Was Sweden right after all ?

[Interestedobserver]

None of that excuses the patheticness of this!

So for instance, if Spain wanted to quarantine visitors to the UK coming back to Spain, they’d also quarantine those who’d visited the Falkland Islands?

Nah, I don’t think so.

If the Canaries and Balearics were stopping tourists from mainland Spain from taking holidays on their islands then there would be a stronger argument for still allowing UK citizens to travel to those islands.

 

[Mr D]

The government’s handling of this gets more incompetent by the day!

Now it’s quarantine for the Balearic Islands too. That’s like saying “There’s COVID-19 in Cornwall, so anyone who’s visited the Isle of Skye has to self isolate for a fortnight!

You couldn’t make it up.

What does the government know about the situation that you do not?
Probably plenty.

And you may not have noticed that travel bans and quarantining people has taken place despite people only going to one area of a country.
They haven't been done by hotspot, they've been done by country.
Cornwall and Skye are both in the UK. Any travel restriction any other country does against the UK will cover both.
Care to name a country that has published a travel ban / quarantine restriction on a small part of the UK only?

 

[Interestedobserver]

So, where would you rather be living now, Sweden or New Zealand?

New Zealand. You can pretty much do anything there now except leave the country. That's better than the rest of us have.

 

[RobinBHM]

On the other hand some of those are diseases for which vaccines exist.

Some have fairly effective treatments.

All have been around much longer.

They kill people every year, have done so for decades or even centuries, and will remain present for a long time.

yes but no other disease has ever led to mass scale social distancing to reduce the R value.

I see lots of people saying 'flu kills more people' -but that is a comparision of flu being allowed to spread versus Covid where pretty much the whole globe has spent a huge effort in containing the infection rate.

 

[RobinBHM]

The Diamond Princess Covid outbreak also supports these arguments

the figures you quote are wrong

we estimated case and infection fatality ratios (CFR, IFR) for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) on the Diamond Princess ship as 2.6% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89–6.7) and 1.3% (95% CI: 0.38–3.6), respectively. Comparing deaths on board with expected deaths based on naive CFR estimates from China, we estimated CFR and IFR in China to be 1.2% (95% CI: 0.3–2.7) and 0.6% (95% CI: 0.2–1.3), respectively.

 

[Mr D]

yes but no other disease has ever led to mass scale social distancing to reduce the R value.

I see lots of people saying 'flu kills more people' -but that is a comparision of flu being allowed to spread versus Covid where pretty much the whole globe has spent a huge effort in containing the infection rate.

With a major effort every year for past decade or more to get the vulnerable to have flu vaccine - and hope its the right vaccine mix that year - plus private jabs available too - the intention is to prevent or at least reduce impact of the flu.
We still have flu deaths every year. But not everyone gets it and there is an element of ring immunisation protecting some of those who are vulnerable.

Flu is also somewhat easier to spot - this virus you may be spreading and not even get ill yourself.

The good thing about the recent changes is the chances of other stuff spreading is also reduced. Hand washing, use of gel, keeping distance, masks and gloves - all help.

Good thing too. While flu and Covid both seem jealous about the hosts, so a chance having one will prevent the other at the same time - for those few who do get both at the same time it apparently is bad.

A winter with no illness would be nice. Don't think we will be that lucky.

We've already got people complaining about having to isolate for a week and a half after being in a country with apparently more virus cases than we are reporting. We've people refusing to wear a mask in shops. We've people who cry that their human rights are being abused by being required to wear a mask (hey, can we use them as vaccine guinea pigs instead?).
And we'll have the anti-vaccers who won't get immunised even once we have some vaccine available.

Oh for some light hearted reading :
Earth Abides by George R Stewart.

 

[Ian J]

I've always supported Boris (broadly speaking) in his handling of the pandemic but now I'm not so sure.

We are due to fly to Spain in a week's time and I have rented a villa in Javea for a fortnight. For those that don't know Javea it is a family oriented town midway between Alicante and Valencia with no high rise hotels or night clubs and is at least 400 miles from Catalonia.

It appears that Spain is on the brink of a second wave according to Boris yet despite our problems in Leicester and Lancashire we are not on the brink of a second wave but are merely suffering from local spikes.

