Discussion:
Seasonal flu more deadly than Covid-19 ?
(too old to reply)
Pamela
2020-03-22 20:19:58 UTC
Permalink
How did anyone ever fall for the yarn that seasonal flu is more deadly
than Covid-19? Several posters here did.

Maybe they also agreed with the government's proposal that weekly
updates would be sufficient for the pandemic.

Maybe they backed the herd immunity strategy, along with Dominic
Cummings, at a cost of half a million deaths even though no other
country in the world was taking such a reckless approach.

Maybe they backed the unproven behavioural psychology that we should to
act as late as possible, in case the public got fatigue from saving
themselves.

Under Boris's leadership Britain was ill prepared, acted too slowly and
chose the wrong direction. We lost precious weeks of preparation.
Fredxx
2020-03-22 21:27:15 UTC
Permalink
On 22/03/2020 20:19:58, Pamela wrote:
<snip crap from pseudo expert/>

Genuine question, best leave it at that.
Pancho
2020-03-22 21:51:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Maybe they backed the herd immunity strategy, along with Dominic
Cummings, at a cost of half a million deaths even though no other
country in the world was taking such a reckless approach.
OK, If we aren't looking for a herd immunity strategy what are we doing.
Are we having social distancing indefinitely, until a vaccine is
developed, if it ever is. What is the end game?
Post by Pamela
Under Boris's leadership Britain was ill prepared, acted too slowly and
chose the wrong direction. We lost precious weeks of preparation.
How would you have prepared in a way that Boris hasn't. The main
preparation seems to be to ramp up special SARS-CoV-2 ICU facilities. A
fag packet calc suggest something like 25,000 ICU places would allow
herd immunity to be achieved in 3-4 months.

What part of the strategy am I not understanding? Are your proposing a
delay in the hope "Something will turn up" strategy?
Pamela
2020-03-22 22:12:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by Pamela
Maybe they backed the herd immunity strategy, along with Dominic
Cummings, at a cost of half a million deaths even though no other
country in the world was taking such a reckless approach.
OK, If we aren't looking for a herd immunity strategy what are we doing.
Are we having social distancing indefinitely, until a vaccine is
developed, if it ever is. What is the end game?
Post by Pamela
Under Boris's leadership Britain was ill prepared, acted too slowly and
chose the wrong direction. We lost precious weeks of preparation.
How would you have prepared in a way that Boris hasn't. The main
preparation seems to be to ramp up special SARS-CoV-2 ICU facilities. A
fag packet calc suggest something like 25,000 ICU places would allow
herd immunity to be achieved in 3-4 months.
What part of the strategy am I not understanding? Are your proposing a
delay in the hope "Something will turn up" strategy?
Better to start a supression strategy much earlier and not waste time
following a herd-immunity "mitigation" strategy (along with faux-science
twaddle such as waiting in order to prevent onset of "coronavirus fatigue")
would have helped enormously.

Neil Ferguson's Imperial College paper does the simulations and he says early
trigger action is essential.
Pancho
2020-03-22 23:32:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Pancho
Post by Pamela
Maybe they backed the herd immunity strategy, along with Dominic
Cummings, at a cost of half a million deaths even though no other
country in the world was taking such a reckless approach.
OK, If we aren't looking for a herd immunity strategy what are we doing.
Are we having social distancing indefinitely, until a vaccine is
developed, if it ever is. What is the end game?
Post by Pamela
Under Boris's leadership Britain was ill prepared, acted too slowly and
chose the wrong direction. We lost precious weeks of preparation.
How would you have prepared in a way that Boris hasn't. The main
preparation seems to be to ramp up special SARS-CoV-2 ICU facilities. A
fag packet calc suggest something like 25,000 ICU places would allow
herd immunity to be achieved in 3-4 months.
What part of the strategy am I not understanding? Are your proposing a
delay in the hope "Something will turn up" strategy?
Better to start a supression strategy much earlier and not waste time
following a herd-immunity "mitigation" strategy (along with faux-science
twaddle such as waiting in order to prevent onset of "coronavirus fatigue")
would have helped enormously.
Neil Ferguson's Imperial College paper does the simulations and he says early
trigger action is essential.
OK, I hadn't realised the paper had been published. I assume this is it:

<https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf>

Problem with suppression strategy:

Quote
---
"The main challenge of this approach is that NPIs (and drugs, if
available) need to be maintained –at least intermittently-for as long as
the virus is circulating in the human population, or untila vaccine
becomes available. In the case of COVID-19, it will be at least a 12-18
months before a vaccine is available3. Furthermore,there is no guarantee
that initial vaccines will have high efficacy"
---

Ferguson is not saying suppression is essential. He is side stepping the
wider policy decision. An 18 month economic shutdown is crippling.

Quote
---
"We do not consider the ethical or economic implications of either
strategy here, except to note that there is no easy policy decision to
be made."
---

But the report has explained some of the government's reaction. Ferguson
makes an infections not identified assumption that surprised me (and I
guess them), this figure will dominate simulations.

