FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Why have we stopped testing for COVID-19
Why have we stopped testing for COVID-19
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Does testing stop it from spreading?" Yes, once you know you have it then you will be isolated, if you don’t know you just carry on as normal | |||
"Only healthy people are being asked to self isolate, people with health problems are told to contact doctors or ring 101." Hey what about if the healthy person live with their mother and father? A simple test would tell them if they need to isolate themselves elsewhere dont you think? | |||
"Does testing stop it from spreading? Yes, once you know you have it then you will be isolated, if you don’t know you just carry on as normal " You beat me to it  | |||
| |||
"Does testing stop it from spreading? Yes, once you know you have it then you will be isolated, if you don’t know you just carry on as normal " You do see the problem with this ? | |||
"Does testing stop it from spreading? Yes, once you know you have it then you will be isolated, if you don’t know you just carry on as normal " The advice is if you have symptoms then you isolate anyway | |||
"Does testing stop it from spreading? Yes, once you know you have it then you will be isolated, if you don’t know you just carry on as normal You do see the problem with this ?" No, explain it to me. Should we stop all testing? | |||
"Does testing stop it from spreading? Yes, once you know you have it then you will be isolated, if you don’t know you just carry on as normal The advice is if you have symptoms then you isolate anyway " True, but you can have the symptoms without having the virus | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Shortage of testing kits. Prioritising the current stock for testing the next stage where it’s going to double in infection rates every five days. " It makes sense to safe the testing kits for a later date but we need to test as many people as possible | |||
"Shortage of testing kits. Prioritising the current stock for testing the next stage where it’s going to double in infection rates every five days. It makes sense to safe the testing kits for a later date but we need to test as many people as possible " Yes they will need to know who has had it and recovered so they can help people who has it. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Does testing stop it from spreading? Yes, once you know you have it then you will be isolated, if you don’t know you just carry on as normal You do see the problem with this ? No, explain it to me. Should we stop all testing? " Testing doesn’t stop the virus spreading | |||
"Does testing stop it from spreading? Yes, once you know you have it then you will be isolated, if you don’t know you just carry on as normal You do see the problem with this ? No, explain it to me. Should we stop all testing? Testing doesn’t stop the virus spreading " No point in testing anybody then? Can you catch the virus after you have had it? | |||
"Does testing stop it from spreading? Yes, once you know you have it then you will be isolated, if you don’t know you just carry on as normal You do see the problem with this ? No, explain it to me. Should we stop all testing? Testing doesn’t stop the virus spreading No point in testing anybody then? Can you catch the virus after you have had it? " Well the expert on tv today seemed to think you couldnt but thats not gospel as to early to tell but the science of all the other corvid viruses says you cant as it never happened with them. | |||
"Does testing stop it from spreading? Yes, once you know you have it then you will be isolated, if you don’t know you just carry on as normal You do see the problem with this ? No, explain it to me. Should we stop all testing? Testing doesn’t stop the virus spreading No point in testing anybody then? Can you catch the virus after you have had it? Well the expert on tv today seemed to think you couldnt but thats not gospel as to early to tell but the science of all the other corvid viruses says you cant as it never happened with them." So it would be fair to say that testing is important? I think it’s also important to test people who have been in constant close contact with a person who has the virus, symptoms or not ? | |||
"Does testing stop it from spreading? Yes, once you know you have it then you will be isolated, if you don’t know you just carry on as normal You do see the problem with this ? No, explain it to me. Should we stop all testing? Testing doesn’t stop the virus spreading No point in testing anybody then? Can you catch the virus after you have had it? Well the expert on tv today seemed to think you couldnt but thats not gospel as to early to tell but the science of all the other corvid viruses says you cant as it never happened with them. So it would be fair to say that testing is important? I think it’s also important to test people who have been in constant close contact with a person who has the virus, symptoms or not ? " i would say so yes as a doctor said today when she gets better next week she will beable to do stuff others who havnt had it might not want to do. | |||
"Does testing stop it from spreading? Yes, once you know you have it then you will be isolated, if you don’t know you just carry on as normal You do see the problem with this ? No, explain it to me. Should we stop all testing? Testing doesn’t stop the virus spreading No point in testing anybody then? Can you catch the virus after you have had it? " I guess it depends if it mutates like Flu does every year | |||
"Does testing stop it from spreading?" No but gives better informatio on the situation in the UK and better decision making | |||
"Does testing stop it from spreading? No but gives better informatio on the situation in the UK and better decision making " So in affect, helps to stop it spreading? | |||
| |||
"Does testing stop it from spreading?" | |||
| |||
"Of the 43,000 tests, 42,000 were negative . There aren’t enough tests even if you are JC and his bunch of wankers" JC again?  | |||
"Of the 43,000 tests, 42,000 were negative . There aren’t enough tests even if you are JC and his bunch of wankers" Are you so brave? I wonder if you get symptoms, you'll be as smart as you are now. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I think it just sums this bunch of twats up...running it all on a shoestring. Self isolate while there is nothing in place for the self employed and the zero hour contracts Tell people not to go to pubs and restaurants whilst not shutting them down so they can claim off their insurance. It all seems pretty clear who they are really looking after." yeah well the measures in italy really seem to be working shut down for a week and record deaths every day. | |||
"I think it just sums this bunch of twats up...running it all on a shoestring. Self isolate while there is nothing in place for the self employed and the zero hour contracts Tell people not to go to pubs and restaurants whilst not shutting them down so they can claim off their insurance. It all seems pretty clear who they are really looking after.yeah well the measures in italy really seem to be working shut down for a week and record deaths every day." The deaths don't stop the instant of a shut down. It takes two weeks from infection until serious symptoms. But at the time of shutdown, there are already anything up to a hundred people already infected for each one showing symptoms. It's called an exponential growth pattern. In the uk the number of cases is basically unknown because we don't have random testing across the population. But last official figures i saw was about 2000 sick, 55 dead. 2000 sick means there are already at least 200,000 infected, who are going to become sick, even if today this very minute every single person went into individual quarantine. Those 200,000 sick will turn into 8,000 dead in three weeks time. There is nothing that anyone can do about that, they are already infected, there is no known sure fire cure, those 8,000 deaths are already written. But with a strict quarantine, they would be the last deaths. With no quarantine, no lockdown, everyone carrying on as normal, by the time those 8,000 deaths happen, there will not be 200,000 infected, there will be 20 million infected. The figures agree all over the world. Left unchecked, the number of infected goes up by times 10 every week. In two weeks it is times 10 x 10. The 200,000 currently infected, grown to 20 million infected. Four days after that it is every man, woman and child in the uk. The virus does stop then, but only because it's run out of people to catch it. Between 2 to 4 million people then die, within a week or two. And then we get the herd immunity phase. Yes, that's what herd immunity means. No one new gets it, because everyone has already had it, and those that are going to die are dead. Sounds good though doesn't it, "we're going to ensure the population gets herd immunity". Better than "cheapest thing is just to let shit loads of people die, we'll be okay with our private medical cover". | |||
