COVID-19 could affect more races this year.

[Baulz]

Closing shops, events and travel will already be very hard on the economy. Even the Dutch measures, which are even more lenient (closed bars, restaurants, events and schools) are going to bring the economy to a halt.

They just declared a State of Emergency here (Ontario, Canada). Schools were already closed, now bars and restaurants as well. In town it is empty other than the grocery stores. It is going to kill the economy with so many people suddenly out of work.

[henry]

People just don’t seem to understand what’s happening. Lock downs and other strategies such as the UKs are NOT intended to eliminate the virus, they can’t. They are intended to SLOW the RATE of spread so that health services can cope with those that get seriously ill AND so searches for, and implementations, of, treatments can go ahead and be useful.

It is OUR as well THEIR responsibility to do everything we can not to crash our health systems and have people die before their time. Unfortunately the disease does not only affect those who pursue the, “it’s not in our nature to follow rules” approaches.

What is more likely to prevent the health services of crashing/overloading: Full lock down (except for people who work for basic services) while already being late to it or no full lock down while everyone continues to go to work, spread the disease while some take it more serious than others?

I don’t know. I don’t think anyone does. China, and now Italy, seem to have stalled the spread but what happens next is unknown.

FWIW my understanding of the U.K. approach is restrict social contact based on vulnerability and level of infection. If you’re old or unwell the advice is total isolation. If you have symptoms the advice is to isolate, with housemates, for 14 days. The first measure reduces the potential infectees by about 15%, and the potential hospital cases by considerably more. Elderly infirm people are 10 times more likely to be hospitalised or die. The second measure reduces infecters and after their isolation reduces potential infectees.

I don’t know how effective it will be or whether total lockdown would be better. I do know it’s incumbent on me to follow the advice.

[Tommy Cookers]

.....Elderly infirm people are 10 times more likely to be hospitalised or die....

officialdom here has in its wording constantly accompanied the word elderly with the word infirm
as if the elderly are all infirm
but in China healthy elderly people died like flies

healthy 69 year olds etc are in policy here treated as and assumed to be as resilient as 19 year olds
tough all round if they're not

[Titchener]

You're avoiding the question. How many ICU beds does your country have? Ours (Switzerland) has 800* (in a country of 8+ million). With the measures now taken, that could be increased to supposedly 1200, though they are already saying that beds are not necessarily the issue, but staff (and I would assume equipment/infrastructure).


And I'll re-iterate again; We're already way past the point of "keeping a steady flow of cases". You do a lockdown while keeping basic services open (gas stations, grocery stores, electricity, everything that basic services require) and you will STILL have spread and steady cases coming in, just not at the exponential rate we are all seeing now.

I'm curious to know what you think your country can sustain in 'severe cases' that will not overload the health services.

* confirmed in a press conference today btw. I'm not making these numbers up.

From today's parliamentary committee and the Chief Exec of the NHS we have circa 100,000 hospital beds. Currently at 90% capacity.

At the moment access to around 4000 ventilators with measures being put in place for access up to circa 12,000.

I can't remember the exact figures.

[Phil]

FWIW my understanding of the U.K. approach is restrict social contact based on vulnerability and level of infection. If you’re old or unwell the advice is total isolation.

Sounds like Switzerland. The problem we are facing here, is that people who are at a higher risk (65+ or with a history of various illnesses) are advised (not forced) to work from home (if possible) and if not possible, that the employer puts those under paid but forced vacation. Now, many can decide if they want to keep on going to work while being at risk or be singled out for being at risk and face a higher chance of being fired/unemployed. And while i am typing this, the “soft lockdown” has already caused many people to lose their jobs. More will continue.

These people still employed, but at risk, have tough decision to make; face the prospect of infection or the certain reality of unemployment. The most prefer to take their chances with the virus than the virtual guarantee of unemployment.

For what in the end i wonder? The full lockdown will come anyway, once governments realize the numbers/spread will not be controllable and continue to get worse.

Ps: the number of “only” 800 ICU beds is shockingly low IMO, but from what i am reading, Italy (Lombardy) doesnt have more across many more people. I would be surprised if any other country in Europe had substantially more ICU beds available relative to the population than we do.

[Lotus102]

FWIW my understanding of the U.K. approach is restrict social contact based on vulnerability and level of infection. If you’re old or unwell the advice is total isolation. If you have symptoms the advice is to isolate, with housemates, for 14 days. The first measure reduces the potential infectees by about 15%, and the potential hospital cases by considerably more. Elderly infirm people are 10 times more likely to be hospitalised or die. The second measure reduces infecters and after their isolation reduces potential infectees.

I don’t know how effective it will be or whether total lockdown would be better. I do know it’s incumbent on me to follow the advice.

