Coronavirus

Quoted from Grimbiggs

Not enough to justify the crashing of the economy!…last time I walked outside I didn’t need to step over the hundred’s of thousand's of dead bodies that this plague was supposed to have been bestowing on this nation! ….Most of those dying have a relatively small number of QALYs left. But the direct health effects of lockdown and economic downturn have a disproportionate effect on younger people with many more QALYs left. Also, we should not forget that there is more to life than death. One year with depression e.g. is not one QALY. When you factor in all the lockdown-attributable mental and physical health effects short of death, as well as the deaths, it is clear that lockdown is having a huge impact on QALYs across the population that far outweighs those caused by Covid. The effectiveness of lockdown in this situation is minimal, and the approach has been mainly based on modelling. Please let’s get a sense of reality, 99.9% of us are going to be fine.

Ah! The economy, much more important than human lives. Let's lift lockdown so shops can sell us sh!t we don't need. Will look nice on our coffin. I don't give a flying fook for the economy, but i suspect that is what is driving the Government right now.

Where does Mr Cummings buy his clothes? I want a T shirt like his. Then i can die happy.

I may have had too many beers.  

There is more to the economy than buying a tee shirt ! Some people won’t be able to afford a new tee shirt after this . It is difficult to get a balance but Grimbiggs is right in some aspects . You can’t  save everyone from this and some sacrifices have been inevitable

Quoted from Grimbiggs

Not enough to justify the crashing of the economy!…last time I walked outside I didn’t need to step over the hundred’s of thousand's of dead bodies that this plague was supposed to have been bestowing on this nation! ….Most of those dying have a relatively small number of QALYs left. But the direct health effects of lockdown and economic downturn have a disproportionate effect on younger people with many more QALYs left. Also, we should not forget that there is more to life than death. One year with depression e.g. is not one QALY. When you factor in all the lockdown-attributable mental and physical health effects short of death, as well as the deaths, it is clear that lockdown is having a huge impact on QALYs across the population that far outweighs those caused by Covid. The effectiveness of lockdown in this situation is minimal, and the approach has been mainly based on modelling. Please let’s get a sense of reality, 99.9% of us are going to be fine.

Do you accept though that there is a finite limit in terms of the number of sick people that the NHS can deal with, before it is completely overwhelmed? If you are advocating the removal of lock-down altogether then common sense tells us that we would reach this limit relatively quickly (within a few months). What would you do at this point, complete lock-down again or just carry on with no restrictions?

I've been watching Clive Myrie's reports from the Royal London hospital this week on BBC News and the ICU Doctors there have said they were down to 20 spare beds in the hospital at the peak in April, so our capacity is not that big. Also, the mental affects this pandemic has put on the doctors and nurses has been huge. You talk about quality of life, but watching these reports it seems clear to me that the doctors & nurses would struggle to continue working if restrictions were fully lifted and they had to deal with a constant peak with no end in sight.

Quoted from ginnywings

Ah! The economy, much more important than human lives. Let's lift lockdown so shops can sell us sh!t we don't need. Will look nice on our coffin. I don't give a flying fook for the economy, but i suspect that is what is driving the Government right now.

I'm afraid a number of posters on here obviously value the economy over human life

What happened to listening to the experts???

Disagreements between scientific advisors and the Government have been laid bare as it emerged that experts warned against the opening of non-essential shops, and schools.

A new tranche of papers released by the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (Sage) showed that scientists advised ministers that shops could push the R number above 1.

High-street retailers including fashion, homeware and toy shops have been given the green light to open from June 15, as long as they take precautions to ensure social distancing.

But a newly released document from the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling (SPI-M) group warns: “There is limited evidence on the effect of closing of non-essential retail, libraries, bars, restaurants, etc, but it is likely that R would return to above 1 and a subsequent exponential growth in cases.”