Personally self isolation doesn't really affect either myself or my son but my wife who is a nurse will have to take 14 days unpaid leave from work after she returns.

Looking at the list of exemptions from self isolation it seems that healthcare professionals from Spain entering the UK to take up employment won't have to self isolate but healthcare professional who live here and are returning to the country from Spain will and I really can't see the logic behind that.

 

[Mark T Jones]

I've always supported Boris (broadly speaking) in his handling of the pandemic but now I'm not so sure.

We are due to fly to Spain in a week's time and I have rented a villa in Javea for a fortnight. For those that don't know Javea it is a family oriented town midway between Alicante and Valencia with no high rise hotels or night clubs and is at least 400 miles from Catalonia.

It appears that Spain is on the brink of a second wave according to Boris yet despite our problems in Leicester and Lancashire we are not on the brink of a second wave but are merely suffering from local spikes.

Personally self isolation doesn't really affect either myself or my son but my wife who is a nurse will have to take 14 days unpaid leave from work after she returns.

Looking at the list of exemptions from self isolation it seems that healthcare professionals from Spain entering the UK to take up employment won't have to self isolate but healthcare professional who live here and are returning to the country from Spain will and I really can't see the logic behind that.

Surely that's a case of priciples being swayed by circumstance?

 

[antropy]

There will have to be investigations as to why Cheltenham and the Liverpool game with Athletico Madrid went ahead before lockdown as I am sure this contributed a lot of positives tests and deaths! As to people saying the difference between the UK and the likes of Sweden or New Zealand, they are so drastically different it even if worth a debate! Alex

 

[John Hemming]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-53596299

Until recently, Hong Kong was considered a poster child in its handling of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Despite sharing a border with mainland China, where the first cases were reported, Hong Kong kept its infection numbers down and was able to avoid the extreme lockdown measures introduced in parts of China, Europe and the US.

But now, it's been hit by not even a second, but a third, wave of infections. The government has warned its hospital system could face collapse, and it's just had a record high number of new infections in a day.

On the other hand there is Sweden.

 

[Justin Smith]

the figures you quote are wrong

we estimated case and infection fatality ratios (CFR, IFR) for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) on the Diamond Princess ship as 2.6% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89–6.7) and 1.3% (95% CI: 0.38–3.6), respectively. Comparing deaths on board with expected deaths based on naive CFR estimates from China, we estimated CFR and IFR in China to be 1.2% (95% CI: 0.3–2.7) and 0.6% (95% CI: 0.2–1.3), respectively.

If the figures are wrong I suggest you go on Wikipedia and alter them, If you're right the editors will leave your edits on.
But the fact remains that 3800 people (passenger av age 69) were tightly packed and socialising on that ship with a highly infectious virus rampant for over two weeks, and only 14 (or less) actually died of Covid. I take it you're not disputing those figures ?

 

[Justin Smith]

New Zealand. You can pretty much do anything there now except leave the country. That's better than the rest of us have.

If a vaccine or effective drug treatment is found soon then New Zealand will have made the right choices and probably got off with this very well (assuming their policies don't trash their economy).
But if no vaccine or drug treatment comes along soon then they will either have to cut themselves off from the rest of the world forever or go through what we've gone through.

What I still cannot get my head round is half the world's economy has been bought to a standstill, billions will be thrown into poverty and massive social damage has done, all for a virus which kills about 1 in 200 (on average) of those actually infected with it, and we even know who is at most risk from it....... Plus we know for a fact there are people who are not susceptible to it anyway, e.g. spouses who don't contract it when their partners have it. The only question is what percentage of the population is not susceptible to the virus, and that is a massive question, possibly the most important at the moment, yet when I repeatedly try and find results for that Google I cannot find any !

 

[alan1302]

The only question is what percentage of the population is not susceptible to the virus, and that is a massive question, possibly the most important at the moment, yet when I repeatedly try and find results for that Google I cannot find any !

Maybe Google is not showing you an answer because it is not known?

This is a new virus - it was not known about at all this time last year - people seem to expect instant answers when you need time to research and test before getting any answers.

 

[Justin Smith]

Maybe Google is not showing you an answer because it is not known?

This is a new virus - it was not known about at all this time last year - people seem to expect instant answers when you need time to research and test before getting any answers.

