Coronavirus precautions: Has the world gone mad?

[DB]

I think you can guarantee they'll be mandatory in a lot of other places before long.

Which will severely impact a lot of businesses if it happens. I've been trying to support local businesses since they've reopened, but if it becomes mandatory to wear a mask in shops it will be back to supermarket as infrequently as possible, and ordering online.

 

[kylemore]

This thread really troubles me. I like these forums, but the state of the cherry-picking, use of evidence, argumentation construction and understanding of risk and causality shown by the majoirty on this thread has really troubled me.

I struggle with where to start, particularly because I'm not a one of these lockdown-fanaticists: I think that we should be getting kids back into schools for a whole range of health and equality reasons, that masks are only appropriate where people are spending long times indoors or in very close proximity with others, and that in outdoor spaces being less than 2m from people is very very low risk, as long as you're not in deep conversation. I'm pretty optimistic that improved treatments will intersect with first emergence of vaccines to signficantly reduce mortality of covid-19 by the end of the year.

I think people need reminding of a few things:
* 2020 has seen nearly 64500 more deaths than usual so far in the UK: that's 143% of normal deaths. 51804 are directly attributable to covid-19. And that is with the lockdown conditions we saw from mid-March. I see spurious comparisons to cancer, road deaths, etc, as if we do nothing to try and stop these. The UK spends £800m a year on cancer research, with, for what it's worth, 450ish deaths a day. That's less than half of what covid-19 was delviering in April. And frankly IF cancer or road accidents suddenly appeared over 2 months AND there was an obvious way of cutting their number tenfold, then we'd take those steps. I struggle to see how attempts to stop these are 'madness'.
* Globally, covid-19 is en route for being a something like 10-15 in the rank of global deaths. Many of those ahead of it are multi-cause conditions ('cancer', which can be a virus, a condition of old age, or chance occurance) rather than a single cause, and most pertinently, none of these have emerged from almost nowhere in a few months.
* We have seen only 3 months of restrictions. People are posting as if these have been going on for a long time, or as if they are projected to be permanent. If the majority of these rules are still in place by autumn 2021 and any of them by autumn 2022 then I'll join you in the protest against them. If R stays below 1, then almost all measures will be done by September: that's less than 6 months of our lives.
* Covid-19 is rising in many states of the USA, most of Latin America, and lots of central/southern Asia. Just because we're in a lull in the UK, doesn't mean it's not an active epidemic that could return here - look at the growing R number in Germany, and remember that infection reports have a roughly 7-14 day lag from when they actually happened.

A lot of this thread seems to be complaining about minor inconveniences, on the grounds that some other person, situation, or action will spread covid-19 in another context, and therefore why bother. Again, there are inconsistencies and problems with rules, but this does not equate to 'madness'. And this sort of argument does seem to miss the point that if we reduce 25% of spreading opportunities, the fact that 75% remain doens't stop us having reduced a quarter of infections. That we don't stop all infections is not a reason to not stop some.

Again - I'm really not a lockdown-evangelist, who annoy me as much as many of the posts in this thread. The UK's approach overall has not been succesful. If the arguments were well made, drew from evidence, or showed any understanding of statistics and risks it wouldn't irritate me. I don't mind a well-supported/made argument I disagree with. But so much on here seems to be Peter Griffinesque "what grinds my gears" stuff, which to be honest I find disappointing from a usually intelligent forums.

Infection and death rates peaked in the UK in early mid April (ONS) - long before the lockdown could have had any affect.

This disease overwhelmingly affects elderly - particularly those with underlying conditions - and if the governments had mobilised national resources to protect over 70s both in care homes and in their own homes then they would have had my support - you should have seen police on the doors of care homes, army/TA medical staff/NHS in visible attendance, teams of state organised volunteers tending to those over 70s isolating in their own homes etc. The rest of us should have carried on as normal with sensible precautions - earning the money that pays for the NHS.

The care homes and indeed the elderly generally were neglected - and I didn't see much difference in this between England and Scotland - instead the panic imposition of an economy and therefore ability to pay for the NHS destroying lockdown which saved nobody.

 

[trebor79]

This is an argument I've seen trotted out many times. It makes no sense to me as a justification against lockdown or against the seriousness of covid-19, because it overlooks the 43% increase in deaths so far this year (noting as well that these have occured in only 60% of the year to datem, ie, not Jan/Feb). If (as inferred from this point) some or indeed many of the people who died from covid-19 "would have died anyway" or caught it perhaps coincidentally in the last month of their life, this excess deaths figure would not be so high.


