Brexit, for once some facts.

[sjpt]

Sweden is maintaining poll position in deaths per million, with a 50% lead even on the UK and not showing strong signs of reducing.

Very noisy data even with 3 day average

COVID-19 Data Explorer

Explore global data on COVID-19.

ourworldindata.org

7 day average better as it rules out the systematic weekly variations

COVID-19 Data Explorer

Explore global data on COVID-19.

ourworldindata.org

 

[Danidl]

They probably only include their own nationals...

My daughter has friends in a few of these places and lockdown means lockdown... No special cases.

 

[flecc]

Sweden is maintaining poll position in deaths per million, with a 50% lead even on the UK and not showing strong signs of reducing.

Very noisy data even with 3 day average

COVID-19 Data Explorer

Explore global data on COVID-19.

ourworldindata.org

7 day average better as it rules out the systematic weekly variations

COVID-19 Data Explorer

Explore global data on COVID-19.

ourworldindata.org

Agreed, but their economic and quality of life benefits are huge, basically no change from normal.

And the outcome still less bad than some predictions about their ignoring social distancing and not bothering with lockdown.
.

 

[oldgroaner]

I'm staying open minded about that. This issue isn't as cut and dried as it might seem since there's so much we don't understand.

We've seen Sweden adopt a totally cavalier attitude to lockdown and social distancing and not suffer anywhere near as badly as the doom mongers predicted.

There's also history of viral declines for completely unknown reasons, just going away.

And numerous other factors like those of temperature, dryness and pollution which all have some effect.

And of course the potential economic benefit.

So it's worth the experiment, ignoring that there will be some excess deaths, which will mainly be of the most vulnerable. We need to "man up" and stop being excessively emotional about this. Life itself is dangerous and utterly unpredictable and we should be more ready to accept that it has no fixed duration.

Remember I say this as someone at the peak point of danger, at 84 years old, happily accepting the risk for the greater good.
.

Feel free to accept whatever risk you like, so long as I and everybody else are not included, nor you put me or them at risk.
After all the state of the economy is hardly a consideration worthy of dying for

 

[Woosh]

No-one is ready, I still enjoy a happy and productive life, but my penultimate paragraph applies to all of us.

Crippling the future is also no answer.
.

the cost of 6 more weeks of lockdown is high (about £60 billions) but we'll get a far better chance of beating Covid by getting the numbers down, test and trace right.
Compare that to 300+ deaths a day and an even bigger problem than now from September when students start their new year and the temperature drops.

 

[flecc]

Feel free to accept whatever risk you like, so long as I and everybody else are not included, nor you put me or them at risk.
After all the state of the economy is hardly a consideration worthy of dying for

Your government has already accepted that risk on your behalf. Look at sptj's 7 day graph and you'll see there's little between Sweden's and the UK's Covid positions.

But we've taken a huge social and a lasting massive economic hit, they haven't.

I'd say they have the far better deal at present.
.

 

[Woosh]

Your government has already accepted that risk on your behalf. Look at sptj's 7 day graph and you'll see there's little between Sweden's and the UK's Covid positions.

But we've taken a huge social and a lasting massive economic hit, they haven't.

I'd say they have the far better deal at present.
.

it's not quite true. Their trend is up since 23 of May.
Our trend is down since beginning of May.
Their winter will also arrive earlier than ours.
They'll pay a little later for their lack of a strategy.

as of 30-May:
Sweden: 6.01/1M
UK: 3.72/1M

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-covid-deaths-per-million-7-day-average?country=SWE~GBR

 

[Danidl]

Your government has already accepted that risk on your behalf. Look at sptj's 7 day graph and you'll see there's little between Sweden's and the UK's Covid positions.

But we've taken a huge social and a lasting massive economic hit, they haven't.

I'd say they have the far better deal at present.
.

Flecc.. their most densely populated zone has just 1 million people , contrast that with London or the Manchester regions . They are not doing well for a sparsely populated region.

 

[flecc]

They'll pay a little later for their lack of a strategy.

They are not doing well for a sparsely populated region.

I've never denied it, they are already paying. Remember though that the population is almost all at the mild end of the country, just like Norway.

But we are all now playing the same game, balancing costs present and future against deaths. We each make our choices and there are no innocents among the decision makers.

Eventually we will be able to assess the values of the final outcomes, but not now.
.

 

[Woosh]

there are no innocents among the decision makers.

