Coronavirus

[Sugar Ape]

44 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

In Europe, the figures have been between 25% and 40%... I think that's what I read

 

 

On 13/04/2020 at 17:36, Sugar Ape said:

 

Worse than that. 

[SasaS]

19 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

“In Sweden, more than 10 times as many people are dying than in our neighbouring country Finland,” the group wrote. “The approach must be changed radically and quickly. As the virus spreads, it is necessary to increase social distance.”

 

 

Remember when Sweden were handling it so well...

They are still handling it the same way. There seems to be no spike in numbers, will be interesting to see what happens. Numbers are worse than their neighbours, but still better off than countries with lockdowns like France or Belgium. Or UK for that matter.

[Spy Bee]

Ouch!

 

Has anybody seen any figures for whether flu deaths were higher in Dec/Jan/Feb than previous years. Loads of people seem to think this has been over here since before Christmas, but if so, there would have been more deaths, but they would probably have been attributed to flu.

[TheHowieLama]

2 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 There seems to be no spike in numbers, will be interesting to see what happens. 

More than 10% of their total deaths happened last night

[SasaS]

2 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

More than 10% of their total deaths happened last night

You should not look at individual days. If you look at the numbers over the Easter weekend, you will see they barely had any. It is very likely that numbers for Tuesday and Wednesday include the Easter lag.

[Davelfc]

2 hours ago, Spy Bee said:

My cousin is an A&E nurse and very objective about everything. She says that almost everybody is elderly and almost everybody has comorbidities. Of course, there will be a few people who don't fit the profile, as there is with flu, but I don't think we should be causing mass panic. A guy who I work today has been convinced that men in their fifties are the most at risk, presumably from consuming some click bate. He's got himself into a right state!

 

 

 

Factors associated with hospitalization and critical illness among 4,103 patients with COVID-19 disease in New York City

 

cross-sectional analysis of all patients with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 treated at a single academic health system in New York City between March 1, 2020 and April 2, 2020, with follow up through April 7, 2020. Primary outcomes were hospitalization and critical illness (intensive care, mechanical ventilation, hospice and/or death).

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.08.20057794v1

 

 

Many people in their 50s and over are more than aware of their shortcomings when it comes to their health, they just chose to ignore it, postpone any kind of improvement or lived with it and medicated conditions. This virus has forced a lot of people to face the inconvenient truth. There's a chance that if they get this they could suffer a lot more because of those issues. With anxiety through the roof at the moment is it any wonder people of a certain age are worrying. 

 

What concerns people more than anything else isn't a thought that this thing could kill them, what concerns them is that if they get this at the wrong time that there probably won't be a health service there for them as it will be totally overloaded or they might not fit the criteria at that moment to receive treatment. 

 

 

 

 

 

[stringvest]

The difference between Sweden and here is that by and large Sweden has a more civilised population, with vastly more enlightened attitude towards civil responsibility.  We've regressed as a civilisation in much the same way as the early medieval Britons did when the Romans pissed off.  The Fields of Anfield Woad.

[Sugar Ape]

2 hours ago, General Dryness said:

It just seems that people who are on the front line are the ones making those statements. If this contradicts the official stats, you have to wonder why.

 

1 hour ago, Spy Bee said:

My cousin is an A&E nurse and very objective about everything. She says that almost everybody is elderly and almost everybody has comorbidities. Of course, there will be a few people who don't fit the profile, as there is with flu, but I don't think we should be causing mass panic. A guy who I work today has been convinced that men in their fifties are the most at risk, presumably from consuming some click bate. He's got himself into a right state!

 

Couple of points about that nurses article in The Guardian. 
 

Firstly I think it’s easy to just look at the numbers and forget these are actual people we are talking about. I’ve done it myself where I think it’s ‘only’ 3% or whatever of people who are young with no health problems who are dying but that 3% might translate into 20 actual people that nurse has witnessed dying In horrific circumstances who seemed otherwise young, fit and healthy. It’s obviously going to have a profound impact on her. 
 

Secondly your experience with all this is going to depend massively on where about you are situated in the country. Being in one of the worst hit hospitals in London or the Midlands is going to be a completely different kettle of fish to working in, say, Arrowe park or Southport hospital, though I’m sure it’s pretty harrowing there too. 

[Anubis]

Has anyone considered that the reason health professionals may highlight the deaths of young people with no underlying issues, is to ensure the young are staying in lockdown instead of thinking they are invincible.

[Duff Man]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/15/uk-government-coronavirus-science-who-advice

 

Quote

We scientists said lock down. But UK politicians refused to listen

 

For 11 fateful days in March, the government ignored the best coronavirus advice. It must learn from that mistake

• Helen Ward is professor of public health at Imperial College London

 

In mid-February a colleague mentioned that for the first time in his life he was more concerned than his mother, who had been relatively blase about the risks of Covid-19. It felt odd for him to be telling her to take care. We are both professors in a department of infectious disease epidemiology, and we were worried.

