Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm unsure where you read that Spain is not having excessive deaths. Going back to the EuroMoMo graphs, scroll to the bottom and you can see the massive spike in Spain:

https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/

 Easy E wrote:
As for quarantining the High Risk population and allowing freedom to work for low-risk people, how does this work?

Someone care to elaborate on this "plan"?

Is there actually some substance behind it? Maybe some government pitching it, a white paper, a politician asking for votes on it, or is it just a bunch of commentators on the internet saying it?

No it's not a formal plan. It would be the plan I would have endorsed if it was suggested by people in power were we to go through something like this again. I brought it up. The idea behind it is to acquire herd immunity as quikcly as possible while protecting the vulnerable from infection as much as possible.

I'm not entirely sure how to do that "protect the vulnerable". Different strategies for different areas would likely the most effective approach. I can think about 100,000 ideas more constructive than giving away multiple trillions of dollars while your workforce sits dormant though. That is about the dumbest possible solution to the problem IMO.

I just typed out a very lengthy response to Xenomancers explaining to him in detail how 95% of what he posts is wrong, and then dakka ate it when I tried to post it. Rather than going back over with it, I'll simply address his most recent stupid claim and say that Sweden has the HIGHER per capita death rate from COVID in the world, rather than the lowest as he just so recently claimed:

https://news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-sweden-lockdown-death-rate-144650769.html
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/sweden-highest-death-rate-per-22063407
https://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-coronavirus-per-capita-death-rate-among-highest-2020-5

Maybe once I recover from the depression resulting from having wasted the last 2 hours I'll go back and refute the rest of his nonsense.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I'm unsure where you read that Spain is not having excessive deaths. Going back to the EuroMoMo graphs, scroll to the bottom and you can see the massive spike in Spain:

https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/

Scroll down to the middle of that link. Spain is listed as a no excess R number.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I'm unsure where you read that Spain is not having excessive deaths. Going back to the EuroMoMo graphs, scroll to the bottom and you can see the massive spike in Spain:

https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/

Scroll down to the middle of that link. Spain is listed as a no excess R number.

You mean the Europe image? That is a video infographic, if you press play you can actually see that it colours up the countries, just that in week 21 they have managed to go back to the average. That's just the default still of it.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
As for quarantining the High Risk population and allowing freedom to work for low-risk people, how does this work?

Someone care to elaborate on this "plan"?

Is there actually some substance behind it? Maybe some government pitching it, a white paper, a politician asking for votes on it, or is it just a bunch of commentators on the internet saying it?

No it's not a formal plan. It would be the plan I would have endorsed if it was suggested by people in power were we to go through something like this again. I brought it up. The idea behind it is to acquire herd immunity as quikcly as possible while protecting the vulnerable from infection as much as possible.

I'm not entirely sure how to do that "protect the vulnerable". Different strategies for different areas would likely the most effective approach. I can think about 100,000 ideas more constructive than giving away multiple trillions of dollars while your workforce sits dormant though. That is about the dumbest possible solution to the problem IMO.

So basically, it is just internet commentators wish listing and/or armchair quarterbacking?

I really hope I missed something here.....

 Xenomancers wrote:

No it's not a formal plan. It would be the plan I would have endorsed if it was suggested by people in power were we to go through something like this again. I brought it up. The idea behind it is to acquire herd immunity as quikcly as possible while protecting the vulnerable from infection as much as possible.

Ah yes the idea that has never actually worked without vaccine in human history. And the one that has already got several bad news in terms of it actually being possible. Sweden is banking on that. It's failing utterly and even there it's dawning they screwed up. The plan isn't going to work. Even if you assumed surviving the virus gives you meaningful immunity which is unproven still it would still be spectacularly bad.

The R number is the transmission rate of the virus.

An R of 3 means that on average, every infected victim will infect three more people.

To stop the spread, you need to get the R down below 1. The lower you can get it the better.