"I think it just sums this bunch of twats up...running it all on a shoestring. Self isolate while there is nothing in place for the self employed and the zero hour contracts Tell people not to go to pubs and restaurants whilst not shutting them down so they can claim off their insurance. It all seems pretty clear who they are really looking after.yeah well the measures in italy really seem to be working shut down for a week and record deaths every day. The deaths don't stop the instant of a shut down. It takes two weeks from infection until serious symptoms. But at the time of shutdown, there are already anything up to a hundred people already infected for each one showing symptoms. It's called an exponential growth pattern. In the uk the number of cases is basically unknown because we don't have random testing across the population. But last official figures i saw was about 2000 sick, 55 dead. 2000 sick means there are already at least 200,000 infected, who are going to become sick, even if today this very minute every single person went into individual quarantine. Those 200,000 sick will turn into 8,000 dead in three weeks time. There is nothing that anyone can do about that, they are already infected, there is no known sure fire cure, those 8,000 deaths are already written. But with a strict quarantine, they would be the last deaths. With no quarantine, no lockdown, everyone carrying on as normal, by the time those 8,000 deaths happen, there will not be 200,000 infected, there will be 20 million infected. The figures agree all over the world. Left unchecked, the number of infected goes up by times 10 every week. In two weeks it is times 10 x 10. The 200,000 currently infected, grown to 20 million infected. Four days after that it is every man, woman and child in the uk. The virus does stop then, but only because it's run out of people to catch it. Between 2 to 4 million people then die, within a week or two. And then we get the herd immunity phase. Yes, that's what herd immunity means. No one new gets it, because everyone has already had it, and those that are going to die are dead. Sounds good though doesn't it, "we're going to ensure the population gets herd immunity". Better than "cheapest thing is just to let shit loads of people die, we'll be okay with our private medical cover"." Glad to see someone talking sense on here. Too many people want to try and argue against the maths. -Matt | |||
| |||
"Statistics is a wonderful thing, you can make it mean anything you want" Exponential growth is a wonderful thing, it behaves exactly according to the mathematics, whether you want it to or not. An explosion is an exponential growth of heat through an inflammable substance. It kills you whether you believe in mathematics or not. | |||
"Statistics is a wonderful thing, you can make it mean anything you want" Ignorance is even better at that. In the case we are talking about here of simple exponential growth, the numbers are pretty clear. We are going to be where Italy is in about a week or two. -Matt | |||
| |||
| |||
"Sorry 200000" Yes. As we are only testing a tiny fraction of people, and only after they are quite obviously ill then it is very likely that the true number of infected is several orders of magnitude more than those tested as ill. -Matt | |||
"So the assumed 2000 sick people have infected 100 others each to get 20000 infected That's not exponential growth, it's fantasy Listen to the expert's" I am an expert. I know mathematics. The 2000 sick did not give it to 100 people each. The 2000 sick now, during the period they were infected but not yet sick, met one or two people each day and passed it on to them. Maybe as little as ten people in a week. But each of those ten people are now infectious, and each of those passes it on to ten new people during the next week. So for one person infected originally, there are ten infected after a week. Those ten each infect ten, so that makes a hundred. Those hundred each infect ten so that makes a thousand. Those thousand each infect ten so that makes ten thousand. Do you get it now? Or do you disagree with the crazy idea that in a week of your normal life, you might touch up to ten different people. And that those ten people might then each touch ten different people? | |||
"Sorry 200000 Yes. As we are only testing a tiny fraction of people, and only after they are quite obviously ill then it is very likely that the true number of infected is several orders of magnitude more than those tested as ill. -Matt" Well I guess they are doing a good job of hiding all the dead people in China and Italy then No doubt this is bad,very very bad, but the figures above are complete fantasy Also someone needs to learn how to calculate exponential growth. | |||
"Sorry 200000 Yes. As we are only testing a tiny fraction of people, and only after they are quite obviously ill then it is very likely that the true number of infected is several orders of magnitude more than those tested as ill. -Matt Well I guess they are doing a good job of hiding all the dead people in China and Italy then No doubt this is bad,very very bad, but the figures above are complete fantasy Also someone needs to learn how to calculate exponential growth." No. They are not. They have been very widely reported. e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y_DWWqtu8I -Matt | |||
"So the assumed 2000 sick people have infected 100 others each to get 20000 infected That's not exponential growth, it's fantasy Listen to the expert's I am an expert. I know mathematics. The 2000 sick did not give it to 100 people each. The 2000 sick now, during the period they were infected but not yet sick, met one or two people each day and passed it on to them. Maybe as little as ten people in a week. But each of those ten people are now infectious, and each of those passes it on to ten new people during the next week. So for one person infected originally, there are ten infected after a week. Those ten each infect ten, so that makes a hundred. Those hundred each infect ten so that makes a thousand. Those thousand each infect ten so that makes ten thousand. Do you get it now? Or do you disagree with the crazy idea that in a week of your normal life, you might touch up to ten different people. And that those ten people might then each touch ten different people?" So now you're assuming you give it to every person you touch An infection expert spoke earlier and his figures were somewhat different | |||
| |||
"So the assumed 2000 sick people have infected 100 others each to get 20000 infected That's not exponential growth, it's fantasy Listen to the expert's I am an expert. I know mathematics. The 2000 sick did not give it to 100 people each. The 2000 sick now, during the period they were infected but not yet sick, met one or two people each day and passed it on to them. Maybe as little as ten people in a week. But each of those ten people are now infectious, and each of those passes it on to ten new people during the next week. So for one person infected originally, there are ten infected after a week. Those ten each infect ten, so that makes a hundred. Those hundred each infect ten so that makes a thousand. Those thousand each infect ten so that makes ten thousand. Do you get it now? Or do you disagree with the crazy idea that in a week of your normal life, you might touch up to ten different people. And that those ten people might then each touch ten different people? So now you're assuming you give it to every person you touch An infection expert spoke earlier and his figures were somewhat different " No, it is making the assumption you pass it on to 10 people in a week. Is that hard to imagine for you? Given it can last up to 48 hours on metal surfaces, think about just a single shop/office door and one person sneezing in their hand then opening the door. If you look at the charts from China of the numbers infected over time and see when they brought in the containment measures you can infer the number of infected-but-not-yet-tested, and hence an idea of the rate at which infection happens. -Matt | |||
"You're predicted 8000 dead in the uk in 3 weeks ? More than the whole world ? We must be hyper infectious" Yes. Exactly. -Matt | |||
"You're predicted 8000 dead in the uk in 3 weeks ? More than the whole world ? We must be hyper infectious Yes. Exactly. -Matt" Globally, the virus has infected 184,976 people and killed just over 7,500, according to the WHO. Almost 80,000 people have recovered from the infection, according to data collected by Johns Hopkins University. Remind me when the virus started ? Remind me of the world population vs uk population ? Explain to me exactly why we are the exception to your beloved statistics ? | |||
"You're predicted 8000 dead in the uk in 3 weeks ? More than the whole world ? We must be hyper infectious Yes. Exactly. -Matt Globally, the virus has infected 184,976 people and killed just over 7,500, according to the WHO. Almost 80,000 people have recovered from the infection, according to data collected by Johns Hopkins University. Remind me when the virus started ? Remind me of the world population vs uk population ? Explain to me exactly why we are the exception to your beloved statistics ? " We are not the exception. -Matt | |||
| |||
"We are, according to your prediction we will have more deaths in 3 weeks than the entire world has had to date ?" Yes. -Matt | |||
| |||
"So the assumed 2000 sick people have infected 100 others each to get 20000 infected That's not exponential growth, it's fantasy Listen to the expert's I am an expert. I know mathematics. The 2000 sick did not give it to 100 people each. The 2000 sick now, during the period they were infected but not yet sick, met one or two people each day and passed it on to them. Maybe as little as ten people in a week. But each of those ten people are now infectious, and each of those passes it on to ten new people during the next week. So for one person infected originally, there are ten infected after a week. Those ten each infect ten, so that makes a hundred. Those hundred each infect ten so that makes a thousand. Those thousand each infect ten so that makes ten thousand. Do you get it now? Or do you disagree with the crazy idea that in a week of your normal life, you might touch up to ten different people. And that those ten people might then each touch ten different people? So now you're assuming you give it to every person you touch An infection expert spoke earlier and his figures were somewhat different " No. I'm assuming that the average person interacts with a lot more than ten people in a week, but it gets passed along to as few as ten. The estimate is that 15 minutes in a room within two metres of someone that is infectious is enough to catch it. If an infected person sits in a cinema surrounded by people and watches a two hour movie, it is a dead cert that several of them get it. If an infected person goes to a pub, jostles with people at the bar, has a laugh with his mates for a couple of hours, maybe buys a round and carries the glasses to the table, it is a dead cert that he will pass it along to a few people. If an infected person sits on a bus or tube train for a half hour ride, with lots of people around him because it's overcrowded at commute time, it's a dead cert that some will become infected. Do i need to carry on? What part of this do you not understand? What part of exponential do you not understand? Exponential means 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x... doubling every some particular period. The only thing that anyone can argue about is how long every doubling takes. For Coronavirus, in a population as dense as most cities, with no travel restrictions, that period is approximately two days. Three and a half doublings a week = times ten in a week. Times 100 in two weeks. Times 1000 in three weeks. Times 10,000 in four weeks. Times 100,000 in five weeks. Times 1,000,000 in six weeks. Exponential. Play the game at home. Get a chessboard. Put one grain of rice on the first square. Put two on the second square. Put 8 on the third square. Keep going. Double the grains for every square. Every grain is a person. Every square is two days. It goes up really slowly at first. By the time you're less than halfway through the chessboard, the dumper trucks loaded with rice cannot come up the road fast enough. You can't get to the last square because there isn't that much rice in the universe. Exponential. | |||