 

Two months on, that anxiety has not gone, although it’s also been joined by a sense of sadness. It’s now clear that so many people have died, and so many more are desperately ill, simply because our politicians refused to listen to and act on advice. Scientists like us said lock down earlier; we said test, trace, isolate. But they decided they knew better.

 

Am I being unfair? The government assures us that its decisions and timing are based on science, as if it is a neutral, value-free process resulting in a specific set of instructions. In reality, the science around coronavirus is in its infancy and developing daily, with researchers across the world trying to understand how the virus spreads, how the body responds – and how to treat it and control it. The speed at which our knowledge has increased is impressive, from the sequencing of the virus in January through to having candidate vaccines in early February.

 

Mathematical models are being refined to predict the extent and speed of spread and estimate the impact of control methods. My own group is studying the response of communities, showing how the epidemic is amplifying existing social inequalities. People with the lowest household income are far less likely, but no less willing, to be able to work from home or to self-isolate.

 

But while scientists carry out observations and experiments, testing, iterating and discovering new knowledge, it is the role of policymakers to act on the best available evidence. In the context of a rapidly growing threat, that means listening to experts with experience of responding to previous epidemics.

 

When I say that politicians “refused to listen”, I am referring to the advice and recommendations coming from the World Health Organization, from China and from Italy. The WHO advice, based on decades of experience and widely accepted by public health leaders and scientists around the world was clear – use every possible tool to suppress transmission. That meant testing and isolating cases, tracing and quarantining contacts, and ramping up hygiene efforts.

 

The UK did well in the early phase, but then, on 12 March, the government alarmed many public health experts by abruptly abandoning containment and announcing that community case-finding and contact-tracing would stop. The aim was no longer to stop people getting it, but to slow it down while protecting the vulnerable.

 

The evidence underpinning the government’s decision appears in a report from 9 March summarising the potential impact of behavioural and social interventions. The report did not consider the impact of case-finding and contact-tracing, but it did suggest that the biggest impact on cases and deaths would come from social distancing and the protection of vulnerable groups.

 

And yet social distancing was not recommended then. That day, 12 March, after hearing with disbelief the government announcement that didn’t include widespread social distancing, I recommended to my team at Imperial that they should work from home for the foreseeable future. Indeed, I have not been to my office since.

 

Neither the advice nor the science were followed that week. My colleagues, led by Neil Ferguson, published a report on 16 March estimating that without strong suppression, 250,000 people could die in the UK. The government responded that day with a recommendation for social distancing, avoiding pubs and working from home if possible. But there was still no enforcement, and it was left up to individuals and employers to decide what to do. Many people were willing but unable to comply as we showed in a report on 20 March. It was only on 23 March that a more stringent lockdown and economic support was announced.

 

Between 12 and 23 March, tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of people will have been infected. Boris Johnson himself may well have been infected that week, and his stay in the intensive care unit may have been avoided if the government had shifted to remote working on 12 March. The current best estimate is that around 1% of those infected will die.

 

So where to now? Once again, public health experience, including modelling, leads to some very clear recommendations. First, find cases in the community as well as hospitals and care homes; isolate them, and trace their contacts using a combination of local public health teams and digital tools.

 

Second, know your epidemic. Track the epidemic nationally and locally using NHS, public health and digital surveillance to see where cases are continuing to spread. This will be essential so that we can start to lift the lockdown while shielding the population from hotspots of transmission. Build community resilience by providing local support for vulnerable people affected by the virus and the negative impact of the control measures.

 

Third, ensure transmission is suppressed in hospitals, care homes and workplaces through the right protective equipment, testing, distancing and hygiene. Investigate the differential effects on black and minority ethnic groups, and provide appropriate protection.

 

Fourth, ensure that the most vulnerable, socially and medically, are fully protected through simple access to a basic income, rights for migrants, and safety for those affected by domestic violence.

 

Many, including the Labour leader, Keir Starmer, say that now is not the time for blame. I am not looking to blame – but for scrutiny so that lessons can be learned to guide our response. We need to avoid further mistakes, and ensure that the government is hearing, and acting on, the best advice.

 

• Helen Ward is professor of public health at Imperial College London

 

[mattyq]

46 minutes ago, stringvest said:

How's everyone doing?  Me and my young brother Captain Tom have just been wheeling round the garden.  I'm staying off air as he came up with the idea and anyway I'm in charge of keeping him supplied with the performance enhancing Uncle Joe's Mintballs.  

 

 

Thought he was one of your grandkids

[Pidge]

31 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

Ouch!

 

Has anybody seen any figures for whether flu deaths were higher in Dec/Jan/Feb than previous years. Loads of people seem to think this has been over here since before Christmas, but if so, there would have been more deaths, but they would probably have been attributed to flu.

ONS reports registered deaths regularly, you can go have a look and compared seasonally. I spent some time looking over the weekend, but haven't done any real analysis of it. Mainly because I was trying to get an understanding before they published the latest data so I could have it in context.

