I've lost all confidence in our leaders. **Title edited by MNHQ**

[Ofthread]

I'm freaking out. Why isn't our country doing more? I've lost all confidence in their abilities to lead. Did anyone see the government advisor guy with the dead eyes on the Channel 4 special this evening? He explained quite calmly that the measures would be enough and that they would 'flatten the curve'. Another guy was practically jumping up and down screaming 'You have to do something NOW, these measures won't flatten the curve'.

@Prokupatuscrakedatus - my apologies, my intention was not at all to "blame the Catholics". Were there another religion widely practised and involving large congregations of people gathering together and shaking hands and sipping from the same chalice in Northern Italy, I would be "blaming" that. Not that I'm blaming anyone at all. I am observing that I think it likely that is how the virus spread so quickly specifically in N. Italy, but I am no scientist, there is no reason to think I'm right.

There is already a proposed vaccine and at least one antiviral that some believe will be effective, maybe even as a prophylactic.
We don’t need to fear next winter and ‘get it over with’. We need to minimise the impact now and have a global Manhattan style project in treatment protocol and vaccine development. Then, next winter, we will be ready.

Please. The vaccine won't be ready for dispensing to people for eighteen months yet, and even then you'll have to produce enough for the entire planet. We will certainly not be ready by winter.

Hardly any churches in Italy at all actually offer the wine to the congregation. That's more of a high Anglican practice these days. (And not just because of the current crisis)

The virus spread so quickly because nobody took it seriously.

@Jaichangecentfoisdenom
it's all OK and fine
But it is important not to put ideas into the heads of the brainless (Terry Pratchet put it much better)

Because,

Really? We shall see. If I knew you and we could bet, I would place a large wager on a vaccine by next winter.

This will not follow normal protocols. It is amazing what a focused effort with nearly unlimited funds can achieve in terms of compressing time scales. Look at the original Manhattan project.

In addition, I mentioned antivirals. One is already being tested by a New York hospital on the seriously ill. They can buy us time.

Thanks, @BookMeOnTheSudExpress, I didn't know that, it's been a long time since I went to Mass, let alone in Italy. So that's my theory out of the window.

www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/analysis/coronavirus-mers-cov-drugs/

Some hopeful candidates.

Really? We shall see. If I knew you and we could bet, I would place a large wager on a vaccine by next winter. This will not follow normal protocols. It is amazing what a focused effort with nearly unlimited funds can achieve in terms of compressing time scales. Look at the original Manhattan project.

Ethics don't allow vaccines to rush through the screening process. They've pretty much developed it already but safety checks take time, for a good reason given that they're largely given to the well.

Also, I doubt any vaccine will have a huge uptake in this country, what with many not trusting the decades-old MMR, and many of the most vulnerable being unable to receive vaccines in the first place.

I think it's up to the individual priests Jai, but I've never seen it (southern Italy)

Because,

We will have to agree to disagree.

Ethics are an analysis of risk and reward. The higher the risks to delay, the more risks will be seen as acceptable in tests.

There is already a human safety trial happening (or about to happen) on volunteers without many of the normal safety stages on animals (it has only been tested on mice).

What is normally spent on developing a vaccine? What would the world be prepared to spend on this one given the human and economic costs?

And an understanding of antivirals and even treatment protocols and time to build hospital facilities will save many lives.

I just don’t agree with the theory of getting it over and done with. I have a mathematical science degree and understand stochastic calculus. Whichever way I look at it, the best case scenario is close to a million deaths and the worst is virtually unthinkable.

I just don’t agree with the theory of getting it over and done with.
As has been mentioned here and elsewhere, there's no guarantee that once you've had it, you can't get it again, is there?

Isn't stochastic calculus used to model systems that behave randomly? This is an epidemic and is following the pattern of an epidemic. It's not behaving randomly.

I have a master's degree and studied epidemiology, (not that it matters in this instance, but if we're doing our qualifications into conversation for no reason, hey- why not).

*dropping

I just don’t agree with the theory of getting it over and done with. I have a mathematical science degree and understand stochastic calculus. Whichever way I look at it, the best case scenario is close to a million deaths and the worst is virtually unthinkable.

