Boris Has It ...

[davesparks]

The vast majority of people that have had the virus... have very mild symptoms or none at all. So are you suggesting that we should hospitalise everyone that has it ?

Testing is relevant now to find out who has had it (the antibody test) so that we can carry on without being locked down further.

A doctor was quoted the other day as saying that about ⅔ of all those that have died so far would have died anyway within the year... they were that unwell with other things wrong with them.

Has a reliable and affordable antibody test been developed and put into mass production yet?
It was mentioned in a press conference the other week that we would be using it when it is available but nothing has been said about it since.

Presumably it is only 2/3 of the patients that one particular doctor has seen, or are there national statistics showing the percentage of people who have died from covid19 who were also likely to die in the next year?
[automerge]1585521974[/automerge]
I think we should be careful about the testing to identify those people who have recovered from it without needing treatment.
It could lead to all manner of issues.
Will employers want to see a positive test result before you are allowed back to work, will children be kept out of school without it? Will people who pass the test feel safe and start to go out and move around despite the fact they will still be able to carry it and spread the disease?

 

[Pretty Mouth]

The WHO advised as much testing as possible, advise that our government has ignored. Had more testing been carried out, we would have had a better idea of how many people in the UK were infected, and so a better idea on when and how to implement counter measures. Also, had the public been made aware that it was actually far more prevalent than statistics have suggested, we may have adopted social distancing, self isolation etc sooner.

Also, we would have had a better idea of the various 'lesser' symptoms of the virus, and the public could have been advised accordingly.

An article on the government's policy for testing:

How the UK got coronavirus testing wrong | Free to read

Government at first seemed to want a concerted contact tracing effort, but it eased up

www.ft.com

[automerge]1585554574[/automerge]
And on the matter of ventilators, the government is smelling decidedly of fish. First they claimed we couldn't join the EU procurement scheme because we are no longer in the EU. Not so, say the EU, Britain was welcome to participate during the transition period. Then the government changed its story, claiming we missed out due to a communication error, again the EU rubbish this claim.

Brussels rubbishes UK government claim it missed EU ventilator scheme due to ‘communications problem’

‘Member states and the UK had the opportunity to signal their interest to participate in any joint procurements,’ says EU spokesperson

www.independent.co.uk

Next, UK companies offer to supply the gov with ventilators, but again the gov missed out due to a lack of response and the ventilators went elsewhere:

Government investigating failure to take up offer of 25,000 ventilators

Cheshire firm says it also told Department of Health it could secure 50 million coronavirus testing kits – but received no response

www.independent.co.uk

Now for some reason the gov have placed an order for 10k ventilators with a company that does not and has never made ventilators, to an unapproved design.

 

[Midwest]

Could be worse, we could follow the guidance from Sweden or Belarus

 

[snowhead]

The WHO advised as much testing as possible, advise that our government has ignored.

Who says that what the World Health Organisation say is the right way to go.
Nobody or no organisation in the World has ever experienced a Pandemic.

There have been thousands of simulations and modelling but until real data is fed back into the model and it's re run none will know if what was done was the right thing to do.

The next pandemic may need a different approach to this one.
If every country in the World did exactly the same thing no one would ever know if there was a better way.

Governments would have been inundated with offers to buy equipment, most of them scammers from around the World.
The same 25000 ventilators may have been offered by hundreds of different people who weren't actually in possession of them.

Untill it's all over, if it ever is and a review of what was done is carried out and comparisons made around the World there will be no way of knowing what was right or wrong or a missed opportunity.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Who says that what the World Health Organisation say is the right way to go.
Nobody or no organisation in the World has ever experienced a Pandemic.

There have been thousands of simulations and modelling but until real data is fed back into the model and it's re run none will know if what was done was the right thing to do.

The next pandemic may need a different approach to this one.
If every country in the World did exactly the same thing no one would ever know if there was a better way.

Governments would have been inundated with offers to buy equipment, most of them scammers from around the World.
The same 25000 ventilators may have been offered by hundreds of different people who weren't actually in possession of them.

Untill it's all over, if it ever is and a review of what was done is carried out and comparisons made around the World there will be no way of knowing what was right or wrong or a missed opportunity.

Are you seriously saying that the right thing to do was to ignore the World Health Organisation's advice to test as much as possible, in favour of minimal testing? How do you imagine that could possibly have been a better option?
[automerge]1585561270[/automerge]
Let's wheel out the statistics again:

Coronavirus Update (Live): 87,746,723 Cases and 1,893,526 Deaths from COVID-19 Virus Pandemic - Worldometer

Live statistics and coronavirus news tracking the number of confirmed cases, recovered patients, tests, and death toll due to the COVID-19 coronavirus from Wuhan, China. Coronavirus counter with new cases, deaths, and number of tests per 1 Million population. Historical data and info. Daily...

www.worldometers.info

Germany have followed WHO recommendations and are testing as much as possible. 1st confirmed case 26 January. Total confirmed cases to date 62,435. Total deaths 541, or 6 per 1m population.

UK ignored WHO recommendations. 1st confirmed case Jan 30. Total cases so far 19,522. Total deaths 1,228, or 18 per 1m population.