"Your answers becom shorter and shorter like a dying man gasping for breath .. no .. more .. to say .. out .. of .. ideas Tell you what I'll leave it for you to have a think. I've set a reminder to check back in 3 weeks See you then "You want me to explain it to you again? It has been explained to you several times already. But nice apt analogy. A dying man. Well done. Lack of understanding of basic maths and a lack of empathy. -Matt | |||
"You're predicted 8000 dead in the uk in 3 weeks ? More than the whole world ? We must be hyper infectious Yes. Exactly. -Matt Globally, the virus has infected 184,976 people and killed just over 7,500, according to the WHO. Almost 80,000 people have recovered from the infection, according to data collected by Johns Hopkins University. Remind me when the virus started ? Remind me of the world population vs uk population ? Explain to me exactly why we are the exception to your beloved statistics ? " The deaths stopped in china because they went into hard lockdown after just a few deaths. Infected people kept dying while they were locked down, but didn't pass it onto anyone new. If china had not locked down, if other affected countries had not taken hard measures, it would be millions of dead now. It's actually pretty amazing that the deaths have been kept so low. Remind me, when did the first infected person come into england? How many weeks has that taken to double every two days, so that there are many thousands infected now? Did that one person run around and individually infect many thousands of others? | |||
"Your answers becom shorter and shorter like a dying man gasping for breath .. no .. more .. to say .. out .. of .. ideas Tell you what I'll leave it for you to have a think. I've set a reminder to check back in 3 weeks See you then
You want me to explain it to you again? It has been explained to you several times already.
But nice apt analogy. A dying man. Well done. Lack of understanding of basic maths and a lack of empathy.
-Matt"No less empathy than one making wild and silly assumptions to scaremoner and satisfy his own stupid ego That's all Chat in exactly 3 weeks from now Chow | |||
"Your answers becom shorter and shorter like a dying man gasping for breath .. no .. more .. to say .. out .. of .. ideas Tell you what I'll leave it for you to have a think. I've set a reminder to check back in 3 weeks See you then
You want me to explain it to you again? It has been explained to you several times already.
But nice apt analogy. A dying man. Well done. Lack of understanding of basic maths and a lack of empathy.
-Matt
No less empathy than one making wild and silly assumptions to scaremoner and satisfy his own stupid ego
That's all
Chat in exactly 3 weeks from now
Chow"Chow? You mean Ciao? Well leaving that aside, pull up a chair and let’s have a maths lesson. Maybe we might get this to sink in. The current rate of infection shows that the number of infections is doubling ever 2-3 days. 3 weeks is 21 days. That means between 7 - 10 doublings in that time. There are currently just over 1000 confirmed cases of infection in this country. That means there will between 1000 * 2^7 and 1000 * 2^10 confirmed cases in 3 weeks. Got a calculator? Or just type it into google. Too lazy? The answer is between 128,000 and 1,024,000 confirmed cases. In Italy the death rate of those infected is just over 4%. Remember Italy has more critical care beds per capita than we do in the U.K. At a 4% mortality that means between and 5,120 and 40,960 deaths. And that is only going based on the number of cases we’ve already confirmed. Not counting all the people you shagged at a swingers club this weekend. Or that touched that door handle before you. -Matt | |||
"I'm watching the world health organisation (who) now, giving their daily update. They are emphasising that testing for corona is the most important thing for all countries to do. In their words "without doing so is like fighting a fire whilst blindfolded". So why the fuck are we telling people to self isolate for 7 days whilst not doing testing? People live together so surely we shouldn't be told that everyone gets a cough and be expected to avoid all other family members without a simple test." The government don't know what they're doing nor what to do because they've been caught off guard and are still playing catch up. China locked down so should we. They reversed it so could we. Italy didn't take it seriously neither did we or USA but because a white European country was fucked they the politicians and many UK citizens woke up. Hello it was obvious since January. Italy has managed to in 1 town reverse and stop the spread to zero. How? By testing testing testing. Guess what we won't be due to pride and arrogance. We should simply call China and say come over here and help us. Build hotels. Bring ventilators and while you're at it bring the vaccine you're working on which so far seems promising. | |||
| |||
"Does testing stop it from spreading? No but gives better informatio on the situation in the UK and better decision making So in affect, helps to stop it spreading? " Only if they act accordingly  | |||
"People are ignorant and therefore putting their own and other people’s lives at risk by continuing to act as if nothing happens. The real panic here is not testing not the numbers but the lack of a vaccine. If one was to be found it will take a year to be administered as the process through NICE national institute for health care excellence will need to protect us to ensure no side effects and ensuring vaccine is 99.9% safe to administer. I get all the math about exponential growth etc. However the government advice is currently advice and gives us all the information needed to essentially protect the NHS capability to deal with Covid 19 in the coming weeks and months ahead. It seems very draconian but it will become legislation soon enough with asbos issued if you are not social distancing. Our ports will only be allowed to brings food and medical supplies into the country and if people continue to stockpile rationing may be adopted to ensure equality of opportunity to access basics. We all have a duty to act responsibly in times like this. Oh and it won’t be over in 12 weeks, more like 12 months. Unfortunately there will be fatalities but I’m not convinced of the numbers forecast. However, if less than 20k die it will be seen as well managed. The issue for me is that the figures on John Hopkins are so way out in my opinion as there are governments across the world that manipulate the figures. China being a prime example, India another, people have banged on about testing testing testing but ask yourself, when did you last have an STI test? That is a more prevalent issue for all who enjoy participating in this lifestyle including us. You may have guessed but I’m a NHS professional on the frontline. We decided this week that we will not be meeting until this pandemic has been beaten and would advise all of you to exercise extreme caution in continuing to actively participate in meeting. We are all responsible for the consequences of our actions. " People aren't listening. I've been telling folks here this is what is expected and many still see this as just a seasonal flu. Just be safe and eventually once the country is in lockdown and isolation let's hope we can stop the spread and that people start taking it seriously. If anything after yesterdays 300bn package announcement I thought ok there you go nothing more obvious than this to get people seeing were up shits creek but alas they have ears but they do not listen they have eyes but they do not see. Be safe people! Regarding stockpiling of food stuff... we needed rationinish to have start over a month ago if not 2. They had to wait till pandemonium begin to justify the case for rationing and soon enough rationing will begin. | |||
" No, I never claimed to be an expert in statistics. Just that I do understand them somewhat as my job does involve statistics and mathematical modelling. [/Quote] Does your modelling include demographics, population density, infection probability ? [Quote] The numbers may be off slightly but the trend is the important bit. [/Quote] You specifically stated that 8000 will die in 3 weeks, nothing can be done they are already dead !!! [Quote] but unless people like yourself decide to take this seriously, then I *will* be right. [/Quote] Ok, so now you *might* be right IF ?? And where did I ever say I didn't take it seriously ? Again you resort to insults ? Current stats this morning: UK confirmed cases: 1,950 Italian mortality numbers: 2503 dead / 31506 confirmed = 8% [Quote] So if we take a conservative case of doubling every 3 days, then we get: 1950 * 2 ** 7 = 250,000 cases in 3 weeks time 249,600 * 8% = 20,000 dead in 3 weeks time -Matt " Italy deaths are falling Have you statistically modelled what will happen once Italy comes out of lockdown in 1,2 or 6 months or even a year ? Will they then all live happily ever after You have a very simplistic view of numbers Have fun and stay safe xx | |||
