Coronavirus

[MrGongGong]

You consider your epidemiological opinion superior to the author - a Harvard professor - of this article?

Of course,

"More smart people"

[MrGongGong]

At last...someone who knows what they are talking about. Many many thanks for the reply.

Unlike this fraud then ?

He really did make all these up and knows much less than you do

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Hanage

[Anastasius]

The thrust of a graph like this can surely be interpreted well by almost everyone:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic#/media/File:Illustration_of_SARS-COV-2_Case_Fatality_Rate_200228_01-1.png

That's not a small correlation with age. It's a massive one.

True. But it does not factor in if they had (and how many) underlying medical conditions.

[Simon B]

No-one would , but it may give hope to someone 80 plus if they do get infected. A few older relatives in my family seem to think if they contract Corona virus it's "curtains"

Indeed so. More emphasis on calm appraisals of the evidence in various corners of the media would be welcome, but is about as likely as <add really unlikely thing here>.

Regrettably it's not just about survive/don't though. I forget the figure - is it something like 15% of all diagnosed sufferers to-date require hospital admission? Given the age distribution, that must be heavily skewed to older cohorts? 50% of diagnosed 80+ or something? Another basis for asserting that the rate of infection must be heavily attenuated to give the NHS some chance of coping.

Cynics (I might be among them) may consider that the govt doesn't really care about, well, anyone except their "tribe" really. However, what options are there to protect the most at-risk cohorts:

1) Isolate them - i.e. what the govt is already proposing, with whatever motives.
2) Isolate everyone as much as possible - Italy style total lockdown.
3) ... ... ... ?

Any ideas? I'm not hearing any.

Is 2) really better than 1)? Maybe it is, but why? What does it achieve in the medium term?

[Serial_Apologist]

Gongers, you might like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whNICyl_et0

That must surely represent outbreaks occuring in clusters.

[teamsaint]

True. But it does not factor in if they had (and how many) underlying medical conditions.

If you make a broad assumption ( which I imagine is correct) that the older you are, the more underlying conditions you are statistically likely to have, then that then becomes irrelevant when reading the graph , doesn’t it ?

[Anastasius]

You consider your epidemiological opinion superior to the author - a Harvard professor - of this article?

Stop putting words into my mouth. He has said nothing at all to do about the science of epidemiology. But all to do with his own (Guardian-approved) social/political viewpoint.

[teamsaint]

Indeed so. More emphasis on calm appraisals of the evidence in various corners of the media would be welcome, but is about as likely as <add really unlikely thing here>.

Regrettably it's not just about survive/don't though. I forget the figure - is it something like 15% of all diagnosed sufferers to-date require hospital admission? Given the age distribution, that must be heavily skewed to older cohorts? 50% of diagnosed 80+ or something? Another basis for asserting that the rate of infection must be heavily attenuated to give the NHS some chance of coping.

Cynics (I might be among them) may consider that the govt doesn't really care about, well, anyone except their "tribe" really. However, what options are there to protect the most at-risk cohorts:

1) Isolate them - i.e. what the govt is already proposing, with whatever motives.
2) Isolate everyone as much as possible - Italy style total lockdown.
3) ... ... ... ?

Any ideas? I'm not hearing any.

Is 2) really better than 1)? Maybe it is, but why? What does it achieve in the medium term?

Well I’m certainly no fan of the government, and I wouldn’t be directly impacted by the over 70’s isolation policy ( though will be indirectly), but I haven’t yet seen any strong arguments against the proposed policy . There are suggestions that the government is possibly putting too much faith in herd immunity among less vulnerable groups, but then again the alternative ( lock down , release and hope) is no more evidence based from what I have seen.

Arguments against , such as non compliance , can be levelled at almost any strategy.

[Count Boso]

Well I’m certainly no fan of the government, and I wouldn’t be directly impacted by the over 70’s isolation policy ( though will be indirectly), but I haven’t yet seen any strong arguments against the proposed policy .

Bit confusing as to whether 'isolation' means, literally "staying at home" , inside their four walls, or allowing people to at least go out for walks and stay clear of (at least 2 metres away from) other people - and not touching hard surfaces. Though the main reason for the policy appears to be to avoid the elderly putting a huge strain strain on available services, rather than for their own well-being.

