Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

MERS Coronavirus warning

Unheard have done a brilliant series of interviews with respected scientists; some nobel prize winning.

I have looked at some of them and will do so in more detail.

At the moment, the economy is a very real issue. It is a lower priority than the coronavirus issue because:

1] We don't have a vaccine. This is not uncommon. More importantly, we don't yet have the drugs online to save the skins of the vulnerable. They are coming and largely by testing in situ on people in critical care. Restrictions on people extend the time for testing /using known drugs to help and so reduce the cull count.
2] Treatment of all classes of patient is affected by the lockdown. This is necessary because until the virus is suppressed, many people cannot be treated due to the risk of infection, eg the immunosuppressed such as cancer patients. Going to hospital could and likely would if restrictions are lifted result in infection and death. Therefore Covid19 is prioritised .
3]The pathogen is an unknown quantity. Whenever you have a pathogen without vaccine and treatment protocols that are effective, you worry. The game is to develop protocols where it can be controlled once it becomes endemic.
4] Some pathogens are never really controlled but we get away with it because they are difficult to catch, eg Rabies. This one is easy to catch.
5] We are presented with a fait accompli as @terminal has implied. In order to trade, we must be seen to control this pathogen. Were we to let it run free, we would be a pariah and our economy would tank anyway. At the moment, it is in stasis. The means of trade and production have not been destroyed, merely placed on hold.

There is a balance between the two. As you know, movement is now to gradually re open the economy whilst attempting to control the pathogen. It has to be done slowly and carefully . I trust you understand this. It really isn't just a cold.
 
I trust you understand this. It really isn't just a cold.

Yes. I take it you missed my points about agreeing with social distancing and hand-washing? Also placing care homes into protective bubbles when community transmission rises.

Had Sweden protected their care homes they'd have been a massive success (I think a third of their deaths are care home deaths). As it is they've done far better than many other European countries.

If we can protect the elderly - and let's face it, it's those who overwhelmingly die the most from this - then the coronavirus will look like a very different disease.
 
Yes. I take it you missed my points about agreeing with social distancing and hand-washing? Also placing care homes into protective bubbles when community transmission rises.

Had Sweden protected their care homes they'd have been a massive success (I think a third of their deaths are care home deaths). As it is they've done far better than many other European countries.

If we can protect the elderly - and let's face it, it's those who overwhelmingly die the most from this - then the coronavirus will look like a very different disease.

just the elderly?
what about the not elderly on immunosuppressive medicines?
 
Yes. I take it you missed my points about agreeing with social distancing and hand-washing? Also placing care homes into protective bubbles when community transmission rises.

If we can protect the elderly - and let's face it, it's those who overwhelmingly die the most from this - then the coronavirus will look like a very different disease.

Didn't miss it . That's why I assumed understanding.

I would counter the argument by saying that you cannot protect the elderly* unless you:

1] Gain time to establish , at the very least, working treatment protocols.
2] Control the virus within the population to avoid infection of the elderly ( see below).

Pathogens easily breach protective bubbles.

It is not just the elderly. It is a whole range of people:
1] Diabetics. Assuming 3.8 million diabetics, that's 380000 people with uncontrolled diabetes...Cat C risk. at a conservative estimate assuming lack of control and a Hb A1c at or above 76.
2] Immunosuppressed with cancer. About 2 million. Assume 1 million with full suppressive treatment and so vulnerable.

I could go on but bubbling is only feasible in the short term and there are too many people to bubble who are at risk. Many have to work as well so would be outside their bubbles.

If we opened up completely, we would see a death count in massive numbers.

* It is therefore not just the elderly at risk although the media has presented it as such.

For what it is worth, I strongly suspect that the needs of the economy will be seen to outweigh scientific advice and the results will become apparent.
 
Nope. Swedish style control measures would be fine with me. Social distancing and hand washing basically.

Care homes need to be put in protective bubbles when community transmission increases and those at risk should quarantine themselves, with plans put in place to enable them to do so.

Shutting down a whole country is a very blunt tool.
So like what Sweden did? You mean have a death rate that is 5 to 10 times higher than their other most similar neighbours, while at the same time having a greater fall in GDP? So you are demanding that Britain should totally trash it's economy by letting infection get out of control, and you want more dead people as well?


Here's Sweden compared to Denmark. Sweden's infection skyrocketed above that of Denmark, while Sweden's economy crashed far worse than Denmark's. Their death rate is 5 times higher than Denmark's (50.7 per 100,000 compared to 10.4 in Denmark).



We don't have full GDP numbers yet (it's too soon), but we have a number of commonly used leading indicators that can be looked at. Unemployment rose by the same amount in both countries. Passenger car registrations fell significantly more in Sweden than in Denmark. Services suffered more in Sweden than in Denmark, and was worse than the average for the EU.
In both countries, the unemployment rate rose 2 percentage points (though Sweden has one extra month of data) and the consumer confidence numbers plunged in both, he said.

Sweden’s consumer troubles can be seen in other data, too.

Passenger car registrations in Sweden fell 37% year-over-year in April and 49% in May. In Denmark, they fell 37% in April and 40% in May.

