The young and healthy

For discussion, news, comments, questions and information about Crete & Greece.
chrissyg
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 4:46 pm

The young and healthy

Postby chrissyg » Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:19 pm

So in the news today top scientists are saying 'the young and healthy should return to normal life'. Only an opinion of course but gaining momentum as a solution. One that i mentioned about a month ago on this forum and it got slated and i received abusive rude posts after saying it. I feel exonerated!!!

Maud
Posts: 778
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:46 pm
Location: S.W. England/ S.W. Crete.

Re: The young and healthy

Postby Maud » Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:51 pm

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54442386

It is a divisive subject chrissyg. Only a small number of ‘experts’ think that way at the moment.

chrissyg
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 4:46 pm

Re: The young and healthy

Postby chrissyg » Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:04 pm

6000 'experts'! I didn't even say i agreed with it at the time but i
I was at least thinking about it as a solution and putting it out there as a possibility.
Maybe it is more appropriate now with what we are seeing happening at the moment.

Maud
Posts: 778
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:46 pm
Location: S.W. England/ S.W. Crete.

Re: The young and healthy

Postby Maud » Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:52 pm

6,000 experts world wide. - A drop in the ocean?

Just making the point that it is a very small percentage of experts when the whole world is struggling with this problem, and everyone is doing research in to it.

chrissyg
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 4:46 pm

Re: The young and healthy

Postby chrissyg » Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:24 pm

+50k members of the public. Yes, maybe, but pointing out a possible way out. May not be right and may not work but the current different restrictions and rules dont seem to be working and all they seem to be doing is arguing about numbers and households and tiers and pub times and possibilities of lockdowns which is crippling us. Tell a child not to do something and they'll do it
Carrot and stick! Persuade people to do the right thing morally not fine them 10k ic they dont. If not then i would suggest closing the ruddy pubs for a start!

Kilkis
Posts: 12190
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:58 pm
Location: Near Chania

Re: The young and healthy

Postby Kilkis » Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:59 pm

Could you explain how you separate those that are in the group that can get on with their life as normal and those that must be sheltered? How do you identify who is in each group? Exactly what physical measures do you use to implement the separation?

For example it is true that the percentage of people who catch the virus and go on to die increases with age so you could use age as a criterion. Where would you draw the line? What do you do with those above the line? Lock them in a compound somewhere remote and drop some food off to them now and again? What about all those below the line that are at increased risk because of co-morbidity? What do you do with them? What about the people who are not at risk through age or co-morbidity but die anyway?

Also people confuse numbers and rates. There are lots of people in the supposedly "not at risk" group who will require hospitalisation and even intensive care. Without that they will not survive either. If you allow the virus to spread unchecked in a large section of the community then the "rate" of infection will increase very rapidly leading to the "rate" of hospitalisation increasing rapidly followed by a rapid increase in the "rate" of admittance to intensive care. This will overwhelm the NHS, patients will be triaged based on their probability of surviving and the rest will be left to die. Most restrictive measures don't really alter the number of people who ultimately catch the disease but they do slow the rate at which those numbers build up and hence allow the NHS to cope. The only measure that suppresses the virus and reduces both the rate and the number is an effective test-trace-isolate ssytem. Other countries have done it, why can't the UK, the sixth richest country in the world?

The proposal was put forward by a libertarian group following a libertarian agenda. It will appeal to some throughout society. The vast majority of scientists reject it. A doctor being interviewed this afternoon said that there was no scientific basis behind the idea and that no country anywhere in the world had ever adopted such a tactic to deal with a pandemic. The people at low risk of dying are at exactly the same risk of contracting the disease and passing it on to other people. That includes people who are at risk. How exactly do you stop that happening?

Warwick

chrissyg
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 4:46 pm

Re: The young and healthy

Postby chrissyg » Wed Oct 07, 2020 5:24 pm

Well i suppose Sweden had the idea not to lockdown but theyre not doing exceptionally well now either. But if you accept that this strategy is not working what is your idea then? Regarding age for shielding i would probably say 50+ and vulnerables and go back to a lockdown scenario for them where you could only go out for food and exercise and have the students for instance be able to have their normal liives.They are going to anyway and it seems at the moment we are actually locking them away in their dorms. They are also saying now that primary kids are really not a huge problem regarding spread. If the UK strategy wasworking i would agree with you that it sounds insane but i think we are at the point where we need something radical because we will be suffering for years if not.

chrissyg
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 4:46 pm

Re: The young and healthy

Postby chrissyg » Wed Oct 07, 2020 5:51 pm

Well done Nicola, just closed the pubs and bars!!