" " didn't work as expected so pardon my incompetent efforts and read between the lines | |||
" No, I never claimed to be an expert in statistics. Just that I do understand them somewhat as my job does involve statistics and mathematical modelling. [/Quote] Does your modelling include demographics, population density, infection probability ? [Quote] The numbers may be off slightly but the trend is the important bit. [/Quote] You specifically stated that 8000 will die in 3 weeks, nothing can be done they are already dead !!! [Quote] but unless people like yourself decide to take this seriously, then I *will* be right. [/Quote] Ok, so now you *might* be right IF ?? And where did I ever say I didn't take it seriously ? Again you resort to insults ? Current stats this morning: UK confirmed cases: 1,950 Italian mortality numbers: 2503 dead / 31506 confirmed = 8% [Quote] So if we take a conservative case of doubling every 3 days, then we get: 1950 * 2 ** 7 = 250,000 cases in 3 weeks time 249,600 * 8% = 20,000 dead in 3 weeks time -Matt Italy deaths are falling Have you statistically modelled what will happen once Italy comes out of lockdown in 1,2 or 6 months or even a year ? Will they then all live happily ever after You have a very simplistic view of numbers Have fun and stay safe xx" No I haven’t modelled that far in advance. I don’t have enough information of expertise in the domain to do that. You claim was that 8,000 deaths in the next 3 weeks was ridiculous. I wish you were right. But the numbers show it is a very likely outcome. -Matt | |||
" No I haven’t modelled that far in advance. I don’t have enough information of expertise in the domain to do that. -Matt" Finally xx | |||
" Ok, so now you *might* be right IF ?? And where did I ever say I didn't take it seriously ? Again you resort to insults ?" Yes. Unless everyone changes their actions then the current predicted path will continue. And if we have people like yourself not taking this seriously and calling the numbers “a fantasy” and trying to dispute basic maths then that is fairly good indication that current trend will continue. You want me to be wrong? You want to be right in 3 weeks time? Then start taking this seriously. -Matt | |||
" No I haven’t modelled that far in advance. I don’t have enough information of expertise in the domain to do that. -Matt Finally xx" Finally? -Matt | |||
"Does testing stop it from spreading?" YES It gives us facts Facts mean we can make considered decisions and not guesses It mean we can model how where to whom and when it infects Data is vital But hey ho | |||
"In South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong (SARS experience), they have done quite well in containing the spread. By isolating, testing, and tracking contacts. Without the second two the first is pretty pointless." A Japanese director documented how a chinese city went from 93 to zero cases in a month... how they did it is phenomenal... https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=YfsdJGj3-jM Makes me feel like we are living in the dark ages here. Such an intelligent and techy approach .. compared what our national clown is doing to manage this. | |||
"Does testing stop it from spreading? YES It gives us facts Facts mean we can make considered decisions and not guesses It mean we can model how where to whom and when it infects Data is vital But hey ho " Now that we are back on track Yes, personally I agree. I've worked in hospital laboratories for 30 years and the simple fact is that at the moment we don't have capacity for automated testing for covid19 and the testing currently in use is a generic one A couple of US companies have developed a high speed test but I'm guessing the US will swallow up the entire production Also bear in mind that laboratories are flat out with diagnosis for other issues just as life threatening for those with diabetes and heart issues. Also I know for a fact that one person in a local Lab was tested positive for covid19 and as such a lot are self isolating which wipes out lots of testing I've no idea how other countries are coping, and it may be that the testing involves checking temperature and assuming Corona virus by symptoms ??? Our scientists are best used in trying to get anti viral treatment and vaccines developed Statistics will be very useful for the next time this happens . | |||
| |||
"Why is the uk treating this virus different than the rest of the world .schools pubs clubs open .please get real who do they think they are " are you removing Scotland from the UK  | |||
"Why is the uk treating this virus different than the rest of the world .schools pubs clubs open .please get real who do they think they are " Why are you getting very different news headlines to me? We were told to avoid pubs, clubs and restaurants monday. Schools closing to the masses from Friday (exception to certain families). Universities closed Monday just gone.... The elderly and those with pre existing health conditions to self isolate for 12 weeks from friday. Told tonight that if people do not take the advice to socially distance then other measures will be put in place which was a thinly veiled warning about curfews. Not to mention a lot of cash to help out businesses announced yesterday..... | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"There was a study done in an Italian town which tested every person several times during a total lock down, for every person that was tested positive who showed any symptoms another 10 positives had no symptoms, that would suggest that mortality rate is far lower than feared, hopefully that will prove the case" As the woman from the W H O said last night every country is different you cannot have a blanket response and similar outcome for every country.Countries like Italy and Spain have a lot more elderly relatives living with their children than other n european countries its their culture hence a higher death rate due to the close proximity and its mainly the elderly who are dying. | |||
| |||
"Does testing stop it from spreading? YES It gives us facts Facts mean we can make considered decisions and not guesses It mean we can model how where to whom and when it infects Data is vital But hey ho Now that we are back on track Yes, personally I agree. I've worked in hospital laboratories for 30 years and the simple fact is that at the moment we don't have capacity for automated testing for covid19 and the testing currently in use is a generic one A couple of US companies have developed a high speed test but I'm guessing the US will swallow up the entire production Also bear in mind that laboratories are flat out with diagnosis for other issues just as life threatening for those with diabetes and heart issues. Also I know for a fact that one person in a local Lab was tested positive for covid19 and as such a lot are self isolating which wipes out lots of testing I've no idea how other countries are coping, and it may be that the testing involves checking temperature and assuming Corona virus by symptoms ??? Our scientists are best used in trying to get anti viral treatment and vaccines developed Statistics will be very useful for the next time this happens ." Except we will never have the definitive stats as most people won't have been tested. | |||
"I think it just sums this bunch of twats up...running it all on a shoestring. Self isolate while there is nothing in place for the self employed and the zero hour contracts Tell people not to go to pubs and restaurants whilst not shutting them down so they can claim off their insurance. It all seems pretty clear who they are really looking after.yeah well the measures in italy really seem to be working shut down for a week and record deaths every day. The deaths don't stop the instant of a shut down. It takes two weeks from infection until serious symptoms. But at the time of shutdown, there are already anything up to a hundred people already infected for each one showing symptoms. It's called an exponential growth pattern. In the uk the number of cases is basically unknown because we don't have random testing across the population. But last official figures i saw was about 2000 sick, 55 dead. 2000 sick means there are already at least 200,000 infected, who are going to become sick, even if today this very minute every single person went into individual quarantine. Those 200,000 sick will turn into 8,000 dead in three weeks time. There is nothing that anyone can do about that, they are already infected, there is no known sure fire cure, those 8,000 deaths are already written. But with a strict quarantine, they would be the last deaths. With no quarantine, no lockdown, everyone carrying on as normal, by the time those 8,000 deaths happen, there will not be 200,000 infected, there will be 20 million infected. The figures agree all over the world. Left unchecked, the number of infected goes up by times 10 every week. In two weeks it is times 10 x 10. The 200,000 currently infected, grown to 20 million infected. Four days after that it is every man, woman and child in the uk. The virus does stop then, but only because it's run out of people to catch it. Between 2 to 4 million people then die, within a week or two. And then we get the herd immunity phase. Yes, that's what herd immunity means. No one new gets it, because everyone has already had it, and those that are going to die are dead. Sounds good though doesn't it, "we're going to ensure the population gets herd immunity". Better than "cheapest thing is just to let shit loads of people die, we'll be okay with our private medical cover". Glad to see someone talking sense on here. Too many people want to try and argue against the maths. -Matt" Yes, a good understanding of the maths behind the spread but