Sweden isn't banking on herd immunity.

Also, the r0 is also just a talking point without any nuance applied to it. The R rate will go down naturally as more people become infected. Ill see if I can find the article I read on how it doesn't really mean much just as a standalone number.

https://unherd.com/2020/05/what-the-headline-covid-figures-dont-tell-you/

Explains how the R rate can go up, but actually be going down. Due to something called Simpsons paradox. It's a new concept to me. I could try to explain but the article does a better job.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Sweden isn't banking on herd immunity.

Also, the r0 is also just a talking point without any nuance applied to it. The R rate will go down naturally as more people become infected. Ill see if I can find the article I read on how it doesn't really mean much just as a standalone number.

https://unherd.com/2020/05/what-the-headline-covid-figures-dont-tell-you/

Explains how the R rate can go up, but actually be going down. Due to something called Simpsons paradox. It's a new concept to me. I could try to explain but the article does a better job.

Err, except that what that article says at the end is that the overall R number does matter, because the care homes /hospitals aren't separate systems from everything else, infection can spread from one to the other.

Sweden was very much banking on herd immunity to start with, but due to the low infection rate so far <10%, they're having to rethink that.

Did you read further?

“Strictly speaking you have one R: there’s one epidemic and linked sub-epidemics; the epidemic in hospitals is not completely separate from the one in the community.” But to understand how it works, you need to look in this more granular fashion: the overall R is not much use on its own."

When he says he's worried it might be the overall R that matters, he's saying that because that's what people are basing policy on, without applying the other variables. Least that's how it read to me.

Sweden supposedly never aimed to go for herd immunity, but what wasn't helping was the claim that they thought they would reach herd immunity by June/July. Some very mixed signals.

They weren't aiming for it, likely because the UK aimed for it, then did a massive change around when it became apparent that aiming for it was a near disaster in potential lives lost.

So they weren't aiming for it, but they estimated that it would happen by X date and weren't using lockdowns to really avoid it

Yes, but it felt a bit like in Sweden, the idea that herd immunity would be reached relatively quickly was used as a semi justification for not having a stronger lockdown. The kind of "its worse now, but we will get over the hill more quickly" type of reasoning. Perhaps that is just my perception of these kinds of comments.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Yes, but it felt a bit like in Sweden, the idea that herd immunity would be reached relatively quickly was used as a semi justification for not having a stronger lockdown. The kind of "its worse now, but we will get over the hill more quickly" type of reasoning. Perhaps that is just my perception of these kinds of comments.

I think that's what they might have been hoping for; just that the actual numbers of dead is perhaps higher than they thought. Remembering that when you get estimations from scientific studies you'll often have a range of values - best to worst. Sweden might have banked on the best end of the scale. Meanwhile any media for them would have agreed whilst any media against would have plucked the worst case numbers. Reality is only found when things are put into practice - which of course also might prove that the study was flawed - either over or under estimating even at its most extreme ends.

So, here is the deal. If you quarantine only the people 65+, you are effectively murdering them. Because you need workers to care for them. Alright, so you need to quarantine those workers as well. Which means nurses, administration, physicians, sanitation, pharmacy, EMS, Hospitals, and all of their families. Alright, so now we have all those. OH CRAP I FORGOT! We need to quarantine any of the Ombudsman who they would need to contact for abuse. Then there are all those home health people and home hospice, so all of those people working in that area need to be quarantined. Then you would need to quarantine their families, just in case.

Really hope you don't need to go to the Hospital for anything, because we have quarantined it for the elderly. Your physician? Well he is a physician for some elderly patients so you are gonna have to suck it up buttercup. Need something from the pharmacy? NOPE! Quarantined because of the elderly.

OR

We could all act like adults, distance correctly and deal with this until it moves on in a logical manner. As in we all suck it up, sit at home, and stop crying about it.

