Why we should continue taking actions that are proven to work.

RandomName2 · 30-03-2020 01:09PM

DeVore wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxAaO2rsdIs

That video is amazing.

DeVore · 30-03-2020 01:17PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

That video is amazing.

Isnt it!

Alf Veedersane · 30-03-2020 01:22PM

Isn't it the case that the number cases is really only a proxy for the important numbers, i.e. hospitalisations and ICU cases?

30-03-2020 01:44PM

DeVore wrote: »

So.... we're still trying to put this genie back in its bottle. When they find someone with a positive test for Covid, they "contact trace" that means they phone everyone they can to tell them they might be infected and to lie low.
This is a way to get the jump on the virus and reduce its ability to spread.

See, the worst thing about this virus is that it spreads BEFORE symptoms develop. SARS didnt. Sars you had a fever before you became infectious. So they set up checks everyone and quantined anyone with an elevated temp.
With Covid we have to work in the dark.

So, it makes sense to target tests not at the general populace but at the people who are seriously likely to have positive outcomes. Thats why they restricted the criteria for testing, so that they could RAISE the number of positive outcomes from 6% to something higher. They NEED to find these positive people and then contact everyone they know or came in contact with and get them to isolate. This stymies the virus and slows infection rates.

What is the source you use on people being infectious before symptoms start showing? Not to dispute it since I also read a few reports on it a few weeks ago, but that's it, they were all from a few weeks ago (around 10 - 13th March) and based off of very limited studies, do you know of anything more up to date, because there is a lot of new data since then?

Signore Fancy Pants · 30-03-2020 01:57PM

Nermal wrote: »

Who said I could do any of that? I'm pointing out that this model, like so many others presented here, addresses only the benefits of our actions, not the costs.

The only attempt I have seen to quantify them is this paper, which more or less points out that we're already beyond the point of costing more lives than we save:
http://jvalue.co.uk/papers/J-value-assessment-of-combating-Covid-19-Thomas-23.3.2020.pdf

So, you have no personal assessment of the current situation, no appreciation for the mechanics of the virus, no opinion as to if we should increase/decrease our response or how effective it is?

From your earlier posts (havent gone back, just from what I remember on these threads), it seems that your position is you are more concerned with the negative economic effects due to the government response and mitigation measures...

...rather than being concerned with the consequences of not employing measures at all.

So, we should just let it run its course, accept the death toll and continue on?

I agree that the economic effect is potentially going to be with us for decades (speaking as having a self employed spouse) and will have a negative impact.

So, what is your economic/financial assessment?

Kivaro · 30-03-2020 02:12PM

riffmongous wrote: »

What is the source you use on people being infectious before symptoms start showing?

And to add to that; when do we stop being contagious?
After just reading the government booklet, it says that we do not transmit the virus after our symptoms stop.
That statement caused me to pause to consider possible scenarios where this might not be true. But I'm unsure.

This is a highly contagious disease, which is why I believe it transmits before symptoms start.

DaithiMC · 30-03-2020 02:14PM

riffmongous wrote: »

What is the source you use on people being infectious before symptoms start showing? Not to dispute it since I also read a few reports on it a few weeks ago, but that's it, they were all from a few weeks ago (around 10 - 13th March) and based off of very limited studies, do you know of anything more up to date, because there is a lot of new data since then?

It doesn't matter if up to date or not, it has been observed, so it's a feature of the SARS-COV-2 virus, reference 2 in the below also points to further evidence.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7074995/

DeVore · 30-03-2020 02:16PM

riffmongous wrote: »

What is the source you use on people being infectious before symptoms start showing? Not to dispute it since I also read a few reports on it a few weeks ago, but that's it, they were all from a few weeks ago (around 10 - 13th March) and based off of very limited studies, do you know of anything more up to date, because there is a lot of new data since then?

This seems so generally accepted that its hard to cut through the noise and find studies of it. The best I can find is some links to CDC and also this from Harvard Medical 3 days ago but it doesnt give hard data.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-basics

Alf Veedersane · 30-03-2020 02:21PM

Kivaro wrote: »

This is a highly contagious disease, which is why I believe it transmits before symptoms start.

That is part of the reason for it being so widespread, i.e. it being transmissible before the symptoms start. With something like SARS, which was more contagious , but if you got it, you were laid low fairly quickly so lower levels of transmission. They traced 1,000 people back to Patient 31 in South Korea.

When people start to register symptoms, they self isolate but they may already have passed it on to a good few people.

Nermal · 30-03-2020 02:22PM

Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »

So, you have no personal assessment of the current situation, no appreciation for the mechanics of the virus, no opinion as to if we should increase/decrease our response or how effective it is?

From your earlier posts (havent gone back, just from what I remember on these threads), it seems that your position is you are more concerned with the negative economic effects due to the government response and mitigation measures...

...rather than being concerned with the consequences of not employing measures at all.

So, we should just let it run its course, accept the death toll and continue on?

I agree that the economic effect is potentially going to be with us for decades (speaking as having a self employed spouse) and will have a negative impact.

So, what is your economic/financial assessment?

