Is it time we learned to live with Covid? BBC article today

[PennyDreadfuI]

From the BBC

I'm beginning to think that it might be (and I'm higher risk). It's here to stay, after all, and lockdowns every few months cannot go on indefinitely. All the money spent on lockdown measures could perhaps be ploughed into the NHS to pay for staff/hospitals to provide care for those who need it when they become ill (and to ease the backlog the last lockdown created).

It’s true we don’t know what would have happened if we hadn’t locked down do we?

There’s some evidence to say we had already peaked before lockdown and therefore would cases and deaths come down naturally? With some gentle measures in place and not full lockdown? We’ll never know.

I’ve seen people argue on other threads that without lockdown you suffer exponential growth indefinitely. This can’t be true?
The virus will burn out eventually. The question is at what cost? Versus the cost of lockdown and prolonging the whole process.

Eh? The virus wasn’t circulating for months unnoticed. We were set for for v low flu year, no evidence of a stealth respiratory virus circulating in U.K.
And as for Sweden, it has just finished its first wave. Keep watching - its numbers just ticking up now. Let’s wait until Christmas & then see where we are before we say Sweden is the winner.
One thing is clear - UK now has worst of both worlds, months of stop/start restrictions to choke off economy & cause distress to families whilst also singularly failing to tackle transmission so public health will take big hit too.

@TheDailyCarbuncle

Maybe you should watch the two videos below by Michael Osterholm, a highly regarded epidemiologist. The first one was back in May where he talks about the Sweden situation then, and the second one in September where from about 10:55 he talks about the situation now. He does not agree that their cases are likely to remain low. But maybe he is wrong, and you are right.

@TheDailyCarbuncle there is speculation covid was here earlier than March but nothing definitive as far as I’m aware. Even if it was what are you putting the sharp, steep, spike in excess deaths during spring down to as well as rise in respiratory hospital admissions (no hospital was admitting anyone who didn’t absolutely need to be there during lockdown)?

The economic impacts of all this are definitely disproportionally affecting particularly working mothers (I should know - I’m one of them!) but this is where we branch off on our opinion. I strongly believe the economic impact would have been the same if not worse without lockdown and subsequent restrictions. People modify their own behaviour proportionate to the threat to their own personal well-being and given the numbers we saw in the spring I’m not confident that people, left to their own devices, would have made particularly good decisions in the sense of wider repercussions. Look at the panic buying before lockdown - scared populations make bad collective choices based of the actions of the people they can observe.

Sweden is its own conversation but frankly we do not have the same cultural resilience or space to implement the same regime. There is no love for collective good in the UK.

@Delatron

It’s true we don’t know what would have happened if we hadn’t locked down do we?

There’s some evidence to say we had already peaked before lockdown and therefore would cases and deaths come down naturally? With some gentle measures in place and not full lockdown? We’ll never know.

I’ve seen people argue on other threads that without lockdown you suffer exponential growth indefinitely. This can’t be true?
The virus will burn out eventually. The question is at what cost? Versus the cost of lockdown and prolonging the whole process.

Just looking at the numbers, covid apparently went from zero cases to thousands and thousands of cases across the whole country in a matter of weeks. That's not what actually happened of course - what really happened was that covid was very very widespread in February, thousands of people were infected, they just didn't know it. So we do know what happens when there's no lockdown and the virus spreads without any control - because that's what happened in early 2020. People did notice there was strange illness going around and there must have been deaths but because covid wasn't known, no one identified it as anything new - it was just another virus.

Exponential growth indefinitely isn't possible because there is a limited number of people in the world. At some point you simply run out of new people to infect. One thing that's worth pointing out is that the Imperial model, the originator of the 'exponential growth' idea, is based on no evidence at all, no knowledge of how the virus behaves or how people actually deal with having the virus. It doesn't take into account, for example, that people stay at home when they feel ill. It assumes that a person gets ill, feels unwell and then just carries on regardless. It may be the case that a significant proportion of unwell people carry on, but people who are so unwell they can't get out of bed definitely won't be just going about their business. The model assumes that very unwell people, people who need hospital treatment or even are on ventilator, are walking around, infecting more and more people, which is of course just nonsense. Viruses are in many ways self-limiting because sick people tend to do less and go fewer places. That alone means that exponential spread gets cut off at various key points. Add to that things like knowledge about the virus (which means that people make different choices to their normal routine) and basic measures like handwashing and even very simple changes make a large difference without requiring people to sit at home needlessly for long periods of time. Humans have always had to do deal with the spread of viruses, this is not a new thing. What's new is the total overreaction and tunnel vision that makes it seem like covid is the only thing that matters.

