COVID-19
- Thread starter Walsh.i.am
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Yeah fantastic news, really good sign that vaccination might well be a viable way out of this.
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/11/09/vaccine-efficacy-data
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/11/09/vaccine-efficacy-data
Report on BBC this morning
Young children returning to school after lockdown/summer holidays have lost the ability to use a knife and fork,and some have regressed back into nappies.Wtf are their families doing?
Too busy on their iphones I suspect.
I do really worry about this generation
Young children returning to school after lockdown/summer holidays have lost the ability to use a knife and fork,and some have regressed back into nappies.Wtf are their families doing?
Too busy on their iphones I suspect.
I do really worry about this generation
Reply to DH Canary
DH’s “case” against targeted protection of the vulnerable minority as an alternative to the blunt instrument of lockdown rests principally on two claims. Firstly, that targeted protection is neither feasible nor desirable, the first due to the impracticality of providing the required level of protection to the 8m people categorised as vulnerable, the second due to the impact on the health and well-being of the 8m.
Secondly, that targeted protection is incompatible with “protecting the NHS”. “Letting the virus run through the population” would lead to hospitals and ICUs being overwhelmed by Covid-19 patients to the extent of being “unable to handle other health problems”.
How feasible is targeted protection?
DH exaggerates the practical difficulties. He does so because he fails to distinguish the varying degrees of risk (of severe disease and death) within the group classed as “vulnerable” and consequently assumes that targeted protection means treating the entire 8m as though they were all high risk shielders incarcerated in care homes. It isn’t like that at all; only a minority of vulnerable people require shielding, and only a minority are as dependent on the provision of care as those resident in care homes. The extent to which the 8m are reliant on “support networks”, for instance, varies enormously, from little more than supermarket deliveries on the one hand, to full scale 24/7 social care on the other.
What degree of isolation would targeted protection impose on the vulnerable?
Here again, failure to distinguish “protection” from “shielding” leads DH to exaggerate the impact of targeted protection on the great majority of those it would affect. Just as the amount of support needed varies hugely among the 8m, so does the appropriate degree of isolation. Furthermore, the appropriate degree of isolation varies depending on the situation. In the case of the great majority of vulnerable people, blanket measures such as we saw during the first, extended, lockdown, are likely to prove more detrimental to health and well-being than the finer tuning that targeted protection allows. Whether Gandy, for example (see his post above), should now stop visiting his family, given that his grandchildren are back at school and their parents back at work, depends e.g. on whether the grandchildren are isolating at home because one their classmates has tested positive, or whether there is an outbreak in the parents’s place of work. A blanket instruction from government such as “If you are among the vulnerable, don’t see your grandchildren” would be as unjustified as it would be onerous.
Does targeted protection mean letting the virus “run unfettered” through the general population?
No it doesn’t. It involves not preventing the majority of the population, whose risk of serious or fatal illness from Covid-19 is small, from going about their normal business as far as possible while being encouraged to take sensible precautions against becoming infected and infecting others.
Schools, universities and colleges are staying open to avoid further massive disruption to our children’s education and bankruptcy of many of the institutions themselves. Does that mean no masks are being worn, no hand washing is being done, no social distancing measures are in place? Does it mean that members of staff who have health issues that make them more vulnerable are simply being told to get on with it?
Supermarkets, together with all the businesses which keep their grocery shelves stocked, have continued to function throughout the pandemic while instituting sensible changes to how they operate in order to safeguard their staff and customers. People don’t eat picture frames, but picture framers and the countless other businesses facing insolvency are no less essential to the economic health and well-being of our country and therefore of the population; yet lockdown denies them the opportunity to continue to trade on exactly the same terms.
“Protection” takes many forms and operates at many levels. “Targeting” means maximising the protection available to those (a minority) at greatly increased risk; it doesn’t mean the rest taking no precautions at all.
Would targeted protection lead to the NHS being overwhelmed?
The median age of Covid patients in intensive care reflects the sad fact that conditions such as heart and lung disease, diabetes, obesity etc. (the oft-quoted “underlying conditions” which increase the risk of severe disease and death from Covid-19), are not confined to the elderly. Of the 2,239,149 people officially classified as in need of shielding, 1,266,375 are below age 70. There are degrees of vulnerability among the younger population just as among the older. The best way to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed is to target protection at those most likely to end up in hospitals and ICUs in the event of becoming infected, irrespective of their age.
Does lack of knowledge justify assuming the worst?
This question is prompted by DH’s paragraph about so-called “long” Covid. He suggests that “letting Covid rip through 60 million people” may [my emphasis] leave up to 3 million with long term health conditions, thus placing huge burdens on both the NHS and economy (in the event of these people being unable to work). This makes the quite unjustified assumption that “letting Covid rip through the population” implies, firstly that every single one of the 60m will become infected, and secondly that every single one of those who experience symptoms over an extended period does so in forms which are debilitating enough to constitute a burden on the NHS and/or prevent the sufferer from returning to work. The study DH cites supports neither conclusion.