Italy, also ignored WHO recommendations... need I go on?
[automerge]1585561359[/automerge]

Subscribe to read

www.ft.com

 

[DPG]

The difference between 6 in 1000000 and 18 in 1000000 is tiny in statistical terms though.

 

[snowhead]

Are you seriously saying that the right thing to do was to ignore the World Health Organisation's advice to test as much as possible, in favour of minimal testing? How do you imagine that could possibly have been a better option?

I'm saying exactly what I put.
No one knows what is or isn't the best way in this pandemic generally and that includes WHO.
No one knows what is or isn't the best way in any specific Country.

No one will know what was or wasn't the right way till afterwards and then it'll be very hard to confirm one way or the other.

Before the wheel was invented / discovered if the WHO had been around and had said all wheels must be square would you just have accepted that.

As has been said by many others, testing the general population for infection is pointless once the virus is out there.

 

[andyb]

The difference between 6 in 1000000 and 18 in 1000000 is tiny in statistical terms though.

Well actually it's 3 times the amount DPG, 20 000 deaths or 60 000 deaths. Not tiny really.

 

[DPG]

Well actually it's 3 times the amount DPG, 20 000 deaths or 60 000 deaths. No tiny really.

Well actually it's 3 times the amount DPG, 20 000 deaths or 60 000 deaths. Not tiny really.

Well yes I get that. But look at the percentage difference that large scale testing has made. It's at a level where you couldn't even be sure that it was the testing that caused it, or just natural variation.

 

[Zerax]

Are you seriously saying that the right thing to do was to ignore the World Health Organisation's advice to test as much as possible, in favour of minimal testing? How do you imagine that could possibly have been a better option?

As I've said before... managing a pandemic is an incredibly complex thing... there is no right or wrong way to do it. The approach taken by Sweden, may prove to be the right approach... only time will tell.

The testing that's needed is not to identify those that have it... but those that have had it.
[automerge]1585562722[/automerge]

Well actually it's 3 times the amount DPG, 20 000 deaths or 60 000 deaths. Not tiny really.

Well... you need to put that in the context of a normal UK death rate of about 500,000 per year... added to which, they reckon that ⅔ of those that are dying of the virus would have died anyway within the year.

I realise that even one death is not good, especially if it's someone we know... but you sometimes need to look at these things from a distance, on the macro level.
[automerge]1585562908[/automerge]

As has been said by many others, testing the general population for infection is pointless once the virus is out there.

Agreed... we know that this virus spreads rapidly... (the R0 is about 2-3 compared with 1.3 for a seasonal flu virus). I know I've had it... and so have all those around me.

 

[andyb]

Well... you need to put that in the context of a normal UK death rate of about 500,000 per year... added to which, they reckon that ⅔ of those that are dying of the virus would have died anyway within the year.

You really doesn't Zerax, if by doing something 40 000 less people die then obviously 2/3 of these people were not going to die anyway. It is a real saving of 40 000 lives. Your example will hold true for the 1st 20 000 of the 60 000 only.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

I'm saying exactly what I put.
No one knows what is or isn't the best way in this pandemic generally and that includes WHO.
No one knows what is or isn't the best way in any specific Country.

No one will know what was or wasn't the right way till afterwards and then it'll be very hard to confirm one way or the other.

You appear to be arguing that, in the absence of absolute knowledge of the future, we can reasonably ignore the world's experts' best advice on this matter, and literally any course of action taken by our leaders can be deemed to be correct because of the absence of said knowledge. Please confirm.

Before the wheel was invented / discovered if the WHO had been around and had said all wheels must be square would you just have accepted that.

This is not a reasonable argument, this is just a silly comment.

As has been said by many others, testing the general population for infection is pointless once the virus is out there.

I think this may be known as a straw man fallacy, we've had a few of these now. Backed up by other experts on the forum no less.

Do you think testing those most at risk, doctors, nurses, other healthcare professionals, those that live and have come into contact with those infected, would be a completely pointless exercise?
[automerge]1585572980[/automerge]

Well... you need to put that in the context of a normal UK death rate of about 500,000 per year... added to which, they reckon that ⅔ of those that are dying of the virus would have died anyway within the year.

I realise that even one death is not good, especially if it's someone we know... but you sometimes need to look at these things from a distance, on the macro level.

That's reassuring to know Zerax.

 

[Zerax]

Do you think testing those most at risk, doctors, nurses, other healthcare professionals, those that live and have come into contact with those infected, would be a completely pointless exercise?

OK... let's run with this... so we test Alan, Betty, Charlie, Doris, Ethel, Fred and Ginger. All of them are doctors. As of 3 days ago (when samples were taken), Ethel, Fred and Ginger have just come back as positive. All 3 have very mild or no symptoms.

Now what ??

 

[Pretty Mouth]

OK... let's run with this... so we test Alan, Betty, Charlie, Doris, Ethel, Fred and Ginger. All of them are doctors. As of 3 days ago (when samples were taken), Ethel, Fred and Ginger have just come back as positive. All 3 have very mild or no symptoms.

Now what ??

Cut to the chase Zerax, if you have an intelligent point to make, please make it.

 

[Zerax]

Cut to the chase Zerax, if you have an intelligent point to make, please make it.

Just trying to understand what we do after we've tested 'em Pretty Mouth...