Sweden’s services industry confidence index in May of -46.9 was actually worse than the EU-wide -43.3 reading, and Denmark’s -41.9.

So why doesn't sticking you head in the sand and pretending the virus isn't there work? It's because people aren't going to behave "normally" if there is a pandemic. They will avoid public transport when possible, they won't go shopping, they won't go to crowded places, and they will avoid sending their children to school.
“The simple answer is that in a pandemic, most people will change their behavior to avoid catching the virus. The cautious behavior is voluntary, irrespective of whether there is no lockdown, as in Sweden, or there is a lockdown, as in Denmark,” Joshi said.

“People will shun public transport, shopping, and other crowded places, and even think twice about letting their children go to school.”

Thousands of people died in Sweden, and it was all for nothing.
LONDON — Ever since the coronavirus emerged in Europe, Sweden has captured international attention by conducting an unorthodox, open-air experiment. It has allowed the world to examine what happens in a pandemic when a government allows life to carry on largely unhindered.

This is what has happened: Not only have thousands more people died than in neighboring countries that imposed lockdowns, but Sweden’s economy has fared little better.

“They literally gained nothing,” said Jacob F. Kirkegaard, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. “It’s a self-inflicted wound, and they have no economic gains.”

Not dealing with the virus problem cost Sweden both lives and jobs.
Implicit in these approaches is the assumption that governments must balance saving lives against the imperative to spare jobs, with the extra health risks of rolling back social distancing potentially justified by a resulting boost to prosperity. But Sweden’s grim result — more death, and nearly equal economic damage — suggests that the supposed choice between lives and paychecks is a false one: A failure to impose social distancing can cost lives and jobs at the same time.

Sweden's central bank expects their economy to contract by 4.5% for the year as a whole (we're talking about full year, not just a few months). Unemployment has risen to 9%. The overall damage to the Swedish economy means recovery will be slow and unemployment will remain high.
Sweden’s central bank expects its economy to contract by 4.5 percent this year, a revision from a previously expected gain of 1.3 percent. The unemployment rate jumped to 9 percent in May from 7.1 percent in March. “The overall damage to the economy means the recovery will be protracted, with unemployment remaining elevated,” Oxford Economics concluded in a recent research note.

Meanwhile in Denmark the central bank expects the economy to contract by 4.1% for the year as a whole (better than Sweden), and unemployment to reach 5.6%.
This is more or less how damage caused by the pandemic has played out in Denmark, where the central bank expects that the economy will shrink 4.1 percent this year, and where joblessness has edged up to 5.6 percent in May from 4.1 percent in March.

So Sweden suffered a far higher death rate with nothing to show for it in terms of "saving the economy".
In short, Sweden suffered a vastly higher death rate while failing to collect on the expected economic gains.

And it's not just Sweden's neighbour Denmark who did better than Sweden. Norway acted decisively, got infection under control early, and are now seeing a rapid economic turn-around.
Norway, on the other hand, was not only quick to impose an aggressive lockdown, but early to relax it as the virus slowed, and as the government ramped up testing. It is now expected to see a more rapid economic turnaround. Norway’s central bank predicts that its mainland economy — excluding the turbulent oil and gas sector — will contract by 3.9 percent this year. That amounts to a marked improvement over the 5.5 percent decline expected in the midst of the lockdown.

So yes let's look at Sweden. They're a prime example to the rest of the world of how not to do things. By sticking their heads in the same instead of having the courage to do something to fight the virus they've gained one of the world's highest death rates while simultaneously trashing their economy.
 
Yes. I take it you missed my points about agreeing with social distancing and hand-washing? Also placing care homes into protective bubbles when community transmission rises.

Had Sweden protected their care homes they'd have been a massive success (I think a third of their deaths are care home deaths). As it is they've done far better than many other European countries.

If we can protect the elderly - and let's face it, it's those who overwhelmingly die the most from this - then the coronavirus will look like a very different disease.

Yet four times worse than the six countries surrounding it in total
Denmark 614 deaths
Finland 329
Norway 255
Latvia 31
Lithuania 80
Estonia 69
Total 1378

Sweden 5730.

You can make numbers look as good or as bad as you want. Like USA, with its vast swathes of unpopulated areas, showing less of a deaths per million than most European countries until you look at the populated states which can be up to 3 times as high as the worst European country.
 
Didn't miss it . That's why I assumed understanding.

I would counter the argument by saying that you cannot protect the elderly* unless you:

1] Gain time to establish , at the very least, working treatment protocols.
2] Control the virus within the population to avoid infection of the elderly ( see below).

Pathogens easily breach protective bubbles.

It is not just the elderly. It is a whole range of people:
1] Diabetics. Assuming 3.8 million diabetics, that's 380000 people with uncontrolled diabetes...Cat C risk. at a conservative estimate assuming lack of control and a Hb A1c at or above 76.
2] Immunosuppressed with cancer. About 2 million. Assume 1 million with full suppressive treatment and so vulnerable.

I could go on but bubbling is only feasible in the short term and there are too many people to bubble who are at risk. Many have to work as well so would be outside their bubbles.

