Why are we in lockdown when no one is dying?

[SplunkPostGres]

I don’t understand why we’ve got local lockdown again. Cases are high but deaths are still low. Seems like a lot of cases are asymptomatic? So why are the lockdowns and restrictions needed?

Interestingly and hopefully the WHO now says it’s looking very rare that asymptomatic people transmit the virus. This looks like good news, for once!

sadly no

The WHO recanted this

www.marketwatch.com/story/world-health-organization-recants-claim-that-asymptomatic-coronavirus-transmission-very-rare-2020-06-09#:~:text=World%20Health%20Organization%20recants%20claim%20that%20asymptomatic%20coronavirus,Published%3A%20June%2011%2C%202020%20at%205%3A10%20p.m.%20ET

Where is the 1 - 2% fatality rate from? The two Ronnies of Doom last week gave a figure that worked out at 0.4%

@SheepandCow the death rate is not 1-2%. You're on every thread bleating about long covid.

On 22nd March, the day before we went into lockdown there were 72 deaths from covid. Today there have been 71.

Surely this explains why there are still restrictions??

[quote Jrobhatch29]@SheepandCow the death rate is not 1-2%. You're on every thread bleating about long covid.[/quote]
I don't know the exact death rate. I was responding to another poster who suggested that was the figure.
Obviously the death rate will vary depending on whether there are containment measures, and also hospital capacity (Germany, for example, has much greater capacity than us).

I'm not on every thread. Perhaps every thread you must be on too (if you're seeing my bleats). I have about 5 or 6 threads in my active list. Not many.

I bleat (that's what 🐑 do) about Long Covid far less than other posters demand that 'we shield The Others aka The Vulnerable' aka The Expendables and 'just get on with it'.
I think I have as much right as they do to post.

What's wrong with highlighting Long Covid btw? Would you prefer to look back with regret at not taking (calm) sensible precautions?

@MadameBlobby

Where is the 1 - 2% fatality rate from? The two Ronnies of Doom last week gave a figure that worked out at 0.4%

I miss the two ronnies. Both wonderful comedians.

Denial and downplaying brings far more doom than acknowledging the risks, and then taking mitigating action to prevent the worst happening.

I agree but that was the figure given by the CMO and CSA. I think there’s a danger in over estimating the death rate too as it may lead to disproportionate measures being put in place.

2 Ronnies were indeed fab. Could do with their humour now!

@SheepandCow at this point you might as well have a standard response that you just copy and paste. It will involve new Zealand, Australia and Long Covid.
I also dont think it being actually illegal where I live to see my own mam is calm, sensible precaution.

@Jrobhatch29
You're right actually. Good idea, thanks.
I'll save the main points ready to copy and paste when I need them.

I agree with you about the restrictions. That's why I think we should've done what Australia and New Zealand did. If we'd done that eight months ago, like they did, you'd now be able to see your mum. And if we did it now, you'll be able to see her far sooner than if we drag it all out over the next year.

The sooner we deal with it, the sooner it's over.

@GalaxyCookieCrumble what was that like here? Was it worse? X

www.itv.com/news/2020-09-29/long-covid-long-term-effects-of-coronavirus-include-damage-to-heart-liver-kidneys-oxford-study-reveals

Preventing deaths by decreasing that invisible spread with a shorter lockdown is much better than waiting until people start dying. The whole point is to prevent deaths altogether is possible, surely?

^this

Back in March all of the graphs showed that the infection rate shot up, and the death rate shot up with it (there was a minor lag in the curve between the two, which signified the time from infection to death). Why? Because we were only really testing people that were ill enough to be admitted to hospital or strongly suspected of having the virus. We therefore had strong correlation between the two (infection and hospitalisation/death) and we thought that the virus was very deadly as it was killing about 2-4% of those testing positive for infection.

Now, nearly six months on, we have a massive spike in the infection rate, but the death rate and hospitalisation rate are a LOT lower, in fact, they barely register on the graphs. Why? It's the same virus and has not mutated (much) so what is the data telling us?

Its telling me that back in March and April millions more people had the virus than were tested or detected. Many people wouldn't have known about it, and for some it was a bit of an inconvenience. But if there is statistical correlation between the current infection and death rate that is no different to March due to it being the same virus, then the infection rate back in March MUST have been way, way higher than it currently is. In other words, we just didn't know about it or how far it had spread through society, and we couldn't have as we weren't testing everyone, just the very tip of the iceberg. But we are testing a lot more now, so we can see it more readily.