unfortunately spoilt by a bias political analysis of the current policy. What we all need to understand is that there is no magic quick solution to this problem and that isolation and social distancing will not stop the spread but simply slow it down. Unless or until a vaccine or cure is found, when the isolation and social distancing are removed the spread will start again. Heard immunity, preferably via a vaccine, is the only way to eventually get ahead of this. The correct approach should be, and is, to gain the maximum spread possible whilst at the same time limiting the spread so as not to overwhelm the health service. We need to get through this as quickly as possible and with the minimum number of fatalities as possible and that is what the government's policy is trying to do. What has happened over the last week, which is what is making the government policy both here and elsewhere look a little panicked and haphazard, is that the scientific advice on the speed of the spread has changed. The initial scientific advice was based on available data from China. However the spread in Italy was much faster than that analysis would have suggested. The new scientific advice is that if the measures that were planned to cope with a spread based on the Chinese model was used in the UK and the actual spread was more like that in Italy then the likely direct death toll from the virus would be of the order of 250,000 with a similar number or more dying from non virus causes due to the health service being overwhelmed. The aim of the government's policy, as it always has been, is to limit the number of direct deaths due to the virus before a cure or vaccine is found to the 10s of thousands and the number of deaths due to the health service being overwhelmed to 0. It's time to stop scoring political points. That does not mean we shouldn't criticise, we should, but the criticism should be on specifics, such as the lack of new testing, and not based on our own biased beliefs of what the government's actually motivation are or may be. | |||
"Sorry 200000" No, the 2,000 known sick suggest that 20,000 are actually infected and each of those will infect 2 people every 3 days, That gives 40,000 in 3 days, 80,000 in 6 days. | |||
"I heard somewhere that there isn't enough test kits to test everyone. If the Government moves onto the next phase, testing won't be needed. As we will all be in isolation." The EU are helping and organising test kits for..... Oh wait sorry. Carry on. | |||
"I think it just sums this bunch of twats up...running it all on a shoestring. Self isolate while there is nothing in place for the self employed and the zero hour contracts Tell people not to go to pubs and restaurants whilst not shutting them down so they can claim off their insurance. It all seems pretty clear who they are really looking after.yeah well the measures in italy really seem to be working shut down for a week and record deaths every day. The deaths don't stop the instant of a shut down. It takes two weeks from infection until serious symptoms. But at the time of shutdown, there are already anything up to a hundred people already infected for each one showing symptoms. It's called an exponential growth pattern. In the uk the number of cases is basically unknown because we don't have random testing across the population. But last official figures i saw was about 2000 sick, 55 dead. 2000 sick means there are already at least 200,000 infected, who are going to become sick, even if today this very minute every single person went into individual quarantine. Those 200,000 sick will turn into 8,000 dead in three weeks time. There is nothing that anyone can do about that, they are already infected, there is no known sure fire cure, those 8,000 deaths are already written. But with a strict quarantine, they would be the last deaths. With no quarantine, no lockdown, everyone carrying on as normal, by the time those 8,000 deaths happen, there will not be 200,000 infected, there will be 20 million infected. The figures agree all over the world. Left unchecked, the number of infected goes up by times 10 every week. In two weeks it is times 10 x 10. The 200,000 currently infected, grown to 20 million infected. Four days after that it is every man, woman and child in the uk. The virus does stop then, but only because it's run out of people to catch it. Between 2 to 4 million people then die, within a week or two. And then we get the herd immunity phase. Yes, that's what herd immunity means. No one new gets it, because everyone has already had it, and those that are going to die are dead. Sounds good though doesn't it, "we're going to ensure the population gets herd immunity". Better than "cheapest thing is just to let shit loads of people die, we'll be okay with our private medical cover". Glad to see someone talking sense on here. Too many people want to try and argue against the maths. -Matt Yes, a good understanding of the maths behind the spread but unfortunately spoilt by a bias political analysis of the current policy. What we all need to understand is that there is no magic quick solution to this problem and that isolation and social distancing will not stop the spread but simply slow it down. Unless or until a vaccine or cure is found, when the isolation and social distancing are removed the spread will start again. Heard immunity, preferably via a vaccine, is the only way to eventually get ahead of this. The correct approach should be, and is, to gain the maximum spread possible whilst at the same time limiting the spread so as not to overwhelm the health service. We need to get through this as quickly as possible and with the minimum number of fatalities as possible and that is what the government's policy is trying to do. What has happened over the last week, which is what is making the government policy both here and elsewhere look a little panicked and haphazard, is that the scientific advice on the speed of the spread has changed. The initial scientific advice was based on available data from China. However the spread in Italy was much faster than that analysis would have suggested. The new scientific advice is that if the measures that were planned to cope with a spread based on the Chinese model was used in the UK and the actual spread was more like that in Italy then the likely direct death toll from the virus would be of the order of 250,000 with a similar number or more dying from non virus causes due to the health service being overwhelmed. The aim of the government's policy, as it always has been, is to limit the number of direct deaths due to the virus before a cure or vaccine is found to the 10s of thousands and the number of deaths due to the health service being overwhelmed to 0. It's time to stop scoring political points. That does not mean we shouldn't criticise, we should, but the criticism should be on specifics, such as the lack of new testing, and not based on our own biased beliefs of what the government's actually motivation are or may be. " Political bias? No... that is the nice thing about science itself, it doesn't have a political bias. I know the government line is "the science has changed" and some of their lackies are believing it, but it really hasn't. "the correct approach should be, and is, to gain the maximum spread possible whilst at the same time limiting the spread" Uh huh. Maybe you meant to type something different? This virus is spreading. Yes, you are right the *ultimate* solution is vaccination and heard immunity. But a vaccine is a year away by most reports. In a matter of *weeks* we will have overloaded our hospitals. And with a lead time of 5 or so days before symptoms present, and a lack of testing, the *immediate* requirement is the social distancing. No that is not going to work forever, and yes, I understand the reasoning behind what the UK govt's original idea was. But it looks like their plan was flawed and how here we are even further on the back foot. -Matt | |||
| |||
| |||
"The only way to get herd immunity is for 80% of us to catch it, while trying to keep hospital admissions to a level the nhs can cope with, going to lockdown too quickly wont achieve either as people will only stay shut in for do long, timing is critical, we have to hope that the advice the gov gets is right. I think we might well get a second lockdown around a month after the first to control a second wave, numbers infected must be far far higher than official numbers if the virus is as contagious as it's meant to be. Testing is pointless now unless there is a quick test that can show who has become immune so they cant spread it and can resume life and help the elderly and vulnerable safely " Yes, but the issue is that how long will it take to reach 80% whilst keeping numbers low enough to deal with? Just do the maths. 66M people in the country. -Matt | |||