Quote
----
"Analyses of data from China as well as data from those returning on
repatriation flights suggest that 40-50% of infections were not
identified as cases".
----

This assumption is significantly smaller than I expected, I was
expecting ~90% or more infections not identified. This kicks into a
higher than expected infection fatality ratio (IFR) of 0.9%.


AIUI, antibody tests have now been developed, to test who actually has
or *had* the disease, rather than just who is currently infected. This
will allow the "Infections not identified" figure to be estimated more
confidently. Given this report I guess the government felt they had to
take much more drastic action until this figure (and hence IFR) are
known more precisely. They will probably defer a long term strategy
decision until it is known.

I wouldn't put this down as a BoJo failure, more a case of adjusting
policy as new information comes to light.

Sorry if this is teaching grandma to suck eggs, I hadn't seen the report
before and hence I'm just figuring it out.
Pamela
2020-03-23 11:42:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
I wouldn't put this down as a BoJo failure, more a case of adjusting
policy as new information comes to light.
Good that you found the Imperial College paper useful. It had an
instrumental effect on UK and US policy as soon as it was published. I guess
you've also seen Pueyo's "Hammer and Dance" page.

Boris's has been slow to act throughout. He chose advisors who came up
with highly idiosyncratic, ruthless and now-derided management policies.
No other country in the world was following "delayed response" and aiming
for natrually acquired "herd immunity", as favoured by Dominc Cummings.

Even now Boris lags behind Europe on enforcing social distancing. His
ministers often mumble something about "That's not the British way" and
other such self-serving nonsense. By contrast, the French have frequently
invoked their core values of "liberte, egalite, fraternite" to justify
abberant actions in the past but NOT this time. Macron has put in place
some very firm controls.

The UK too shouldn't rely on misplaced nationalism, which Boris has found
useful for Brexit, to justfy a failure to act firmly with this virus.

Of course Trump is even worse and far behind the curve in terms of timely
response but that doesn't excuse us.
abelard
2020-03-23 15:41:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Pancho
I wouldn't put this down as a BoJo failure, more a case of adjusting
policy as new information comes to light.
Good that you found the Imperial College paper useful. It had an
instrumental effect on UK and US policy as soon as it was published. I guess
you've also seen Pueyo's "Hammer and Dance" page.
Boris's has been slow to act throughout. He chose advisors who came up
with highly idiosyncratic, ruthless and now-derided management policies.
No other country in the world was following "delayed response" and aiming
for natrually acquired "herd immunity", as favoured by Dominc Cummings.
Even now Boris lags behind Europe on enforcing social distancing. His
ministers often mumble something about "That's not the British way" and
other such self-serving nonsense. By contrast, the French have frequently
invoked their core values of "liberte, egalite, fraternite" to justify
abberant actions in the past but NOT this time. Macron has put in place
some very firm controls.
The UK too shouldn't rely on misplaced nationalism, which Boris has found
useful for Brexit, to justfy a failure to act firmly with this virus.
Of course Trump is even worse and far behind the curve in terms of timely
response but that doesn't excuse us.
your usual stream of unsupported assertions
--
www.abelard.org
Farmer Giles
2020-03-23 15:51:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
Post by Pancho
I wouldn't put this down as a BoJo failure, more a case of adjusting
policy as new information comes to light.
Good that you found the Imperial College paper useful. It had an
instrumental effect on UK and US policy as soon as it was published. I guess
you've also seen Pueyo's "Hammer and Dance" page.
Boris's has been slow to act throughout. He chose advisors who came up
with highly idiosyncratic, ruthless and now-derided management policies.
No other country in the world was following "delayed response" and aiming
for natrually acquired "herd immunity", as favoured by Dominc Cummings.
Even now Boris lags behind Europe on enforcing social distancing. His
ministers often mumble something about "That's not the British way" and
other such self-serving nonsense. By contrast, the French have frequently
invoked their core values of "liberte, egalite, fraternite" to justify
abberant actions in the past but NOT this time. Macron has put in place
some very firm controls.
The UK too shouldn't rely on misplaced nationalism, which Boris has found
useful for Brexit, to justfy a failure to act firmly with this virus.
Of course Trump is even worse and far behind the curve in terms of timely
response but that doesn't excuse us.
your usual stream of unsupported assertions
Oh, the irony!!!
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-03-23 15:56:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
Post by Pancho
I wouldn't put this down as a BoJo failure, more a case of adjusting
policy as new information comes to light.
Good that you found the Imperial College paper useful. It had an
instrumental effect on UK and US policy as soon as it was published. I guess
you've also seen Pueyo's "Hammer and Dance" page.
Boris's has been slow to act throughout. He chose advisors who came up
with highly idiosyncratic, ruthless and now-derided management policies.
No other country in the world was following "delayed response" and aiming
for natrually acquired "herd immunity", as favoured by Dominc Cummings.
Even now Boris lags behind Europe on enforcing social distancing. His
ministers often mumble something about "That's not the British way" and
other such self-serving nonsense. By contrast, the French have frequently
invoked their core values of "liberte, egalite, fraternite" to justify
abberant actions in the past but NOT this time. Macron has put in place
some very firm controls.
The UK too shouldn't rely on misplaced nationalism, which Boris has found
useful for Brexit, to justfy a failure to act firmly with this virus.
Of course Trump is even worse and far behind the curve in terms of timely
response but that doesn't excuse us.
your usual stream of unsupported assertions
Oh, the irony!!!
He probably has that embroidered on his underpants. It's the only comment he knows!
abelard
2020-03-23 16:06:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
Post by Pancho
I wouldn't put this down as a BoJo failure, more a case of adjusting
policy as new information comes to light.
Good that you found the Imperial College paper useful. It had an
instrumental effect on UK and US policy as soon as it was published. I guess
you've also seen Pueyo's "Hammer and Dance" page.
Boris's has been slow to act throughout. He chose advisors who came up
with highly idiosyncratic, ruthless and now-derided management policies.
No other country in the world was following "delayed response" and aiming
for natrually acquired "herd immunity", as favoured by Dominc Cummings.
Even now Boris lags behind Europe on enforcing social distancing. His
ministers often mumble something about "That's not the British way" and
other such self-serving nonsense. By contrast, the French have frequently
invoked their core values of "liberte, egalite, fraternite" to justify
abberant actions in the past but NOT this time. Macron has put in place
some very firm controls.
The UK too shouldn't rely on misplaced nationalism, which Boris has found
useful for Brexit, to justfy a failure to act firmly with this virus.
Of course Trump is even worse and far behind the curve in terms of timely
response but that doesn't excuse us.
your usual stream of unsupported assertions
Oh, the irony!!!
He probably has that embroidered on his underpants. It's the only comment he knows!
he is even thicker than spamela