PS: Kids and anybody at risk under 65? Screw em, not our problem! ONLY 65+ IS WORTH SAVING!

 Dreadwinter wrote:
PS: Kids and anybody at risk under 65? Screw em, not our problem! ONLY 65+ IS WORTH SAVING!

A real problem is also that being overweight/obese seems to have quite the effect for the virus. Given the rates of overweight/obesity for the West and especially the US in those categories, that is still a massive risk group to leave walking around.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Sweden isn't banking on herd immunity.

Their whole strategy was protect the elderly, let virus go through on assumption everybody will get it anyway and then have elderly protected because people around them are immune to it due to having caught it already. That's pretty much identical to boris's herd immunity idea. Cover elderly, let virus go through without lockdowns to protect economy and then when enough have caught it those who haven't caught are safe due to others.

That's banking on herd immunity.

Of course now it's shown even in Spain which is one of the worst countries hit only 2.5% or so have actually got it which is pathetically small for this rate and there's still zero evidence whatsoever those are immune to the virus for any meaningful time. If you are only say half a year then at this rate it's not going to be effective at all for herd immunity. Even year lasting protection is pathetic.

In other news South Korea that got virus in control once has seen numbers go up again and some restrictions came back on. One guy that visited multiple bars seems to have caused quite a mess on his own.

Good news Future War Cultist, dental practices will be allowed to reopen from June 8th. its up to each practice as to when they re open apparently.

Prof Sikora on death certification in the UK.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora/status/1266291551363231744

The rules have been changed so that only one doc is able to declare CV as a cause of death, remotely without any examination. Before this, 2 docs were required to certify any death, one of whom had to have had been treating the patient, or know them and seen them recently.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Good news Future War Cultist, dental practices will be allowed to reopen from June 8th. its up to each practice as to when they re open apparently.

Prof Sikora on death certification in the UK.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora/status/1266291551363231744

The rules have been changed so that only one doc is able to declare CV as a cause of death, remotely without any examination. Before this, 2 docs were required to certify any death, one of whom had to have had been treating the patient, or know them and seen them recently.

Yes, get in! Thank you!

Accurate death certification is important to understand the lethality of Covd-19.

Excess Deaths is important for overall public health concerns. It contains not only Covid deaths, but also people dying from cancer because they can't access treatment, for example, and excludes everyone not dying in road or swimming accidents.

At some stage it will be possible and useful to unpick the detail. For instance, the death rate caused by lung disease due to traffic pollution must have declined. That's potential guidance for planning future transportation.

Anecdotally, Henley's Duke Street is the most air polluted location in the whole of South Oxfordshire. It was amazing how clean the air was early in the lockdown, when traffic was nearly non-existent. It's astonishing now how sulphurous the air is starting to beceom as traffic builds up again.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Accurate death certification is important to understand the lethality of Covd-19.

Excess Deaths is important for overall public health concerns. It contains not only Covid deaths, but also people dying from cancer because they can't access treatment, for example, and excludes everyone not dying in road or swimming accidents.

At some stage it will be possible and useful to unpick the detail. For instance, the death rate caused by lung disease due to traffic pollution must have declined. That's potential guidance for planning future transportation.

Anecdotally, Henley's Duke Street is the most air polluted location in the whole of South Oxfordshire. It was amazing how clean the air was early in the lockdown, when traffic was nearly non-existent. It's astonishing now how sulphurous the air is starting to beceom as traffic builds up again.

Indeed, that's why it seems odd to me that they've changed it in such a way. obviously I'm in no way qualified on the issue, but surely when these numbers are being used every day to inform public policy, its imperative that they be as accurate as possible?

I never knew that about Henley. It sort of makes sense.. That one way system is a nightmare for traffic queues.

Given the vagaries of reporting and different countries doing it in different ways, I suspect that the excess deaths is probably going to make for the best comparisons, especially if they're changing the way things are recorded (or at least declared) half way through.