They've already admitted that the modelling the original approach was based on a significantly less infectious virus, and they're trying to modify the advice on the hoof. Per Buzzfeed:

The report, published by the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team on Monday night, found that the strategy previously being pursued by the government — dubbed "mitigation" and involving home isolation of suspect cases and their family members but not including restrictions on wider society — would "likely result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and health systems (most notably intensive care units) being overwhelmed many times over".

If the approach had been continued, it would have led to 250,000 deaths. The Imperial College COVID-19 response team evidently thinks a more robust approach even than the government has moved to is advisable:

As a result, the report — which its authors said had "informed policymaking in the UK and other countries in the last weeks" — said: "We therefore conclude that epidemic suppression is the only viable strategy at the current time."

A suppression strategy, along the lines of the approach adopted by the Chinese authorities, "aims to reverse epidemic growth, reducing case numbers to low levels and maintaining that situation indefinitely". It requires "a combination of social distancing of the entire population, home isolation of cases and household quarantine of their family members", and "may need to be supplemented by school and university closures".

An "intensive intervention package" will have to be "maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more)"

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/co ... egy-deaths

[Lotus102]

Ps: the number of “only” 800 ICU beds is shockingly low IMO, but from what i am reading, Italy (Lombardy) doesnt have more across many more people. I would be surprised if any other country in Europe had substantially more ICU beds available relative to the population than we do.

Possibly the same thing that has afflicted the management of the UK health service over the last ten years - regarding excess capacity as inefficiency, rather than a necessary buffer in the event of shocks to the system like this one.

[henry]

.....Elderly infirm people are 10 times more likely to be hospitalised or die....

officialdom here has in its wording constantly accompanied the word elderly with the word infirm
as if the elderly are all infirm
but in China healthy elderly people died like flies

healthy 69 year olds etc are in policy here treated as and assumed to be as resilient as 19 year olds
tough all round if they're not

If a 69 year old wants to isolate they can choose to. If the government were putting some forms of assistance in place for the 70 year olds then the 69s might have a reason to complain. But they haven’t and they don’t.

[hollus]

This is the Imperial college COVID-19 model:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperi ... 3-2020.pdf

It is a MODEL. There are other models which will differ.
Personally I think it is a worst case scenario model. If I understand it correctly, it assumes a constant capacity of the health system. But capacity will grow, considerably, over the next weeks/months. It also assumes a constant capacity of infection an the absence of human measures, but the ambient heat should reduce it. Not below 1.0, likely, but it should reduce it from the Ro=2.2 assumed constant in that model.

But it still makes a very compelling worst case scenario.

And it says that this F1 season is over. The graphs suggest that whenever one relaxes measures, the situation starts to get out of control after a month, and thus measures have to be reinstated. For a global sport like this one, peaks happening at different times in different countries and intermittent travel restrictions make any sort of sensible season impossible.

For everything else that is not F1, it is very scary model.

[Mattchu]

We can all shout from the rooftops that our government aren`t doing enough [some probably are, some aren`t], the trouble is this is a very complex matter and the landscape is constantly changing due to the nature of covid-19.
Personally I think there is more going on than we`re being told but that`s another topic.
The countries that seem to have been hit hardest at he moment are China, Iran, Italy and Spain so if you have a border with one of those countries it stands to reason that you would have more stringent measures in place. Also the average age of a population, their basic health, ability to access equipment such as respirators/ventilators, access to anti-bacterial spray, even the way a nation greets one another can have a massive affect! Just think, how do most Italians greet each other...with a kiss on either cheek, I`m sure this attributed to the quick rise in cases in the Lombardy region.

This is an unprecedented situation I doubt any of us will have ever come accross and I sincerely hope that it passes soon and we never have to go through another.

Stay safe everyone and use common sense.

p.s. I found this a useful website for world reported cases.

Code: Select all

https://infographics.channelnewsasia.com/covid-19/map.html

[NL_Fer]

People just don’t seem to understand what’s happening. Lock downs and other strategies such as the UKs are NOT intended to eliminate the virus, they can’t. They are intended to SLOW the RATE of spread so that health services can cope with those that get seriously ill AND so searches for, and implementations, of, treatments can go ahead and be useful.

It is OUR as well THEIR responsibility to do everything we can not to crash our health systems and have people die before their time. Unfortunately the disease does not only affect those who pursue the, “it’s not in our nature to follow rules” approaches.

What is more likely to prevent the health services of crashing/overloading: Full lock down (except for people who work for basic services) while already being late to it or no full lock down while everyone continues to go to work, spread the disease while some take it more serious than others?

I don’t know. I don’t think anyone does. China, and now Italy, seem to have stalled the spread but what happens next is unknown.

FWIW my understanding of the U.K. approach is restrict social contact based on vulnerability and level of infection. If you’re old or unwell the advice is total isolation. If you have symptoms the advice is to isolate, with housemates, for 14 days. The first measure reduces the potential infectees by about 15%, and the hospital cases by considerably more. Elderly infirm people are 10 times more likely to be hospitalised or die. The second measure reduces infecters and after their isolation reduces potential infectees.

