Coronavirus Pandemic

[Dio]

While I agree with you on the last part, I'm not totally convinced it's the wrong thing to do at this stage.

My point is just that even today's level of testing is not preventing everyone getting it. Only heavyweight lockdowns did that. Everyone is going to get this thing mutliple times per year in the absence of those. It's not obvious that the last three months were affected in the slightest by the rules that we did have. Given that, what is the point of those rules, unless they are genuinely zero-collateral-damage such as "wear a mask on the train"?

I understand what significant, useful restrictions achieve and therefore the point of them. I understand the point of might-as-well-do-it-anyway restrictions. It's the middle ground that starts to look odd. Either we have to cut it out or, yes, that horrible phase, get on with it.

[KlaxonCow]

Either we have to cut it out or, yes, that horrible phase, get on with it.

Again, this binary extremism.

How about "get on with it, sure, but exercise caution / do it less often / minimise contact"?

There are an infinity of points between zero and one.

Like, there was the idea, in the lockdown, that, yes, go shopping - because, obviously, you need to eat - but, like, instead of a daily shop, make it a weekly shop. Or if you do a weekly shop, how about a fortnightly shop instead?

You can still do things - and "get on with it" - but you don't have to be "gung ho" about it. It doesn't have to instantly be "okay, everything is 100% 'back to normal' with no forms of restrictions of any kind whatsoever... even the sensible and obvious ones, like 'if you're ill - with something Covid-like - then maybe stay at home to not spread it to your elderly relatives".

Yes, "think about the economy". But, like, I can totally still go shopping wearing a mask. I can still get work done from home. I can go to the office - but we can sit further apart and have the ventilation on.

It's this binary extremism I'm objecting to. The "either you agree that EVERYTHING must be instantly abandoned this very second, or I'm going to start throwing around strawmen that you obviously want permanent lockdowns for the rest of all time".

It's like if you doubt "the power of the free market" to solve a particular problem then, instantly, "you're a communist!!". No, it's perfectly possible to be a more nuanced position in-between the currently trendy political polar opposites, you know. I actually think there are plenty of problems that throwing a bit of "competition" at, really does neatly solve. But not everything. Not all problems are solved by throwing it at the highest bidder. Many problems are made horribly worse by doing that.

Right, we're having a pub quiz. There's the "true team" who always reply "true" every question - even if it's not even a true / false question, they just say "true" regardless of what the question is - and then there's the "false team" who always replies "false" to everything. And the modern political dynamic here is to pick one of these teams, then rigidly stick with the ideology of always saying "true" or always saying "false".

But, no, I want to be on the "let's listen to the actual question, think about it and then answer with the best and most correct answer" team. I don't want to blindly privatise absolutely everything, nor do I want to blindly nationalise everything. Both things have been tried before, and they both have their horrible faults.

I neither want to ignore the data and just throw all the regulations away, nor do I want to ignore the data and lockdown permanently. My point entirely is "don't ignore the data, but react with what makes the most sense based on that data".

Nullius in verba. Reality tells us what's the right thing to do. We must look at the evidence, understand it and formulate our response based on it.

I don't want either the blind ideology of "permanent lockdowns of eternal fear" nor "total freedom, lacking any sensible responsibility at all". Both of these options are BAD.

And, frankly, this really isn't that unusual or strange a request. It is, basically, what every nation on Earth is generally practising - including Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - but it's just outlier England that thinks "burn all the rules" is a strategy.

And who's proposing this? Oh, right, the PM who broke all the rules, and who doesn't think any rules apply to him, with his corrupt "cash for my friends" attitude.

Coincidence?

[Dio]

Did you read my previous post? I thought I'd make it short and clear, but I'll make this shorter and clearer.

I'm unconvinced that at this point there are sensible points between nearly 0 and nearly 1 and suggest that most of the positions in the middle are pointless and don't achieve any goal - entirely a scientific position.

If you want data to back that up, as recently as this time last year it took less than 20 reported covid cases per day to put one person in a hospital bed and today it is 400, despite the massive underreporting that is clearly going on today (the true figure is probably more like 30 vs. 1000-2000).

[KlaxonCow]

Did you read my previous post?

Yes. I just don't agree with you. And I tried to explain exactly why.

For example, to say that testing doesn't work to reduce numbers, you'd have to have the "what if?" numbers we would have had, had testing not been in place. Then you could show that testing had / hadn't helped reduce cases, against the "control" of not testing.

As we can't run time twice, I have no idea how you think you know the answers to this "what if?" with such certainty.

Plus, I don't follow the logic that if a law doesn't work as effectively as we'd like it to work, then we remove that law. Because, like, then it absolutely definitely won't be effective, as it doesn't even exist.

As I was saying, because we can't cure death, we just abandon hospitals and health care altogether. What's the point? People will eventually die anyway, right?

That logic might add up for you, but it does not add up for me.

