Grendel
Well-Known Member
Oh and we don’t then? Good to hear
The problem Italy has is the concentrated area of infection overwhelmed the health service so they were forced to take drastic measures to be fair to them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No it's not, it's based on the assumption that vaccines will be at least 18 months away which is the current estimate. We know that here immuncan be built up, that's what happens with pathogens.Yeah that’s great except we aren’t the only country on Earth, we have no idea if herd immunity can be built up or if it’ll reinfect or mutate, and it’s based on modelling that assumes no vaccine or better treatments are coming and other countries won’t repeat social exclusion measures.
That is pretty much spot on what they are trying to achieve
Oh and we don’t then? Good to hear
No. If you recall you were saying yesterday how the “geography” or “geology” of the situation is Italy have it in a concentrated area but our cases are spread out.
Do you remember that?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What else we going to do? Only sport on seems to be Rugby League and if I wanted to watch northerners run into each other I'd go for a night out in Barnsley69 pages.........
Er yes I do and I remember you along with ROS and others still not acknowledging this was one of the reason why our strategy is different
It could be either, we won't know until they remove all their measures if it will flare up againPeople say Boris is wrong but have the other countries that are taking a differant course of action actually stemmed the flow or has it run its course in countries like China.
For all we know most people have already had the virus in China with the worst cases the ones that come To light.
I am not a doctor or a scientist just a normal Joe, trying to take it all in, but if I want to know the truth I will probably find out in 20 years time, not from the specialist on SBT.
Do you think they think waiting for the warmer months will flush it out naturally?
It's part of the planDo you think they think waiting for the warmer months will flush it out naturally?
So according to the government closing schools and banning large gatherings has little effect on infection rates, but according to this thread they are the main mechanisms the government has for controlling the infection rate? Can’t both be true.Just read the below on twitter which I found interesting.
1. The govt strategy on #Coronavirusis more refined than those used in other countries and potentially very effective. But it is also riskier and based on a number of assumptions. They need to be correct, and the measures they introduce need to work when they are supposed to.
2. This all assumes I'm correct in what I think the govt are doing and why. I could be wrong - and wouldn't be surprised. But it looks to me like. . .
3. A UK starting assumption is that a high number of the population will inevitably get infected whatever is done – up to 80%. As you can’t stop it, so it is best to manage it.
There are limited health resources so the aim is to manage the flow of the seriously ill to these.
4. The Italian model the aims to stop infection. The UKs wants infection BUT of particular categories of people. The aim of the UK is to have as many lower risk people infected as possible. Immune people cannot infect others; the more there are the lower the risk of infection
5. That's herd immunity.
Based on this idea, at the moment the govt wants people to get infected, up until hospitals begin to reach capacity. At that they want to reduce, but not stop infection rate. Ideally they balance it so the numbers entering hospital = the number leaving.
6. That balance is the big risk.
All the time people are being treated, other mildly ill people are recovering and the population grows a higher percent of immune people who can’t infect. They can also return to work and keep things going normally - and go to the pubs.
7.The risk is being able to accurately manage infection flow relative to health case resources. Data on infection rates needs to be accurate, the measures they introduce need to work and at the time they want them to and to the degree they want, or the system is overwhelmed.
8. Schools: Kids generally won’t get very ill, so the govt can use them as a tool to infect others when you want to increase infection. When you need to slow infection, that tap can be turned off – at that point they close the schools. Politically risky for them to say this.
9. The same for large scale events - stop them when you want to slow infection rates; turn another tap off. This means schools etc are closed for a shorter period and disruption generally is therefore for a shorter period, AND with a growing immune population. This is sustainable
10. After a while most of the population is immune, the seriously ill have all received treatment and the country is resistant. The more vulnerable are then less at risk. This is the end state the govt is aiming for and could achieve.
11. BUT a key issue during this process is protection of those for whom the virus is fatal. It's not clear the full measures there are to protect those people. It assumes they can measure infection, that their behavioural expectations are met - people do what they think they will
12. The Italian (and others) strategy is to stop as much infection as possible - or all infection. This is appealing, but then what? The restrictions are not sustainable for months. So the will need to be relaxed. But that will lead to reemergence of infections.
13. Then rates will then start to climb again. So they will have to reintroduce the restrictions each time infection rates rise. That is not a sustainable model and takes much longer to achieve the goal of a largely immune population with low risk of infection of the vulnerable
14. As the government tries to achieve equilibrium between hospitalisations and infections, more interventions will appear. It's perhaps why there are at the moment few public information films on staying at home. They are treading a tight path, but possibly a sensible one.