The estimate was based on a reproduction number of 0.6, but current Government estimates suggest the R rate is in fact now slightly higher, at between 0.7 and 0.9.

At a briefing on Friday, members of SPI-M also suggested that it was currently risky to ease lockdown when the number of infections in the community is still so high and suggested it was a political not scientific decision to lift some restrictions.

Figures published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) this week suggests there are around 8,000 new infections each day in England and Wales.

John Edmunds, Professor of Infectious Disease Modelling at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said that if the R number remains around 1, the country will continue to see around 80 deaths a day for the foreseeable future.

“I think many of us would prefer to see the incidence driven down to lower levels because that then means we have fewer cases occurring before we then relax the measures,” he said.


“At the moment with relatively high incidence, and with an untested track and trace I think we are taking some risk here and even if that risk doesn’t play out we will be keeping flat at quite a high level if 8,000 new infections a day.

“If there is a one per cent infection fatality rate, that’s about 80 deaths per day. So that is the number of deaths per day we might expect to see going forward.

“That’s clearly a political decision; it's not a scientific decision.”

The Sage papers also suggested that reopening schools a month later than the Government has planned could have a significant impact on the number of deaths related to coronavirus.

SPI-M modelling compiled on May 4, by scientists from Imperial College London, looked at the impact of schools returning in June or July, and suggested that the latter could reduce the number of daily deaths in hospitals over time.

While the impact of reopening primary schools in June is negligible until August, potential deaths begin to rise to just under 400 per day by October, according to the modelling.

In comparison, reopening schools in July would see deaths creep up more slowly from August.

However, a separate document, dated April 27, adds that "there are currently different views in SPI-M on the impacts of reopening schools on R."

On Wednesday, the Government launched a new “test and trace” strategy which means anyone who tests positive for Covid-19 is asked to identify those with whom they have had close contact. But minutes released as part of the Sage documents show that just weeks ago, they said this was not sufficient. The meeting, on May 1, said that in the initial phase of the programme, “contacts should be required to isolate as soon as they are identified (i.e. based on symptomatic notification) even if test results for the index case are not yet available.” People should be freed from isolation only if the original person tested negative, they said.

The same paper makes clear Sage's concern that “any delay beyond 48 to 72 hours in isolating contacts would increase the R significantly”.

“The aim should be to develop the capacity to test cases in less than 24 hours. When this is possible, contacts could be required to isolate only when the index case has tested positive,” it says. However, the Prime Minister this week refused to commit to any timescale by which 24 hour testing turnaround can be achieved.

Members of SPI-M also warned that current measures of social distancing and restricted gatherings would need to be in place for the foreseeable future because test and trace would only reduce transmission by around 5 - 20 per cent.
Mark Woolhouse, professor of infectious disease epidemiology at Edinburgh University, said: “That is a possible new normal, and if we don’t like it we’re going to have to find other ways of living with Covid-19 because it doesn't look like it’s going away any time soon. A second wave is a clear and present danger.”

It also emerged that the country's Covid Alert Level has not been lowered, despite the plans to ease restrictions going ahead.

Boris Johnson told the Commons Liaison committee this week that the UK was about to come down from level four to level three.

The system was created as part of the Government's plan to move out of lockdown and is supposed to indicate the level of restrictions imposed according to the rate of the virus within the country.

On Wednesday, the Prime Minister told MPs the level was "coming down" to three from four, adding: "We are hoping to take a decision tomorrow".

The Prime Minister's official spokesman said: "It is four, the PM said at the Liaison Committee it was moving downwards but it remains in level four... you have the PM’s words from earlier this week which sets out the position.

"In terms of moving towards the steps we announced yesterday, that was always dependent on meeting the five tests, which we are currently doing."

The papers also showed division over whether face masks were a good idea with some scientists saying they could help prevent transmission, while others warned it could interfere with policing and lead to people being harassed.