For example, many many people flout copyright laws and download music, movies and games. So, because copyright is not 100% effective, we should just get rid of it in its entirety? I mean, in a twisted perverse sense, I guess getting rid of copyright law would solve piracy - but not because it stops it, but by declaring it's not a problem anymore.

Seriously, you can dress it up, but this is the Trump-ian logic of "if we don't test, then we can pretend that no-one's getting ill".

So, if a law is not 100% effective, then we should get rid of that law - which will then definitely be 0% effective, by definition of the fact it doesn't even exist?

And, psychologically, there's setting the tone. People complied with masks and lockdowns extremely well at the beginning. But then, ever since "Freedom Day", where Boris promised all restrictions would be gone forever - which he couldn't do, and predictably had to row back on - because Boris set the tone of "it's all over", when it wasn't, and now that we've had to regress our progress for Omicron, compliance has gotten much worse. Doubly so, now that we all see that the law makers weren't remotely bothering to follow their own rules, while the rest of us were. So there's some anger and resentment there too.

If you burn all the rules, then you can't "un-burn" them later. Once you set the tone that "it's all over" and it turns out that it isn't - which has already happened once already - then, yes, people are not going to listen to a fucking word you say thereafter, as you've proved an unreliable liar.

But the danger there is that we're not following the rules because Boris says so. We're making and following the rules to reduce the spread of the virus. We're not "doing it for Boris", we're doing it for ourselves... and Boris is just some useless "figurehead" on the front of our ship.

I am listening. I just think you're wrong about this point. And, if you're listening to me, then you'd exactly know why I think that, as I'm not exactly remotely shy about explaining my reasoning and going into all the details of it now, am I?

If you disagree then, fine, bring me the counter case. Point to the bit of logic you have a problem with and say exactly why - I will listen, as I've already been modifying my language and my stance to what people are saying in response.

If the rules are only 50% effective, say, then I still say keep the rules for that. Because it's better than 0% effective, which is what not having any rules at all will achieve.

If a particular cancer treatment is only 50% successful, then I say continue with that treatment for those 50%. There is no point scrapping it, as that'll only achieve a guaranteed 0% success rate. 10 people have cancer. 5 people are saved by this treatment. But because that's not 100% of everyone, we're going to scrap the treatment and, thereby, guarantee that all 10 people will die. All of them.

That just doesn't add up for me. Please, if you can fix this calculus, so I can see how it somehow does make sense, then do so.

[Dio]

OK, very clearly, I'll go through this in a simple scientific manner.

Core statement: it doesn't appear possible to prevent almost everyone in the country getting this thing once a year or so without reasonably heavy lockdown conditions - much more so than the conditions we have lived under for the last 12 months such as wearing masks on public transport and the test-and-isolate regime.

Feel free to dispute that, but it seems to me that if you don't, the rest follows automatically:
- it's impossible to protect any given individual catching this thing. Everyone will get it eventually. If someone is going to catch this thing and die they will catch this thing and die. To stop that we would have to reduce the case load down to 1000s per day again and while tragic for the people who are vulnerable that is quite obviously not going to happen.
- the NHS can no longer collapse. It's easy to do the numbers yourself to prove it, but here's mine: assume 66 million people getting it over 180 days, that's about 366k cases per day. Assume 500-1000 cases to generate one person in ICU (probably pessimistic, as even on today's underestimate of cases it's at least 400) and that's ~500 people in intensive care. Which is well under the NHS strain level (the pandemic data shows that number as about 1000). Reinfection rate might be higher than that, but if our bodies are seeing this thing every 3 months, the chance of severe effects on successive reinfections will decrease. 366k is probably fairly close to today's actual case rate, and the number of ICU beds occupied is trending down really quite rapidly, so this all seems reasonable.
- The numbers only get better from here as more unvaccinated people are immunised if they catch it and don't die.

So the argument is between two choices - a severe lockdown to drive case load down back almost to zero to avoid the inevitable consequences of everyone getting the thing, or why bother with inconveniences that don't actually stop everyone getting it? What do you gain? A few people will catch it a couple of months earlier if you don't, a tiny statistical long tail will be years or more - but if they're going to die from it, they'll die anyway eventually. The cancer treatment analogy is specious - you're talking about saving the lives of half the people that get it which is very different to "Everyone will get covid, just a little more slowly".

This analysis can of course be invalidated by a new variant. Another change in circumstances would involve a far more effective vaccine that totally prevents reinfection (at that point there might be an argument to lock down to try to protect the vulnerable until we can complete the vaccine program, but it certainly wouldn't happen in this country, Boris or no Boris).

Boris is a total cock who isn't even slightly thinking of it in these terms, but it doesn't mean everything he touches is automatically stupid, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

If you believe it's possible to stop everyone getting covid without a significant lockdown, then of course you will view all this as total BS. But that's a fundamental disagreement on the base hypothesis and we can stop the argument, there's no point in railing at each other .

