China is about 3 weeks for a million from one supplier. Then you have to get them here. And remember that the whole world wants these masks !!!

[Guest Fktf]

13 minutes ago, murphy said:

I would disagree with you there.  We know what herd immunity is.  The government's detractors insist that herd immunity is a policy rather than a by-product, hence misquoting Boris' take it on the chin comment.  I have always said that herd immunity may be a way of effectively ending this but that the government have never said this was a policy to allow contagion to spread.

 

The policy is to manage patients through the NHS, herd immunity may be a by-product that saves us, but don't take my word for it.  Patrick Vallance was on our screens this week saying categorically that herd immunity was never the plan.  

I would never expect them to admit this in public - PR nightmare.

 

The extent of our planning cannot be limited to just 'let's make sure NHS capacity isn't breached'. There has to be some strategy behind letting the virus spread whilst controlling the numbers going through the NHS. As far as I can see, the only logic behind our approach is herd immunity. Whether anyone will ever admit to it is another question.  

[brucey]

4 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Can’t see why nearly all  PPE would have a use by date - if it’s not been left in direct sunlight, extreme heat or extreme cold then it should be fine for ten years at least 

 

There are rumours that masks will be compulsory once lockdown is eased - there simply isn’t enough availability for this to happen. So the govt have approx three/four weeks to get enough surgical type masks into the country and suitably distributed .... and they’re not supposed to be used for a long period and certainly not more than a day 

 

Otherwise we have to make our own and wash them daily  !

 

current lead time for these masks from China is about 3 weeks for a million from one supplier. Then you have to get them here. And remember that the whole world wants these masks !!!

I believe it’s the elastic that goes round the head, and the valve filter material, that can potentially break down after (many) years. I have seen them recertified twice (original use by date on box before 2010). But having expired PPE is far better than having none, so  

[Nalis]

51 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

I think the plan will be another 3 week lockdown extension. During this period the government will take a look at the ‘r’ rating from other countries who are slowly allowing some school ages to return to school, some workers to return with social distancing and some retail outlets to re-open. Our exit strategy will I would be imagine based entirely on that pans out for others who are ahead of us.

 

They simply don’t want to get people’s hopes up that it’ll be all over in 3 weeks....

 

I reckon they may allude to this tonight following COBRA meeting.

 

Whats missing from this governments narrative is an acknowledgment that they dropped the ball early doors in their preparations for testing, PPE acquisition and distribution. The rest of it they are doing their best with - it’s just getting awkward as they keep deflecting questions with rhetoric which is possibly more damaging than just acknowledging some failures and then moving on to the positives.

Agreed on all counts.

 

PPE and testing have been poor.

 

But people saying lockdown should have been sooner are forgetting that a lot of people would have disregarded them first hand at what would have been shock measures at the time. When lockdown actually happened, it was more successful as people were mentally prepared for it.

[inckley fox]

40 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Yep even if the lockdown is lifted we’ll all be social distancing until there’s a vaccine - anything else in terms of an approach is pretty sociopathic!

In every meeting I've had for a while there is one person, probably trying their best to reassure themselves, who is trying to push the possibility that things can return to normal in the next twelve months. And it feels more hopeful, or desperate, every time.

 

There are only a few viable ways, from what I gather.

 

1. An early (and therefore possibly dangerous) vaccine. Of course, if there's something pre-approved that miraculously has efficacy there's a slim chance it could be rolled out.

 

2. That the disease is eradicated (as some data suggests is possible in a region). This depends on shutting yourself off from other regions, of course, until they are also disease-free. For this we'd need testing on a vastly greater scale than we've got now (the Tony Blair 'test everyone two or three times and trace properly this time' approach). The WHO still seems to be barking up this tree.

 

3. A therapy which can be widely distributed and doesn't need to take place in a hospital, which is the case with remdesivir. Whether this could allow herd immunity to take place in the meantime (if there's a medicine, antibodies might not be developed to make people immune) is up for debate, but it could cut mortality enough to justify a return to normal while we wait for a vaccine.