but he does have a blue peter badge...allegedly

he is one of the few who has actually made it into my kf...
he is too thick even to develop an interesting or original insult

bored me into submission he did!
--
www.abelard.org
Farmer Giles
2020-03-23 16:18:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
Post by Pancho
I wouldn't put this down as a BoJo failure, more a case of adjusting
policy as new information comes to light.
Good that you found the Imperial College paper useful. It had an
instrumental effect on UK and US policy as soon as it was published. I guess
you've also seen Pueyo's "Hammer and Dance" page.
Boris's has been slow to act throughout. He chose advisors who came up
with highly idiosyncratic, ruthless and now-derided management policies.
No other country in the world was following "delayed response" and aiming
for natrually acquired "herd immunity", as favoured by Dominc Cummings.
Even now Boris lags behind Europe on enforcing social distancing. His
ministers often mumble something about "That's not the British way" and
other such self-serving nonsense. By contrast, the French have frequently
invoked their core values of "liberte, egalite, fraternite" to justify
abberant actions in the past but NOT this time. Macron has put in place
some very firm controls.
The UK too shouldn't rely on misplaced nationalism, which Boris has found
useful for Brexit, to justfy a failure to act firmly with this virus.
Of course Trump is even worse and far behind the curve in terms of timely
response but that doesn't excuse us.
your usual stream of unsupported assertions
Oh, the irony!!!
He probably has that embroidered on his underpants. It's the only comment he knows!
he is even thicker than spamela
but he does have a blue peter badge...allegedly
he is one of the few who has actually made it into my kf...
he is too thick even to develop an interesting or original insult
bored me into submission he did!
You should get together with Rowing, Babbelard, your lonely single
braincells will keep each other company.
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-03-23 16:27:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
Post by Pancho
I wouldn't put this down as a BoJo failure, more a case of adjusting
policy as new information comes to light.
Good that you found the Imperial College paper useful. It had an
instrumental effect on UK and US policy as soon as it was published. I guess
you've also seen Pueyo's "Hammer and Dance" page.
Boris's has been slow to act throughout. He chose advisors who came up
with highly idiosyncratic, ruthless and now-derided management policies.
No other country in the world was following "delayed response" and aiming
for natrually acquired "herd immunity", as favoured by Dominc Cummings.
Even now Boris lags behind Europe on enforcing social distancing. His
ministers often mumble something about "That's not the British way" and
other such self-serving nonsense. By contrast, the French have frequently
invoked their core values of "liberte, egalite, fraternite" to justify
abberant actions in the past but NOT this time. Macron has put in place
some very firm controls.
The UK too shouldn't rely on misplaced nationalism, which Boris has found
useful for Brexit, to justfy a failure to act firmly with this virus.
Of course Trump is even worse and far behind the curve in terms of timely
response but that doesn't excuse us.
your usual stream of unsupported assertions
Oh, the irony!!!
He probably has that embroidered on his underpants. It's the only comment he knows!
he is even thicker than spamela
but he does have a blue peter badge...allegedly
he is one of the few who has actually made it into my kf...
he is too thick even to develop an interesting or original insult
bored me into submission he did!
He's in my kf actually in as much as I take any real notice of anything he says. It's just that he is so stupid in his responses to leave himself wide open to the responsive quip. I'm afraid I can't resist it!