"I think it just sums this bunch of twats up...running it all on a shoestring. Self isolate while there is nothing in place for the self employed and the zero hour contracts Tell people not to go to pubs and restaurants whilst not shutting them down so they can claim off their insurance. It all seems pretty clear who they are really looking after.yeah well the measures in italy really seem to be working shut down for a week and record deaths every day. The deaths don't stop the instant of a shut down. It takes two weeks from infection until serious symptoms. But at the time of shutdown, there are already anything up to a hundred people already infected for each one showing symptoms. It's called an exponential growth pattern. In the uk the number of cases is basically unknown because we don't have random testing across the population. But last official figures i saw was about 2000 sick, 55 dead. 2000 sick means there are already at least 200,000 infected, who are going to become sick, even if today this very minute every single person went into individual quarantine. Those 200,000 sick will turn into 8,000 dead in three weeks time. There is nothing that anyone can do about that, they are already infected, there is no known sure fire cure, those 8,000 deaths are already written. But with a strict quarantine, they would be the last deaths. With no quarantine, no lockdown, everyone carrying on as normal, by the time those 8,000 deaths happen, there will not be 200,000 infected, there will be 20 million infected. The figures agree all over the world. Left unchecked, the number of infected goes up by times 10 every week. In two weeks it is times 10 x 10. The 200,000 currently infected, grown to 20 million infected. Four days after that it is every man, woman and child in the uk. The virus does stop then, but only because it's run out of people to catch it. Between 2 to 4 million people then die, within a week or two. And then we get the herd immunity phase. Yes, that's what herd immunity means. No one new gets it, because everyone has already had it, and those that are going to die are dead. Sounds good though doesn't it, "we're going to ensure the population gets herd immunity". Better than "cheapest thing is just to let shit loads of people die, we'll be okay with our private medical cover". Glad to see someone talking sense on here. Too many people want to try and argue against the maths. -Matt Yes, a good understanding of the maths behind the spread but unfortunately spoilt by a bias political analysis of the current policy. What we all need to understand is that there is no magic quick solution to this problem and that isolation and social distancing will not stop the spread but simply slow it down. Unless or until a vaccine or cure is found, when the isolation and social distancing are removed the spread will start again. Heard immunity, preferably via a vaccine, is the only way to eventually get ahead of this. The correct approach should be, and is, to gain the maximum spread possible whilst at the same time limiting the spread so as not to overwhelm the health service. We need to get through this as quickly as possible and with the minimum number of fatalities as possible and that is what the government's policy is trying to do. What has happened over the last week, which is what is making the government policy both here and elsewhere look a little panicked and haphazard, is that the scientific advice on the speed of the spread has changed. The initial scientific advice was based on available data from China. However the spread in Italy was much faster than that analysis would have suggested. The new scientific advice is that if the measures that were planned to cope with a spread based on the Chinese model was used in the UK and the actual spread was more like that in Italy then the likely direct death toll from the virus would be of the order of 250,000 with a similar number or more dying from non virus causes due to the health service being overwhelmed. The aim of the government's policy, as it always has been, is to limit the number of direct deaths due to the virus before a cure or vaccine is found to the 10s of thousands and the number of deaths due to the health service being overwhelmed to 0. It's time to stop scoring political points. That does not mean we shouldn't criticise, we should, but the criticism should be on specifics, such as the lack of new testing, and not based on our own biased beliefs of what the government's actually motivation are or may be. Political bias? No... that is the nice thing about science itself, it doesn't have a political bias. I know the government line is "the science has changed" and some of their lackies are believing it, but it really hasn't. "the correct approach should be, and is, to gain the maximum spread possible whilst at the same time limiting the spread" Uh huh. Maybe you meant to type something different? This virus is spreading. Yes, you are right the *ultimate* solution is vaccination and heard immunity. But a vaccine is a year away by most reports. In a matter of *weeks* we will have overloaded our hospitals. And with a lead time of 5 or so days before symptoms present, and a lack of testing, the *immediate* requirement is the social distancing. No that is not going to work forever, and yes, I understand the reasoning behind what the UK govt's original idea was. But it looks like their plan was flawed and how here we are even further on the back foot. -Matt" No I meant exactly what I said, including the bit where I said limiting the spread to avoid overlooking the health service. We can not and will not be able to stop people getting this virus and of those that do get it about 1% are going to die. What we can do is slow down the spread so that the number of people who have it at any one time is less likely to overwhelm the health service. That's what the government is trying to do. | |||
| |||
"I think it just sums this bunch of twats up...running it all on a shoestring. Self isolate while there is nothing in place for the self employed and the zero hour contracts Tell people not to go to pubs and restaurants whilst not shutting them down so they can claim off their insurance. It all seems pretty clear who they are really looking after.yeah well the measures in italy really seem to be working shut down for a week and record deaths every day. The deaths don't stop the instant of a shut down. It takes two weeks from infection until serious symptoms. But at the time of shutdown, there are already anything up to a hundred people already infected for each one showing symptoms. It's called an exponential growth pattern. In the uk the number of cases is basically unknown because we don't have random testing across the population. But last official figures i saw was about 2000 sick, 55 dead. 2000 sick means there are already at least 200,000 infected, who are going to become sick, even if today this very minute every single person went into individual quarantine. Those 200,000 sick will turn into 8,000 dead in three weeks time. There is nothing that anyone can do about that, they are already infected, there is no known sure fire cure, those 8,000 deaths are already written. But with a strict quarantine, they would be the last deaths. With no quarantine, no lockdown, everyone carrying on as normal, by the time those 8,000 deaths happen, there will not be 200,000 infected, there will be 20 million infected. The figures agree all over the world. Left unchecked, the number of infected goes up by times 10 every week. In two weeks it is times 10 x 10. The 200,000 currently infected, grown to 20 million infected. Four days after that it is every man, woman and child in the uk. The virus does stop then, but only because it's run out of people to catch it. Between 2 to 4 million people then die, within a week or two. And then we get the herd immunity phase. Yes, that's what herd immunity means. No one new gets it, because everyone has already had it, and those that are going to die are dead. Sounds good though doesn't it, "we're going to ensure the population gets herd immunity". Better than "cheapest thing is just to let shit loads of people die, we'll be okay with our private medical cover". Glad to see someone talking sense on here. Too many people want to try and argue against the maths. -Matt Yes, a good understanding of the maths behind the spread but unfortunately spoilt by a bias political analysis of the current policy. What we all need to understand is that there is no magic quick solution to this problem and that isolation and social distancing will not stop the spread but simply slow it down. Unless or until a vaccine or cure is found, when the isolation and social distancing are removed the spread will start again. Heard immunity, preferably via a vaccine, is the only way to eventually get ahead of this. The correct approach should be, and is, to gain the maximum spread possible whilst at the same time limiting the spread so as not to overwhelm the health service. We need to get through this as quickly as possible and with the minimum number of fatalities as possible and that is what the government's policy is trying to do. What has happened over the last week, which is what is making the government policy both here and elsewhere look a little panicked and haphazard, is that the scientific advice on the speed of the spread has changed. The initial scientific advice was based on available data from China. However the spread in Italy was much faster than that analysis would have suggested. The new scientific advice is that if the measures that were planned to cope with a spread based on the Chinese model was used in the UK and the actual spread was more like that in Italy then the likely direct death toll from the virus would be of the order of 250,000 with a similar number or more dying from non virus causes due to the health service being overwhelmed. The aim of the government's policy, as it always has been, is to limit the number of direct deaths due to the virus before a cure or vaccine is found to the 10s of thousands and the number of deaths due to the health service being overwhelmed to 0. It's time to stop scoring political points. That does not mean we shouldn't criticise, we should, but the criticism should be on specifics, such as the lack of new testing, and not based on our own biased beliefs of what the government's actually motivation are or may be. Political bias? No... that is the nice thing about science itself, it doesn't have a political bias. I know the government line is "the science has changed" and some of their lackies are believing it, but it really hasn't. "the correct approach should be, and is, to gain the maximum spread possible whilst at the same time limiting the spread" Uh huh. Maybe you meant to type something different? This virus is spreading. Yes, you are right the *ultimate* solution is vaccination and heard immunity. But a vaccine is a year away by most reports. In a matter of *weeks* we will have overloaded our hospitals. And with a lead time of 5 or so days before symptoms present, and a lack of testing, the *immediate* requirement is the social distancing. No that is not going to work forever, and yes, I understand the reasoning behind what the UK govt's original idea was. But it looks like their plan was flawed and how here we are even further on the back foot. -Matt No I meant exactly what I said, including the bit where I said limiting the spread to avoid overlooking the health service. We can not and will not be able to stop people getting this virus and of those that do get it about 1% are going to die. What we can do is slow down the spread so that the number of people who have it at any one time is less likely to overwhelm the health service. That's what the government is trying to do. " Or overloading even. | |||