Fine, personal response - informed by reading contrarian opinions, not by modelling runs.

We're drastically underestimating how many people are really infected, and as a result wildly overestimating the hospital admissions, ICU requirements and lethality when formulating our policy response.

We have no defined exit strategy from these policies - what's the trigger for reducing restrictions? If we don't reach it, are we just going to continue?

Our drop in output and increase in debt is already going to be enormous. We don't have control of our currency like the UK, so we can't inflate this away. Every euro we spend on this has to be paid back with interest. Who's going to shout stop?

Those with pre-existing conditions and the elderly should be self-isolating/cocooning. The rest of us need to return to a semblance of normality. We should obviously build up bed capacity and encourage whatever low-cost behavioural changes we can to slow the spread. Whatever results in our hospitals from this approach, triage it and treat it as best as possible and accept the results.

Beasty · 30-03-2020 02:32PM

riffmongous wrote: »

What is the source you use on people being infectious before symptoms start showing? Not to dispute it since I also read a few reports on it a few weeks ago, but that's it, they were all from a few weeks ago (around 10 - 13th March) and based off of very limited studies, do you know of anything more up to date, because there is a lot of new data since then?

It is being reported everywhere that you can show no symptoms and transmit the virus, and that has been the whole argument about social distancing. That's why they are making a very big deal about it.

Alf Veedersane · 30-03-2020 03:04PM

Nermal wrote: »

We're drastically underestimating how many people are really infected, and as a result wildly overestimating the hospital admissions, ICU requirements and lethality when formulating our policy response.

The policy response was based on the actual rate of increase in numbers being treated in ICU and ICU capacity.

DeVore · 30-03-2020 03:10PM

Kivaro wrote: »

And to add to that; when do we stop being contagious?
After just reading the government booklet, it says that we do not transmit the virus after our symptoms stop.
That statement caused me to pause to consider possible scenarios where this might not be true. But I'm unsure.

This is a highly contagious disease, which is why I believe it transmits before symptoms start.

This is from the CDC:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/disposition-hospitalized-patients.html

Basically it says
1. At least 3 days since symptoms dissapated.
AND
2. 7 days since start of symptoms.

IE: the longer of these two and BOTH must have been passed.

johnnyskeleton · 30-03-2020 03:14PM

FVP3 wrote: »

Yes, but while I am not urging an end to these restrictions now, or in the very near future there will come a time when the economy will have to become an issue. This country went into this crisis with high debt level, so as there will be massive layoffs and increases in social protection, there will also be massive increases in debt. Banks might be affected again if the payments of mortgages stops.

Unless the ECB and other CBs monetize all the debt of all the Euro zone, or some other mechanism, then we will be in dire economic trouble worldwide. Some say that this time there aren't as many underlying problems in the banks, neither are they robust enough to endure liquidity issues for months.

So there is no clear solution.

Maybe we need to hit the big red reset button on the world economy!

Manion · 30-03-2020 03:39PM

It's important to remember a model for pandemic progression lead the UK not to lock down.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/covid-19/

Modelling is a tool which provides useful information for those who understand how to interpret the results and the underlining assumptions. The model most Irish people would have an awareness of is the HERMES-13 Macro economics model used by the ESRI that predicted the famous "soft landing" in 2008.

BTW I've noticed some people saying it's a choice between the economy and saving lives, which while true in one sense, it's important to acknowledge recessions kill people and depressions kill a lot of people. There are models for that as well.

DeVore · 30-03-2020 03:58PM

To be fair, its also true that dead people dont spend much

Manion · 30-03-2020 03:59PM

And yet they still vote Sinn Fein.

/exits thread.

Alf Veedersane · 30-03-2020 04:08PM

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Our testing is terrible.

Why is it terrible?

growleaves · 30-03-2020 04:36PM

"People" is a lose term.

Personal abuse like this doesn't disabuse me of my suspicion of irrationality and hysteria on the part of many.

Also, the word you're looking for is "loose".

30-03-2020 04:40PM

DaithiMC wrote: »

It doesn't matter if up to date or not, it has been observed, so it's a feature of the SARS-COV-2 virus, reference 2 in the below also points to further evidence.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7074995/

Well it does matter if it was observed in a study of 10 cases or 10000

DeVore wrote: »

This seems so generally accepted that its hard to cut through the noise and find studies of it. The best I can find is some links to CDC and also this from Harvard Medical 3 days ago but it doesnt give hard data.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-basics

Yeah.. that's why I was wondering if you had anything better

Signore Fancy Pants · 30-03-2020 04:44PM

Nermal wrote: »

Fine, personal response - informed by reading contrarian opinions, not by modelling runs.

We're drastically underestimating how many people are really infected, and as a result wildly overestimating the hospital admissions, ICU requirements and lethality when formulating our policy response.

We have no defined exit strategy from these policies - what's the trigger for reducing restrictions? If we don't reach it, are we just going to continue?

Our drop in output and increase in debt is already going to be enormous. We don't have control of our currency like the UK, so we can't inflate this away. Every euro we spend on this has to be paid back with interest. Who's going to shout stop?