He seems that he is under the mistaken impression that he has something useful to say when he hasn't!
Farmer Giles
2020-03-23 16:16:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
Post by Pancho
I wouldn't put this down as a BoJo failure, more a case of adjusting
policy as new information comes to light.
Good that you found the Imperial College paper useful. It had an
instrumental effect on UK and US policy as soon as it was published. I guess
you've also seen Pueyo's "Hammer and Dance" page.
Boris's has been slow to act throughout. He chose advisors who came up
with highly idiosyncratic, ruthless and now-derided management policies.
No other country in the world was following "delayed response" and aiming
for natrually acquired "herd immunity", as favoured by Dominc Cummings.
Even now Boris lags behind Europe on enforcing social distancing. His
ministers often mumble something about "That's not the British way" and
other such self-serving nonsense. By contrast, the French have frequently
invoked their core values of "liberte, egalite, fraternite" to justify
abberant actions in the past but NOT this time. Macron has put in place
some very firm controls.
The UK too shouldn't rely on misplaced nationalism, which Boris has found
useful for Brexit, to justfy a failure to act firmly with this virus.
Of course Trump is even worse and far behind the curve in terms of timely
response but that doesn't excuse us.
your usual stream of unsupported assertions
Oh, the irony!!!
He probably has that embroidered on his underpants. It's the only comment he knows!
Hello, I have a stalker.
Fredxx
2020-03-23 16:30:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
Post by Pancho
I wouldn't put this down as a BoJo failure, more a case of adjusting
policy as new information comes to light.
Good that you found the Imperial College paper useful. It had an
instrumental effect on UK and US policy as soon as it was published. I guess
you've also seen Pueyo's "Hammer and Dance" page.
Boris's has been slow to act throughout. He chose advisors who came up
with highly idiosyncratic, ruthless and now-derided management policies.
No other country in the world was following "delayed response" and aiming
for natrually acquired "herd immunity", as favoured by Dominc Cummings.
Even now Boris lags behind Europe on enforcing social distancing. His
ministers often mumble something about "That's not the British way" and
other such self-serving nonsense. By contrast, the French have frequently
invoked their core values of "liberte, egalite, fraternite" to justify
abberant actions in the past but NOT this time. Macron has put in place
some very firm controls.
The UK too shouldn't rely on misplaced nationalism, which Boris has found
useful for Brexit, to justfy a failure to act firmly with this virus.
Of course Trump is even worse and far behind the curve in terms of timely
response but that doesn't excuse us.
your usual stream of unsupported assertions
You seem to have much in common with Pamela.
abelard
2020-03-23 16:38:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
Post by Pancho
I wouldn't put this down as a BoJo failure, more a case of adjusting
policy as new information comes to light.
Good that you found the Imperial College paper useful. It had an
instrumental effect on UK and US policy as soon as it was published. I guess
you've also seen Pueyo's "Hammer and Dance" page.
Boris's has been slow to act throughout. He chose advisors who came up
with highly idiosyncratic, ruthless and now-derided management policies.
No other country in the world was following "delayed response" and aiming
for natrually acquired "herd immunity", as favoured by Dominc Cummings.
Even now Boris lags behind Europe on enforcing social distancing. His
ministers often mumble something about "That's not the British way" and
other such self-serving nonsense. By contrast, the French have frequently
invoked their core values of "liberte, egalite, fraternite" to justify
abberant actions in the past but NOT this time. Macron has put in place
some very firm controls.
The UK too shouldn't rely on misplaced nationalism, which Boris has found
useful for Brexit, to justfy a failure to act firmly with this virus.
Of course Trump is even worse and far behind the curve in terms of timely
response but that doesn't excuse us.
your usual stream of unsupported assertions
You seem to have much in common with Pamela.
you have a problem....

a less complex computer is unable to comprehend
a more complex computer...

i suggest you take your 'discussions' to spamela...you should
both learn from the interactional experiences

spamela does not appear thick(i don't know about you)...
s/he merely had what snowflakes call narcissism...
i hope and s/he will overcome it and have some limited
optimism
--
www.abelard.org
Pancho
2020-03-24 13:08:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Pancho
I wouldn't put this down as a BoJo failure, more a case of adjusting
policy as new information comes to light.
Good that you found the Imperial College paper useful. It had an
instrumental effect on UK and US policy as soon as it was published. I guess
you've also seen Pueyo's "Hammer and Dance" page.
Never heard of Pueyo. I will have a look but there is a slight suspicion
he is an Elon Musk type science populist. Rather than a boring data
type. I will however give him a longer read.

From Pueyo, I see Bill Gates is also questioning the Imperial paper
parameters as too negative. Obviously Bill isn't an expert either and
not being an expert myself, I'm reluctant to question Neil Ferguson but
I just can't get the doubt out of my head. So maybe I'm just falling
prey to confirmation bias.