" Yes, but the issue is that how long will it take to reach 80% whilst keeping numbers low enough to deal with? Just do the maths. 66M people in the country. -Matt" What needs doing as the government is trying to is for the high risk groups to hide them selves away while the rest of us spread it among ourselves, if it's as contagious as claimed 80 can be achieved very quickly it's not rocket science, keeping the old and vulnerable safe is the hard part especially in the early days. I think it would be a good idea if the randomly selected a underground tube train and tested everyone to see how it is spreading IF the reports from the Italian town where they found only 1 in 10 has any symptoms when infected then it would reassure people | |||
"I think it just sums this bunch of twats up...running it all on a shoestring. Self isolate while there is nothing in place for the self employed and the zero hour contracts Tell people not to go to pubs and restaurants whilst not shutting them down so they can claim off their insurance. It all seems pretty clear who they are really looking after.yeah well the measures in italy really seem to be working shut down for a week and record deaths every day. The deaths don't stop the instant of a shut down. It takes two weeks from infection until serious symptoms. But at the time of shutdown, there are already anything up to a hundred people already infected for each one showing symptoms. It's called an exponential growth pattern. In the uk the number of cases is basically unknown because we don't have random testing across the population. But last official figures i saw was about 2000 sick, 55 dead. 2000 sick means there are already at least 200,000 infected, who are going to become sick, even if today this very minute every single person went into individual quarantine. Those 200,000 sick will turn into 8,000 dead in three weeks time. There is nothing that anyone can do about that, they are already infected, there is no known sure fire cure, those 8,000 deaths are already written. But with a strict quarantine, they would be the last deaths. With no quarantine, no lockdown, everyone carrying on as normal, by the time those 8,000 deaths happen, there will not be 200,000 infected, there will be 20 million infected. The figures agree all over the world. Left unchecked, the number of infected goes up by times 10 every week. In two weeks it is times 10 x 10. The 200,000 currently infected, grown to 20 million infected. Four days after that it is every man, woman and child in the uk. The virus does stop then, but only because it's run out of people to catch it. Between 2 to 4 million people then die, within a week or two. And then we get the herd immunity phase. Yes, that's what herd immunity means. No one new gets it, because everyone has already had it, and those that are going to die are dead. Sounds good though doesn't it, "we're going to ensure the population gets herd immunity". Better than "cheapest thing is just to let shit loads of people die, we'll be okay with our private medical cover". Glad to see someone talking sense on here. Too many people want to try and argue against the maths. -Matt Yes, a good understanding of the maths behind the spread but unfortunately spoilt by a bias political analysis of the current policy. What we all need to understand is that there is no magic quick solution to this problem and that isolation and social distancing will not stop the spread but simply slow it down. Unless or until a vaccine or cure is found, when the isolation and social distancing are removed the spread will start again. Heard immunity, preferably via a vaccine, is the only way to eventually get ahead of this. The correct approach should be, and is, to gain the maximum spread possible whilst at the same time limiting the spread so as not to overwhelm the health service. We need to get through this as quickly as possible and with the minimum number of fatalities as possible and that is what the government's policy is trying to do. What has happened over the last week, which is what is making the government policy both here and elsewhere look a little panicked and haphazard, is that the scientific advice on the speed of the spread has changed. The initial scientific advice was based on available data from China. However the spread in Italy was much faster than that analysis would have suggested. The new scientific advice is that if the measures that were planned to cope with a spread based on the Chinese model was used in the UK and the actual spread was more like that in Italy then the likely direct death toll from the virus would be of the order of 250,000 with a similar number or more dying from non virus causes due to the health service being overwhelmed. The aim of the government's policy, as it always has been, is to limit the number of direct deaths due to the virus before a cure or vaccine is found to the 10s of thousands and the number of deaths due to the health service being overwhelmed to 0. It's time to stop scoring political points. That does not mean we shouldn't criticise, we should, but the criticism should be on specifics, such as the lack of new testing, and not based on our own biased beliefs of what the government's actually motivation are or may be. Political bias? No... that is the nice thing about science itself, it doesn't have a political bias. I know the government line is "the science has changed" and some of their lackies are believing it, but it really hasn't. "the correct approach should be, and is, to gain the maximum spread possible whilst at the same time limiting the spread" Uh huh. Maybe you meant to type something different? This virus is spreading. Yes, you are right the *ultimate* solution is vaccination and heard immunity. But a vaccine is a year away by most reports. In a matter of *weeks* we will have overloaded our hospitals. And with a lead time of 5 or so days before symptoms present, and a lack of testing, the *immediate* requirement is the social distancing. No that is not going to work forever, and yes, I understand the reasoning behind what the UK govt's original idea was. But it looks like their plan was flawed and how here we are even further on the back foot. -Matt No I meant exactly what I said, including the bit where I said limiting the spread to avoid overlooking the health service. We can not and will not be able to stop people getting this virus and of those that do get it about 1% are going to die. What we can do is slow down the spread so that the number of people who have it at any one time is less likely to overwhelm the health service. That's what the government is trying to do. " Sorry. My mistake then... your jibe about "spoilt by political bias" made it sounded like you disagreed with the post you were replying to. -Matt | |||
" Yes, but the issue is that how long will it take to reach 80% whilst keeping numbers low enough to deal with? Just do the maths. 66M people in the country. -Matt What needs doing as the government is trying to is for the high risk groups to hide them selves away while the rest of us spread it among ourselves, if it's as contagious as claimed 80 can be achieved very quickly it's not rocket science, keeping the old and vulnerable safe is the hard part especially in the early days. I think it would be a good idea if the randomly selected a underground tube train and tested everyone to see how it is spreading IF the reports from the Italian town where they found only 1 in 10 has any symptoms when infected then it would reassure people" The problem being, what is the proportion of 'high' risk? If you take everyone over 70, everyone with asthma, anyone on immunosuppressants, anyone who works in a critical function... that is actually quite a large proportion. And then you plan is what? To get all those who don't fit that (ie. the more 'robust' ones) ill... umm... who then looks after the others? Lets just assume for argument's sake that 50% of the population are high risk. So that leaves 33M people you want to get immunity through infection. What is the hospitalisation rate of that cohort? Less than the total population, sure, but say it is 1% and they need an ICU bed for 5 days. That is 330,000 people. Say we have 10,000 ICU beds (we don't, we have half that)... then that is 33 'shifts' of 10,000 people. If each 'shift' takes 5 days then that is still 165 days to cover that lot. And that is a very very very basic approximation assuming we double or triple our ICU capacity and only 1% need ICU and only for 5 days. It is likely a much higher number. So realistically your plan would involve hiding away the most vulnerable in complete isolation... *none* of them getting it at all during this... and the rest of the population getting infected over the space of 2-3 years. Yeah. Crazy plan. -Matt | |||