 

4. Lumping for herd immunity outright, and accepting the complete collapse of health systems everywhere, or 5. phasing it in over 6-8 months with the 'toggle' approach to shutdown measures. But even at 60-70% population immunity we'd still need protective measures for everyone else, and testing to figure out who they are.

 

I suspect a lot of countries are going for the final option while holding out slim hopes for the first and third. This obviously makes the second impossible but has the advantage, if we don't achieve herd immunity, of 'managing the disease' with measures until a vaccine is ready.

[Costock_Fox]

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

All on the Christ has risen AKA The Professor (money heist) aren’t we.

 

Thats the aim but I look like I’ve dipped my face in a bowl of pubes and glue.

[brucey]

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

 

Edited 16 April 2020 by brucey

[Leicester_Loyal]

[Manini]

9 minutes ago, brucey said:

Imagine forking out grands for a hair transplant and then just lobbing it all off anyway  even if he couldn’t get it cut, if I was him I’d have taken the royal piss with it and gone full Brian May. 

[Tuna]

 

[Alf Bentley]

20 minutes ago, Tuna said:

 

 

 

The Supreme Leader, Matt Jong-Un....

 

When Boris is away, the mice will play... but assuming supreme powers might get him in hot water.

 

(On a serious note, let's hope not too much use needs to be made of the new facility)

[murphy]

1 hour ago, Fktf said:

I would never expect them to admit this in public - PR nightmare.

 

The extent of our planning cannot be limited to just 'let's make sure NHS capacity isn't breached'. There has to be some strategy behind letting the virus spread whilst controlling the numbers going through the NHS. As far as I can see, the only logic behind our approach is herd immunity. Whether anyone will ever admit to it is another question.  

I think you are losing sight of the argument here.  The herd immunity issue is whether the initial government strategy was ever to let the virus continue unimpeded in order to acquire immunity.  It was not and never has been. 

 

You seem to now be arguing that our current plan is herd immunity.   As opposed to permanent lockdown or a magic wand I suppose.  There is no way of just stopping it.  Hopefully in future we will improve our testing and isolation capabilities as that approach seems to be most effective in countries with large testing infrastructure like Germany and Korea.

[WigstonWanderer]

2 hours ago, murphy said:

I will come back to it, (everybody will be so pleased), but right now I'm being harassed to do stuff.

 

Yes, that is not the same as herd immunity.  You have to put measures in to reduce transmission to keep below capacity so that anyone who needs treatment can get it.  It is assumed that the virus cannot be stopped after we left the containment phase.

 

Herd immunity is a very different thing altogether of allowing the virus to simply play out.

 

2 hours ago, Strokes said:

The term herd immunity is being abused here, people are making it out to be that herd immunity simply means taking no action and letting the virus rip through society.

Then they present evidence that mentions herd immunity and also mentions measures taken to protect vulnerable and flatten the curve.

The options without a vaccine are what exactly? Lockdown like China for four months every time the virus reappears? Test, trace, isolate and suppress until a vaccine? or flatten the peak for as long as possible hoping enough get the mild symptoms to lessen the effects upon each outbreak?

The latter is what is being dubbed herd immunity, that seems to be our plan. I’m happy with it to a point, the test trace isolate would also be a good option. My concern with this epidemic is when a vaccine is found they will rush through testing, because of the devastating economic effects of this epidemic and that might also come with devastating effects for mankind.

I still pick the strategy we appear to be attempting, not because of political loyalty because from my limited understanding and knowledge it appears to be the less risky choice.

You guys really are getting confused here. Herd immunity refers to a sufficient percentage of the population becoming immune that the spread of infection will die out. That occurs when on average an infected person infects less than one other person. The percentage required is dependent upon the R0. Vallance stated the percentage required as at least 60%, though with the current R0s being quoted I’d think it would be higher.

 

When the government and Vallance in particular were discussing flattening the curve initially they were not talking about reducing the total number of infections, they were referring to incurring the same number over a longer period in order to reduce the load on the NHS. Later, Imperial College calculations showed that this was impossible if the UK was to reach the required 60% in one hit, so they switched from “mitigation” to “suppression” and ordered the lockdown.