<https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/18/bill-gates-addresses-coronavirus-fears-and-hopes-in-ama/>
Post by Pamela
Boris's has been slow to act throughout. He chose advisors who came up
with highly idiosyncratic, ruthless and now-derided management policies.
No other country in the world was following "delayed response" and aiming
for natrually acquired "herd immunity", as favoured by Dominc Cummings.
Even now Boris lags behind Europe on enforcing social distancing. His
ministers often mumble something about "That's not the British way" and
other such self-serving nonsense. By contrast, the French have frequently
invoked their core values of "liberte, egalite, fraternite" to justify
abberant actions in the past but NOT this time. Macron has put in place
some very firm controls.
The UK too shouldn't rely on misplaced nationalism, which Boris has found
useful for Brexit, to justfy a failure to act firmly with this virus.
Of course Trump is even worse and far behind the curve in terms of timely
response but that doesn't excuse us.
I'm still not sure Boris's initial response wasn't the correct one and
I'm not sure Trump is wrong in not implementing economic shutdown.

I think Boris just suffers from being a bit saner than Trump and is
quite reasonably too scared to go against received opinion.
Pamela
2020-03-24 14:03:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by Pamela
Post by Pancho
I wouldn't put this down as a BoJo failure, more a case of adjusting
policy as new information comes to light.
Good that you found the Imperial College paper useful. It had an
instrumental effect on UK and US policy as soon as it was published. I
guess you've also seen Pueyo's "Hammer and Dance" page.
Never heard of Pueyo. I will have a look but there is a slight suspicion
he is an Elon Musk type science populist. Rather than a boring data
type. I will however give him a longer read.
From Pueyo, I see Bill Gates is also questioning the Imperial paper
parameters as too negative. Obviously Bill isn't an expert either and
not being an expert myself, I'm reluctant to question Neil Ferguson but
I just can't get the doubt out of my head. So maybe I'm just falling
prey to confirmation bias.
<https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/18/bill-gates-addresses-coronavirus-
fears-and-hopes-in-ama/>
Bill Gates is well informed from his institute and general interest in
diseases and I would tend to go along with him. However the key parameter
for the spread of Covid is the transmission rate and a spokesman was saying
today that it is 2.5 to 3.0, whereas Imperial College uses the much more
positive range of 2.0 to 2.4. That is a big difference and not in the
direction Gates is suggesting.

If you are up for looking into detail, what I don't understand is why on
Table 3 on page 9 of the Imperial College report,
"home isolation plus home quarantine" ("CI_HQ") gives a better result than
"home isolation plus home quarantine plus social distancing" ("CI_HQ_SD").

The top line of table 3 shows 53% (green) versus 33% (yellow). Other figures
are below the top line in the chart.

Table A1 in the appendix (page 20) of the report shows numerical number of
deaths, as opposed to relative impact shown in Table 3. Table A1 is
essentially the numerical equivalent of Table 3 but the colouring of severity
is quite different.

What am I missing?



Handy link to Imperial College paper: https://tinyurl.com/imp-coll-covid
Pancho
2020-03-25 00:24:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Pancho
Post by Pamela
Post by Pancho
I wouldn't put this down as a BoJo failure, more a case of adjusting
policy as new information comes to light.
Good that you found the Imperial College paper useful. It had an
instrumental effect on UK and US policy as soon as it was published. I
guess you've also seen Pueyo's "Hammer and Dance" page.
Never heard of Pueyo. I will have a look but there is a slight suspicion
he is an Elon Musk type science populist. Rather than a boring data
type. I will however give him a longer read.
From Pueyo, I see Bill Gates is also questioning the Imperial paper
parameters as too negative. Obviously Bill isn't an expert either and
not being an expert myself, I'm reluctant to question Neil Ferguson but
I just can't get the doubt out of my head. So maybe I'm just falling
prey to confirmation bias.
<https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/18/bill-gates-addresses-coronavirus-
fears-and-hopes-in-ama/>
Bill Gates is well informed from his institute and general interest in
diseases and I would tend to go along with him. However the key parameter
for the spread of Covid is the transmission rate and a spokesman was saying
today that it is 2.5 to 3.0, whereas Imperial College uses the much more
positive range of 2.0 to 2.4. That is a big difference and not in the
direction Gates is suggesting.
I'm not sure where you are going with that. We know the transmission
rate can be successfully reduced by the various interventions described
in the paper.

The question in my mind was the infection fatality rate (IFR)(and
similar rate for patients requiring ICU care). These are the figures
which dictate the feasibility of herd immunity (cost in human life, if
you like). There is clearly a debate going on that we aren't hearing.
Politicians can't admit openly that they are willing to let many tens of
thousands of people die in order to save the economy.

My suspicion is that Boris, Dom, et al were willing to let maybe 100,000
die in order to get herd immunity, i.e the mitigation strategy. Even
then this would probably still end with a limited herd immunity that
still had to be augmented with additional but much less extreme (less
economically costly) interventions to reduce transmission.

However, the Imperial paper suggested it would be worse than this.

It is even possible that Bojo's current strategy is still mitigation.
Boris may even just be keeping his options open for a few weeks,.

Trump seems more willing to openly stick to the mitigation strategy.

So we have a couple of interesting things to look out for. How it goes
in the US and what happens in China as it starts to relax social distancing.