Kilkis
Posts: 12190
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:58 pm
Location: Near Chania

Re: The young and healthy

Postby Kilkis » Wed Oct 07, 2020 5:51 pm

So what about the 50+ professors and lecturers who are teaching the students? Sack them all and replace them with 50-? What about all the 50+ people who are providing the students with services, e.g. in shops, banks, canteens, bars, cafés etc. Sack them all and replace them with 50-? What about all the 50+ doctors and nurses who are treating the students for a whole variety of illnesses? Sack them and replace them with 50-? It's not just students. Under your scenario every person under 50 is a potential COVID case. Do really think that they do not rely on services from people who are 50+?

It simply doesn't work. Fix test-trace-isolate instead of constantly saying there is nothing wrong with it. Every measure the government is taking is designed to suppress the virus. The rate of infection is steadily increasing. It is not working.

The brakes on my car are designed to slow the car when I press on the pedal. If I press on the pedal and the car does not slow down the brakes have failed. I don't need to know any details of how the braking system works to understand that they have failed. I expect a mechanic to diagnose why they failed and to fix it. I don't expect him to keep repeating that there is nothing wrong with the brake pedal. I expect the government to diagnose why their measures have failed and fix them.

Einstein said that constantly repeating the same actions and expecting a different outcome is a definition of insanity. I think some Section 9 Orders are needed?

Warwick

chrissyg
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 4:46 pm

Re: The young and healthy

Postby chrissyg » Wed Oct 07, 2020 6:19 pm

No you dont sack them, same as when they asked over 70s and vulnerable people to shield. They werent sacked. A lot of people are working from home still and that should be the norm. Even 50+ lecturers can video link like when the schools were shut. Its not impossible and there would have to be exceptions like doctors etc but these people tend to be more careful anyway and nurses would wear PPE. Im not saying it is the answer but even the rules we have now are full of exceptions. Rule of 6 except if your family is larger, if going to a funeral, a wedding , a sports game and so on. If everyone used their common sense we wouldnt be in this mess but they dont. Like o we are allowed to go the pub but only till 10pm, better go to someones house so we can carry on boozing . Opening pubs in the first place was one of the biggest mistakes. Basically 'socialising' is the biggest threat which is very sad but obvious. Whatever rules we make people will do that regardless.

TweetTweet
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:35 am

Re: The young and healthy

Postby TweetTweet » Wed Oct 07, 2020 6:33 pm

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... 40-6736(20)32000-6/fulltext

(sorry) there's something odd about the link but you can find the article with the search"Offline: COVID-19 is not a pandemic"

chrissyg
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 4:46 pm

Re: The young and healthy

Postby chrissyg » Wed Oct 07, 2020 6:42 pm

Interesting article and i agree.

Kilkis
Posts: 12190
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:58 pm
Location: Near Chania

Re: The young and healthy

Postby Kilkis » Wed Oct 07, 2020 11:04 pm

TweetTweet wrote:...(sorry) there's something odd about the link...


You mean this article?

SARS-CoV-2 is not a pure respiratory virus. The various influenza viruses can only infect cells in the respiratory tract and so are pure respiratory viruses. They can attach to other cells but the other cells do not contain the correct protein to unlock the gateway between the virus and the cell. SARS-CoV-2 is able to infect the vascular system cells and from there cells in every organ supplied by the vascular ssytem because it requires a different protein to unlock the gateway. Influenza largely affects other organs through shock if the fever caused by the infection is bad enough. SAR-CoV-2 affects other organs directly by infecting them and destroying cells in them. That is why some people with COVID-19 are suffering from strokes, heart attacks, renal failure etc even where there is no co-morbidity in those organs. Obviously if it attacks an organ where there is co-morbidity that tends to be worse.

There is certainly scope for debate about the best way to deal with the virus but it is often obfuscated by the language used and by the fact that many people have a defined position and so simply put forward arguments that support that position.