My understanding is that cancer treatment has resumed (I have a friend (well, wife's friend's husband, hence my slight vagueness over the dates) who had a delay but from memory of what I've been told is now getting treatment, or at least has appointments to start within the next few weeks). But any point such as this misses that in event of a higher outbreak, (1) many of these individudals would have been vulnerable to the harsh effects of the virus and (2) the NHS would have been overwhelemed, causing such treatments to be cancelled.



This comparison is based on equating living ~3 months under various levels of lockdown (incuding the partial lockdown right now whereby you're free to visit the beach, the shops, parks, zoos, etc etc) with dying. This doesn't make sense to me.


But with any digging, most of the posts here seem to be giving evidence for this over-reaction in the form of either (1) significant problems which would have been as bad or worse if a more widespread outbreak had occured (2) or minor inconveniences, temporarily experienced.

There are points to contest about lockdown. The 14 day incomers-quarantine is in my view too damaging economcially and from a well-being perspective to make sense. I'm glad we're not moving towards mandatory masks. But we should probably also have gone into lockdown 7-14 days sooner. I see errors in both directions here. But all of these posts decrying madness and over-reaction seem well off the mark and, more annonyingly to be honest, based off very low quaity argument and evidence.

Sweden. No lockdown, infection and death rates lower than UK.
If you plot infection rate versus harshness of lockdown, there is no correlation.
Lockdown was a copy cat response to China's lockdown of certain provinces.

 

[kylemore]

I'm not so sure about the small businesses. From what I've seen so far they seem to be being far more pragmatic and sensible than the chains. And there has been a lot of discovery and appreciation of local small businesses over the past few months. I think the chains will really struggle, but I can see there being a relapse a renaissance of small independent shops.

I'm also very concerned about the future of the railways. Revenue isn't going to magically return when the 6 months is up. Then what?
Might we end up with some kind of "Serpell + HS2 mash-up"? I certainly hope not but wouldn't be at all surprised if it came to that.

Indeed - does anyone think the Government is going to pay £100 per punter subsidies indefinitely?

If this rank idiocy continues much longer then expect severe service cutbacks and growth destroying fare increases, undoing all the good work of growing the railway over the last 20 years or so.

 

[Yew]

This comparison is based on equating living ~3 months under various levels of lockdown (incuding the partial lockdown right now whereby you're free to visit the beach, the shops, parks, zoos, etc etc) with dying. This doesn't make sense to me.

I feel that we should be looking at Quality Adjusted Life Years (there is some detail in how to calculate them here ) But although this is interesting, it seems to be too much work for me to take on, and I'm unsure that enough statistics are in the public domain. The essence of my argument is that it would obviously be worth locking down if a week of lockdown saved a million lives, but less so if a year of lockdown saved one life. As we are currently, it seems like we're getting a poor return on our time, and are probably leaning towards the right hand side.

That's before we consider the Swedish approach, that seems to have a level of deaths that is not (as the lockdown lobby would have you believe) massively higher than ours.

 

[BJames]

Deciding where best to slot this in so just going to pop it in here.. the ONS released an interesting report this morning, which can be found here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...onyoungpeopleingreatbritain/3aprilto10may2020

Figure 12 is interesting, looking at the comparisons of when different age groups expect life to return to normal. Looking at the graph, approximately 55% of 16-29 year olds expect life to return to normal within 6 months, with around 36% of 60+ year olds expecting it to return to normal in 6 months. 40% of 30-59 year olds expect it to return to normal within 6 months. Conversely, 22% of 60+ year olds expect it to take more than a year to return to normal (this option actually says more than a year/never), compared to just 13% of 16-29 year olds.

Obviously this is just one report but this does suggest to me that people are tolerating the way things are at the moment because they are expecting that things will be ok in a few months down the line. I think this is where quite a few people I know are at. I am glad to see that the majority think it will be resolved within a year and that a reasonable proportion of the population think it will be solved within 6 months. I'm remaining positive anyway.

 

[Enthusiast]

But all of these posts decrying madness and over-reaction seem well off the mark

As far as I am aware this is the first time that nationwide lockdowns have ever been used to tackle an epidemic or pandemic. I think there are many reasons for this but as I have said before, I recall the 1968 "Honk Kong 'Flu" pandemic. It killed between one million and four million people worldwide (they were not so good at counting things fifty-two years ago). Covid deaths worldwide currently stand at about 470k and whilst they will undoubtedly increase, they seem to be in the same ball park as 1968. In 1968 there were no restrictions whatsoever. Everybody knew it was about and took reasonably practical precautions (such as not being near anybody who was coughing and sneezing all over the place) but that was about it. Nothing closed by diktat, though some places closed when the level of sickness meant they could not operate. One of the reasons for non-closure was that the population did not expect the government to protect them from everything. The other was that the economic, social and health repercussions of such action were assessed to be enormous and would eventually be far worse than the disease. That's why the current strategy of lockdowns (which will only delay or spread out the eventual outcome) are madness.