If we opened up completely, we would see a death count in massive numbers.

* It is therefore not just the elderly at risk although the media has presented it as such.

For what it is worth, I strongly suspect that the needs of the economy will be seen to outweigh scientific advice and the results will become apparent.
I just had a look at the Canadian data for distribution of COVID-19 cases by age. More than 40% of those admitted to ICU were under the age of 60. You don't get admitted to ICU unless it's pretty serious. It takes a long time to recover even if you don't die, and there is a good chance you will never fully recover and remain partially disabled for life. So it's not just the elderly who are at risk.

The idea that only a small segment of the population, mainly those near death anyway, are the only ones at risk is a myth that simply doesn't stand up to the actual evidence.

0-19​
1.20%​
20-29​
3.70%​
30-39​
4.90%​
40-49​
9.80%​
50-59​
20.80%​
60-69​
24.60%​
70-79​
23.10%​
80+​
11.80%​
 
there’s your problem right there, the NHS has over 1 million people identified who are very definitely not elderly who are in the most at risk group.

Locking down 67 million when it's 1 million plus elderly is a bit of an over reaction then. Especially when there's been less than 250 deaths of people under the age of 40.

And only 16 of them being children (though most of them would've been in the most at risk group).
 
Yet four times worse than the six countries surrounding it in total
Denmark 614 deaths
Finland 329
Norway 255
Latvia 31
Lithuania 80
Estonia 69
Total 1378

Sweden 5730.

There is an counter argument; for a start you're not comparing like-with-like. Tegnell says that Sweden has high population density areas and should be compared with countries like the UK or Belgium.

But why don't I show you Anders Tegnell, Sweden's chief epidemiologist, to explain his case better?

 
The idea that only a small segment of the population, mainly those near death anyway, are the only ones at risk is a myth that simply doesn't stand up to the actual evidence.


Agreed. There is a problem with the way in which this issue has been presented to the public. This has been compounded by the fact that we just do not know enough about the effects of the pathogen .

Do I blame people for this? I blame some politicians who have poo pooed the very real threat for economic reasons or because they take the line of freedom or toughness against a bally virus. By the same token, I cannot find it within me to blame the UK government response to a many faceted threat which we are only now getting a grip of.

Generally, people are now beginning to take this realistically but I do admit to being surprised by the creative moon howling surrounding this issue.
 
I would counter the argument by saying that you cannot protect the elderly* unless you:

1] Gain time to establish , at the very least, working treatment protocols.
2] Control the virus within the population to avoid infection of the elderly ( see below).

Nonsense. Care homes could've been protected better without all that.

It's almost like you're saying it's no-one's fault so many died.

There were things they could've done, such as not used bank staff which travelled around different care homes to work. Or paid people to live-in the care homes - for a period - to keep them in a safe bubble.

Social distancing is proven to be effective.
 
I just had a look at the Canadian data for distribution of COVID-19 cases by age. More than 40% of those admitted to ICU were under the age of 60. You don't get admitted to ICU unless it's pretty serious.

Canada ranks as one of the most obese countries in the world.

Obesity and the coronavirus don't mix well.

Maybe if some of these greedy barstewards stopped being so selfish and lost a bit of weight they may not have had to have such a strict lockdown?

Nicked from another post:

2020-07-29_19-40_The media and Covid.jpg
 
Nonsense. Care homes could've been protected better without all that.

It's almost like you're saying it's no-one's fault so many died.

There were things they could've done, such as not used bank staff which travelled around different care homes to work. Or paid people to live-in the care homes - for a period - to keep them in a safe bubble.

Social distancing is proven to be effective.

Please read all I said about the ineffectiveness of bubbles, the fact that it is not just the elderly and many vulnerable people have to work.,a significant proportion.

Locking down 67 million when it's 1 million plus elderly

Not just elderly. Many cannot be held in a bubble for, er economic reasons. It is actually more than a million by a long chalk. @PhotEx is considering the category A vulnerable in his post, ie the extremely vulnerable.

You seem to be set on a single track linked to the Swedish model and be unwilling to look outside this particular box.
 
Many cannot be held in a bubble for, er economic reasons.

It would be cheaper to throw money at the problem of helping individuals at risk to self isolate than to shut a country down, blanket style.

We did all the shopping for a neighbour; he didn't leave the house for a couple of months (he felt like he'd be letting us down if he did). He's not wealthy.

He's back out doing all his normal stuff now; I respect his decision.
 
There is an counter argument; for a start you're not comparing like-with-like. Tegnell says that Sweden has high population density areas and should be compared with countries like the UK or Belgium.

But why don't I show you Anders Tegnell, Sweden's chief epidemiologist, to explain his case better?


As I said, you can make numbers tell you what they want. But Sweden with high density areas like UK or Belgium? Even the capital has less than 1 million people and the population density in Denmark is higher.
Sweden is about twice the size of the UK with a total population of less than that of London. Now that's high density.
Population per sq m in Sweden 64
Population per sq m in Belgium 975.6
Population per sq m in Denmark 347
Population per sq m in UK 432

Even Lithuania is double the population density of Sweden.

Still comparing like for like?
 
Last edited:

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top