Those with pre-existing conditions and the elderly should be self-isolating/cocooning. The rest of us need to return to a semblance of normality. We should obviously build up bed capacity and encourage whatever low-cost behavioural changes we can to slow the spread. Whatever results in our hospitals from this approach, triage it and treat it as best as possible and accept the results.

Nice response, I can see your point of view, thanks.

Theres a lot of uncertainty still and a long way to go.

30-03-2020 04:50PM

Beasty wrote: »

It is being reported everywhere that you can show no symptoms and transmit the virus, and that has been the whole argument about social distancing. That's why they are making a very big deal about it.

Yeah of course, but I'm just curious about more specific information, and some numbers. Are talking about a handful of asymptomatic spreaders or is it every one? How more infectious are they? That kind of stuff

Alf Veedersane · 30-03-2020 04:58PM

riffmongous wrote: »

Yeah of course, but I'm just curious about more specific information, and some numbers. Are talking about a handful of asymptomatic spreaders or is it every one? How more infectious are they? That kind of stuff

It's very difficult to assess that though. A lot of it has been determined by contact tracing, as far as I understand, which would mean determining retrospectively. So I don't think there's any way of getting a whole lot of specific information about who does or doesn't have it before symptoms develop because you're only able to infer by based on who you likely passed the infection on to and if you can isolate when that happened.

Opened to correction on that though...its just my understanding of it

30-03-2020 05:18PM

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

It's very difficult to assess that though. A lot of it has been determined by contact tracing, as far as I understand, which would mean determining retrospectively. So I don't think there's any way of getting a whole lot of specific information about who does or doesn't have it before symptoms develop because you're only able to infer by based on who you likely passed the infection on to and if you can isolate when that happened.

Opened to correction on that though...its just my understanding of it

Possibly though from people already quarantined in some special circumstances, the cruise ships maybe or something similar

Alf Veedersane · 30-03-2020 05:26PM

riffmongous wrote: »

Possibly though from people already quarantined in some special circumstances, the cruise ships maybe or something similar

Still quite difficult to work out if someone had it before symptoms developed and also identify when they contracted it. Might even be more difficult to carry out contact tracing on a cruise as you might have come into contact with an infected passenger without either realising.

It would be interesting though.

30-03-2020 05:36PM

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Still quite difficult to work out if someone had it before symptoms developed and also identify when they contracted it. Might even be more difficult to carry out contact tracing on a cruise as you might have come into contact with an infected passenger without either realising.

It would be interesting though.

Yeah sure, I'm just guessing or trying to think of possibilities. But I'm sure there's a phd student or post doc somewhere who can think of a strategy of how to do it properly, it's just a question of when and if it was done already.

DeVore · 30-03-2020 05:53PM

riffmongous wrote: »

Yeah of course, but I'm just curious about more specific information, and some numbers. Are talking about a handful of asymptomatic spreaders or is it every one? How more infectious are they? That kind of stuff

Its quite unclear. For example the WHO says it appears to be transmissable 24-48 hours before symptoms but doesnt consider this a significant vector. (source: https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-similarities-and-differences-covid-19-and-influenza )

But the ecdc said this:
Transmission in pre-symptomatic stage of infection:In addition to casereports, pre-symptomatic transmission has been inferred through modelling,and the proportion of pre-symptomatic transmission was estimated to be around 48% and 62%[41].Pre-symptomatic transmissionwas deemed likely based ona shorter serial interval of COVID-19 (4.0 to 4.6 days) than the mean incubation period(fivedays)with the authors indicating that many secondary transmissions would have already occurred at the time when symptomatic cases are detected and isolated[42].Major uncertainties remain in assessing the influence of pre-symptomatic transmission on the overall transmission dynamics of the pandemic.

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/RRA-sixth-update-Outbreak-of-novel-coronavirus-disease-2019-COVID-19.pdf

Kivaro · 30-03-2020 07:02PM

DeVore wrote: »

This is from the CDC:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/disposition-hospitalized-patients.html

Basically it says
1. At least 3 days since symptoms dissapated.
AND
2. 7 days since start of symptoms.

IE: the longer of these two and BOTH must have been passed.

And then what about the asymptomatic carriers? (rhetorical)
These could be prolific super-spreaders and many don't even know it.

This is why home testing kits are important for both the virus itself and the antibodies.

DeVore · 30-03-2020 08:10PM

Kivaro wrote: »

And then what about the asymptomatic carriers? (rhetorical)
These could be prolific super-spreaders and many don't even know it.

This is why home testing kits are important for both the virus itself and the antibodies.

Such a kit would be amazing and very welcome. But every country in the world is struggling just to get kits to test even the clearly sick.

When we can get those kits to people and they can self-test and report then we will be a LONG step closer to ending this and also having a clearer picture of the situation.

But thats not going to happen for a good while (IMHO).

Alf Veedersane · 30-03-2020 08:38PM

storker wrote: »

I think it's disgraceful that you deliberately infected all those innocent little pi's in order to achieve this. I'm emailing PETA about this right now...

Pi r scared

Why we should continue taking actions that are proven to work.

Comments