 

[LAX54]

As far as I am aware this is the first time that nationwide lockdowns have ever been used to tackle an epidemic or pandemic. I think there are many reasons for this but as I have said before, I recall the 1968 "Honk Kong 'Flu" pandemic. It killed between one million and four million people worldwide (they were not so good at counting things fifty-two years ago). Covid deaths worldwide currently stand at about 470k and whilst they will undoubtedly increase, they seem to be in the same ball park as 1968. In 1968 there were no restrictions whatsoever. Everybody knew it was about and took reasonably practical precautions (such as not being near anybody who was coughing and sneezing all over the place) but that was about it. Nothing closed by diktat, though some places closed when the level of sickness meant they could not operate. One of the reasons for non-closure was that the population did not expect the government to protect them from everything. The other was that the economic, social and health repercussions of such action were assessed to be enormous and would eventually be far worse than the disease. That's why the current strategy of lockdowns (which will only delay or spread out the eventual outcome) are madness.

What we have now and not in 1968, (and others) was Facebook / Twitter / 24 hour news, and all the rubbish that is spouted on those mediums, the whole world including Governments all get swept up in the mass hysteria !

 

[birchesgreen]

Instant news has an effect. In 1968 if China (for example) had locked down a province then it might appear in the sidebar of a newspaper here days or even weeks later. Now everyone knows around the world in seconds.

 

[corfield]

Wet Floor signs will be ignored

The requirement to put out “wet floor” signs really grips me. Even in wet conditions such floors dry fairly quickly. Yet the signs are left out far, far longer.

The signs often are more dangerous because they are a trip hazard obstructing the throughway vs any temporary additonal slippiness.

They seem to sum up the current situation, a complete over reaction to a risk, that is more damaging than the risk itself.

 

[MikeWM]

Infection and death rates peaked in the UK in early mid April (ONS) - long before the lockdown could have had any affect.

This disease overwhelmingly affects elderly - particularly those with underlying conditions - and if the governments had mobilised national resources to protect over 70s both in care homes and in their own homes then they would have had my support - you should have seen police on the doors of care homes, army/TA medical staff/NHS in visible attendance, teams of state organised volunteers tending to those over 70s isolating in their own homes etc. The rest of us should have carried on as normal with sensible precautions - earning the money that pays for the NHS.

The care homes and indeed the elderly generally were neglected - and I didn't see much difference in this between England and Scotland - instead the panic imposition of an economy and therefore ability to pay for the NHS destroying lockdown which saved nobody.

Yes to all of that, that's exactly what I've thought needed to happen all along.

In fact the stats all show that deaths peaked later in care homes than in hospitals - no doubt precisely because tens of thousands of vulnerable people, many of whom were infected, were thrown out of hospital back into care homes at the start of the lockdown, without testing or precautions, and then infected others in the same home. I struggle to find strong enough words to describe what I think about that, but let's just say that it wasn't a very good plan.

In the wider community outside hospitals and care homes, it appears that the simple early advice (stay at home if you have symptoms, wash your hands more) were sufficient to turn the tide, without any of the other nonsense that followed.

 

[adc82140]

Spot on. Shielding the over 70s (and vulnerable) whilst keeping the economy running would have been fine. However, remember who the voter base of the Conservative party is. You can see why that plan got abandoned.

 

[DelayRepay]

The requirement to put out “wet floor” signs really grips me. Even in wet conditions such floors dry fairly quickly. Yet the signs are left out far, far longer.

Indeed. In our work accident book there are at least two recent entries stating 'Tripped on wet floor sign.' On neither occasion was the floor actually wet. The cleaner had put the sign out after mopping but nobody was tasked with removing it.

 

[Scrotnig]

Indeed. In our work accident book there are at least two recent entries stating 'Tripped on wet floor sign.' On neither occasion was the floor actually wet. The cleaner had put the sign out after mopping but nobody was tasked with removing it.

What you need is a sign to warn people of the presence of a wet floor sign.

 

[kieron]

Sweden. No lockdown, infection and death rates lower than UK.
If you plot infection rate versus harshness of lockdown, there is no correlation.

Do you have a source for that? The European CDC data presented here doesn't back this (rather weak) claim up.