The suggestion that “letting Covid rip” means everyone in the population falling ill with Covid-19 disease is a highly pertinent example of lack of knowledge being used to justify assuming the worst. It is pertinent because that assumption, propagated by the WHO, has been the basis for the entire global response to the virus with the exception of a handful of countries such as Sweden. When Boris Johnson first addressed the nation on the pandemic, he parroted the orthodoxy that because this was a new virus, no one had any pre-existing immunity or other form of natural protection against it. Yet, from the very earliest days of the pandemic, circumstantial evidence has been piling up suggesting the opposite. One obvious example, is provided by children, who clearly do have some form of natural protection against the virus. Unfortunately for the rest of us, whatever it is appears not to survive into adulthood. Equally clear is the fact that the virus affects people to very different degrees: on the one hand you may be infected (as proven by a positive test) but completely unaware of being so, and on the other so badly affected that you don’t survive. And it’s not just that the virus affects different people to a differently degree, there is evidence that large numbers of people do not fall ill even after exposure to the virus. (The Vivaldi study of the effect of Covid-19 in care homes concluded that 80% of residents in care homes which experienced outbreaks remained uninfected.) Nor is evidence for pre-existing protection against the virus purely circumstantial. Several studies conducted in different countries have found Sars-CoV-2 reactive T-cells in people with no known exposure to the virus itself. T-cells have a critical role in the immune system’s response to infections and the findings suggest that the assumption of zero pre-existing immunity to the virus in the global population is quite simply false. Such a conclusion has major implications with regard to e.g. calculation of the R number, and the threshold for achieving herd immunity.
Exactly the same claim about pre-existing immunity was made a decade ago in relation to swine flu, only to be retracted when the realities of infection with that virus proved otherwise. As the author of this article in the BMJ says, the lesson seems to have been forgotten.
Where little is known, it may seem sensible to assume the worst. But doing so is no less of a gamble than the alternatives and, if mistaken, comes with its own heavy cost.
It is wrong to assume that any one plan will overcome this worldwide pandemic. Even a vaccine will take years to really get on top of the problem and even then total elimination is unlikely. As was shown in the UK total lockdowns can bring the spread temporarily under control but it is only temporary especially if the Government try to boost the economy by subsidising meals out and telling people to get back to work even if they can work from home. This leads to social mixing and a rise in infections. The idea of herd immunity is ludicrous. The only Countries who unofficially tried it were USA and Brazil and look what happened there. The idea that Sweden didn't have restrictions and survived is also a myth. They did have restrictions - not as severe as most admittedly - but the difference is that the Swedes obeyed the rules for a long time although eventually they got fed up with it, let standards slip with the resulting rise in infections. That is the basis of the whole problem - people will not obey the rules. On top of that Governments have one eye on the electorate and won't push for police enforcement and also have to consider the economy meaning that sectors that are not essential are allowed to continue operating. How many of your stores still open are essential and how many people just visit these stores for something to do? How many infections were spread by people having one last fling before the lockdown started? How many people and businesses are trying to find ways around even the spirit of the current lockdown? How many people are having a few mates round tonight to watch the match and have a few beers? All of this just leads to an increase in social mixing Protect the old and the vulnerable? How when many live in households with other family members and limited space and the need for childcare assistance. Quite simply in a free country there is no practical answer to the problem.
A Spanish businessman who acted as a go-between to secure protective garments for NHS staff in the coronavirus pandemic was paid $28m (£21m) in UK taxpayer cash.
The consultant had been in line for a further $20m of UK public funds, documents filed in a US court reveal.
The legal papers also reveal the American supplier of the PPE called the deals "lucrative".
The Department of Health said proper checks are done for all contracts.
A legal dispute playing out in the courts in Miami has helped shine a light on the amount of money some companies have made supplying the NHS with equipment to protect staff from Covid infection.
Boris and his mates are really on the ball
The consultant had been in line for a further $20m of UK public funds, documents filed in a US court reveal.
The legal papers also reveal the American supplier of the PPE called the deals "lucrative".
The Department of Health said proper checks are done for all contracts.
A legal dispute playing out in the courts in Miami has helped shine a light on the amount of money some companies have made supplying the NHS with equipment to protect staff from Covid infection.
Boris and his mates are really on the ball
Do you really think that "Boris and his mates" were sitting at their desks in March trying to source and buy PPE? Judging by the number of top Civil Servants who have either resigned or been replaced recently, I'd say Boris and his mates have weighed up the situation in Whitehall pretty accurately.A Spanish businessman who acted as a go-between to secure protective garments for NHS staff in the coronavirus pandemic was paid $28m (£21m) in UK taxpayer cash.
The consultant had been in line for a further $20m of UK public funds, documents filed in a US court reveal.
The legal papers also reveal the American supplier of the PPE called the deals "lucrative".
The Department of Health said proper checks are done for all contracts.
A legal dispute playing out in the courts in Miami has helped shine a light on the amount of money some companies have made supplying the NHS with equipment to protect staff from Covid infection.
Boris and his mates are really on the ball
Boris and his mates are the Government I believe.