15. This is probably the best strategy, but they should explain it more clearly. It relies on a lot of assumptions, so it would be good to know what they are - especially behavioural. Most encouraging, it's way too clever for #BorisJohnson to have had any role in developing.
It's both they are low risk environments which makes them good for controlling a slow rate infectionSo according to the government closing schools and banning large gatherings has little effect on infection rates, but according to this thread they are the main mechanisms the government has for controlling the infection rate? Can’t both be true.
So according to the government closing schools and banning large gatherings has little effect on infection rates, but according to this thread they are the main mechanisms the government has for controlling the infection rate? Can’t both be true.
At a specific time this is in the document released last week
China Coronavirus: 80,824 Cases and 3,189 Deaths - WorldometerOnly reason it’s slowed in China is because all of them have it and there’s nobody left without it
Temperatures here are in the high teen low 20s in a week or too, we shall seeDo you think they think waiting for the warmer months will flush it out naturally?
Is there any proof that once you’ve had it you are immune??
That’s brilliant thanks for sharing. Just heard who say we may be wrong. LolJust read the below on twitter which I found interesting.
1. The govt strategy on #Coronavirusis more refined than those used in other countries and potentially very effective. But it is also riskier and based on a number of assumptions. They need to be correct, and the measures they introduce need to work when they are supposed to.
2. This all assumes I'm correct in what I think the govt are doing and why. I could be wrong - and wouldn't be surprised. But it looks to me like. . .
3. A UK starting assumption is that a high number of the population will inevitably get infected whatever is done – up to 80%. As you can’t stop it, so it is best to manage it.
There are limited health resources so the aim is to manage the flow of the seriously ill to these.
4. The Italian model the aims to stop infection. The UKs wants infection BUT of particular categories of people. The aim of the UK is to have as many lower risk people infected as possible. Immune people cannot infect others; the more there are the lower the risk of infection
5. That's herd immunity.
Based on this idea, at the moment the govt wants people to get infected, up until hospitals begin to reach capacity. At that they want to reduce, but not stop infection rate. Ideally they balance it so the numbers entering hospital = the number leaving.
6. That balance is the big risk.
All the time people are being treated, other mildly ill people are recovering and the population grows a higher percent of immune people who can’t infect. They can also return to work and keep things going normally - and go to the pubs.
7.The risk is being able to accurately manage infection flow relative to health case resources. Data on infection rates needs to be accurate, the measures they introduce need to work and at the time they want them to and to the degree they want, or the system is overwhelmed.
8. Schools: Kids generally won’t get very ill, so the govt can use them as a tool to infect others when you want to increase infection. When you need to slow infection, that tap can be turned off – at that point they close the schools. Politically risky for them to say this.
9. The same for large scale events - stop them when you want to slow infection rates; turn another tap off. This means schools etc are closed for a shorter period and disruption generally is therefore for a shorter period, AND with a growing immune population. This is sustainable
10. After a while most of the population is immune, the seriously ill have all received treatment and the country is resistant. The more vulnerable are then less at risk. This is the end state the govt is aiming for and could achieve.
11. BUT a key issue during this process is protection of those for whom the virus is fatal. It's not clear the full measures there are to protect those people. It assumes they can measure infection, that their behavioural expectations are met - people do what they think they will
12. The Italian (and others) strategy is to stop as much infection as possible - or all infection. This is appealing, but then what? The restrictions are not sustainable for months. So the will need to be relaxed. But that will lead to reemergence of infections.
13. Then rates will then start to climb again. So they will have to reintroduce the restrictions each time infection rates rise. That is not a sustainable model and takes much longer to achieve the goal of a largely immune population with low risk of infection of the vulnerable
14. As the government tries to achieve equilibrium between hospitalisations and infections, more interventions will appear. It's perhaps why there are at the moment few public information films on staying at home. They are treading a tight path, but possibly a sensible one.
15. This is probably the best strategy, but they should explain it more clearly. It relies on a lot of assumptions, so it would be good to know what they are - especially behavioural. Most encouraging, it's way too clever for #BorisJohnson to have had any role in developing.
That’s brilliant thanks for sharing. Just heard who say we may be wrong. Lol
Where is the document available?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I am amazed you haven’t read it
Too ge fair that piece is saying if things get as bad as they are I italy we won't gave the hospital capacity
So just to clarify, the narrative that closing schools and banning large events is ineffective in controlling the rate of infection is wrong, and the true reason is because closing schools would actually be too effective and cause the second wave we are trying to avoid due to lack of acquired community immunity?As the plan is to not stop but control yes they are effective
It is only a matter of time, IMO, unfortunately. I saw an article about how someone in Japan has caught it for the second time.Too ge fair that piece is saying if things get as bad as they are I italy we won't gave the hospital capacity
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?