Now that we are testing FAR more people we will see that it's not only more prevalent than we think, but also that it's a lot less deadly than we think too. I predict that the infection rate will rise further, but the death and hospitalisation rate will not go near to the rates we saw in March/April due to the controls we have in place now, which will limit the spread, but also due to the much-maligned impact of herd immunity, which really can play a part in making a population largely tolerant to a virus.

On balance, Sweden seem to be doing OK and they never had a lockdown. Makes you think.

Sweden are doing consistently worse than Norway and Finland, both in numbers of cases and deaths per 100,000 population

I do wonder why it is continually held up as a model to follow when it is not doing as well as its neighbours.

@MummyPop00

Back in March all of the graphs showed that the infection rate shot up, and the death rate shot up with it (there was a minor lag in the curve between the two, which signified the time from infection to death). Why? Because we were only really testing people that were ill enough to be admitted to hospital or strongly suspected of having the virus. We therefore had strong correlation between the two (infection and hospitalisation/death) and we thought that the virus was very deadly as it was killing about 2-4% of those testing positive for infection.

Now, nearly six months on, we have a massive spike in the infection rate, but the death rate and hospitalisation rate are a LOT lower, in fact, they barely register on the graphs. Why? It's the same virus and has not mutated (much) so what is the data telling us?

Its telling me that back in March and April millions more people had the virus than were tested or detected. Many people wouldn't have known about it, and for some it was a bit of an inconvenience. But if there is statistical correlation between the current infection and death rate that is no different to March due to it being the same virus, then the infection rate back in March MUST have been way, way higher than it currently is. In other words, we just didn't know about it or how far it had spread through society, and we couldn't have as we weren't testing everyone, just the very tip of the iceberg. But we are testing a lot more now, so we can see it more readily.

Now that we are testing FAR more people we will see that it's not only more prevalent than we think, but also that it's a lot less deadly than we think too. I predict that the infection rate will rise further, but the death and hospitalisation rate will not go near to the rates we saw in March/April due to the controls we have in place now, which will limit the spread, but also due to the much-maligned impact of herd immunity, which really can play a part in making a population largely tolerant to a virus.

Yes and that is what the restrictions are doing - Keeping the transmission and infection rates low enough to prevent the out of control levels experienced at the start of the year. It is common knowledge that the actual infection rates were much higher as we were doing little community testing.

Meant to add the figure of 8% is thought to be how much of the population in the UK has been infected so nearer to 5 million rather than the official number of 440000. Herd immunity doesn't come into play.

Ventilated ITU patients in England have apparently gone from 88 last week to 245 this week.

And U.K. total ITU capacity is something like 4000.

At this rate it would only be a matter of a few weeks before ITUs are overrun with COVID19 patients.

@mrshoho

Herd immunity does come into play insofar as if you can only catch Covid once, those 5 million won’t be catching it this time round.

Or if they can catch it for a second time, they are much less likely - on the very limited feedback thus far - to require hospitalisation 2nd time round.

Both those things help in this situation

620 NHS staff have died due to covid. Six Hundred And Twenty.

620 more, anyone...!?

I don’t understand how at the moment, more people are dying of flu and pneumonia than Covid.

People are being left with serious complications though.

@Bouncycastle12

I don’t understand how at the moment, more people are dying of flu and pneumonia than Covid.

Pneumonia is caused by non-infectious causes too so doesn't compare.

mobile.twitter.com/drraghibali/status/1309615404969590786

This thread has been doing the rounds on twitter. The author also wrote a full article for conservativehome.

This section explains why those in the know are fearful of the virus still:

Finally, it took less than three weeks to go from 6,000 cases a day on March 5th (50 recorded cases) to 300,000 cases a day on March 23rd. (2000 recorded cases). There was only one death on March 3rd, but a month later it was a thousand a day (with 3000 admissions).

@Sweetnhappy1

Two weeks ago there were 88 patients on mechanical ventilation with Covid in England. Today there are 245 patients on mechanical ventilation with Covid in England. It has nearly TRIPLED in a fortnight. The deaths usually lag 2-3 weeks behind the hospital and ICU admissions.

You posted that on Monday night and now we are at Wednesday and there are now 297 patients on mechanical ventilation specifically with Covid.

coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare

I am far less worried about dying from Covid than I am about the high numbers of people with long term and possibly permanent damage to their hearts and other vital organs. Both on a personal level for me and my family/friends and as a population that will need case and support and the social and economic impact of that.