If I were a betting man I would bet on Trump. However my view don't
count for diddly squat.
Post by Pamela
If you are up for looking into detail, what I don't understand is why on
Table 3 on page 9 of the Imperial College report,
"home isolation plus home quarantine" ("CI_HQ") gives a better result than
"home isolation plus home quarantine plus social distancing" ("CI_HQ_SD").
The top line of table 3 shows 53% (green) versus 33% (yellow). Other figures
are below the top line in the chart.
Table A1 in the appendix (page 20) of the report shows numerical number of
deaths, as opposed to relative impact shown in Table 3. Table A1 is
essentially the numerical equivalent of Table 3 but the colouring of severity
is quite different.
What am I missing?
Page 11
Quote
---
Once interventions are relaxed (in the example in Figure 3, from
September onwards), infections begin to rise, resulting in a predicted
peak epidemic later in the year. The more successful a strategy is at
temporary suppression, the larger the later epidemic is predicted to be
in the absence of vaccination, due to lesser build-up of herd immunity.
---

So you are missing the assumption that interventions are for three
months only. During that three months we would want to build as much
herd immunity as possible without swamping the hospitals. In the extreme
case if we suppress transmission to virtually nil, we don't build any
herd immunity and it is just as if we are starting from scratch, with no
interventions, but three months later.
Keema's Nan
2020-03-25 09:09:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by Pamela
Post by Pancho
Post by Pancho
I wouldn't put this down as a BoJo failure, more a case of adjusting
policy as new information comes to light.
Good that you found the Imperial College paper useful. It had an
instrumental effect on UK and US policy as soon as it was published. I
guess you've also seen Pueyo's "Hammer and Dance" page.
Never heard of Pueyo. I will have a look but there is a slight suspicion
he is an Elon Musk type science populist. Rather than a boring data
type. I will however give him a longer read.
From Pueyo, I see Bill Gates is also questioning the Imperial paper
parameters as too negative. Obviously Bill isn't an expert either and
not being an expert myself, I'm reluctant to question Neil Ferguson but
I just can't get the doubt out of my head. So maybe I'm just falling
prey to confirmation bias.
<https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/18/bill-gates-addresses-coronavirus-
fears-and-hopes-in-ama/>
Bill Gates is well informed from his institute and general interest in
diseases and I would tend to go along with him. However the key parameter
for the spread of Covid is the transmission rate and a spokesman was saying
today that it is 2.5 to 3.0, whereas Imperial College uses the much more
positive range of 2.0 to 2.4. That is a big difference and not in the
direction Gates is suggesting.
I'm not sure where you are going with that. We know the transmission
rate can be successfully reduced by the various interventions described
in the paper.
The question in my mind was the infection fatality rate (IFR)(and
similar rate for patients requiring ICU care). These are the figures
which dictate the feasibility of herd immunity (cost in human life, if
you like). There is clearly a debate going on that we aren't hearing.
Politicians can't admit openly that they are willing to let many tens of
thousands of people die in order to save the economy.
My suspicion is that Boris, Dom, et al were willing to let maybe 100,000
die in order to get herd immunity, i.e the mitigation strategy. Even
then this would probably still end with a limited herd immunity that
still had to be augmented with additional but much less extreme (less
economically costly) interventions to reduce transmission.
However, the Imperial paper suggested it would be worse than this.
It is even possible that Bojo's current strategy is still mitigation.
Boris may even just be keeping his options open for a few weeks,.
Trump seems more willing to openly stick to the mitigation strategy.
So we have a couple of interesting things to look out for. How it goes
in the US and what happens in China as it starts to relax social distancing.
If I were a betting man I would bet on Trump. However my view don't
count for diddly squat.
Diddly squat? Isn’t that Trump’s euphemism for what he likes to do in his
bed?
Post by Pancho
Post by Pamela
If you are up for looking into detail, what I don't understand is why on
Table 3 on page 9 of the Imperial College report,
"home isolation plus home quarantine" ("CI_HQ") gives a better result than
"home isolation plus home quarantine plus social distancing" ("CI_HQ_SD").
The top line of table 3 shows 53% (green) versus 33% (yellow). Other figures
are below the top line in the chart.
Table A1 in the appendix (page 20) of the report shows numerical number of
deaths, as opposed to relative impact shown in Table 3. Table A1 is
essentially the numerical equivalent of Table 3 but the colouring of severity
is quite different.
What am I missing?
