China Coronavirus

[RadioGAAGAA]

Some interesting articles on Sweden -

One line actually stuck out for me -

Herd immunity "has historically been nature's way of ending pandemics," added Dr. David Katz, the public health physician who helped kick off the debate in an essay he wrote in The New York Times on March 20 and in a follow-up interview we did together.

By killing a sizeable proportion of the population in order to achieve that herd immunity.


Herd immunity is not a ground-breaking concept. Its the causality rate of getting from zero to ~80% immunity in the population that is needed that is the problem. Do it by vaccine - great. Do it by letting a virulent disease sweep through - not so great.

[seafoid]

Has any medical guru or body established that getting the virus gives you immunity?

https://www.ft.com/content/5357d014-822f-11ea-b872-8db45d5f6714

It seems irresponsible to advocate widespread infection with a virus that was unknown four months ago, even if treatments exist and hospitals can cope. Covid-19's long-term effect on survivors is uncertain; it ravages the heart and kidneys as well as the lungs and kills an estimated 0.7 per cent of those infected. . It is also possible that infection confers only weak or brief protection, meaning herd immunity may never be reached. Allowing the virus free rein would be a high-stakes gamble for no return

[lenny]

Some interesting articles on Sweden -

One line actually stuck out for me -

Herd immunity "has historically been nature's way of ending pandemics," added Dr. David Katz, the public health physician who helped kick off the debate in an essay he wrote in The New York Times on March 20 and in a follow-up interview we did together.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/lockdown-free-stockholm-could-achieve-herd-immunity-in-may-claim-by-swedish-ambassador-as-she-reveals-30percent-of-the-citys-population-already-have-immunity/ar-BB13mSu9?li=BBoPWjQ

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/how-sweden-is-dealing-with-the-coronavirus/ar-BB13mdYn?li=BBoPWjQ

The only way herd immunity has ever been achieved is through vaccines.

[Hardy]

Uk estimate of all excess deatgs due to coronavirus (hospital, home, nursing home) now 46,000

https://mobile.twitter.com/ChrisGiles_/status/1255183452527374337

The UK is paying for decisions made in March
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/revealed-three-uk-sporting-events-may-have-led-coronavirus-death/

The Cheltenham Festival, Liverpool's tie with Atletico Madrid and the Manchester derby all resulted in more coronavirus cases and deaths

It's a good thing that there was no Irish at those games or Cheltenham, Leo was on the ball early

Cheltenham is such a false flag, certainly didn't help but public transport barely gets a mention as a spreading vehicle. The London underground- 2m people per day before, during and after Cheltenham, along with every other form of public transport in the UK and Ireland.

Eh, you're comparing a non essential leisure event with a transport system holding one of the major cities in the world together. London was and is continuously mentioned as a major hotspot for the virus
250k odd sweaty drinkers hugging and coughing / slabbering over each other for days on end before departing to the 4 corners of Ireland and the UK. I personally know a GP who tested positive after he came back and him in contact with the most vulnerable.
Cheltenham should not have happened and should rightly be mentioned... Whoever gave the green light is carrying a heavy burden at this stage

Cheltenham brought people from all over, infected them and sent them home to infect people when the R number was at least 2.5. 1 infected person at Cheltenham with the R at 2.5 would have meant 406 infected after 30 days.
The Atletico match brought infection from Madrid and embedded it in Liverpool.
The UK now has the worst numbers in Europe. FT estimate 46,000 excess  deaths

Seafoid, just curious about the calculation that it takes 30 days to reach 406 as the number infected at R=2.5. That implies that the 2.5 people infected by each carrier are infected over a five day period. Is that the standard methodology for estimating the numbers infected for a given R?

[RadioGAAGAA]

Seafoid, just curious about the calculation that it takes 30 days to reach 406 as the number infected at R=2.5. That implies that the 2.5 people infected by each carrier are infected over a five day period. Is that the standard methodology for estimating the numbers infected for a given R?

It'll depend on the contagious period of the disease.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0282_article

R0 might have been nearly 6 in the early stages!

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is the causative agent of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease pandemic. Initial estimates of the early dynamics of the outbreak in Wuhan, China, suggested a doubling time of the number of infected persons of 6–7 days and a basic reproductive number (R0) of 2.2–2.7. We collected extensive individual case reports across China and estimated key epidemiologic parameters, including the incubation period. We then designed 2 mathematical modeling approaches to infer the outbreak dynamics in Wuhan by using high-resolution domestic travel and infection data. Results show that the doubling time early in the epidemic in Wuhan was 2.3–3.3 days. Assuming a serial interval of 6–9 days, we calculated a median R0 value of 5.7 (95% CI 3.8–8.9). We further show that active surveillance, contact tracing, quarantine, and early strong social distancing efforts are needed to stop transmission of the virus.

[Hardy]

Thanks - makes sense.

[Sportacus]

Can anyone answering me this - we went into lockdown at the end of March, say 30 days ago, and the virus has 14 day risk period - should we not be seeing much lower figures than we are in terms of new cases?  I'm getting increasingly pessimistic that this virus is very stubborn and has still plenty of fight left in it.  Where are these new cases coming from if we are spending most of our time in the house?