@onedayinthefuture - there is no way on this earth we would accept the kind of measures used in wuhan to suppress covid no matter how effective they are.

Viruses are in many ways self-limiting because sick people tend to do less and go fewer places. That alone means that exponential spread gets cut off at various key points

I agree but that’s not an option for covid because it presents asymptomatically or very mildly in a significant proportion of cases. Double edged sword to say the least; the very reason people are leaning toward relaxing restrictions is the very reason it’s dangerous.

What on earth are you on about? ‘There’s speculation that COVID was here before March’
The first official case was end of Jan??

[quote Cornettoninja]@TheDailyCarbuncle there is speculation covid was here earlier than March but nothing definitive as far as I’m aware. Even if it was what are you putting the sharp, steep, spike in excess deaths during spring down to as well as rise in respiratory hospital admissions (no hospital was admitting anyone who didn’t absolutely need to be there during lockdown)?

The economic impacts of all this are definitely disproportionally affecting particularly working mothers (I should know - I’m one of them!) but this is where we branch off on our opinion. I strongly believe the economic impact would have been the same if not worse without lockdown and subsequent restrictions. People modify their own behaviour proportionate to the threat to their own personal well-being and given the numbers we saw in the spring I’m not confident that people, left to their own devices, would have made particularly good decisions in the sense of wider repercussions. Look at the panic buying before lockdown - scared populations make bad collective choices based of the actions of the people they can observe.

Sweden is its own conversation but frankly we do not have the same cultural resilience or space to implement the same regime. There is no love for collective good in the UK.[/quote]
Covid absolutely had to be here earlier than March. It isn't physically possible for a virus to spread to the entire country (and in fact, to the entire world) in a matter of weeks - people move around, yes, but not that much. It isn't the case that covid suddenly appeared out of nowhere, it was here but we weren't testing for it, so people didn't know they had it. Just pure logic says that that's the case, it simply can't be anything else.

People modify their own behaviour proportionate to the threat to their own personal well-being and given the numbers we saw in the spring I’m not confident that people, left to their own devices, would have made particularly good decisions in the sense of wider repercussions. Look at the panic buying before lockdown - scared populations make bad collective choices based of the actions of the people they can observe.

I sort of see what you're saying here but I'm still not quite getting your point - are you saying that without lockdown people would have locked down anyway?

Sweden is its own conversation but frankly we do not have the same cultural resilience or space to implement the same regime. There is no love for collective good in the UK.
I don't understand your point here at all, sorry. Sweden's restrictions were lighter and simpler than the UK's - overall they were much easier to follow and asked a lot less of the people. If anything the UK showed a lot more commitment and compliance, in the sense that they stuck to very strict restrictions for a long time. So I'm not sure where the argument comes from that Sweden are somehow better?

@Cornettoninja

Viruses are in many ways self-limiting because sick people tend to do less and go fewer places. That alone means that exponential spread gets cut off at various key points

I agree but that’s not an option for covid because it presents asymptomatically or very mildly in a significant proportion of cases. Double edged sword to say the least; the very reason people are leaning toward relaxing restrictions is the very reason it’s dangerous.

Again, this comes across to me as a bit incoherent. If a virus cause so few symptoms that it's able to spread exponentially and so few people are actually ill with it that illness doesn't stop the spread in any meaningful way, then the natural conclusion is that this isn't a deadly virus at all? In fact, it affects people so little that measures to contain it are not necessary?

That's not what I think by the way, it's just that it can't be simultaneously true that the virus is so commonly asymptomatic that the spread is wildly out of control and that it's deadly, because those two things can't co-exist. Either covid causes actual illness in a significant number of people, in which case those people stop spreading the illness because they are no longer circulating in society (due to said illness) or it doesn't cause illness very often at all in which case infected people keep circulating the illness in big numbers. It can't be both.