Using today's figures, Sweden has had 5549.213 cases per million overall, and 500.333 deaths. The UK has had 627.994 deaths per million, but only 4482.971 cases. Around 18 people per million died in Sweden over the last week (14-21 June), against 14 in the UK, so they're slowly catching up.

I haven't seen any attempt to compare countries in terms of "harshness of lockdown", so I can't comment on that statement.

 

[DelayRepay]

What you need is a sign to warn people of the presence of a wet floor sign.

We've got one, but it had to be put into quarantine for a week because someone touched it.

 

[Ianno87]

Indeed. In our work accident book there are at least two recent entries stating 'Tripped on wet floor sign.' On neither occasion was the floor actually wet. The cleaner had put the sign out after mopping but nobody was tasked with removing it.

I'm sure who ever got to write it in the book enjoyed the irony of it.

 

[Domh245]

I haven't seen any attempt to compare countries in terms of "harshness of lockdown", so I can't comment on that statement.

Oxford University have just such a comparison! https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/research-projects/coronavirus-government-response-tracker#data

Sweden has held steady at around 45 '%' since April - the UK by comparison is currently at 70 '%' and peaked at 76'%'

 

[jumble]

Can anyone explain to me how come despite the fact that Lockdown has been widely ignored in East and South London from the very start, the tube has been very crowded at peak hours and we have had the mass demonstrations where clearly a lot of the people were neither social distancing nor wearing masks but my understanding is there has not been a single Covid 19 related death in London in the last 7 days and the Nightingale only ever had 50 or so people in at all
It just does not make sense.
I personally think a huge amount of people have either had Covid without knowing they had it or are naturally immune


As a very unscientific study eight people I knew personally died last year but only three this year and only one of those was with Covid

 

[corfield]

Spot on. Shielding the over 70s (and vulnerable) whilst keeping the economy running would have been fine. However, remember who the voter base of the Conservative party is. You can see why that plan got abandoned.

To be fair it got abandoned because the Opposition parties would have made an even greater fuss in attempt to turn around their fortunes than they are anyway. We’d have people trying to imprison Boris for every death or something. Some people probably are anyway!

Our society is just not able to deal with risk in a level headed manner. Throw in a media for whom everything is a “How do we twist this to our agenda / how do I as a journalist set myself apart” where truth and reason be damned, and we are the mess we are.

 

[Bantamzen]

**

Can anyone explain to me how come despite the fact that Lockdown has been widely ignored in East and South London from the very start, the tube has been very crowded at peak hours and we have had the mass demonstrations where clearly a lot of the people were neither social distancing nor wearing masks but my understanding is there has not been a single Covid 19 related death in London in the last 7 days and the Nightingale only ever had 50 or so people in at all
It just does not make sense.
I personally think a huge amount of people have either had Covid without knowing they had it or are naturally immune


As a very unscientific study eight people I knew personally died last year but only three this year and only one of those was with Covid

Was it really "widely ignored"? I know the media made a big deal about it, but was it really as bad as they made out? Certainly up here in t'grim north it was deadly quiet for a good long period of time.

As for the virus not spreading as widely as you might have expected, well it could be a whole host of reasons. It could be that many more people had it without realising, it could be that more people are immune, it could be that the estimated spread as modelled was flawed, it could even be a sign it is mutating into a less prominent strain. It could be a combination of all and more, it could even be (puts on tin hat) that for the general population it was just not as bad as the modelling at the beginning predicted.

 

[corfield]

**


Was it really "widely ignored"? I know the media made a big deal about it, but was it really as bad as they made out? Certainly up here in t'grim north it was deadly quiet for a good long period of time.

As for the virus not spreading as widely as you might have expected, well it could be a whole host of reasons. It could be that many more people had it without realising, it could be that more people are immune, it could be that the estimated spread as modelled was flawed, it could even be a sign it is mutating into a less prominent strain. It could be a combination of all and more, it could even be (puts on tin hat) that for the general population it was just not as bad as the modelling at the beginning predicted.

A lot of the problem has been the obsession with “case numbers”, which given the lack of testing and the large number of people who will display no symptoms, is clearly only a tiny proportion and probably statistically irrelevant and useless.

I know 3 people who have had it, nothing serious and they never reported it or got tested. To all intents and purposes their trouble free experience of it never occurred in terms of decision making. The death rate % is thus a fraction of what people were saying back in March, this was obviously the case then. We also have that the deaths are “with Covid”, not necessarily “of Covid” which given it predominates in already ill people distorts those statistics also.

It is clearly a delta over seasonal flue but it is a long long way from the Black Death and we have and continue to grossly overreact to it.