First some simple facts. The virus spreads from person to person through airborne droplets that people breath in and through contact with deposited droplets on surfaces. The closer people mingle together, the more people who mingle together, the longer they mingle together and the more confined the air space the faster the virus will spread. Every measure is designed to reduce one or more of those factors.

No country anywhere in the world has implemented lockdown. Lockdown means that every single person in the country stays in their home and never goes out for any reason until the virus has died out. China came closest to implementing a full lockdown just in Hubei province or at least in the big cities of Hubei. Firstly they are a totalitarian dictatorship so they can and secondly they were only trying to do it in one province so they could bring people in from other provinces to do everything that needed doing. Even there it wasn't total lockdown but it was severe enough that it worked. Obviously nobody believes China's figures but, while I accept there is scope for doubt, I think they are reasonably accurate. Look at China's GDP growth. It was bubbling along at around +1.5 % growth per quarter up to the end of 2019. Hard lockdown in Hubei caused a -10 % growth in the first quarter of 2020 followed by a +11.5 growth in the second quarter. Hubei is a high productivity region so this economic performance is exactly what you would expect from the case figures and the severity of the lockdown.

Everywhere else in the world has implemented restrictions on movement to a greater or lesser extent with more or less effectiveness but not really lockdown. Let's take the case of Sweden, the poster boy of the "we should do nothing" crowd. Firstly it didn't do nothing, it pretty much implemented what everybody else did but in a more laissez faire way. People weren't told to stay at home but they were told to observe social distance of 2 m. Cafés, bars and restaurants weren't closed but nobody was allowed to sit/stand at the bar. Everybody had to be seated with limits on the number per table, tables had to have a minimum separation and only waiter service. Public health inspectors toured these establishments and closed any that weren't obeying the rules, i.e there was enforcement. Scandinavians are a highly socially responsible people so a large percentage stopped going out and many cafés, bars and restaurants simply closed down because they had insufficient customers. Norway, Finland and Denmark had stricter rules and they were more formally enforced. So what was the outcome? The "let's do nothing" argument is portrayed as lives against the economy. So look at lives first. In Norway 51 people died per million population, in Finland it was a little worse at 62 per million and in Denmark quite a bit worse at 114. Sweden so far has recorded 582 per million population over 10 times Norway's figure. These are very closely related countries with similar ethnicity, similar culture, similar climate, similar levels of wealth, similar levels of healthcare and similar population densities. There is nothing to explain this huge difference in death rate other than Sweden's lax controls. Obviously Sweden must have done much better economically? I mean that is the whole purpose of removing restrictions. Here are the GDP growth figures for Norway at -6.8 % over the first 2 quarters of 2020, Finland at -6.4 %, Denmark at -8.8 % and Sweden at -8.1 %. Yes it does really prove that accepting 10 times the number of deaths is worth it to save the economy doesn't it? Sweden is second worst of the four Scandinavian countries with a death rate that outstrips the others by a country mile, or 10 km in our money.

What about the far east? Countries like South Korea and Taiwan imposed much less controls on movement and relied far more heavily on establishing a strong test-trace-isolate system. South Korea suffered 8 deaths per million population and Taiwan 0.3 per million. What about their economies? South Korea suffered a GDP drop of -4.5 % and Taiwan a drop of -2.4 %. Also in these countries virtually everybody wears a mask when they are out and about.

So tell me if you were going to copy a country which one would you copy? I know my answer. What the hard figures say is if you want to go down the Sweden route you are stark raving mad.

Warwick

PS For comparison the UK has so far suffered 625 deaths per million population and the UK GDP has fallen -22.3 % in the first 2 quarters. A hot bedtime drink springs to mind.

TweetTweet
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:35 am

Re: The young and healthy

Postby TweetTweet » Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:19 am


chrissyg
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 4:46 pm

Re: The young and healthy

Postby chrissyg » Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:43 am

The situation is very different now and the ratio of cases and admissions and deaths is different. I dont suggest doing nothing or copying Sweden. But just to point out from your own statistics, Sweden- 582 dpm, -8.1 gdp, UK 625dpm, -22.3gdp. Both bad but which fared better and which had the much more relaxed approach?. It could point out that all these restrictions dont make much difference. Or It maybe just that their people are more sensible and the UK is full of drunken idiots or dont like being told what to do. It may even be the 'one rule for us and one for the government 'and we are all fed up.


Return to “General Discussion & News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests