Led By "The Science"?

[diddlydo]

Would you be happy to go along with this discriminatory idea?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/may/05/longer-lockdown-for-over-70s-would-allow-fewer-restrictions-for-rest-of-uk-scientists-suggest

[NickorWan]

Interesting, New Judge. I hope you are right as it would say to me that the virus wouldn’t be as bad as some predict when we are released for this purdah, as you put it. If it is as bad as some say, and we experienced a second wave, that could affect the economy a lot more than us being locked down a while longer would.

[jim360]

As far as I can tell NJ's posts are based on optimism coupled with a belief that the only way to deal with the unknowable is to not even waste time trying. It's true to an extent that any one prediction about the future spread of the disease isn't worth much but it's also true that we can't ignore the clear risk it poses and has already posed.

[Peter Pedant]

not as bad as some predict
we are above Whittys lower limit of 20 000
oh oops that doesnt count as all prediction bets are off

//a belief that the only way to deal with the unknowable is to not even waste time trying.//
yeah agreed - but the real danger is if these views are shared by the Great and Good who rule us for our maximum benefit

I fear they may be

[Peter Pedant]

oh did you notice the oxford view is back
epidemic what epidemic ?

there are no more deaths than there should be and it is all a matter of re-labelling. relax go out and have a good time. No one has died who wouldnt have soon

[jim360]

Source for that, PP? I missed that story. Not the one a couple of months back but a potential update.

[woofgang]

I recall Prof Whitty saying words to the effect that "we would be doing well if we kept it down to 20,000 or below" I remember his face when he said it.

[tomus42]

If they relax lockdown it needs to be done without age discrimination.

What they seem to be saying is that if we allow old people to go out then alot of them will die, which will make the figures look bad, and as they're not productive anyway we'd prefer them to stay in to keep the graphs on track.

People should be given the relevant information and then allowed to take responsibility for themselves.

[Deskdiary]

"People should be given the relevant information and then allowed to take responsibility for themselves."

Exactly right.

As NJ rightly states, 30,000 deaths to this virus is a tragedy, but at 0.04% of the population, it is a tiny figure.

As of 5th May, of those 30,000, only 322 were aged under 45...or put another way, 0.00048% of the population.

So whilst I absolutely accept we cannot be blase, equally let's get this into some realistic perspective.

The simple fact of the matter is the economy is more important, and therefore the lockdown must end and must end bloody quickly before any more damage is done. IF the lockdown goes beyond the furlough payments provided by the Government, there will be mass-redundancies - this will cause even more damage to the economy, mortgages/rent will go unpaid, there'll be a huge burden on the benefits system, and frankly, we'll be fcked.

It's turning into a cliche, but the cure will be much worse than the disease.

[iluvmargie]

22:21 - agree.

[NickorWan]

//As NJ rightly states, 30,000 deaths to this virus is a tragedy, but at 0.04% of the population, it is a tiny figure.//

I wouldn't call it a tiny figure, but in any case isn't it much lower than it might have been thanks to lockdown?

[fiction-factory]

I agree Nick. It's 30000 in 2 months. 30000 is actually an underestimate (since we are only counting deaths where a test was done so are excluding untested ones in homes/care homes where Covid is mentioned on death cert), and the figure will continue to rise even if lockdown isn't relaxed. It could easily rise by a further 70000 to 100000 by the end of the year even with only a partial loosening.

[naomi24]

//(since we are only counting deaths where a test was done so are excluding untested ones in homes/care homes where Covid is mentioned on death cert),//

I’m not sure that’s true. I don’t think anyone is entirely sure how figures are being calculated.

[Zacs-Master]

I think ‘calculated’ assumes some ‘math’ has gone into it.

[fiction-factory]

This may help clarify things for you.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/29/how-many-people-are-dying-of-covid-19-in-the-uk
Certainly in England (which is where vast majority of deaths are) the current stats only include cases where there was a positive test. So deaths from say 2 weeks ago where the doctor wrote "covid" on the death cert will not be counted in the daily briefing charts if there was no test. As testing is being rolled out to care homes that should become less of an issue in future though.

Anyway as we know it's excess mortality that really matters and overall deaths are running at something like 50-70% higher than in previous years, despite lockdown. We'll see the picture more clearly in the coming months

[naomi24]

What I mean is I wonder if the reason Germany’s figures, for example, are so extraordinarily low compared to other countries is because they’re only counting deaths that are directly attributable to the virus alone and excluding any that may be more accurately attributed to a serious pre-existing condition and the virus combined?

[Zacs-Master]

Germany has far fewer deaths than other countries because they began an aggresive testing procedure earlier.
They followed up this early testing with contact tracing of anyone infected which slowed the spread.
Robust testing coupled with identifying and isolating infected patients helped Germany prevent the virus spreading and enable them to keep a closer record of recoveries and deaths.
In addition they had a better prepared health system as the number of acute-cute beds in Germany was 621 per 100,000 people, compared to the UK’s 288 beds per 100,000.

[naomi24]

I know what we hear.

[Zacs-Master]

Well, yes, I’d rather believe it was them only counting directly related Covid deaths but what is being reported (and as far as I know unrefuted). Have you seen anything I’ve written being shown to be wrong, Naomi?

[theshedman]

Zacs I can see that Germany were better prepared for this than we were testing wise but saying about the number of Acute beds I am not so sure about. They may have more per 100,000 than we do but on the other hand we didn't use all the ones we had so that shouldn't come into it as we did have enough for what was needed.

[Zacs-Master]

Fair point, shedman. I’m not sure whether it helped them, I’d have to do a bit of research. I think it’s fairly evident, tho, that it isn’t simply a case of them counting differently.