Westministenders: The Virus

[RedToothBrush]

Its like living in a Bad Disaster B Movie.

If you thought Brexit on your TV every day was Bad, The Virus is a whole new level.

The 5pm broadcast with Johnson and friends, and the public infomation video with the unblicking Chris Witty (who has such unfortunate mannerism he makes me think he's me a Dr Who alien akin to the Slitheen).

Who knows what will happen. Just that everything has changed and our entire economy is now on life support whilst we figure out how to deal with the crisis and what on earth our exit strategy is.

Johnson has however refused to join a joint EU purchase scheme designed to assist countries through the crisis.

Meanwhile the US is about to go nuts... so what does that do to a trade deal?

More money for the NHS? More hospitals?

Well its possible that might just happen...

The problems with how AirBnB functions and affects housing are well-documented.
Things like this:
www.scotsman.com/news/uk-news/thousands-edinburghs-airbnb-properties-potentially-unlawful-542458
www.bbc.com/news/business-45083954
www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/what-happens-when-you-find-cameras-your-airbnb/585007/

A few musing on the scientific side of the CV-19 (As a premanble, my training is in healthcare. And these are the musings I've had with some of my colleagues, university tutors, PhD etc...).

• At the moment, there is hardly no research on the CV-19. Which is to be expected for such a new illness. There has been some parallel drawn between this virus and other viruses but I think that, by now, we know the limitations on that approach. This means that any deciion, numbers etc... are basically a shot in the dark. They might hitting the rough ball park or they might not, we wont know until much later on. This explains the disparity in numbers for the mortality rate for example. Iceland and the very first cruise ship affected by the virus found a mortality rate of 0.5% (despite people on the cruise being over 60yo). Other 'experts' are talking about much higher mortality rate. It's impossibe at this stage to say who is right/wrong. The ony thing we can safely say is that many other illnesses have a much higher mortality rate. Malaria comes to mind. Same with the infection rate (chicken pox is much more infectious).

• Because we dont have enough data yet (or havent processed it yet), we still have little idea of cofounding factors and the effect of comorbidities. Yes it seems clear that having one, two or three comorbidies (CVD, diabetes etc...) increase the death rate. But then this is nothing new. We know nothing yet of the impact of income/social class for example. Or ethnicity. Or the effect of vitamin D, where you live (latitude), obesity, inflammatory disease , immunisation (BCG, flu) etc etc etc.

To be able to have TRUE mortality rates (as in having taken nto account cofounding factors) and/or be able to compare different populations, we need those information that we do not have yet. This also means decisions are taken without actual proper scientific information and knowledge and is based a lot on 'best guesses' eg trying to evaluate how the disease will progress in the UK based in is happening in China or in Italy despite the fact in both country those cofounding fcators are totally different.

• There is a lot we dont know about and also also a lot we dont know we dont know. Possible areas that will need to be researched included genetics and epigenetics, influence of inflammatory disease, influence of obesity etc Basicaly, even though we see a higher mortlity rate in the elderly, it is possible that this isnt linked to age but to other factors (which will explain why some younger people can also be badly affected, or some countries etc...).

In light of that, I am very surprised to see statements such as 'it will kill 200.000 people', talk about eugenics and whatnot.
Having a different idea of what this virus is or isnt is what you see in the scientific community. There is not such a thing as a clear idea and 'knowing' how things are but rather, a lot of divergent ideas from different 'experts'.
This doesnt mean that we shouldnt take actions to protect the most vulnerable in our societies, incl physical distancing, lockdown and so on. But nor does it mean that questioning what you constantly hear about how dangerous that virus is is a sign of 'not undertanding', 'being thick' or just 'leaning toward some eugenics attitude' (not all from this thread btw!).
Imo the best we can do is try or best guess, be kind to ourself and others and be respectful enough to accept some people will not see the situation the same way.

Oh, just in case it needs repeating, none of it means that we should throw our hand sin the air and deide to go for the easiest option that will mean putting many people unnecesserally at risk!

Although I do agree we won't know until this is over confounding factors, I do think this also means we should be MORE cautious, rather than less. I'm hoping the 2 teens yesterday were outliers but at this stage we simply don't know.

In UK we don't have as many elderly as Italy, but we have more obesity. Each country will have pockets of risk factors for different SE groups I suspect. We know men are more at risk, but not whether this is because they are more likely to take risks with social distancing and not wash hands as frequently or if this is due to protective factors of oestrogen, for example.

Any chance you know more about ex smokers and the ACE2 receptor?