It is probably the only reliable number everyone should be able to gather.
Testing is different for every country, but deaths are deaths. As long as the records are accurate, and an average is viable, every death can be compared.

But if they're reporting them as CV deaths and there's the possibility that they aren't, that will skew the excess numbers in relation to CV numbers surely?

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
But if they're reporting them as CV deaths and there's the possibility that they aren't, that will skew the excess numbers in relation to CV numbers surely?

What do you mean by 'skew the excess numbers in relation to CV'?

The percentage of the excess deaths attributable to CV are not known. It'll take some time to have the breakdown of fatalities within that published. However, the excess deaths during the pandemic is a hard, comparable number.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
But if they're reporting them as CV deaths and there's the possibility that they aren't, that will skew the excess numbers in relation to CV numbers surely?

The excess numbers will give us a rough idea of how many people died during this period, the overwhelming majority above the norm of which would be due to covid-19. It's not going to 100% accurate, as it's being compared to an average, but the numbers reported as due to covid-19 have no bearing on the number of excess deaths. We can then compare those however, which gives us a check on how accurate the reporting and diagnosis is to some degree.

They’re also offset by the lack of injuries in day to day life.

With fewer people walking about and fewer cars, there’ll be a marching drop in RTAs - possibly a bigger drop as with pubs closed, one imagines there are far, far fewer morons drink driving.

Quieter roads may also mean Paramedics can get to call outs faster, as they need to drive through less traffic. Granted they can normally use their neenaws to clear people out the way, but they still need to slow down to navigate the path opened as people pull out their way. But every minute saved puts the victim in a better position to survive whatever’s happened to them.

For example, many many moons ago, I had a strongly inadvisable arm/window interface, and suffered a horrendous wound (severed nerves, tendons, cut to the literal bone, missed my artery by 2mm if memory serves’). As you can imagine, I was pissing blood out the wound at a great rate of knots. I’m not entirely sure why the Scout leaders didn’t wait for an ambulance, as they drove me to A&E in the end.

With a wound like that, which couldn’t be effectively staunched without medical equipment, every minute counts. A similar injury suffered today is arguably lower risk because there’s a far higher chance of the Ambulance arriving well before blood loss becomes critical.

And that’s just a personal example. Heart Attacks, Strokes etc are all time sensitive to improve survival chances. This is why First Aid is so important, as it helps stabilise the victim and keep them more or less ticking over until professional and fully equipped help can get to the scene.

Those deaths are likely somewhat reduced right now, because that aid can travel that much faster.

One thing I see is a few stores just a few, for now, declaring a no cash policy.

Ok, I'm sure it's "policy", I'm sure they have "reasons" for it, and that's all fine. I wont shop at them.

I use a card often, by choice. If they try to make it mandatory, forget it.In a cashless society you can't buy a stick of gum without leaving a record and i just don't want 'the system' to have that kind of big brother omniscience.

Before anyone says "But its just for the duration of the crisis!!!" I'll point out it's been 19 years since 911 and we still have the patriot act, FISA, gitmo, etc. Once the system gets a new power it never lets go of it.

No cash is because money is one of the best ways to pass around disease. It's utterly filthy stuff. Heck an video I was watching the other day on medieval times even had a village where they had a pot of vinegar to put coins in before you were allowed to spend them. Even way back before we really knew about viruses and how they spread money was considered "dirty".

Butchers in the UK used to have a booth where a separate employee would only handle the money, never the butcher.



Card payments with contract free have become easier. Banks in the UK have raised the limit to £45 for contactless (I think that's the value). Meanwhile there are new pay by phone/tablet options that I think give you an even higher limit by no-contact pay.


Plus staff can wipe down keypads for chip-and-pin systems. So you can keep that safe.



A lot of supermarkets have also said that they aren't getting the same bank deliveries of money as well. So banks aren't sending out the cash which means that there's less change and that makes cash less ideal.