Do you mean in the UK? South Korea have a death rate of 0.7% so even if everyone gets it in the country (highly unlikely) that would still be about half a million based on that statistic. I don't have a maths degree by the way.

Unless you mean globally and this thread is specifically about our leaders.

Also, here you go: www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-03-12/why-does-it-take-so-long-to-make-a-coronavirus-vaccine%3f_amp=true

Unfortunately, creating a vaccine capable of preventing the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 will probably take at least a year to 18 months, health officials say. “That is the time frame,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told the House Oversight and Reform Committee this week. Anyone who says they can do it faster “will be cutting corners that would be detrimental.”

While there are about 10 vaccine candidates in the works — and at least one of them could begin clinical trials in April — it would still take about three more months to conduct the first stage of human testing and another eight months or so to complete the next stage of the trial process, he added.

So, while one could be licensed in a year's time (still too far away to be out and in use before winter) it definitely wouldn't be mass produced in the scale needed in time.

Look lots of younger people as well in Italy are being intubated in intensive care. With 4500 intensive care beds if the plan is to let herd immunity develop before next winter you only need a basic knowledge of arithmetic to figure out our death rate will be appalling.

Because,

Yes it is. It is used to measure random systems with a drift term (the stock market for instance), very much like an epidemic. The basic path is deterministic but the infectivity, mortality themselves will also have a random element.

You probably have more expertise than me, then, so you know the reality.

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/13/how-many-will-die-of-coronavirus-in-the-uk-a-closer-look-at-the-numbers

The reality is we just don't know yet.

Because,

We don’t know, but there is little reason to disagree with the WHO’s estimate of 3.4% CFR.

I am happier with my own analysis than the Guardian’s. Although, overall, epidemiology is complex, the basic curve, which is exponential until measures are taken, or immunity built up, is accessible by any A level Maths student. I would love to know your guesstimate as to the peak of the flattened curve in terms of cases per day and cases in hospital. I have given mine and explained my reasoning.

There are many who believe the 3.4% rate is pretty accurate and that most of the ‘iceberg’ is above the water, based on extensive testing of the general population in China.

The stochastic bit is based on mutation versus measures taken. This will give us a standard deviation or error bar. I can not calculate this but based on how little we know, I feel it is too high to gamble with.

Tea,

The South Korean experience is exceptional in that it was triggered by one super spreader, contacts were traced and isolation effected early. It was also in an unusually young community.

Find one respected virologist or epidemiologist not in the pay of the U.K. government still thinking that 1% or less is an expected CFR in the U.K.

So what would you do then? Put everyone in lockdown until next winter in the hope of a widely-available vaccine that by all indication will not be ready in time (and we wouldn't distribute even if it were, given the amount of safety protocols that would have had to be cut to get it produced in time). I'm curious to know what steps you'd take.

I would institute enough measures to delay as long as I possibly could or, ideally, get the infectivity rate below 1, to stop the epidemic. In short, I would do what the WHO is actually advising, not startlingly radical really to take the advice of the most respected body in this area.

I would give as much money to researchers as they asked for.

I would use emergency legislation, as many governments are already going, to make the safety and health of the population the overriding aim of all policy and enforce this using the police and army.

And in return, how many do you think will die? And how many would need to be at threat for you to endorse more radical measures?

Why always one extreme or the other...

We don't need total lock down. We need far more flexibility to allow distancing.

We need Skelton staff in primary schools, that's the main child care issue dc under 12.

Staff are human too, there are many elderly staff where I work, many are gp themselves being exposed to teens.

We need a separate covid hot line.

We need firmer staggering of the population so it doesn't hit the NHS at once. It will knock into storing bodies. Processing the dead.

These are all issues other countries are struggling with.
If I need a bed in 3 weeks my expectation of gaining access to help is zero.

We are an entitled country.

Mass hysteria at the idea that we might have to god forbid look after ourselves?

Aren’t we lucky in the U.K. to have a free healthcare and this has highlighted the reason the NHS is already struggling. The ease of access has caused the public to lose their sense of common sense and ability to take some responsibility for their own health.

This has made a lot of people spoilt and in light of the coronavirus a lot of the anger is now the handheld services are no longer there at your convenience.

The government have gave their instructions, if you’re not happy then you do you and let the rest of us keep washing our hands and distancing where we feel we need.