It is about how much risk a government is prepared to take,
where they put the balance of lives vs economy,
who they trust to advise them on possible courses of action

Governments around the world listened to the WHO
and also consulted their specialists in epidemiology and virology to get the best estimate of the possible scenarios

This is a new virus, but these are people who have worked on other viruses and seen what works & what doesn't

The UK govt consulted their specialists in the field of epidemiology, world-respected and the best the country has to offer
So a lot more relevant knowledge than e.g. healthcare professionals who don't specialise in this field

or than any of us just posting anonymously

• we can each give our opinions, without professional consequences or public disgrace if we get it totally wrong

In the end, the UK govt decided it couldn't take the risk of an extra ¼ or ½ million extra people dying and the social / political / economic consequences of that,
especially as most other govts were going for lockdowns

It looks like the horror in Italy may have swung the balance in their decision to lockdown,
as the Italian gov waited too long - and Italy's health service had more capacity & resources than the NHS

"The buck stops here"
After this crisis is over, the leaders in each country will take the credit or blame for their decisions and actions.
And the public will judge them

To be clear, the biggest definite threat to us all is the lack of doctors and nurses and equipment that are occurring due to the virus. This is something that will be very hard to come back from, especially if many more specialists keep dying. Letting the virus run rampant is assuming you and other "not at risk" won't need medical care in the foreeseable future. It's not a bet I'd be willing to make.

Well so much for ' little green shoots' then 2,352 a rise of 563 in a day.

BCF I don't actually think Bozo did consult epidemiologists and virologists and public health specialists. What I saw was a lot of behavioural scientists and mathamaticians and specialists from very narrow field science professionals. That is why he came up with herd immunity. THEN he changed his mind after hundreds of people in the correct professions wrote an open letter.

Remember this is a country that has become so risk averse that it has
e.g.
banned all gun ownership after 2 or 3 mass shootings

where parents can have SS or police calling if they let their 6-year-old walk to school
(which is expected of children in several other European countries)

or let their 7-year old walk to the shops, or stay home alone for a couple of hours
(also normal elsewhere)

So on reflection I'd expect a UK govt to be more cautious than others,
because the UK population expects that even the tiniest risks of harm be removed by law

The "nudge theory" is all about being responsible for your own health - again ethically an interesting one when we are talking about a communicable disease where you are not protecting health workers - and is usually about onus being on the individual rather than state so we won't ban alcohol even though it kills more people than cancer and leaves a massive hole in the economy every year.

I agree with you JeSuis.

However I find it really concerning that he is called a spin doctor in - not a planner....., there seems to be very poor planning.... no one making the right decisions (chemicals needed for tests , ventilators that could be ordered.... etc etc)

Ergo the herd immunity idea was all about the economy, which is why Tories love behavioural science (not to mention how it helped with the Leave campaign and thus has a special soft spot for BozoCum).

Yes, getting public opinion on whether he is being too firm etc isn't what we need - ironically we need someone in control, which is what I thought he stood for over Brexit? It sounds sexist as hell but I feel if they had a woman higher up doing the planning we would all feel like the necessary things were being looked at. It's as if NZ got the organised super mum and the rest of us are left with the Peter Pan dads.

Well so much for ' little green shoots' then 2,352 a rise of 563 in a day.

I was betting on 550

In that case 780 tomorrow.

Poulet From the beginning, the govt used SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies)

They had representatives form Imperial College - who have have a team there of 50 or so epidemiologists and virologists that is highly respected around the world

Initially, the Imperial team went along with the herd immunity

Then they put some figures from China & Italy in their model and that's when the ¼ and ½ million came up under the 2 scenarios of measures

They presented these new findings at the now well-known SAGE meeting on 12 March,
at which Cummings & Hancock became completely convinced they had to change policy and go for a lockdown

Of course the govt are trying to use nudges and spin - and gagging of NHS professionals to stop them highlighting the lack of PPE

There is of course the long standing aversion of the UK to evidence based policy as a stated aim. So C-19 had to contend with that too.

DG
Exponential growth really sucks in an epidemic

Exponential growth really sucks in an epidemic

I must admit, I am curious at the lack of odds and bets being taken. Whatever happened to the free market that is supposed to be so all powerful ?

Waaaa! Betting on number of deaths!

Betting on number of deaths!

My first use was a turn of phrase. However, someone, somewhere will be doing exactly that. And it's really a question of semantics as to whether you include the government in that. After all, they are investing money into a situation where the outcome is measured in deaths.

Also where's that squeamishness when we got to war ?

Even LauraK is writing about the UK govt and lack of testing:

www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-52118781

The explanation is a complicated one.
But the lack of testing is rapidly becoming a straightforward political problem.

Re betting - money from betting on the virtual Grand National is to go to the NHS. On BBC article just now.

Re betting - money from betting on the virtual Grand National is to go to the NHS. On BBC article just now.

Henning Wehns pointed gag about charity is ever valid.

Health versus politics
www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/30/senior-who-adviser-appears-to-dodge-question-on-taiwans-covid-19-response