[seafoid]

There is a lot of pressure from business interests to reopen things but here is a selection of views from the Financial Times about ending the lockdown

https://www.ft.com/content/d0b7a5f2-886f-11ea-a01c-a28a3e3fbd33

Scientists at Harvard University suggested that periods of social distancing may be required until 2022 and possibly beyond, if hospitals are to avoid becoming overwhelmed by future waves of infection. If treatments and vaccines do not arrive quickly, we may need to steel ourselves for prolonged economic and social disruption
https://www.ft.com/content/d0b7a5f2-886f-11ea-a01c-a28a3e3fbd33

Much has been made of the poor pay and insecure employment of many workers on whom we rely the most. But there is a third inequality, between those with a choice about how much risk to take with their health and those without; those who can structure their work to reduce the danger of infection with coronavirus and those who cannot.
https://www.ft.com/content/d0b7a5f2-886f-11ea-a01c-a28a3e3fbd33

On Monday, the Trades Union Congress released polling showing two-fifths of workers were worried about of returning to work, doubting the viability of social-distancing measures. One-third feared taking the virus home.
https://www.ft.com/content/d0b7a5f2-886f-11ea-a01c-a28a3e3fbd33

How does a hairdresser practise social distancing? Or a teacher, or nursery worker? And how safe can you make a crowded train or a packed bus? Makeshift face masks will help but the real issue will be the extent to which their employers can be encouraged to stagger the working day to ease congestion. 

https://www.ft.com/content/e486590e-8539-11ea-b872-8db45d5f6714


. Everything would not be fine economically if lockdowns were lifted. The implicit assumption is that we would then return to where the economy was before the coronavirus. But that is impossible. The real question is what would happen to today's economy in the absence of today's lockdowns. The answer is that, if the virus were to run rampant yet again, a large part of face-to-face economic activity would again cease to exist.  True, if lockdowns ended and support for people without a job was also withdrawn, many might be compelled back to work. That might even raise economic output. But it would reinforce the inequality already created by the disease between those who can survive at home and those who cannot. Not only would lifting official lockdowns be unlikely to bring the economy roaring back to life if the disease were still prevalent. Worse, a reopening followed by a wave of rising infections and a lockdown, or even a cycle of reopenings and lockdowns, would devastate the economy — quite apart from the credibility of policymakers. The point that the degree of economically-costly social distancing depends on the prevalence of the disease is crucial. But, as an important new paper from the University of California Berkeley shows, there is far more to the policy decision than this. The paper analyses two strategies: "short-term control", which tries to keep the rate of infection within limits; and "long-term control", which seeks to limit the total number of infections, ultimately bringing the flow to very lowlevels.  These strategies are related to "mitigation" and "suppression", as discussed in an influential paper from Imperial College London. In the UK political debate, they correspond to reopening when the reproduction rate of the disease is close to one (a constant rate of infection, at its peak rate) or when the rate is close to zero (which implies near elimination). 

https://www.ft.com/content/e486590e-8539-11ea-b872-8db45d5f6714


The paper analyses four sorts of costs: the costs of lost lives; the lost work days of the sick; the medical costs associated with higher incidence of disease; and the costs (primarily economic) of social distancing, both officially imposed and spontaneous. The overall conclusion is overwhelming.
The least costly option is strong suppression: it saves lives, massively reduces medical costs and even lowers the economic costs of social distancing over the course of the epidemic.  Yes, persisting with the lockdown until the disease has been brought to really low levels imposes big economic costs now. But it must also be seen as an investment, whose fruits will be a more tolerable future. This extra time now must also be used to put in place the systems needed to keep the disease suppressed.

https://www.ft.com/content/5357d014-822f-11ea-b872-8db45d5f6714

Scientists at Harvard University suggested that periods of social distancing may be required until 2022 and possibly beyond, if hospitals are to avoid becoming overwhelmed by future waves of infection. If treatments and vaccines do not arrive quickly, we may need to steel ourselves for prolonged economic and social disruption

https://www.ft.com/content/5357d014-822f-11ea-b872-8db45d5f6714


it seems irresponsible to advocate widespread infection with a virus that was unknown four months ago, even if treatments exist and hospitals can cope. Covid-19's long-term effect on survivors is uncertain; it ravages the heart and kidneys as well as the lungs and kills an estimated 0.7 per cent of those infected. . It is also possible that infection confers only weak or brief protection, meaning herd immunity may never be reached. Allowing the virus free rein would be a high-stakes gamble for no return

https://www.ft.com/content/5357d014-822f-11ea-b872-8db45d5f6714

A Cambridge university project on "resilient normality" has crowdsourced 275 suggestions: they include stripping doors of handles in public places, delivery drones, rotas for school attendance and free rental bikes to reduce transport overcrowding. Any kind of normality lies some way off, but science offers the safest and quickest path out of the woods.

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/study-identifies-275-ways-to-reduce-spread-of-coronavirus-following-lockdown

[GiveItToTheShooters]

Seafoid must get paid for sharing news articles 

[Captain Obvious]

The U.S. death toll from the coronavirus stands at over 60,000 higher than the 58,220 Americans who were killed in the years-long Vietnam War.

The death toll from the virus in the UK rises to more than 26,000 after care home deaths are included for first time.

[Saffrongael]

Seafoid must get paid for sharing news articles

He loves it

[armaghniac]

Activities involving close contact, such as hairdressing, are done by a household member, but with guidance provided by a professional via video link.

This was an interesting suggestion, if you do not live alone. Perhaps dentistry could be on a similar basis.

[Rossfan]

And heart surgery, knee replacements etc etc

[grounded]

Activities involving close contact, such as hairdressing, are done by a household member, but with guidance provided by a professional via video link.

This was an interesting suggestion, if you do not live alone. Perhaps dentistry could be on a similar basis.

I'd say that would end well!

[RadioGAAGAA]

Can anyone answering me this - we went into lockdown at the end of March, say 30 days ago, and the virus has 14 day risk period - should we not be seeing much lower figures than we are in terms of new cases?  I'm getting increasingly pessimistic that this virus is very stubborn and has still plenty of fight left in it.  Where are these new cases coming from if we are spending most of our time in the house?

Very much so.

Lockdown as it stands at the moment is not working as well as we would hope. How new cases are occurring is something that needs to be ascertained ASAP.

Are shops the common factor?