 

[adc82140]

Lots of people have probably had it without realising. In this part of the world there was a mysterious illness doing the rounds in January. It was nicknamed the "Whiteparish Cough". With hindsight I think we know what it was.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

A lot of the problem has been the obsession with “case numbers”, which given the lack of testing and the large number of people who will display no symptoms, is clearly only a tiny proportion and probably statistically irrelevant and useless.

I know 3 people who have had it, nothing serious and they never reported it or got tested. To all intents and purposes their trouble free experience of it never occurred in terms of decision making. The death rate % is thus a fraction of what people were saying back in March, this was obviously the case then. We also have that the deaths are “with Covid”, not necessarily “of Covid” which given it predominates in already ill people distorts those statistics also.

It is clearly a delta over seasonal flue but it is a long long way from the Black Death and we have and continue to grossly overreact to it.

It is possible that the true numbers who have died from Covid19 are being distorted. Not only are those who died from other underlying conditions - but tested positive for Covid19 - included, but the government admit that some deaths ascribed to it (Covid19, not the government) are NOT backed by a positive test result !!

‘A doctor can certify the involvement of COVID19 based on symptoms and clinical findings - a positive test result is not required’

 

[MikeWM]

It is possible that the true numbers who have died from Covid19 are being distorted. Not only are those who died from other underlying conditions - but tested positive for Covid19 - included, but the government admit that some deaths ascribed to it are NOT backed by a positive test result !!

‘A doctor can certify the involvement of COVID19 based on symptoms and clinical findings - a positive test result is not required’

Indeed so - without a test result, how can you possibly distinguish between eg. pneumonia caused by Covid19 and pneumonia caused by some other route? But I bet most pneumonias are currently going down as Covid.

Also, read this. It throws in slightly more opinion than ideal for a factual article, but I believe the *facts* contained therein are entirely accurate (and troubling):

https://off-guardian.org/2020/05/05/covid-19-is-a-statistical-nonsense/

The NHS issued guidance to assist doctors to comply with the new legislation. Any doctor can sign the MCCD. There is no need for the scrutiny of a second Medical Examiner. The Medical Examiner, or any other doctor, can sign the MCCD alone. The safeguards introduced in 2016 were removed, but only in the case of COVID 19.

Doctors do not necessarily need to have examined the deceased prior to signing the MCCD. If it is considered impractical for the doctor who last saw the deceased to complete the MCCD, providing they report that the deceased probably had COVID 19, any other qualified doctor can sign the death certificate as a COVID 19 death.

There is no requirement for any signing doctor to have even seen the deceased prior to issuing the MCCD. A video link consultation within the 4 week period leading up to the patient’s death, is deemed sufficient for them to pronounce death from COVID 19.

...

For COVID19, this determination [of underlying cause of death] can be based upon the clinical judgement of a doctor who has never met the deceased. Quite possibly following nothing more than a video link consultation or a case note review of symptoms.

The problem is the symptoms of COVID19 are largely indistinguishable from a range of other respiratory illnesses.

 

[Skymonster]

‘A doctor can certify the involvement of COVID19 based on symptoms and clinical findings - a positive test result is not required’

"Old Bloggs had a cough and was a bit out of breath in his last few days."
"Ah, we'll put it down to coronavirus then."
Madness

 

[Journeyman]

Given it's absolutely certain the virus was doing the rounds long before anyone noticed and/or admitted it, I bet thousands of people have had it without realising, assuming it was just a cold/flu/winter bug etc.

 

[corfield]

If all that is true then we are completely stupid.

I suspect some of that came in to allow doctors to legally deal with what was feared to be an overflow of bodies where that was the only practicable option. Given that hasn’t happened then the safeguards need to be restored and if required, revisit cases to assess the truth.

 

[MikeWM]

If all that is true then we are completely stupid.

I suspect some of that came in to allow doctors to legally deal with what was feared to be an overflow of bodies where that was the only practicable option. Given that hasn’t happened then the safeguards need to be restored and if required, revisit cases to assess the truth.

Unfortunately it will be a bit late for that when bodies have been cremated - most of the safeguards around cremation have been suspended too..

But yes, this must be stopped. Along with other safeguards that have been removed (such as the requirement for two independent doctors to have someone committed against their will; currently you only need one...)

 

[adc82140]

A person came in to the medical facility I work at recently. (got to be a bit careful here, so I'm being deliberately vague). They had some of the symptoms of Covid. They were tested. Negative. Turns out they had something else with some similar symptoms that could easily have killed them quickly. 18 hours was wasted waiting for that Covid test result because they assumed that's what the person had, rather than as would happen in normal times discussing and investigating differential diagnoses.