I'd like to know how much research is being put into that question though. Surely they must have some idea ? Checking up on those infected and how many people they live with who are not infected wouldn't take that much effort (relatively speaking) surely ?

 

[Interestedobserver]

If a vaccine or effective drug treatment is found soon then New Zealand will have made the right choices and probably got off with this very well (assuming their policies don't trash their economy).
But if no vaccine or drug treatment comes along soon then they will either have to cut themselves off from the rest of the world forever or go through what we've gone through.

What I still cannot get my head round is half the world's economy has been bought to a standstill, billions will be thrown into poverty and massive social damage has done, all for a virus which kills about 1 in 200 (on average) of those actually infected with it, and we even know who is at most risk from it....... Plus we know for a fact there are people who are not susceptible to it anyway, e.g. spouses who don't contract it when their partners have it. The only question is what percentage of the population is not susceptible to the virus, and that is a massive question, possibly the most important at the moment, yet when I repeatedly try and find results for that Google I cannot find any !

What's your alternative?

Hospitals around the world cant cope with the huge amount of infections without us locking down

When people do go to hospital many are in there weeks and months before they recover

1 in 10 who get the disease are apparently getting something known now as Covid Long - (its called something like that) and those who have that are are seriously incapacitated ongoing. They've no idea yet whether those people will ever recover fully.

Are you suggesting we just let the virus run riot and make it every man for himself.

When the hospitals are full we just leave people to suffer and die in their own beds at home or on the streets?

You also realise that if that was happening the economy would grind to a halt in a different way as the vast majority would just stay at home knowing if they get it bad they are on there own as there's no room left for them to be treated.

What's your alternative?

 

[alan1302]

I'd like to know how much research is being put into that question though. Surely they must have some idea ? Checking up on those infected and how many people they live with who are not infected wouldn't take that much effort (relatively speaking) surely ?

Who are 'they'?

You can live with someone and not get coronavirus from then - does not mean you are immune.

If my wife gets a cold it does not mean I will - but I do get colds so are not immune. There is much, much more to it.

Like I said it needs proper research - you don't just ask someone.

 

[John Hemming]

The only question is what percentage of the population is not susceptible to the virus, and that is a massive question, possibly the most important at the moment, yet when I repeatedly try and find results for that Google I cannot find any !

There are perhaps four issues here:
1. Younger people and particularly children generally fight off the disease probably using T-lymphocytes.
2. Some people have more ACE2 cells are are more susceptible
3. About half of the two studies I have seen have learned resistance from other coronaviruses through T-lymphcytes.
4. Some people (6%) in one study have resistant antibodies through an infection by another coronavirus.

Hence the response is not homogenous. An argument in a recent paper is that with a heterogenous response then the herd immunity threshold is around the 20% mark.

Personally. I think Sweden, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland (in the urban areas) and places like New York with a solid first wave have probably got herd resistance to the disease. The English statistics on hospital admissions substantiate this as with the various things going on hospital admissions are still going down.

https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/healthcare?areaType=nation&areaName=England

 

[fisicx]

The only question is what percentage of the population is not susceptible to the virus, and that is a massive question, possibly the most important at the moment, yet when I repeatedly try and find results for that Google I cannot find any !

Nobody knows. It's been around for less than a year so there isn't enough data yet. Once we get through this winter we will know more. Then once everyone has been vaccinated and another year passes we will know even more. Right now everyone is guessing.

 

[Justin Smith]

What's your alternative?

Hospitals around the world cant cope with the huge amount of infections without us locking down

When people do go to hospital many are in there weeks and months before they recover

1 in 10 who get the disease are apparently getting something known now as Covid Long - (its called something like that) and those who have that are are seriously incapacitated ongoing. They've no idea yet whether those people will ever recover fully.

Are you suggesting we just let the virus run riot and make it every man for himself.

When the hospitals are full we just leave people to suffer and die in their own beds at home or on the streets?

You also realise that if that was happening the economy would grind to a halt in a different way as the vast majority would just stay at home knowing if they get it bad they are on there own as there's no room left for them to be treated.

What's your alternative?

