COVID-19

We will carry on as we have been, using our own risk assessment. I won't stop going to the shops or visiting my family, just be careful and sensible as I have all along. I don't watch or listen to anything coming from the mob we have in government at the moment, as they have no clue. Saw an MP cleaning her glasses with her mask in the house. I mean, feck me!
I do feel for the youngsters who should be having the time of their lives, but then again, I was expecting to be enjoying my later years travelling around.

 

Meanwhile, here is a marvellous (local) example of how "when things get tough, the tough get going".

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/educat...d-on-queen-s-birthday-s-honour-list-1-6877602

 

I'm in my mid-eighties, with family abroad so, like you, have things I'd much rather be doing. But I don't think people who could be living more or less normal lives should be prevented from doing so just because of me and people like me.

 

Well, quite. I have family across the water too, it's tough not to see those ones, but there you go.
I agree with your last sentence, Let them get on with it, and I'll adjust accordingly. It's going nowhere as it is.

 

If you aren't already aware of the Covid Symptom Study but interested in contributing to improving our understanding of Covid-19, have a look at:

https://covid.joinzoe.com

Data is collected daily via an app for your phone (takes only a minute a day) and, with over 4 million UK contributors, the study has already made a significant contribution to improving understanding.

For instance, the study picked up the fact that loss of taste and/or smell was as definitive a marker of Covid-19 infection as fever and continuous cough weeks before PHE included it among their official list of symptoms. It was submission of a paper based on the study which caused PHE to expand the list to include it.

 

And here is the app in action (the quote is from the BBC website's latest update on the current situation):

"An app which tracks the Covid symptoms of four million users estimates there are more than 27,000 new cases in the UK.

Its latest figures, for the two weeks to 11 October, found the fastest acceleration of cases in the north west, while Scotland, Wales, London and the Midlands were also increasing, but more slowly.

Prof Tim Spector from King's College London, who founded the Covid Symptom study app, said there was no longer the "exponential increases" of a couple of weeks ago - but the data still shows "new cases continuing to rise"."

 

National Lockdown on the way

 

Funny that. Keir Starmer argued for it three weeks ago and Boris poo pooed the idea.

 

Boris didn't poo poo it; he said, correctly, that the overall cost in terms of lives lost and ruined of another period of lockdown has to be weighed against the fatalities directly caused by Covid-19. Starmer was simply seizing a political opportunity presented by the government not shutting everything down on the "advice" of a sub-group of scientists playing with numbers. Do you seriously believe Starmer has any better clue about dealing with the pandemic?

 

From an article by the BBC's medical correspondent Nick Triggle. Note the deliberately emotive headline "death rate highest since 2009". OK, so as of August 2020, no more people have died in the past year per 100,000 than died in the year ending August 2009; and FEWER have died compared to every year between 2001 and 2008 (and goodness knows how many years prior to 2001). Anyone remember being in continuous lockdown for all those years?

 

Sorry, what's the argument here? That we shouldn't do anything to prevent the leading cause of excess mortality this year, because healthcare and quality of life have improved compared to 15 years ago?

 

No, not that we shouldn't do anything; rather that we should pursue a strategy that more accurately reflects the great differential in risk for the genuinely vulnerable minority on the one hand versus the majority of the population on the other, and the real costs of the current approach in terms of the long term economic damage inflicted and the collateral damage to health and standards of living.

In effect, the long term economic means to maintaining and continuing the improvements in healthcare and quality of life to which you refer are being (maybe have already been) sacrificed because of a sharp, short term rise in excess deaths among the elderly and infirm (of which, incidentally, I am one).

 

This sounds like an argument for the 'proposals' (to give them far too grand a term) in the Great Barrington declaration.

There are fundamental issues with shielding the elderly/vulnerable and letting the virus run through the rest of the population:

-Those vulnerable people have support networks. To maintain that requires all those carers to be effectively isolated too, because there's too many of them to test regularly/rapidly. Care homes, etc would need to be sealed off from the outside world, with all staff within. As seen in March/April, once the virus gets into a carehome it can do untold damage, and this will be even harder to prevent when the virus is widespread outside of the home. Food, medicines, medics, post, etc will still need to come in. Visiting carers would have to be isolated from anyone they aren't supporting. And that's not to mention replacing the childcare, etc and other functions of these vulnerable people forced to shield.

-70+ would appear to be the likely cut-off for shielding in the event of a "let the virus spread" policy. That encompasses nearly 8m people, who would be forced to isolate for an indefinite period, which could easily run to 12 months from now. Whilst a month-long lockdown undoubtedly has health impacts, I cannot see that locking 67 million people down for one month is as bad as locking the most-vulnerable 8 million down for a year.

-A nationwide lockdown helps make it possible for the NHS to handle health problems beyond COVID. Letting the virus spread will put a great burden on the NHS. The median age of someone in intensive care due to COVID is only ~60, so allowing the virus to run through the population is still going to result in a huge number of hospital admissions for COVID, and dilute the quality of healthcare which can be provided for COVID and non-COVID patients. "Protect the NHS" was an accurate part of the government's slogans.

-There's no guarantee that having the virus prevents you from catching it again. We could let it move through the "healthy" population now, only for them to be struck down again in six months time. Letting the virus run through the low-risk population is a gamble that herd immunity can be achieved through infection, and one that would do great damage if incorrect.

-"Long COVID" is still an ill-defined medical condition, but one that may be present in 5% of cases (https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/long-covid). Letting COVID rip through 60 million people may therefore leave up to 3 million people with long-term health conditions which will place a giant burden on the NHS, and the economy if these people cannot return to work. As with the "short-term" disease, time has allowed scientists and clinicians to study and develop treatments and medication which greatly improve the prognosis. More time is needed to study these long-term conditions before it can be even remotely ethical to allow a great deal more people to be infected.

-When the virus is rife, people change their habits. Even if restaurants are open, far fewer people will go whilst the virus is so prevalent. Businesses may remain open, but not be viable and close anyway. Even if we have to have 4, month-long lockdowns a year until a vaccine is developed, that gives businesses 75% of the year with "normal" footfall, and makes it much easier to plan the support needed for busineses/employees.

-When a vaccine is first available, it will initially be in short supply. With COVID at low levels, it's much easier to target vaccination at those people/areas that need it most/it will have the most benefit to. With a widespread outbreak it's much harder to bring it back under control until a very high level of vaccination is achieved.

 

Very interesting post, not sure I agree with all of it, but it's definitely made me reconsider some of my previous held views. Thank you

 

@DHCanary
Your response appreciated -- as always. Reply being drafted.
I think you'll find that we had a similar exchange of view in June, long before the Great Barrington Declaration was published. So it is not a case of me nailing my colours to their mast, though I agree with much of what the declarees are saying.

 

Hmm! Has even the BBC begun to wonder/suspect ........?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54785032

 

And today the Covid Symptom Study estimate of active cases in Norwich is 901. That's 1182 cases LOWER than the estimate of a week ago, reflecting among other things the big reduction in cases at the UEA. Yes, I know cases are rising in West Norfolk and Gt Yarmouth; but the figures for Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex as a whole are falling. Yet here we are starting a month (at least) of lockdown, or as is said "following the science".

 

WA is going to open its boarder to other Australian states except Victoria and New South Wales

 

Can I pop over for a holiday zk?

 

Depends where you live haha

Spare room is made up