I agree with this. We can carry on with masks and hand washing, ask anyone who can WFH to do so, but the rest of it should just stop. Otherwise we are trashing our children's futures, our small businesses and our mental health until we get a vaccine? No thanks.

[quote BlueBlancmange]@TheDailyCarbuncle

Maybe you should watch the two videos below by Michael Osterholm, a highly regarded epidemiologist. The first one was back in May where he talks about the Sweden situation then, and the second one in September where from about 10:55 he talks about the situation now. He does not agree that their cases are likely to remain low. But maybe he is wrong, and you are right.

[/quote] I saw that @BlueBlancmange. The interview is very odd tbh. He says Sweden may have another surge, but doesn't give any reason at all for why he thinks that.

There seems to be constant ongoing resistance to admitting that Sweden have dealt with the virus amazingly well. Everyone seems to want to constantly find reasons why they're different or why they are definitely not going to keep numbers low. A French official actually admitted at one point that they're desperate for Sweden to be wrong, because if they're right then that makes everyone else look like idiots (I think that's a strong way to put it but it does explain a lot!).

I think there's a fear that if anyone admits Sweden did the right thing very serious questions will be asked about why schools and businesses had to needlessly close for months everywhere else. No politician wants to answer those questions. They're all massive cowards.

@turnitonagain “Let’s learn to live with it” sounds like admitting Britain has failed, honestly.

It would do this government a whole lot of good to actually have the guts to ADMIT THEY FAILED; some people (including myself) might then actually trust them. Instead, we get all this pretending they know everything, U-turning, when they claim something is true with absolute certainty, and then suddenly take the opposite line, with equal certainty.

Take the face nappies masks. They said first, with certainty: masks are useless. Then they said, with equal certainty: masks are mandatory. If they had said "actually, we don't know", then they might have earned some respect.

And let's not forget the original claim: "We can turn this virus around in twelve weeks". It's been double that now, and he's saying another six months to go, and then it may be more.

So yes, it is time to live with it. There's only so long Saint Boris can go on trying to beat the unbeatable, at massive expense to those who pay his wages.

Masks are an interesting one. Sweden is once again the outlier wrt masks - they have actually advised people not to wear them, on the understanding that when people use masks incorrectly (which pretty much everyone does) they increase the risk of infection rather than decrease it.

I can sort of see the argument for preventing spit from being released. What I think is bizarre is the idea of making teenagers wear them at school all day (as they do in Ireland). If a child is infected with covid, they're collecting their spit and snot on a piece of cloth all day long. Unless they dispose of that mask very very carefully, that mask becomes a highly concentrated source of infection. If they leave the mask on a desk, or even if they touch it a lot, they're spreading concentrated infectious body fluids around to their peers. It seems nuts to me.

@TheDailyCarbuncle ok I believe he has been an epidemiologist for 45 years, but he probably does know less than you

If the mask gets left on the desk then it just gets put in the bin surely. I expect the cleaners have ppe. It doesnt spread itself to everyone in a 2m radius.

[quote BlueBlancmange]@TheDailyCarbuncle ok I believe he has been an epidemiologist for 45 years, but he probably does know less than you[/quote]
I'm not sure what your point is here. What I said is that he didn't really give a reason for why he thinks Sweden will have another surge and he stated himself that he doesn't know if he's right or not. I'm not sure what's that go to do with him knowing less than I do - I'm just repeating what he said

@Porcupineinwaiting

If the mask gets left on the desk then it just gets put in the bin surely. I expect the cleaners have ppe. It doesnt spread itself to everyone in a 2m radius.

I'm really not sure how to respond to this. Are you really not able to see how a mask covered in infected bodily fluids left on a desk is a problem?

Not to mention the fact that the child removing that infected mask is going to get infectious fluids all over their hands.

I really cant see how it is as much of a problem as those infectious fluids being spread through the room aerosol fashion, no. And people touch their faces repeatedly through the day whether they wear a mask or not. But keep on with your spurious arguements if it makes you feel better. It would never do if we actually learnt something from other countries with better track records of controlling respiratory disease after all.

@Porcupineinwaiting

I really cant see how it is as much of a problem as those infectious fluids being spread through the room aerosol fashion, no. And people touch their faces repeatedly through the day whether they wear a mask or not. But keep on with your spurious arguements if it makes you feel better. It would never do if we actually learnt something from other countries with better track records of controlling respiratory disease after all.