Page 11
Quote
---
Once interventions are relaxed (in the example in Figure 3, from
September onwards), infections begin to rise, resulting in a predicted
peak epidemic later in the year. The more successful a strategy is at
temporary suppression, the larger the later epidemic is predicted to be
in the absence of vaccination, due to lesser build-up of herd immunity.
---
So you are missing the assumption that interventions are for three
months only. During that three months we would want to build as much
herd immunity as possible without swamping the hospitals. In the extreme
case if we suppress transmission to virtually nil, we don't build any
herd immunity and it is just as if we are starting from scratch, with no
interventions, but three months later.
Pancho
2020-03-25 16:04:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by Pamela
Post by Pancho
Post by Pancho
I wouldn't put this down as a BoJo failure, more a case of adjusting
policy as new information comes to light.
Good that you found the Imperial College paper useful.  It had an
instrumental effect on UK and US policy as soon as it was published.  I
guess you've also seen Pueyo's "Hammer and Dance" page.
Never heard of Pueyo. I will have a look but there is a slight suspicion
he is an Elon Musk type science populist. Rather than a boring data
type. I will however give him a longer read.
  From Pueyo, I see Bill Gates is also questioning the Imperial paper
parameters as too negative. Obviously Bill isn't an expert either and
not being an expert myself, I'm reluctant to question Neil Ferguson but
I just can't get the doubt out of my head. So maybe I'm just falling
prey to confirmation bias.
<https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/18/bill-gates-addresses-coronavirus-
fears-and-hopes-in-ama/>
Bill Gates is well informed from his institute and general interest in
diseases and I would tend to go along with him.  However the key
parameter
for the spread of Covid is the transmission rate and a spokesman was saying
today that it is 2.5 to 3.0, whereas Imperial College uses the much more
positive range of 2.0 to 2.4.  That is a big difference and not in the
direction Gates is suggesting.
I'm not sure where you are going with that. We know the transmission
rate can be successfully reduced by the various interventions described
in the paper.
The question in my mind was the infection fatality rate (IFR)(and
similar rate for patients requiring ICU care). These are the figures
which dictate the feasibility of herd immunity (cost in human life, if
you like). There is clearly a debate going on that we aren't hearing.
Politicians can't admit openly that they are willing to let many tens of
thousands of people die in order to save the economy.
My suspicion is that Boris, Dom, et al were willing to let maybe 100,000
die in order to get herd immunity, i.e the mitigation strategy.  Even
then this would probably still end with a limited herd immunity that
still had to be augmented with additional but much less extreme (less
economically costly) interventions to reduce transmission.
However, the Imperial paper suggested it would be worse than this.
It is even possible that Bojo's current strategy is still mitigation.
Boris may even just be keeping his options open for a few weeks,.
Trump seems more willing to openly stick to the mitigation strategy.
So we have a couple of interesting things to look out for. How it goes
in the US and what happens in China as it starts to relax social distancing.
If I were a betting man I would bet on Trump. However my view don't
count for diddly squat.
Post by Pamela
If you are up for looking into detail, what I don't understand is why on
Table 3 on page 9 of the Imperial College report,
"home isolation plus home quarantine" ("CI_HQ") gives a better result than
"home isolation plus home quarantine plus social distancing"
("CI_HQ_SD").
The top line of table 3 shows 53% (green) versus 33% (yellow).  Other
figures
are below the top line in the chart.
Table A1 in the appendix (page 20) of the report shows numerical number of
deaths, as opposed to relative impact shown in Table 3.  Table A1 is
essentially the numerical equivalent of Table 3 but the colouring of severity
is quite different.
What am I missing?
Page 11
Quote
---
Once interventions are relaxed (in the example in Figure 3, from
September onwards), infections begin to rise, resulting in a predicted
peak epidemic later in the year. The more successful a strategy is at
temporary suppression, the larger the later epidemic is predicted to be
in the absence of vaccination, due to lesser build-up of herd immunity.
---
So you are missing the assumption that interventions are for three
months only. During that three months we would want to build as much
herd immunity as possible without swamping the hospitals. In the extreme
case if we suppress transmission to virtually nil, we don't build any
herd immunity and it is just as if we are starting from scratch, with no
interventions,  but three months later.
Sorry I just realised I answered you first question, but not you second.