On Friday night, Sir Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust and a member of Sage, said: "Covid-19 is spreading too fast to lift lockdown in England. [Test and trace] has to be in place, fully working, capable of dealing with any surge immediately, locally responsive ... and trusted."

I suspect the majority of those who don't care about the economy are either retired or close to the end of their working lives, so the consequences are unlikely to greatly affect them. They seem more bothered about saving the lives of those in their 80's (average age of hospital admissions) rather then those in their 20's, who are fit and healthy and yet forced to quarantine. It's these people who will face the brunt of the crashing of the economy. This furlough scheme is just another form of unemployment benefit, and as the scheme comes to an end in the coming months, the vast amount of unemployed is going to come to light. These people are going to face huge financial hardships for years to come, together with the mental health issues that will follow. Whilst every death is tragic, was it worth sacrificing the next generation.

I'm afraid a number of posters on here obviously value the economy over human life

Think this is a bit unfair and OTT, it's about managing risk. About 8 people a day get killed in road traffic accidents every day but banning cars is a ridiculous concept, you manage the risk.
The point the earlier poster was making (I think) is that unless you are over 75 and have underlying health issues you'll probably be ok. In fact if you're under 40 you've more chance of being struck by lightning than being killed by the virus. That doesn't mean a fatality from the over 75 group is acceptable so we ask them to isolate while the rest of society continues as normal

Quoted from Grimbiggs

I suspect the majority of those who don't care about the economy are either retired or close to the end of their working lives, so the consequences are unlikely to greatly affect them. They seem more bothered about saving the lives of those in their 80's (average age of hospital admissions) rather then those in their 20's who are fit and healthy and yet forced to quarantine. It's these people who will face the brunt of the crashing of the economy. This furlough scheme is another form of unemployment benefit, and as the scheme comes to an end in the coming months, the vast amount of unemployed is going to come to light. These people are going to face huge financial hardships for years to come, together with the mental health issues that will follow. Whilst every death is tragic, was it with worth sacrificing the next generation.

Morning Dominic.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ETsqTFOUcAARfjU.jpg

I think the last couple of pages just shows the delicate balancing act that johnson is treading. I find myself nodding in agreement with both sides of the argument!
Johnson gambled and lost with the herd immunity and slow lockdown approach. Hes now gambling again with lifting the lockdown much earlier than he probably should and with the added problem of not having a track n trace system in place
Ps anyone else find it infuriating that they are STILL trying to con us, despite being caught out time and time again. Now it's this world class system, which it isn't, up and running, which it isn't etc etc
Pps nice to see the more measured level of debate over the last week or so.keep it up folks!👍

Quoted from Stadium

What happened to listening to the experts???

Disagreements between scientific advisors and the Government have been laid bare as it emerged that experts warned against the opening of non-essential shops, and schools.

A new tranche of papers released by the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (Sage) showed that scientists advised ministers that shops could push the R number above 1.

High-street retailers including fashion, homeware and toy shops have been given the green light to open from June 15, as long as they take precautions to ensure social distancing.

But a newly released document from the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling (SPI-M) group warns: “There is limited evidence on the effect of closing of non-essential retail, libraries, bars, restaurants, etc, but it is likely that R would return to above 1 and a subsequent exponential growth in cases.”

The estimate was based on a reproduction number of 0.6, but current Government estimates suggest the R rate is in fact now slightly higher, at between 0.7 and 0.9.

At a briefing on Friday, members of SPI-M also suggested that it was currently risky to ease lockdown when the number of infections in the community is still so high and suggested it was a political not scientific decision to lift some restrictions.

Figures published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) this week suggests there are around 8,000 new infections each day in England and Wales.

John Edmunds, Professor of Infectious Disease Modelling at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said that if the R number remains around 1, the country will continue to see around 80 deaths a day for the foreseeable future.

“I think many of us would prefer to see the incidence driven down to lower levels because that then means we have fewer cases occurring before we then relax the measures,” he said.