The buck stops with them.
Too late when the horse has bolted
And I suppose Graylings wasted billions. the test and trace fiasco, the failure to sack Cummings for breaking every rule etc etc was really the fault of the Civil Service as well. I thought the Government over here have been pretty poor at times but compared to your absolute shower of s**t they look professional and highly competent.
Far from herd immunity being "ludicrous", it has a solid scientific basis, grounded in worldwide experience of influenza and other viral epidemics accumulated over decades. What is truly ludicrous is the way that that well-established body of knowledge has been thrown out of the window in dealing with Sars-CoV-2. Rather than lockdown-resorting countries, it is those like Sweden who have truly been "following the science". In reality Sweden has simply been following to the letter the WHO's own, long established, science based, global influenza preparedness and response plan which clearly recognised the futility of measures such as quarantine, track and trace, masks and lockdown once a highly transmissable virus is established in a country.
The castigation of Sweden, the almost universal determination to make out that Sweden "has got it wrong", and the "told you so" gloating at the fully to be expected autumnal rise in cases in Sweden (as if cases haven't been rising far more rapidly elsewhere), tells its own story. The implication of Sweden having NOT got it wrong is too obvious to need spelling out.
Yes, but Sweden has now limited gatherings to 8 people and suffered over 6000 deaths compared with less than a thousand from its Scandinavian neighbours. Its economy still shrunk by over 8.5% even without a lockdown which is more than Denmark, Norway and Finland, who all had far tougher restrictions in place.
Now, now, Zog, I know it was late in Western Australia when you posted, but that's no excuse for falling for a simple fallacy. Yes, the hit to Sweden's economy has been greater than to both Norway's and Finland's. But you simply assume that the reason for that is the imposition of lockdown by the latter two but not the former. You make exactly the same assumption about the difference in number of deaths. Might there conceivably be reasons other than lockdown for the differences? If you look at the impact of any seasonal influenza epidemic, you will see it affects different countries differently even though none dreamt of resorting to locking down their economies. Hmm!
Re. the action Sweden is now taking, I didn't say they had taken no action, nor that they wouldn't take any further action. What I said was that they have been "following to the letter the WHO's own, long established, science based, global influenza preparedness and response plan". The limitation on people gathering is perfectly in accord with the WHO's plan and makes perfect sense given the seasonal upturn in infections characteristic of influenza irrespective of the particular variety.
Yes we live in a complex world, but I would have thought similar countries with and without lockdown might make interesting statistical analysis
They do Zog, but "analysis" doesn't mean focusing on a single variable while ignoring all the others! Also "similarity" is not confined to geography. Have you considered that the three countries might actually be rather different in respects that matter in this context?Yes we live in a complex world, but I would have thought similar countries with and without lockdown might make interesting statistical analysis
I have looked at a lot of variables and there appears to be one major difference.. Are there others that you know about that are very different between these countries that would influence the infection and death rate to a great extent that I might have missed?
There certainly are, if you've only identified one major difference, by which I assume you mean the severity of lockdowns in the respective countries. Have you looked, for example, at their respective all-cause mortality rates over the five years leading up to March 2020? Why does that matter? Mortality rates from Covid-19 are heavily dependent on age and state of health. So it matters how many such vulnerable people there are in a country when Covid-19 strikes. That number depends on such variables as e.g. how serious seasonal influenza (or other diseases affecting particularly the elderly or severely ill) were in immediately preceding years. If you look at the running averages of all-cause mortality in Norway, Finland and Denmark, you see a more or less straight line; but the graph for Sweden shows a significant dip in 2018--19 and through the early months of 2019--20 up to when Covid-19 took off. Other variables that matter are to do with e.g. how widely the virus had spread in the very early stages, differences between countries in respect of management of, and numbers in, care and nursing homes, and differences in numbers and vulnerability of immigrant communities. And that's not to mention differences in how the countries count deaths from Covid-19.
Sweden (like many other countries) has a lot to answer for in terms of its failure to protect residents in care homes and its immigrant population, but the idea that the answer lay in locking down the country is way off the mark. To quote a paper published in The Lancet in July:
"[G]overnment actions such as border closures, full lockdowns, and a high rate of COVID-19 testing were not associated with statistically significant reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality."
Last edited:
You have to blame Cromer for that Gandy; he started this dedicated thread. As for life being too short, I wonder if the public service workers whose pay has just been frozen agree. Or your children and grandchildren, who will soon be joining them in paying for the economic damage wrought, not just by the virus itself but, to a much larger extent, the stupidity of much of the world's response to it.
Meanwhile, the realisation that a basic premise on which this huge cock-up has been predicated -- "No pre-existing immunity to Sars-CoV-2" -- is almost certainly false, has at last begun to dawn on the hitherto blinkered media and followers of "the science". Typically however, the the BBC manages to mention T-cell derived immunity almost as an after-thought in an article about the protection afforded by antibodies 
. Anybody interested might prefer to look at this article from Cell.
. Anybody interested might prefer to look at this article from Cell.