I've been 100% consistent right from the start on this, and nothing has happened to make me change my mind, in fact if anything I'm more of this view than ever. The government should have been honest with people from the start and treated them like adults instead of just trying to scare them all (remember "this virus is indiscriminate" ? ). Those vulnerable to Covid should have been supported and advised to self isolate (according to their own choice I may add, this is a free country after all). Everyone else should have just got on with it.
Time will tell if I was right, it might even take a few years to come to a final conclusion but I'm confident I will be proved to be correct when the cost of the lockdowns and social distancing are taken into account. It's not just the effect on the economy, or even on society, it's the direct increase in deaths from other causes because of the relentless focus on Covid and the fear putting people off seeking treatment for other illnesses.
Personally speaking I'm absolutely sick to death of it, and I mean the measures taken against the virus, not fear of the virus itself and I'm in my 50s, albeit fit and slim. I hate seeing people in facemasks, and the fact I'm no being forced to wear one in more and more places is depressing me, possibly more than any other single thing.

 

[fisicx]

Everyone else should have just got on with it.

The problem now is many of those who would have 'just got on with it' are now becoming infected. Maybe not here in the UK yet but the rest of the world is seeing a rise in infections in those who were considered safe. This is the problem with the virus, it's a moving target. You may be right but these in authority aren't taking any chances that you are wrong and we all get sick later in the year.

 

[Mr D]

Nobody knows. It's been around for less than a year so there isn't enough data yet. Once we get through this winter we will know more. Then once everyone has been vaccinated and another year passes we will know even more. Right now everyone is guessing.

We can also plan.

Multiple plans, multiple options that may crop up.

Including local or national lockdown again. And including customers getting sick.

 

[Mr D]

The problem now is many of those who would have 'just got on with it' are now becoming infected. Maybe not here in the UK yet but the rest of the world is seeing a rise in infections in those who were considered safe. This is the problem with the virus, it's a moving target. You may be right but these in authority aren't taking any chances that you are wrong and we all get sick later in the year.

Even here in the UK there appear to be rise in infections. People are finding out how quickly the virus can spread - again.
So government taking action again. Perhaps they'll take further action - perhaps they won't need to.
They are reacting at best - up to individuals to act or not.

 

[John Hemming]

Even here in the UK there appear to be rise in infections.

The number of hospital admissions which lags infections by 13/14 days shows no sign of a rise in infections. This is quite reliable if a lagging indicator.

 

[Mr D]

The number of hospital admissions which lags infections by 13/14 days shows no sign of a rise in infections. This is quite reliable if a lagging indicator.

Its a indicator of hospital admissions, agreed.
So a couple of weeks back there weren't infections sufficient to cause hospital admission increases now.

Its quite a stretch to use it as an indicator of infections.

 

[John Hemming]

Its quite a stretch to use it as an indicator of infections.

It is actually our best indicator of infections. The ONS are analysing test results. Their most recent period is 13-26th July. During this period they tested 28,325 people and found 24 had the virus. However, the hospital admissions are that proportion of all of the country that has just got the disease that required admission to hospital (around 1.5%). About 50 million people rather than 28,000.

 

[Mr D]

It is actually our best indicator of infections. The ONS are analysing test results. Their most recent period is 13-26th July. During this period they tested 28,325 people and found 24 had the virus. However, the hospital admissions are that proportion of all of the country that has just got the disease that required admission to hospital (around 1.5%). About 50 million people rather than 28,000.

I think you are confusing the statistic with other statistics.
You infer infections from the numbers but the numbers tell you nothing about infections. Merely admittance to hospital that is recorded as a particular problem.

Its a subset of the total infections. Not the whole of the infections.

The testing - to be accurate - needs to be random.
Instead of a self selecting group.

So far we don't appear to be doing that. We do appear to be doing hospital admission, some staff, some care homes, some key workers and their families and a few other groups.

Oh and is it just me or are you also seeing 28,325 people tested in a 2 week period as being low?

 

[John Hemming]

You infer infections from the numbers but the numbers tell you nothing about infections. Merely admittance to hospital that is recorded as a particular problem.

The disease has an IFR and a CFR, from the FR, therefore, you can identify C and I. There is also a relationship between hospital admissions and fatalities (it is obvious from the chart) Although the proportion of admissions that die does vary as a first order approximation it can be assued as being a constant ratio. Hence if the number of admissions go up infections went up 2 weeks beforehand and if they go down we have the inverse.