I can agree with that but each death affects the whole family that has to live on.
Stanley Johnson may say 'he took one for the side' but you can't say 'I let Covid get Grandpa for the kids' can you?
We must do our best to keep the deaths low while looking for a cure.

 

[flecc]

you can't say 'I let Covid get Grandpa for the kids' can you?

I can, and think it a moral choice. Perhaps I'm influenced by not ever knowing a grandfather. One died in 1920 from the long term crippling effects of being gassed in WW1, the other died in a French prison in 1922.

We must do our best to keep the deaths low while looking for a cure.

But not at any price, especially one we won't be able to meet ourselves but leave it to the kids instead.

That's the choice we have all made as I said above. We in Britain certainly haven't done our best without limit, as the current easing in favour of the economy shows.
.

 

[Nev]

Does anyone think the following idea has any merit or am I just talking out my ********. We are told that none of us have any immunity to this novel virus, I wonder if that is exactly true. I wonder if we all or at least most of us have a bit of immunity to a very low exposure to it, and this is on a sort of sliding scale. As the exposure levels increase (either via time of exposure or virus concentration in parts per million) then an increasing number of us would catch the virus.

So lets make some numbers up, lets say 500 people in a train station inhale 1 virus particle. I suspect most of these people will not go on and get the virus, lets say just 10 do, but I also suspect that most of the other 490 people will not have loads of anti bodies to the virus that could be detected in any test.

If as time goes on the 490 people get exposed to gradually more and more virus particles, then the number infected will increase, but unless the virus load is massively increased then the number of infections should also be sort of gradual.

So perhaps out of the remaining 490 people we could end up with say 450 that can cope with 20 virus particles per million (as mentioned I am just making these numbers up to make the point). Again hardly any of this 450 will exhibit anti bodies to any of our tests. But what it does mean is that the 50 people who were the weakest (in terms of catching the virus) have now caught it and are hopefully making a recovery.

This might help to explain what has happened in London. I think if someone is exposed to a super spreader, or has a long time exposure to the virus such as health workers then they will catch the virus. But if there is just a lit bit of virus around (a bit like back ground radiation), then the Londoners who could not cope with this have already caught the virus leaving behind the ones that do have a bit of natural tolerance to a small viral load.

So although these Londoners who have not caught the virus will not have anti bodies to the virus, they are on average (due to the process of natural selection) less likely to catch the virus that say people from Bristol, which unless it has changed recently, have not had many cases in that City, and so natural selection will not have taken place.

What do you all think, is the above a load of rubbish or could something like this be happening?

 

[RossG]

I believe we should keep looking for a vaccine at ANY price, doesn't matter how long or how much the cost.
I am noticing as I speak to people and read around online, that those who take the open up and move on approach are often very young & healthy who don't consider it will ever get them or their mum, or very elderly who have this idea they have seen it and done it all so nothing to loose on their part. Maybe they had wives at one time who are no longer with them, live alone and take solace from the fact they only have to worry about themselves.
I worry about my loved ones especially my vulnerable (who according to the Gov isn't) which is why I still wear a mask outside and will carry on doing so.

 

[Danidl]

Does anyone think the following idea has any merit or am I just talking out my ********. We are told that none of us have any immunity to this novel virus, I wonder if that is exactly true. I wonder if we all or at least most of us have a bit of immunity to a very low exposure to it, and this is on a sort of sliding scale. As the exposure levels increase (either via time of exposure or virus concentration in parts per million) then an increasing number of us would catch the virus.

So lets make some numbers up, lets say 500 people in a train station inhale 1 virus particle. I suspect most of these people will not go on and get the virus, lets say just 10 do, but I also suspect that most of the other 490 people will not have loads of anti bodies to the virus that could be detected in any test.

If as time goes on the 490 people get exposed to gradually more and more virus particles, then the number infected will increase, but unless the virus load is massively increased then the number of infections should also be sort of gradual.

So perhaps out of the remaining 490 people we could end up with say 450 that can cope with 20 virus particles per million (as mentioned I am just making these numbers up to make the point). Again hardly any of this 450 will exhibit anti bodies to any of our tests. But what it does mean is that the 50 people who were the weakest (in terms of catching the virus) have now caught it and are hopefully making a recovery.

This might help to explain what has happened in London. I think if someone is exposed to a super spreader, or has a long time exposure to the virus such as health workers then they will catch the virus. But if there is just a lit bit of virus around (a bit like back ground radiation), then the Londoners who could not cope with this have already caught the virus leaving behind the ones that do have a bit of natural tolerance to a small viral load.

