Those of us who appreciate the need to take the virus seriously, certainly don't think that the other issues caused by lockdown don't exist. I have been donating to food banks and to Refuge throughout this because I am acutely aware of the downsides and the cost.
The situation needs to be managed, very very carefully, so that the hospitals aren't overwhelmed and so that there aren't huge numbers of people dying of Covid 19 needlessly, but also so that all the other problems created or exacerbated by the situation are addressed too. Its a tricky balance.
I've argued from the start of this that we have to retain some sense of proportion. At the moment, with more than 600 people dying every day and getting on for 6000 new cases every day, in my (uninformed) opinion, the proportionate response is to maintain the lockdown until we have the ability to test and trace people on that sort of scale.
6000 people testing positive daily at the moment possibly means the 100,000 tests a day is enough, because on average, we're not 'meeting' so many people with social distancing. But if we went back to 'normal' - how many people on a typical day do you get within 'breathing' range of? On the bus (10), in a shop (10 more), at the office (20 or 30), in a cafe for your lunch (20), down the pub (probably 50), on the train home (10). A few hundred? Let's say 150. That would mean 900,000 people needing a test today. It's not remotely possible. And that assumes you do a job where the number of people you meet at work is limited. But if you work in a shop, on a bus, on a large building site let alone in a hospital? Some people 'meet' 100s of people every day.
We are going to have to maintain social distancing for the foreseeable future, to ensure each of us 'meets' on average, less than about a dozen people a day. Until there's a cure and/or a vaccine. And those 12 people really need to be the people you work with so that we can work to pay for all this. So you can't 'afford' to 'meet' anyone on the way to and from work, let alone go down the pub.
Gardening on the edge of Exmoor, in Devon
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
@debs64 211,364 people had a positive test. The number of real cases in the UK is most probably between 5 and 10 times that. So somewhere around 2mil. That's approx. 3% of the population. 30-50% of these would have no or mild symptoms. So it's still perfectly possible not to know anyone seriously sick.
On the other hand, 2 millions of people is way too much for any real possibility of the virus disappearing (the elimination strategy). Even if the number of active cases now is lower, maybe hundreds of thousands, it's still too much. If the R is somewhere around 0.8 (or whatever number they claim it is, based on bad data and mathematical models), the time needed for it to disappear would be years. We can't eradicate it and we can't afford to wait for the vaccine. Otherwise, there could be more victims (long term) from the lockdown and the recession than from covid itself.
It's not true that you can't die from the recession. There is a lot of research about the impact of poverty on society. It steals years of life from people due to stress, health problems, underfinanced health care, higher criminality rates and other problems.
So without any emotions, what now? Wait another 3 weeks? Will the situation get significantly better by then?
That's approx. 3% of the population. So it's still perfectly possible not to know anyone seriously sick.
I don't want to criticise your post which makes good points edhelka but this kind of word play often makes me smile... 3% of the population are likely to have been infected with Covid 19 ...so thats 97% who haven't been. It easy to see how those wanting to ease lockdown can make a case. Its depends how you present the figures.
Its the way the anti-Brexit arguement was sometimes pitched... pro Brexit "only" won by 4%... or near as damn it.. 1.3 million votes (!)
Argh, this is the kind of frustrating argument again. If 97% of the population haven't been infected it's in no small way down to the fact we've been in lock down for 6 weeks plus...i.e. if you want the lockdown off sure, and then the number will be far lower than 97% of the population who haven't been infected. It's immensely frustrating that folk don't see this.
It doesn't depend how you present the figures, it depends on whether you're arguing from what things look like now vs what things would look like under different scenarios.
And please for the love of god don't bring Brexit into this.
Maybe the reason we have been effected by CV19 more than our near neighbours is: 1) The population of the UK is dense 2) The population of the UK is dense
Take yer pick...
UK population is half the density of the Netherlands and a little bit denser than Germany (272 vs 233 people per km2).
UK cases per million population, 3181. Deaths per million population, 470 Netherlands cases per million population, 2410. Deaths per million population, 307 Germany cases per million population, 2040. Deaths per million population, 89
Density is a factor but as those numbers make clear, by far from being the only factor.
I don't want to criticise your post which makes good points edhelka but this kind of word play often makes me smile... 3% of the population are likely to have been infected with Covid 19 ...so thats 97% who haven't been. It easy to see how those wanting to ease lockdown can make a case. Its depends how you present the figures.