 

[Mr D]

The disease has an IFR and a CFR, from the FR, therefore, you can identify C and I. There is also a relationship between hospital admissions and fatalities (it is obvious from the chart) Although the proportion of admissions that die does vary as a first order approximation it can be assued as being a constant ratio. Hence if the number of admissions go up infections went up 2 weeks beforehand and if they go down we have the inverse.

You infer that based on severity needing hospital admission.

Which will be only a portion of infections. Perhaps its constant for a time - but you are looking at infections on average 2 weeks ago basing on today's figures.
And an increase in infections can happen for 2 weeks before you are aware of it if just using that hospital admission stat.

As I recall prior to lockdown the media were reporting that infection numbers were doubling every 3 days.
So by the time you are aware of it using that hospital admission stat the increase has been possibly thousands.

Use the number of hospital admissions as proof of hospital admissions. Don't bet your life or your family's life on it being a useful indicator all the time.

 

[John Hemming]

Don't bet your life or your family's life on it being a useful indicator all the time.

It is a useful indicator all of the time. I make assessments as to what is reality based on various facts. This is a fact that I use for assessing reality. You have a choice. You can ignore it or you can consider it as having some validity.

In the end I look at things in the round. However, these figures point to England, Scotland and Northern Ireland having had a sufficiently big first wave as to have much smaller problems in the future.

All countries will need to cope with SARS-CoV-2 for decades from now.

 

[Mr D]

It is a useful indicator all of the time. I make assessments as to what is reality based on various facts. This is a fact that I use for assessing reality. You have a choice. You can ignore it or you can consider it as having some validity.

In the end I look at things in the round. However, these figures point to England, Scotland and Northern Ireland having had a sufficiently big first wave as to have much smaller problems in the future.

All countries will need to cope with SARS-CoV-2 for decades from now.

We both make assessments based on various facts.
Sometimes the facts are missing and we extrapolate or infer from what is available based on information at the time - which may change later. You appear to be inferring stuff from limited data that I cannot in the same fashion.

I will use the hospital admission stats as hospital admission. There is insufficient data for me to infer from that any current infection rate. Though over time that figure can be compared to past infections.

We will see what happens in the various areas of the UK. Figures have been impacted by lockdown and social distancing - plus warmer weather. Lets see what the figures are like with lower temperatures (down to 4C temperature), people crowding together, rain and snow. Lots of queuing up outside shops or forcing way in?


I'm expecting a bunch of figures to be different later this year. You the same?

 

[simon field]

Whose facts are you preferring?

 

[Karimbo]

there's a slight increase in active cases, but death rates are still in the decline. I hope it's a case of wider testing which is causing increase in active cases.

 

[John Hemming]

There is insufficient data for me to infer from that any current infection rate. Though over time that figure can be compared to past infections.

The ONS testing does not actually give a current infection rate. It operates on the basis of two weekly samples which at the latest start more than two weeks ago.

 

[Interestedobserver]

I've been 100% consistent right from the start on this, and nothing has happened to make me change my mind, in fact if anything I'm more of this view than ever. The government should have been honest with people from the start and treated them like adults instead of just trying to scare them all (remember "this virus is indiscriminate" ? ). Those vulnerable to Covid should have been supported and advised to self isolate (according to their own choice I may add, this is a free country after all). Everyone else should have just got on with it.
Time will tell if I was right, it might even take a few years to come to a final conclusion but I'm confident I will be proved to be correct when the cost of the lockdowns and social distancing are taken into account. It's not just the effect on the economy, or even on society, it's the direct increase in deaths from other causes because of the relentless focus on Covid and the fear putting people off seeking treatment for other illnesses.
Personally speaking I'm absolutely sick to death of it, and I mean the measures taken against the virus, not fear of the virus itself and I'm in my 50s, albeit fit and slim. I hate seeing people in facemasks, and the fact I'm no being forced to wear one in more and more places is depressing me, possibly more than any other single thing.

So you are saying every man for himself and when the hospitals and NHS cant cope people stay at home to die?

And you think our people would just carry on as normal with this happening all around us and get on with it?

You also seem to totally ignore the fact that most of us whatever our age (and I'm the same age ish as you) as you in a normal life want to be with our parents. Getting on with life and living involves being with people older and more at risk than we are. Many elderly parents rely for so much on their families. There are only a fraction of elderly people in care homes compared to those supported by their families.