The colouring is rather arbitrary. Consistency only really means the
relative ordering should be the same in any single table. Also arbitrary
colour boundaries may lead to equal colour being one different or vice
versa.

Also colour equality won't even hold between R0=2.2 and R0=2.4 for
either of the two categories (deaths of peak beds). R0 = 2.4 will give a
more serious absolute impact than R0 = 2.2, even if the percentage
reductions are the same. In effect this is just because R0=2.4 just
means more death all round.

So the tables on page 9 and page 20 are apples and oranges. I'm afraid.
Pamela
2020-03-25 18:08:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
Post by Pancho
Post by Pamela
Post by Pancho
Post by Pancho
I wouldn't put this down as a BoJo failure, more a case of
adjusting policy as new information comes to light.
Good that you found the Imperial College paper useful.  It had an
instrumental effect on UK and US policy as soon as it was
published.  I guess you've also seen Pueyo's "Hammer and Dance"
page.
Never heard of Pueyo. I will have a look but there is a slight
suspicion he is an Elon Musk type science populist. Rather than a
boring data type. I will however give him a longer read.
  From Pueyo, I see Bill Gates is also questioning the Imperial
paper parameters as too negative. Obviously Bill isn't an expert
either and not being an expert myself, I'm reluctant to question Neil
Ferguson but I just can't get the doubt out of my head. So maybe I'm
just falling prey to confirmation bias.
<https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/18/bill-gates-addresses-coronavirus-
fears-and-hopes-in-ama/>
Bill Gates is well informed from his institute and general interest in
diseases and I would tend to go along with him.  However the key
parameter
for the spread of Covid is the transmission rate and a spokesman was saying
today that it is 2.5 to 3.0, whereas Imperial College uses the much
more positive range of 2.0 to 2.4.  That is a big difference and not
in the direction Gates is suggesting.
I'm not sure where you are going with that. We know the transmission
rate can be successfully reduced by the various interventions described
in the paper.
The question in my mind was the infection fatality rate (IFR)(and
similar rate for patients requiring ICU care). These are the figures
which dictate the feasibility of herd immunity (cost in human life, if
you like). There is clearly a debate going on that we aren't hearing.
Politicians can't admit openly that they are willing to let many tens
of thousands of people die in order to save the economy.
My suspicion is that Boris, Dom, et al were willing to let maybe
100,000 die in order to get herd immunity, i.e the mitigation
strategy.  Even then this would probably still end with a limited herd
immunity that still had to be augmented with additional but much less
extreme (less economically costly) interventions to reduce
transmission.
However, the Imperial paper suggested it would be worse than this.
It is even possible that Bojo's current strategy is still mitigation.
Boris may even just be keeping his options open for a few weeks,.
Trump seems more willing to openly stick to the mitigation strategy.
So we have a couple of interesting things to look out for. How it goes
in the US and what happens in China as it starts to relax social distancing.
If I were a betting man I would bet on Trump. However my view don't
count for diddly squat.
Post by Pamela
If you are up for looking into detail, what I don't understand is why
on Table 3 on page 9 of the Imperial College report,
"home isolation plus home quarantine" ("CI_HQ") gives a better result than
"home isolation plus home quarantine plus social distancing"
("CI_HQ_SD").
The top line of table 3 shows 53% (green) versus 33% (yellow).  Other
figures
are below the top line in the chart.
Table A1 in the appendix (page 20) of the report shows numerical number of
deaths, as opposed to relative impact shown in Table 3.  Table A1 is
essentially the numerical equivalent of Table 3 but the colouring of severity
is quite different.
What am I missing?
Page 11
Quote
---
Once interventions are relaxed (in the example in Figure 3, from
September onwards), infections begin to rise, resulting in a predicted
peak epidemic later in the year. The more successful a strategy is at
temporary suppression, the larger the later epidemic is predicted to be
in the absence of vaccination, due to lesser build-up of herd immunity.
---
So you are missing the assumption that interventions are for three
months only. During that three months we would want to build as much
herd immunity as possible without swamping the hospitals. In the
extreme case if we suppress transmission to virtually nil, we don't
build any herd immunity and it is just as if we are starting from
scratch, with no interventions,  but three months later.
Sorry I just realised I answered you first question, but not you second.
The colouring is rather arbitrary. Consistency only really means the
relative ordering should be the same in any single table. Also arbitrary
colour boundaries may lead to equal colour being one different or vice
versa.
The colouring represents the relative risk but I mentioned above that
Table 3 seems to have the risk reversed compared to what might be
expected. I would expect less risk as more restrictions are applied. So
"CI_HQ_SD" should be less risky than "CI_HQ", but in Table 3 it isn't.
Post by Pancho
Also colour equality won't even hold between R0=2.2 and R0=2.4 for
either of the two categories (deaths of peak beds). R0 = 2.4 will give a
more serious absolute impact than R0 = 2.2, even if the percentage
reductions are the same. In effect this is just because R0=2.4 just
means more death all round.
So the tables on page 9 and page 20 are apples and oranges. I'm afraid.
Aren't the two tables supposed to be identical except for how the data is
represented in the cells as percentages versus actual deaths. Table 3
actually says, "Absolute numbers are shown in Table A1".

I can't believe there's a basic error in a document checked so many times
by so many people, so I'm wondering what I have overlooked.
Mike Scott
2020-03-26 08:04:13 UTC
Permalink
On 22/03/2020 22:12, Pamela wrote:
....
Post by Pamela
Neil Ferguson's Imperial College paper does the simulations and he says early
trigger action is essential.
Serendipity rules; I found this on youtube:

(The Coronavirus Curve; numberphile)

If you skip (about 12mins in) to where he's tweaking parameters on a
very crude model, the way the curves alter is quite enlightening.

Just thought others might be interested.
--
Mike Scott
Harlow, England
Pancho
2020-03-26 14:09:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Scott
....
Post by Pamela
Neil Ferguson's Imperial College paper does the simulations and he says early
trigger action is essential.
http://youtu.be/k6nLfCbAzgo
(The Coronavirus Curve; numberphile)
If you skip (about 12mins in) to where he's tweaking parameters on a
very crude model, the way the curves alter is quite enlightening.
Just thought others might be interested.
Interesting video.

A couple of points. They don't partition the "infected" into severe/mild
and "recovered" into living/dead. I would expect these to be constant
percentages, up to the point the Health systems are overloaded. These
are also critical in deciding the level of health care needed and the
cost in deaths.

Also the Ferguson et al mitigation model used only a limited period of
intervention (3 month) to lower the transmission rate. This is
equivalent to splitting the model into three seperate parts,
pre-intervention, intervention, post intervention.

The pre intervention part and post intervention part would have the same
(natural) transmission rate but different initial parameters for
infected and susceptible (set from end of the preceding period). The
intervention part would use the specific intervention techniques to
modify transmission rate and start parameters from the end of the pre
intervention part.

Loading...