[Simon B]

True. But it does not factor in if they had (and how many) underlying medical conditions.

Indeed. Though (without having running the numbers) intuitively it looks like the skew in favour of greater ages is strong enough to dominate any statistically independent underlying-conditions element. Probability of underlying medical conditions is in any case heavily correlated with greater age, regardless of COV-19. Correcting for it would damp and distort the the profile of exponential growth with age somewhat though, yes.


Again, extrapolating individual circumstances from population statistics is a fallacious exercise. That doesn't in any way invalidate conclusions about the overall effect of a policy based on population statistics. ("Population" here just means a sufficiently large sample. Part of the problem with the recorded COV-19 stats is that they are inevitably a small, biased sample of the actual population. This is why the measured mortality rate is viewed as probably being an overestimate of the true "population" statistic. The WHO is being strident on this matter for good reasons - if you aren't testing enough people, you don't know what is really going on which makes inferences drawn from the data less reliable.)


Just to reiterate: I have no real expertise on any of this. Getting the detail right is an enormously complex task best left to proper epidemiologists - PhD+ level mathematicians/statisticians/virologists/computer scientists around the world whose working lives are dedicated to trying to understand it.

The broad thrust should be understandable to anyone with a decent grounding in science and logic though.

Whether governments are making the right political decisions based on scientific advice which ultimately is uncertain by its very nature, is a quite separate question.

[LMcD]

If the reaction of those with whom we chatted during the interval in this afternoon's concert in a local church - quite a lot of of them in the age group that will be affected - is anything to go by, Matt Hancock is going to have a real battle on his hands if he expect over-70s who are not suffering symptoms to stay at home for 12 weeks.

[DracoM]

<< Bit confusing as to whether 'isolation' means, literally "staying at home" , inside their four walls, or allowing people to at least go out for walks and stay clear of (at least 2 metres away from) other people - and not touching hard surfaces. Though the main reason for the policy appears to be to avoid the elderly putting a huge strain strain on available services, rather than for their own well-being. >>

Absolutely at the core of this problem.

What, exactly and detailedly, IS 'self-isolation'?

Lots of thoughts, ideas ec, but what does the govt say / will act on, and what do properly qualified medics say?

[teamsaint]

Bit confusing as to whether 'isolation' means, literally "staying at home" , inside their four walls, or allowing people to at least go out for walks and stay clear of (at least 2 metres away from) other people - and not touching hard surfaces. Though the main reason for the policy appears to be to avoid the elderly putting a huge strain strain on available services, rather than for their own well-being.

These two things are connected . We all, and especially those in vulnerable groups, need the NHS functioing as well as possible. Making judgements on policy is hard enough. I’m not sure that attributing motives to those actions is useful at this stage .

I think it would be good for “ isolation “ to be presented as something of benefit to all, including those affected by it. And allowing sensible observance ( contact between those isolated, encouraging safe outdoor activity etc) seems likely to increase compliance.

Incidentally , AFAICS, the NHS has already ground to a halt for all practical purposes at GP level, but then again we have little choice at this point than to trust the professionals.

[Serial_Apologist]

If the reaction of those with whom we chatted during the interval in this afternoon's concert in a local church - quite a lot of of them in the age group that will be affected - is anything to go by, Matt Hancock is going to have a real battle on his hands if he expect over-70s who are not suffering symptoms to stay at home for 12 weeks.

Speaking for self, as a 74-year old with underlying high risk factors, I am prepared to avoid mass events placing people in close proximity, likewise public transport, as I can (hopefully in the light of panic buying) obtain all my regular needs within walking or cycling distance. If lock-down imposes staying in for other than shopping essentials for 3 months, what frankly I am not prepared to do is forego my mostly daily walks and cycling journeys, which keep me as healthy as possible in body and mind, as the doctor ordered following my heart op 7 years ago.

[teamsaint]

[QUOTE=LMcD;782862]If the reaction of those with whom we chatted during the interval in this afternoon's concert in a local church - quite a lot of of them in the age group that will be affected - is anything to go by, Matt Hancock is going to have a real battle on his hands if he expect over-70s who are not suffering symptoms to stay at home for 12 weeks.[/QUOTE

I don’t expect Millenials to be very impressed by that kind of attitude. And they are , to a considerable extent, the ones paying the bills round here, and the ones keeping the NHS running.