The younger people in the families that support or want to socialise with elderly people is huge. They then also have to self isolate and/or have to no longer get on with things as you suggest as they aren't even contemplate passing the illness on to their elderly parents. They would never forgive themselves.

Our family is in this situation right now Justin.

We have two teenage kids. Seeing their grandparents is precious to them every week. Seeing my parents is precious to me.

So there's two more generations of our family that can't get on with things as normal as you would suggest. And ourselves have to be very cautious and safe about what we do.

Surely you can understand that?

And its being proven by the fact that even without lockdown and when you are allowed to do things it's not just the elderly who are being cautious. Three generations of a family in many many cases have to be cautious

So you can't have this idea that just the vulnerable change their habits is a non starter

And that's proven by choices the public are making even when they aren't in lockdown

All the industries that are non essential where people have a choice to visit or not are trading at fractions of what they would normally see because huge parts of our population cannot risk catching this disease and passing on to elderly parents

You have over simplified something that simply won't happen in the real world

IMO and with all due respect

Given a choice many many of the population would choose to spend their Sunday with elderly parents or grandparents rather than with strangers in public

And as a result - under your idea of what should happen - all of those would be unable to "get on with life as normal" the rest of the week as they would risk taking the virus to those elderly people at the weekend

Blood is thicker than water

Your idea of just leaving elderly people to fend for themselves is a non starter as a result and your ideas end up with same closure of the economy through personal choice rather than lockdown

 

[Interestedobserver]

Perfect example is the World Snooker Championships

They were due to trial the next two weeks with fans allowed in

But reduced to 30 per cent capacity

300 fans instead of 1,000

They wanted more ideally and were hoping to be allowed 400 to 500

Yesterday they cancelled fans full stop

However, they were badly struggling to even sell the tickets they had

In the normal world it's a sellout most days of 1,000 people per day

In the Covid world they had only sold out 300 on 3 out of the 80 sessions they are playing

That's with the fanfare and publicity of being a major sporting event you can watch live

Pubs and restaurants who said if they have only 50 per cent capacity when they re-open it won't work - are trading on average 60 per cent down on last year's figures even with a huge percentage of them not re-opening

You can't just say get on with life - and it happens. People make their own choices and have different priorities in life etc

And you can't blames masks for pubs and restaurants being 60 per cent down on their trade even when allowed to re-open as uptil now you don't have to wear them

And people didn't have to wear masks whilst watching the snooker had they chosen to buy a ticket!

You are kidding yourself that the public will carry on as normal with this illness around us. And the more people in hospitals and the more people dying around them the MORE cautious they would have become

 

[Bob Morgan]

Can we have the Budgies, Charlie?

 

[fisicx]

Can we have the Budgies, Charlie?

I'm obviously missing something here. What does this mean?

 

[Interestedobserver]

I'm obviously missing something here. What does this mean?

I think Bob must be getting on a bit. He clearly has his his very own wavelength and has his own sense of humour

Hopefully he's safe and self isolating somehwere!

But still able to laugh at his own in jokes I hope

Bless him!

 

[Bob Morgan]

I'm obviously missing something here. What does this mean?

Charlie Cairoli was an Italian/British Circus Clown, who appeared on television for a while during the Early 1970s. The audience was all children, and they cried out for more and more from Charlie and the other acts. To bring some semblance of order at the end of the show, one child would shout out "Can we have the Budgies Charlie!" - Charlie would then appear with his Performing Budgies, and the audience would sit and watch in silence - Order was restored!

 

[Bob Morgan]

I think Bob must be getting on a bit. He clearly has his his very own wavelength and has his own sense of humour

Hopefully he's safe and self isolating somehwere!

But still able to laugh at his own in jokes I hope

Bless him!

I am not 'Getting on a Bit!' - However and possibly, what the 'Theatre' would define as an 'Aging Juvenile.' I have been told that I have a very 'Rounded' Sense of Humour - Sometimes, I sit in hysterics reading YOUR posts!

Presently, I am very 'Safe' indeed (without the need to self-isolate), and have not been affected by COVID-1984, nor the 'Plandemic!' - Finally, I do not need to be 'Blessed' by anyone!