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

so what number between 20,000 and 80,000 plus required a lockdown and banning meeting more than six people? I’m not, in any way suggesting it should not have happened, or saying it was ineffective. I just want to know what the metrics are?
I'm prepared to follow the government's (Canada and Ontario in my case) guidance on this matter. Their reaction is based on trends, not absolute numbers, because we are dealing with a new disease and we have only a few months of experience in dealing with it. We can look at other diseases, but this one has some unique twists of its own.

Early in the pandemic the press demanded set trigger points so they would have nice graphs to show the public and numbers they could use to beat the government over the head with when the latest data didn't exactly match up with the projections.

There were models which showed very roughly how bad things could get if nothing was done, and where the bottlenecks were in the health system. They were general guidelines though, not precise maps.

We're prodding our way through a minefield day by day. We know roughly the limits of the minefield and the direction we need to take to get out of it, but we don't know where each mine is buried. We do know though that if we run out of patience and just run blindly forward we will almost certainly get blown up on a mine.
 
Not if you ignore the science there isn't:




I'd go with the Nature Reviews paper I just posted. It's a higher impact journal and also was only published a week ago.

Edit* interesting, they also cite a Nature Reviews paper - however this shows the debate is clearly not settled.
 
That's not proving the absence of something - it's proving that immunity exists. There is no evidence about how long people who have caught COVID-19 are immune for.
That was my point. You said "we need evidence that there is no reinfection" but you cannot prove that as it's evidence of absence.

All you can do is provide evidence that reinfection does not occur in a certain period of time. For all you know the next day reinfection could occur. As soon as someone provides strong evidence that there is no reinfection for 6 months after initial infection some smartarse will say "What about a year after infection?".
 

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
Yeh, just more bollox.

That's certainly true, but what did you expect. Before we know it Gove will be extolling the virtues of experts...........oh wait.
15EFDA01-EDBD-429A-AFF4-CF9AA3754742.jpeg
 
I'd go with the Nature Reviews paper I just posted. It's a higher impact journal and also was only published a week ago.

Edit* interesting, they also cite a Nature Reviews paper - however this shows the debate is clearly not settled.

I read it; nowhere in it does it say this:


There is no evidence about how long people who have caught COVID-19 are immune for.

That bit in bold is bollox. The article does say that confirmed reinfections are rare. It may even say 'extremely rare'. That's evidence right there.
 
I'm prepared to follow the government's (Canada and Ontario in my case) guidance on this matter. Their reaction is based on trends, not absolute numbers, because we are dealing with a new disease and we have only a few months of experience in dealing with it. We can look at other diseases, but this one has some unique twists of its own.

Early in the pandemic the press demanded set trigger points so they would have nice graphs to show the public and numbers they could use to beat the government over the head with when the latest data didn't exactly match up with the projections.

There were models which showed very roughly how bad things could get if nothing was done, and where the bottlenecks were in the health system. They were general guidelines though, not precise maps.

We're prodding our way through a minefield day by day. We know roughly the limits of the minefield and the direction we need to take to get out of it, but we don't know where each mine is buried. We do know though that if we run out of patience and just run blindly forward we will almost certainly get blown up on a mine.

quite.

I follow the government advice too. That does not mean I agree with all of it. I don’t understand how I can go to work with hundreds of other people, go to every shop and pub I wish to but not see my wider family of more than six.

and having been on ops with actual IEDs, I know very personally that there comes a balance between a requirement to move and a requirement between treating everywhere as riddled with IEDs. Not moving makes you a target for other things - ambush in a military context, recession, depression, avoidable deaths in a civil setting. I’m asking for the metrics. Either they exist or they do not. If they do not, we are acting on advice made up of whimsy.
 
You do realise of course that you're the one who needs reliable models and predictions to make your plan work?

No, I said wait till we hit 60k and then lock down. Just actual data. No model or prediction required.

It was a tongue in cheek post anyway, but I don't know why you have to make stuff up about it.
 
That was my point. You said "we need evidence that there is no reinfection" but you cannot prove that as it's evidence of absence.

All you can do is provide evidence that reinfection does not occur in a certain period of time. For all you know the next day reinfection could occur. As soon as someone provides strong evidence that there is no reinfection for 6 months after initial infection some smartarse will say "What about a year after infection?".
From what I've read, for a vaccine to be effective on the population as a whole, it is not necessary for there to be no reinfection. The reinfection level just needs to be low enough that the virus can't find enough receptive hosts to spread effectively.

In fact, existing vaccines apparently aren't 100% effective either.

Current vaccination trials seem to be producing anti-body responses, which would seem to indicate they will be effective. Since people who become sick do get better we have reason to believe that anti-bodies do work against the virus.

The open question at this time seems to be that once an effective vaccine is developed will it be a once in a lifetime thing, or will we have to get it renewed annually or every few years.
 
The open question at this time seems to be that once an effective vaccine is developed will it be a once in a lifetime thing, or will we have to get it renewed annually or every few years.

There's been talk of prioritising certain groups for the vaccine when it starts to be issued, since the quantities required for everyone won't be there initially. I assume they mean front line hospital staff or the elderly.

So from that I'd guess that over the long term not everyone would need it; just those most at risk, a bit like the flu vaccine.
 
quite.

I follow the government advice too. That does not mean I agree with all of it. I don’t understand how I can go to work with hundreds of other people, go to every shop and pub I wish to but not see my wider family of more than six.

and having been on ops with actual IEDs, I know very personally that there comes a balance between a requirement to move and a requirement between treating everywhere as riddled with IEDs. Not moving makes you a target for other things - ambush in a military context, recession, depression, avoidable deaths in a civil setting. I’m asking for the metrics. Either they exist or they do not. If they do not, we are acting on advice made up of whimsy.
And when dealing with IEDs were there precise metrics as to when you did one thing versus doing another, or were the leadership expected to exercise their judgement based on the best knowledge and advice available at the time, according to the situation as it evolved?

In a previous post I summarised a public affairs show in Canada where several public health officials said that most of the outbreaks they were actually seeing were mainly due to face to face socialising in unstructured environments, not in work places, schools, restaurants, or pubs who were following the guidelines. When the guidelines are followed they seem to be reasonably effective.

The main problems were large gatherings involving family and friends, such as large parties and weddings where people were not following social distancing guidelines or the limits on the number of people.

As a result in Ontario the numbers of people allowed to gather in a location outside of work, school has recently been reduced to (if I recall correctly) 10 indoors and 25 outdoors.

This sounds very similar to the situation in the UK despite being arrived at independently. It was based on the latest evidence by observation of where outbreaks were actually occurring as seen by the people investigating them.

I offered to post that video here, but there were no takers.
 
There is a saying commonly attributed to Gove that goes along the lines of "when the outcome that best serves me changes I change my principles, what do you do, sir?"

FOC for the little toad.
 

Latest Threads

Top