" Yes, but the issue is that how long will it take to reach 80% whilst keeping numbers low enough to deal with? Just do the maths. 66M people in the country. -Matt What needs doing as the government is trying to is for the high risk groups to hide them selves away while the rest of us spread it among ourselves, if it's as contagious as claimed 80 can be achieved very quickly it's not rocket science, keeping the old and vulnerable safe is the hard part especially in the early days. I think it would be a good idea if the randomly selected a underground tube train and tested everyone to see how it is spreading IF the reports from the Italian town where they found only 1 in 10 has any symptoms when infected then it would reassure people "The only way to get herd immunity is for 80% of us to catch it, while trying to keep hospital admissions to a level the nhs can cope with, going to lockdown too quickly wont achieve either as people will only stay shut in for do long, timing is critical, we have to hope that the advice the gov gets is right. I think we might well get a second lockdown around a month after the first to control a second wave, numbers infected must be far far higher than official numbers if the virus is as contagious as it's meant to be. Testing is pointless now unless there is a quick test that can show who has become immune so they cant spread it and can resume life and help the elderly and vulnerable safely " Yes, but the issue is that how long will it take to reach 80% whilst keeping numbers low enough to deal with? Just do the maths. 66M people in the country. -Matt Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list report By UnleashedCraken Man 2 hours ago Widnes "I think it just sums this bunch of twats up...running it all on a shoestring. Self isolate while there is nothing in place for the self employed and the zero hour contracts Tell people not to go to pubs and restaurants whilst not shutting them down so they can claim off their insurance. It all seems pretty clear who they are really looking after.yeah well the measures in italy really seem to be working shut down for a week and record deaths every day. The deaths don't stop the instant of a shut down. It takes two weeks from infection until serious symptoms. But at the time of shutdown, there are already anything up to a hundred people already infected for each one showing symptoms. It's called an exponential growth pattern. In the uk the number of cases is basically unknown because we don't have random testing across the population. But last official figures i saw was about 2000 sick, 55 dead. 2000 sick means there are already at least 200,000 infected, who are going to become sick, even if today this very minute every single person went into individual quarantine. Those 200,000 sick will turn into 8,000 dead in three weeks time. There is nothing that anyone can do about that, they are already infected, there is no known sure fire cure, those 8,000 deaths are already written. But with a strict quarantine, they would be the last deaths. With no quarantine, no lockdown, everyone carrying on as normal, by the time those 8,000 deaths happen, there will not be 200,000 infected, there will be 20 million infected. The figures agree all over the world. Left unchecked, the number of infected goes up by times 10 every week. In two weeks it is times 10 x 10. The 200,000 currently infected, grown to 20 million infected. Four days after that it is every man, woman and child in the uk. The virus does stop then, but only because it's run out of people to catch it. Between 2 to 4 million people then die, within a week or two. And then we get the herd immunity phase. Yes, that's what herd immunity means. No one new gets it, because everyone has already had it, and those that are going to die are dead. Sounds good though doesn't it, "we're going to ensure the population gets herd immunity". Better than "cheapest thing is just to let shit loads of people die, we'll be okay with our private medical cover". Glad to see someone talking sense on here. Too many people want to try and argue against the maths. -Matt Yes, a good understanding of the maths behind the spread but unfortunately spoilt by a bias political analysis of the current policy. What we all need to understand is that there is no magic quick solution to this problem and that isolation and social distancing will not stop the spread but simply slow it down. Unless or until a vaccine or cure is found, when the isolation and social distancing are removed the spread will start again. Heard immunity, preferably via a vaccine, is the only way to eventually get ahead of this. The correct approach should be, and is, to gain the maximum spread possible whilst at the same time limiting the spread so as not to overwhelm the health service. We need to get through this as quickly as possible and with the minimum number of fatalities as possible and that is what the government's policy is trying to do. What has happened over the last week, which is what is making the government policy both here and elsewhere look a little panicked and haphazard, is that the scientific advice on the speed of the spread has changed. The initial scientific advice was based on available data from China. However the spread in Italy was much faster than that analysis would have suggested. The new scientific advice is that if the measures that were planned to cope with a spread based on the Chinese model was used in the UK and the actual spread was more like that in Italy then the likely direct death toll from the virus would be of the order of 250,000 with a similar number or more dying from non virus causes due to the health service being overwhelmed. The aim of the government's policy, as it always has been, is to limit the number of direct deaths due to the virus before a cure or vaccine is found to the 10s of thousands and the number of deaths due to the health service being overwhelmed to 0. It's time to stop scoring political points. That does not mean we shouldn't criticise, we should, but the criticism should be on specifics, such as the lack of new testing, and not based on our own biased beliefs of what the government's actually motivation are or may be. Political bias? No... that is the nice thing about science itself, it doesn't have a political bias. I know the government line is "the science has changed" and some of their lackies are believing it, but it really hasn't. "the correct approach should be, and is, to gain the maximum spread possible whilst at the same time limiting the spread" Uh huh. Maybe you meant to type something different? This virus is spreading. Yes, you are right the *ultimate* solution is vaccination and heard immunity. But a vaccine is a year away by most reports. In a matter of *weeks* we will have overloaded our hospitals. And with a lead time of 5 or so days before symptoms present, and a lack of testing, the *immediate* requirement is the social distancing. No that is not going to work forever, and yes, I understand the reasoning behind what the UK govt's original idea was. But it looks like their plan was flawed and how here we are even further on the back foot. -Matt" No I meant exactly what I said, including the bit where I said limiting the spread to avoid overlooking the health service. We can not and will not be able to stop people getting this virus and of those that do get it about 1% are going to die. What we can do is slow down the spread so that the number of people who have it at any one time is less likely to overwhelm the health service. That's what the government is trying to do. The problem being, what is the proportion of 'high' risk? If you take everyone over 70, everyone with asthma, anyone on immunosuppressants, anyone who works in a critical function... that is actually quite a large proportion. And then you plan is what? To get all those who don't fit that (ie. the more 'robust' ones) ill... umm... who then looks after the others? Lets just assume for argument's sake that 50% of the population are high risk. So that leaves 33M people you want to get immunity through infection. What is the hospitalisation rate of that cohort? Less than the total population, sure, but say it is 1% and they need an ICU bed for 5 days. That is 330,000 people. Say we have 10,000 ICU beds (we don't, we have half that)... then that is 33 'shifts' of 10,000 people. If each 'shift' takes 5 days then that is still 165 days to cover that lot. And that is a very very very basic approximation assuming we double or triple our ICU capacity and only 1% need ICU and only for 5 days. It is likely a much higher number. So realistically your plan would involve hiding away the most vulnerable in complete isolation... *none* of them getting it at all during this... and the rest of the population getting infected over the space of 2-3 years. Yeah. Crazy plan. -Matt" I gave up reading it all, you got a shorter version | |||
| |||
| |||
"As london becomes Italy in how long ? In this age of technology it would have been easier than ever to monitor this new pandemic. Money should have been thrown at in the hundreds of millions - as now we do not have an economy... But as reported on CNN yesterday Germany has five times more of everything than we have in the uk. Our NHS has been cut in half by the tories over one decade..." when are the shutting London down be off the streets by nightfall | |||
"As london becomes Italy in how long ? In this age of technology it would have been easier than ever to monitor this new pandemic. Money should have been thrown at in the hundreds of millions - as now we do not have an economy... But as reported on CNN yesterday Germany has five times more of everything than we have in the uk. Our NHS has been cut in half by the tories over one decade..." Germany doesn't have 5 times more ICU beds than the UK. It has about 1 1/2 times more per head. The USA has about 3 times more per head than the UK and it's still in danger of being overwhelmed if the spread is not handled well. The threat and task in front of us all is immense. Whether we should have had more ICU beds to cater for this once in century event is irrelevant, we don't. We have the number we have and that's what we have to start working with. Save the recriminations until after we've got through the crisis. As I keep saying, now is not the time for scoring political points. | |||
"As london becomes Italy in how long ? In this age of technology it would have been easier than ever to monitor this new pandemic. Money should have been thrown at in the hundreds of millions - as now we do not have an economy... But as reported on CNN yesterday Germany has five times more of everything than we have in the uk. Our NHS has been cut in half by the tories over one decade..." Can you show us the facts where nhs spending is half what it was ten years ago ? | |||