“At the moment with relatively high incidence, and with an untested track and trace I think we are taking some risk here and even if that risk doesn’t play out we will be keeping flat at quite a high level if 8,000 new infections a day.

“If there is a one per cent infection fatality rate, that’s about 80 deaths per day. So that is the number of deaths per day we might expect to see going forward.

“That’s clearly a political decision; it's not a scientific decision.”

The Sage papers also suggested that reopening schools a month later than the Government has planned could have a significant impact on the number of deaths related to coronavirus.

SPI-M modelling compiled on May 4, by scientists from Imperial College London, looked at the impact of schools returning in June or July, and suggested that the latter could reduce the number of daily deaths in hospitals over time.

While the impact of reopening primary schools in June is negligible until August, potential deaths begin to rise to just under 400 per day by October, according to the modelling.

In comparison, reopening schools in July would see deaths creep up more slowly from August.

However, a separate document, dated April 27, adds that "there are currently different views in SPI-M on the impacts of reopening schools on R."

On Wednesday, the Government launched a new “test and trace” strategy which means anyone who tests positive for Covid-19 is asked to identify those with whom they have had close contact. But minutes released as part of the Sage documents show that just weeks ago, they said this was not sufficient. The meeting, on May 1, said that in the initial phase of the programme, “contacts should be required to isolate as soon as they are identified (i.e. based on symptomatic notification) even if test results for the index case are not yet available.” People should be freed from isolation only if the original person tested negative, they said.

The same paper makes clear Sage's concern that “any delay beyond 48 to 72 hours in isolating contacts would increase the R significantly”.

“The aim should be to develop the capacity to test cases in less than 24 hours. When this is possible, contacts could be required to isolate only when the index case has tested positive,” it says. However, the Prime Minister this week refused to commit to any timescale by which 24 hour testing turnaround can be achieved.

Members of SPI-M also warned that current measures of social distancing and restricted gatherings would need to be in place for the foreseeable future because test and trace would only reduce transmission by around 5 - 20 per cent.
Mark Woolhouse, professor of infectious disease epidemiology at Edinburgh University, said: “That is a possible new normal, and if we don’t like it we’re going to have to find other ways of living with Covid-19 because it doesn't look like it’s going away any time soon. A second wave is a clear and present danger.”

It also emerged that the country's Covid Alert Level has not been lowered, despite the plans to ease restrictions going ahead.

Boris Johnson told the Commons Liaison committee this week that the UK was about to come down from level four to level three.

The system was created as part of the Government's plan to move out of lockdown and is supposed to indicate the level of restrictions imposed according to the rate of the virus within the country.

On Wednesday, the Prime Minister told MPs the level was "coming down" to three from four, adding: "We are hoping to take a decision tomorrow".

The Prime Minister's official spokesman said: "It is four, the PM said at the Liaison Committee it was moving downwards but it remains in level four... you have the PM’s words from earlier this week which sets out the position.

"In terms of moving towards the steps we announced yesterday, that was always dependent on meeting the five tests, which we are currently doing."

The papers also showed division over whether face masks were a good idea with some scientists saying they could help prevent transmission, while others warned it could interfere with policing and lead to people being harassed.

On Friday night, Sir Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust and a member of Sage, said: "Covid-19 is spreading too fast to lift lockdown in England. [Test and trace] has to be in place, fully working, capable of dealing with any surge immediately, locally responsive ... and trusted."

That's very easy to explain. The government followed the science to quite rightly to reduce the number of deaths and ensure the NHS was not overwhelmed.

Going forward the scientific advice will be just one factor the government has to juggle; it cannot go down the route of never easing the lockdown and trash the economy and our future well being but neither can it be gung ho and cause cases to erupt again.

The situation is evolving all the time - is your solution to keep banging the government over the head as every new thing happens?  Do you think because government sensibly followed scientific advice they have to slavishly follow it for time immoriial?