So although these Londoners who have not caught the virus will not have anti bodies to the virus, they are on average (due to the process of natural selection) less likely to catch the virus that say people from Bristol, which unless it has changed recently, have not had many cases in that City, and so natural selection will not have taken place.

What do you all think, is the above a load of rubbish or could something like this be happening?

I think it is wishful thinking on your behalf.. If only it were true. The progress in reducing rates in Western Europe has been the standard social distancing that has taken place. Even if flecc does not agree, I am convinced that the lack of larger social gathering, and the bit of circumspection , even in places like London have had a positive effect.
Getting the virus and an infection is a matter of probability. Number of carriers, proximity to them, duration of exposure , and yes reduced pollution levels, brighter weather , all are factors ..and better protocols in the hospital's and care homes.
Natural selection is what we will get in 300 years time or 8 generations if we don't get a vaccine.

 

[oyster]

I missed this yesterday:

On Friday evening Theresa May added her voice to the Tories criticising Cummings. In a statement to constituents of her Maidenhead seat, the former prime minister said she could “well understand the [public’s] anger” towards Johnson’s senior adviser.

“I do not feel that Mr Cummings followed the spirit of the guidance,” she said.

 

[flecc]

Even if flecc does not agree, I am convinced that the lack of larger social gathering, and the bit of circumspection , even in places like London have had a positive effect.

I do agree, but only if the degree of those and their effects are not exaggerated.
.

 

[oyster]

Does anyone think the following idea has any merit or am I just talking out my ********. We are told that none of us have any immunity to this novel virus, I wonder if that is exactly true. I wonder if we all or at least most of us have a bit of immunity to a very low exposure to it, and this is on a sort of sliding scale. As the exposure levels increase (either via time of exposure or virus concentration in parts per million) then an increasing number of us would catch the virus.

So lets make some numbers up, lets say 500 people in a train station inhale 1 virus particle. I suspect most of these people will not go on and get the virus, lets say just 10 do, but I also suspect that most of the other 490 people will not have loads of anti bodies to the virus that could be detected in any test.

If as time goes on the 490 people get exposed to gradually more and more virus particles, then the number infected will increase, but unless the virus load is massively increased then the number of infections should also be sort of gradual.

So perhaps out of the remaining 490 people we could end up with say 450 that can cope with 20 virus particles per million (as mentioned I am just making these numbers up to make the point). Again hardly any of this 450 will exhibit anti bodies to any of our tests. But what it does mean is that the 50 people who were the weakest (in terms of catching the virus) have now caught it and are hopefully making a recovery.

This might help to explain what has happened in London. I think if someone is exposed to a super spreader, or has a long time exposure to the virus such as health workers then they will catch the virus. But if there is just a lit bit of virus around (a bit like back ground radiation), then the Londoners who could not cope with this have already caught the virus leaving behind the ones that do have a bit of natural tolerance to a small viral load.

So although these Londoners who have not caught the virus will not have anti bodies to the virus, they are on average (due to the process of natural selection) less likely to catch the virus that say people from Bristol, which unless it has changed recently, have not had many cases in that City, and so natural selection will not have taken place.

What do you all think, is the above a load of rubbish or could something like this be happening?

I think this sort of hypothesising has a lot of potential for identifying what to look at.

If you take the super-spreader concept, perhaps at Liverpool football and Cheltenham nags there were only a handful of people who infected anyone else. But because they were among so many others, the numbers they did infect were considerable.

If we consider virus particles, there must be some lower limit of viability where, if the particle is sufficiently damaged it cannot transmit the disease, but might at least start to trigger the immune system to recognise that, or something like it. Maybe the antibodies it triggers are not identified by current antibody tests? (As you suggest.)

 

[RossG]

Bit OT, but staff at Tesco's told me a while back that when this whole sorry state first kicked off people working there that weighed over a certain amount were given the opportunity to have 12 weeks off on full pay !
Some who had Diabetes who asked for the same consideration were told to take a run and jump.
Put bluntly if you're fat you are quids in.

 

[oyster]

Bit OT, but staff at Tesco's told me a while back that when this whole sorry state first kicked off people working there that weighed over a certain amount were given the opportunity to have 12 weeks off on full pay !
Some who had Diabetes who asked for the same consideration were told to take a run and jump.
Put bluntly if you're fat you are quids in.

I am no lightweight, but have to say there are some Tesco staff who appear to require the covid rules to continue. There is now enough space for them at a till (the tills are in pairs but only alternate one are in use).

 

[oldgroaner]

A Poem for our time