Sweden has explicitly said no masks and now has practically no cases. So it's not the case that countries that don't use masks automatically have higher cases. (I'm going to put in that I know Sweden had higher cases than Norway and Denmark at one point, but I'm also going to point out that that's no longer the case.)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'spurious arguments' - it's just a fact that if a person infected with covid wears a mask all day then that mask will be a serious source of infection - there's nothing controversial about stating that surely?

That's not what I think by the way, it's just that it can't be simultaneously true that the virus is so commonly asymptomatic that the spread is wildly out of control and that it's deadly, because those two things can't co-exist. Either covid causes actual illness in a significant number of people, in which case those people stop spreading the illness because they are no longer circulating in society (due to said illness) or it doesn't cause illness very often at all in which case infected people keep circulating the illness in big numbers. It can't be both

But it is. Covid doesn’t have a uniform effect on people and although we have identified certain risk factors we can’t say for certain why that is. You could get covid and experience nothing more than a minor irritating cough and a bit of a headache but the person you pass it onto could go into complete respiratory failure. That’s the point we come back to the concerns over the health provision because we just don’t have enough, even for the relatively small(tiny?) percentage that would need it in the projected time it would take to saturate the population. That’s without considering the workforce taken out of circulation for moderate cases that just need a couple of weeks to get over (some of which will be healthcare workers limiting provision further at a time every bit of it would be needed).

On an individual level it’s a tempting gamble to take but the ripples of repercussions through our infrastructure is what does the damage both socially and economically.

@Cornettoninja

That's not what I think by the way, it's just that it can't be simultaneously true that the virus is so commonly asymptomatic that the spread is wildly out of control and that it's deadly, because those two things can't co-exist. Either covid causes actual illness in a significant number of people, in which case those people stop spreading the illness because they are no longer circulating in society (due to said illness) or it doesn't cause illness very often at all in which case infected people keep circulating the illness in big numbers. It can't be both

But it is. Covid doesn’t have a uniform effect on people and although we have identified certain risk factors we can’t say for certain why that is. You could get covid and experience nothing more than a minor irritating cough and a bit of a headache but the person you pass it onto could go into complete respiratory failure. That’s the point we come back to the concerns over the health provision because we just don’t have enough, even for the relatively small(tiny?) percentage that would need it in the projected time it would take to saturate the population. That’s without considering the workforce taken out of circulation for moderate cases that just need a couple of weeks to get over (some of which will be healthcare workers limiting provision further at a time every bit of it would be needed).

On an individual level it’s a tempting gamble to take but the ripples of repercussions through our infrastructure is what does the damage both socially and economically.

My argument was about exponential growth - I was saying that that sort of 'wildfire' constant doubling of infections is dependent on a virus that doesn't cause people to stop because they're ill. If people do stop because they're ill (which some do with covid, as you say) then that puts stoppers in the growth because it cuts off certain lines of infection completely. My argument was that if covid is (as it appears to be) an infection that causes actual illness in a significant number of people then that in itself will be self-limiting. The alternative is that it doesn't cause illness at all in a significant number of people and that would raise the question as to why restrictions are necessary at all.

In terms of 'damage both socially and economically' - the damage caused by lockdown is absolutely massive, potentially beyond repair. So I don't understand the argument that because covid could potentially cause damage, we should cause guaranteed damage instead.

It’s perfectly possible to teach children & teenagers to wear, remove and dispose/wash masks safely. Other countries, most of which have done much better than the U.K. when it comes to Covid, appear to be able to do this.
I’m not aware of kids falling prey to sodden mask-related infection in Japan, for example.

@mac12

It’s perfectly possible to teach children & teenagers to wear, remove and dispose/wash masks safely. Other countries, most of which have done much better than the U.K. when it comes to Covid, appear to be able to do this. I’m not aware of kids falling prey to sodden mask-related infection in Japan, for example.

I find it really surprising that anyone who has children believes that children can engage in infection control techniques while surrounded and distracted by their friends at school. Health care professionals need special training to do it, so I'm not sure that children are really going to be very good at it. But if you believe they are, then fair enough.