[Pidge]

30 minutes ago, SasaS said:

You should not look at individual days. If you look at the numbers over the Easter weekend, you will see they barely had any. It is very likely that numbers for Tuesday and Wednesday include the Easter lag.

Yep, similarly I wouldn't be surprised to see a jump back to a higher figure for us today for the same reason. Hopefully it won't be sustained and we will start seeing a decline, even number stay the same it could be an indicator that we are starting to see an impact.

[Spy Bee]

An unusually high amount of deaths only seem to be happening now. We could have had a low flu season and had Covid deaths reported as Flu... but I tend to think everyone thinking they had it over Christmas is wishful thinking.

 

My wishful thinking is that the Swiss study is correct and 80% of people are asymptomatic, and I am one of them.

[Spy Bee]

2 minutes ago, Pidge said:

Yep, similarly I wouldn't be surprised to see a jump back to a higher figure for us today for the same reason. Hopefully it won't be sustained and we will start seeing a decline, even number stay the same it could be an indicator that we are starting to see an impact.

651

[Pureblood]

4 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/15/uk-government-coronavirus-science-who-advice

 

 

This is all well and good but Imperial College were heavily involved in shaping the government's policy and response. 

 

This reads like a "don't blame us" piece but in my view Prof Neil Ferguson and ICL are highly complicit in the UK's shambolic response and catastrophic death toll. Neil Ferguson recently predicted that the overall death toll would be between 7,000 and 20,000.  Obviously the lower threshold has already been exceeded and it looks likely that his upper threshold will be wrong, too. 

 

So thanks very much, Imperial College, but you're part of the problem. 

[DJLJ]

38 minutes ago, SasaS said:

They are still handling it the same way. There seems to be no spike in numbers, will be interesting to see what happens. Numbers are worse than their neighbours, but still better off than countries with lockdowns like France or Belgium. Or UK for that matter.

They have 1200+ deaths, Denmark which is second highest in the Nordics has 300 deaths. There is approx. 50 more inhabitants in Sweden compared to Denmark. But 4 x as many dead. They have done something wrong compared to the rest of the Nordics, who they would normally compare with.

[SasaS]

1 minute ago, DJLJ said:

They have 1200+ deaths, Denmark which is second highest in the Nordics has 300 deaths. There is approx. 50 more inhabitants in Sweden compared to Denmark. But 4 x as many dead. They have done something wrong compared to the rest of the Nordics, who they would normally compare with.

Only 50? I thought Sweden's population was twice as big.

[DJLJ]

1 minute ago, SasaS said:

Only 50? I thought Sweden's population was twice as big.

Sorry, 50%. around 6 million in Denmark, around 10 million in Sweden.

[Duff Man]

2 minutes ago, TK421 said:

This is all well and good but Imperial College were heavily involved in shaping the government's policy and response. 

 

This reads like a "don't blame us" piece but in my view Prof Neil Ferguson and ICL are highly complicit in the UK's shambolic response and catastrophic death toll. Neil Ferguson recently predicted that the overall death toll would be between 7,000 and 20,000.  Obviously the lower threshold has already been exceeded and it looks likely that his upper threshold will be wrong, too. 

 

So thanks very much, Imperial College, but you're part of the problem. 

Yeah there's definitely a whiff of that.

[Section_31]

17 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

651

I find it strange and frustrating that the briefings and press reports have basically just turned into a grim daily death count. Where's the reporting of admission and ICU rates? Surely the best indication of whether shit is subsiding? 

[Section_31]

18 minutes ago, TK421 said:

This is all well and good but Imperial College were heavily involved in shaping the government's policy and response. 

 

This reads like a "don't blame us" piece but in my view Prof Neil Ferguson and ICL are highly complicit in the UK's shambolic response and catastrophic death toll. Neil Ferguson recently predicted that the overall death toll would be between 7,000 and 20,000.  Obviously the lower threshold has already been exceeded and it looks likely that his upper threshold will be wrong, too. 

 

So thanks very much, Imperial College, but you're part of the problem. 

[SasaS]

2 minutes ago, DJLJ said:

Sorry, 50%. around 6 million in Denmark, around 10 million in Sweden.

I know, it was a joke.

They are doing something different, right or wrong, so it's worth keeping an eye on them. This virus may come back and I don't think total lockdown will be available as a response each time.

[aRdja]

7 minutes ago, SasaS said:

I know, it was a joke.

They are doing something different, right or wrong, so it's worth keeping an eye on them. This virus may come back and I don't think total lockdown will be available as a response each time.

Hey did you post the article about covid being less deadly or dangerous than flu? If so do you mind sending it my way? I’ve googled it but to no avail unfortunately. Just trying to source all the ‘good’ news about Covid.

[SasaS]

1 minute ago, aRdja said:

Hey did you post the article about covid being less deadly or dangerous than flu? If so do you mind sending it my way? I’ve googled it but to no avail unfortunately.

No, I just copied the number of deaths from Wikipedia's Influenza page, which was at the time still lower than where we are now.