 

Once this phase of the crisis has played out, and the number of daily infections has fallen to a sufficiently low rate that the government can release the restrictions, there will have been nowhere near enough recovered patients (presumed immune) to make much of a difference with respect to herd immunity. They are currently following a completely different strategy. That may change again in the future, but they’d probably need about 10 such cycles to reach herd immunity levels of infection, so I very much doubt that they are still pursuing it as a strategy.

 

Herd immunity via infection (as opposed to via vaccination) is a very dangerous strategy anyway as I have pointed out previously. There just isn’t sufficient data on this virus to know what proportion of infections confer immunity and for how long such immunity will last.

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

 

You guys really are getting confused here. Herd immunity refers to a sufficient percentage of the population becoming immune that the spread of infection will die out. That occurs when on average an infected person infects less than one other person. The percentage required is dependent upon the R0. Vallance stated the percentage required as at least 60%, though with the current R0s being quoted I’d think it would be higher.

 

When the government and Vallance in particular were discussing flattening the curve initially they were not talking about reducing the total number of infections, they were referring to incurring the same number over a longer period in order to reduce the load on the NHS. Later, Imperial College calculations showed that this was impossible if the UK was to reach the required 60% in one hit, so they switched from “mitigation” to “suppression” and ordered the lockdown.

 

Once this phase of the crisis has played out, and the number of daily infections has fallen to a sufficiently low rate that the government can release the restrictions, there will have been nowhere near enough recovered patients (presumed immune) to make much of a difference with respect to herd immunity. They are currently following a completely different strategy. That may change again in the future, but they’d probably need about 10 such cycles to reach herd immunity levels of infection, so I very much doubt that they are still pursuing it as a strategy.

 

Herd immunity via infection (as opposed to via vaccination) is a very dangerous strategy anyway as I have pointed out previously. There just isn’t sufficient data on this virus to know what proportion of infections confer immunity and for how long such immunity will last.

I’m not confused at all, I know exactly what it is.

I’m saying you are playing games with the term and it is our strategy but that we are taking measures to limit its impact. Herd immunity is the only long term strategy. So I don’t know why it’s become a toxic term to bear the government with.

[murphy]

5 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

 

You guys really are getting confused here. Herd immunity refers to a sufficient percentage of the population becoming immune that the spread of infection will die out. That occurs when on average an infected person infects less than one other person. The percentage required is dependent upon the R0. Vallance stated the percentage required as at least 60%, though with the current R0s being quoted I’d think it would be higher.

 

When the government and Vallance in particular were discussing flattening the curve initially they were not talking about reducing the total number of infections, they were referring to incurring the same number over a longer period in order to reduce the load on the NHS. Later, Imperial College calculations showed that this was impossible if the UK was to reach the required 60% in one hit, so they switched from “mitigation” to “suppression” and ordered the lockdown.

 

Once this phase of the crisis has played out, and the number of daily infections has fallen to a sufficiently low rate that the government can release the restrictions, there will have been nowhere near enough recovered patients (presumed immune) to make much of a difference with respect to herd immunity. They are currently following a completely different strategy. That may change again in the future, but they’d probably need about 10 such cycles to reach herd immunity levels of infection, so I very much doubt that they are still pursuing it as a strategy.

 

Herd immunity via infection (as opposed to via vaccination) is a very dangerous strategy anyway as I have pointed out previously. There just isn’t sufficient data on this virus to know what proportion of infections confer immunity and for how long such immunity will last.

It is never a part of the plan, just a by-product.  Vallance has said so himself this week.

 

Flattening the curve is about keeping infection below the NHS threshold so that everyone can get care.  The virus cannot be stopped only slowed.  If you are arguing that the plan is to allow enough people to get it but within the capacity of the NHS in order to acquire immunity that rather suggests that there is another plan to stop it that we are missing.  There isn't.  Lockdown can't continue indefinitely because that in itself has very damaging socio-economic affects and people wouldn't stand for it anyway.

 

The plan is to keep infection rate within NHS capacity in order to save lives, not to just sacrifice people that could otherwise be prevented from catching it in order to acquire immunity.