I don’t know how effective it will be or whether total lockdown would be better. I do know it’s incumbent on me to follow the advice.

It depends if people truly understand what is going on. In the Netherlands last week, everybody was joking, nobody was taking any measures. Now people are still allowed to shop, but malls en city centers are deserted and I haven’t seen a coughing person anywhere since Monday. It must make a difference for spread of the virus.

[Big Tea]

.....Elderly infirm people are 10 times more likely to be hospitalised or die....

officialdom here has in its wording constantly accompanied the word elderly with the word infirm
as if the elderly are all infirm
but in China healthy elderly people died like flies

healthy 69 year olds etc are in policy here treated as and assumed to be as resilient as 19 year olds
tough all round if they're not

If a 69 year old wants to isolate they can choose to. If the government were putting some forms of assistance in place for the 70 year olds then the 69s might have a reason to complain. But they haven’t and they don’t.

In UK 'retirement age' is 65, so most over that age will not be in full time work anyway.

Latest from 'Boris' is a meeting in parliament Thursday to get some new laws through (quote Boris) many of which I hope never need to be used. So laying the groundwork for a tough session?

[Brake Horse Power]

What is more likely to prevent the health services of crashing/overloading: Full lock down (except for people who work for basic services) while already being late to it or no full lock down while everyone continues to go to work, spread the disease while some take it more serious than others?

Full lock down just postpones the inevitable. Best to try to have a steady flow of cases than a sudden flood when everyone walks out of their homes in 2 weeks time...

You're avoiding the question. How many ICU beds does your country have? Ours (Switzerland) has 800* (in a country of 8+ million). With the measures now taken, that could be increased to supposedly 1200, though they are already saying that beds are not necessarily the issue, but staff (and I would assume equipment/infrastructure).


And I'll re-iterate again; We're already way past the point of "keeping a steady flow of cases". You do a lockdown while keeping basic services open (gas stations, grocery stores, electricity, everything that basic services require) and you will STILL have spread and steady cases coming in, just not at the exponential rate we are all seeing now.

I'm curious to know what you think your country can sustain in 'severe cases' that will not overload the health services.

* confirmed in a press conference today btw. I'm not making these numbers up.

In some way I feel the spreading is actually too controlled at the moment for a Hurd immunity. In Swiss case, suppose 75% eventually gets the virus, and 1% need an ICU bed than you are talking about 60.000 people. If one bed is 2 weeks in use per person it would take 150 weeks to sing this out. That is economically interesting..

So ICU capacity needs to be increased 10 fold I suppose. Or they need to get a medicine or vaccin in record time.

[Big Tea]

Full lock down just postpones the inevitable. Best to try to have a steady flow of cases than a sudden flood when everyone walks out of their homes in 2 weeks time...

You're avoiding the question. How many ICU beds does your country have? Ours (Switzerland) has 800* (in a country of 8+ million). With the measures now taken, that could be increased to supposedly 1200, though they are already saying that beds are not necessarily the issue, but staff (and I would assume equipment/infrastructure).


And I'll re-iterate again; We're already way past the point of "keeping a steady flow of cases". You do a lockdown while keeping basic services open (gas stations, grocery stores, electricity, everything that basic services require) and you will STILL have spread and steady cases coming in, just not at the exponential rate we are all seeing now.

I'm curious to know what you think your country can sustain in 'severe cases' that will not overload the health services.

* confirmed in a press conference today btw. I'm not making these numbers up.

In some way I feel the spreading is actually too controlled at the moment for a Hurd immunity. In Swiss case, suppose 75% eventually gets the virus, and 1% need an ICU bed than you are talking about 60.000 people. If one bed is 2 weeks in use per person it would take 150 weeks to sing this out. That is economically interesting..

So ICU capacity needs to be increased 10 fold I suppose. Or they need to get a medicine or vaccin in record time.

Can not find the article I read (mind is swamped) but I seem to recall time in ICU for most who need it is 4 days then mask or nose type oxy for some time

there is this but not time specifichttps://emcrit.org/ibcc/covid19/#prognosis

[Just_a_fan]

covid 19 is a new virus and NOBODY knows hot to contain or control it. however, a total lockdown appears to be most effective as cases in china are actually decreasing.

China didn't do a "total lockdown". They shut down a small part of the country. It's the equivalent of the UK closing a county, Italy closing down Lombardy or Rome, France closing Bordeaux or Paris, Germany closing Westphalia. Italy haven't locked down the whole country.

People want the UK to "lock down" but no other country has done this yet. No one. Some are starting to try but the reality is that no-one knows the outcome. Does anyone think an entire country can be locked down? Really?