There's no hidden message in the number, it's just a number. If you want some message in it, it is actually a bad number... 10 times less would be better (elimination easier) and 10 times more would be also better (significant herd immunity).
Anyway, some quick calculations: If there is/were 2,000,000 infected and 200,000 is infectious at the moment and the R is 0.8, another 1,000,000 will get it in the next 6-8 months with 15,000 more deaths. (The disease will become insignificant after 6-8 months, this is based on the estimate of one person being infectious for 7 days). For R=0.9 it would be 2,000,000 and 30,000 more deaths. R=0.95 it would be 4,000,000 and 60,000 more deaths. These are obviously different (and more tragic the closer you get to R=1) but at least the same order of magnitude. As long as you stay reasonably bellow R=1. If it gets over 1, we are screwed, there is no doubt about that.
The question is how to ease the lockdown - which has to be done because we can't do this for the next 6-8 months - without going over R>1. We will surely see social distancing for months, travel regulations too. But we need to resume somewhat semi-normal lives. Contact tracking is IMHO the way to go. And careful slow easing of the lockdown. But it is a very very hard problem to solve.
I understood from the TV that a huge percentage of people have had it and not known, or had it and been asymptomatic. I would be surprised if it does give immunity because the normal seasonal flu mutates yearly so you have to have a new vac every year. As for the contact tracking, I dont possess a smart phone, and I gather that the ones over 3 years old do not work with the app anyway. Plus it relies on folk being honest, reporting symptoms, they may well not for whatever reason, OR, they may report symptoms they dont have.
Posts
Those of us who appreciate the need to take the virus seriously, certainly don't think that the other issues caused by lockdown don't exist. I have been donating to food banks and to Refuge throughout this because I am acutely aware of the downsides and the cost.
The situation needs to be managed, very very carefully, so that the hospitals aren't overwhelmed and so that there aren't huge numbers of people dying of Covid 19 needlessly, but also so that all the other problems created or exacerbated by the situation are addressed too. Its a tricky balance.
6000 people testing positive daily at the moment possibly means the 100,000 tests a day is enough, because on average, we're not 'meeting' so many people with social distancing. But if we went back to 'normal' - how many people on a typical day do you get within 'breathing' range of? On the bus (10), in a shop (10 more), at the office (20 or 30), in a cafe for your lunch (20), down the pub (probably 50), on the train home (10). A few hundred? Let's say 150. That would mean 900,000 people needing a test today. It's not remotely possible. And that assumes you do a job where the number of people you meet at work is limited. But if you work in a shop, on a bus, on a large building site let alone in a hospital? Some people 'meet' 100s of people every day.
We are going to have to maintain social distancing for the foreseeable future, to ensure each of us 'meets' on average, less than about a dozen people a day. Until there's a cure and/or a vaccine. And those 12 people really need to be the people you work with so that we can work to pay for all this. So you can't 'afford' to 'meet' anyone on the way to and from work, let alone go down the pub.
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
We can't eradicate it and we can't afford to wait for the vaccine. Otherwise, there could be more victims (long term) from the lockdown and the recession than from covid itself.
Argh, this is the kind of frustrating argument again. If 97% of the population haven't been infected it's in no small way down to the fact we've been in lock down for 6 weeks plus...i.e. if you want the lockdown off sure, and then the number will be far lower than 97% of the population who haven't been infected. It's immensely frustrating that folk don't see this.
It doesn't depend how you present the figures, it depends on whether you're arguing from what things look like now vs what things would look like under different scenarios.
And please for the love of god don't bring Brexit into this.
UK population is half the density of the Netherlands and a little bit denser than Germany (272 vs 233 people per km2).
UK cases per million population, 3181. Deaths per million population, 470
Netherlands cases per million population, 2410. Deaths per million population, 307
Germany cases per million population, 2040. Deaths per million population, 89
Density is a factor but as those numbers make clear, by far from being the only factor.
If there is/were 2,000,000 infected and 200,000 is infectious at the moment and the R is 0.8, another 1,000,000 will get it in the next 6-8 months with 15,000 more deaths. (The disease will become insignificant after 6-8 months, this is based on the estimate of one person being infectious for 7 days).
For R=0.9 it would be 2,000,000 and 30,000 more deaths.
R=0.95 it would be 4,000,000 and 60,000 more deaths.
These are obviously different (and more tragic the closer you get to R=1) but at least the same order of magnitude. As long as you stay reasonably bellow R=1.
If it gets over 1, we are screwed, there is no doubt about that.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.