[KlaxonCow]

If you believe it's possible to stop everyone getting covid

You're doing the binary thing again.

If we can't 100% stop everyone getting Covid, then don't even try to stop anyone getting Covid?

So, yeah, as we can't cure death, might as well kill all babies at birth, right? Why prolong their existential agony, by allowing someone to live a full and productive meaningful life in the meantime?

You see, this logic does not pass the "reductio ad absurdum" test. Extend it to its ultimate conclusion, and it completely falls apart.

What's the point of delaying someone's inevitable death by, ooh, maybe a year or two? I don't know. Why don't you ask them? Why don't you ask their grieving families? Why don't you ask their friends? Why don't you ask their employers?

And if the DoD's generic coronavirus vaccine shows up next year and can vaccinate everyone against every single variant of not just Covid, but also the common cold, taking away that inevitability... what are you going to say then? What are you going to tell those grieving families?

There's already treatments available that can stop Covid replicating in the body. Unfortunately, this has to be taken early - at the onset of symptoms - to halt the virus's progress at a low level, before it's riddling the body. But what if treatments advance so that it doesn't just halt the replication, but actually goes after the virus and reduces the viral load? Basically, what if we have a 100% "cure" for Covid?

What's the point in delaying for a year or two? Quite possibly everything. After all, rewind back two years and we had absolutely nothing. No vaccines, no treatments, testing for Covid had only just being perfected. A year ago (-ish), we got the vaccines that you're now predicating your hypothesis on.

But even if nothing does step into the breach in the next few years, then delay is a goal unto itself.

You have a terminal disease. The doctors give you 3 weeks. But there's an operation that could give you another 6 months, a year, maybe a few years. But, no, you're inevitably going to die anyway - aren't we all? - so, fuck that, we're going to just shoot you in the face right now. It's for the economy, you understand.

As the Hippocratic Oath has it: "first, do no harm".

But that's a fundamental disagreement on the base hypothesis and we can stop the argument, there's no point in railing at each other .

Agreed.

I fundamentally disagree on the base hypothesis that prolonging someone's life isn't a goal unto itself. After all, we're all going to inevitably die one day. ALL of health care is fighting for a little more time.

We can't stop death, but that doesn't make life not worth living. On the contrary, the exact polar opposite, in fact.

[Cloudane]

As I see it the very high number of cases with actually about zero "excess deaths" above normal now (the deaths being counted, whilst it was a conspiracy theory before, genuinely is stuff like "they were already going to die and just happened to test positive" now) actually is a sign of victory. Not heard much in the way of long covid since the vaccines either. It's all shown that the vaccine has done its job

We had restrictions and lockdowns because it was a novel virus... now that our immune systems know about it, I genuinely do think we don't really need them.

Now, that's not to say I wouldn't support mask mandates until we at least know that it's settled on whatever the endemic equilibrium is and not in the middle of a peak. And I do agree it's a bit early/brave to be jumping straight into removing isolation just as we're dropping off a huge peak. I for one still have a small stockpile of test kits for when they inevitably stop them, intend to voluntarily isolate if I get it, and still wear a mask in the shops for now. But I also don't think it's the end of the world. Some country has to go first and test the waters, and you know what Boris is like for U turns if it goes wrong.

And I guess whilst far from a right winger, I am more of the libertarian type than I thought. I much favour encouraging the people to do things like masks and isolation voluntarily, for it to be seen as common courtesy like it is in Asia, rather than writing everything into law. We needed it when the IFR was insane, sometimes you do need the government to step in, but I do side with "the government needs to dictate peoples lives as little as possible as soon as possible"

ETA: I also fully support continued research towards better treatments and better vaccines. I don't think anyone saying "eh, this news isn't the end of the world" is suggesting that we shouldn't care about covid at all. In fact one of the positive sides to the pandemic is it's greatly advanced things to the point where there may soon be vaccines for HIV and cancer. An overall net positive in the long term perhaps, it's just a shame it always takes a disaster or a war (hot or cold) to shift science along a bit.

[merman]

As I see it the very high number of cases with actually about zero "excess deaths" above normal now (the deaths being counted, whilst it was a conspiracy theory before, genuinely is stuff like "they were already going to die and just happened to test positive" now) actually is a sign of victory. Not heard much in the way of long covid since the vaccines either. It's all shown that the vaccine has done its job

We had restrictions and lockdowns because it was a novel virus... now that our immune systems know about it, I genuinely do think we don't really need them.

Now, that's not to say I wouldn't support mask mandates until we at least know that it's settled on whatever the endemic equilibrium is and not in the middle of a peak. And I do agree it's a bit early/brave to be jumping straight into removing isolation just as we're dropping off a huge peak. I for one still have a small stockpile of test kits for when they inevitably stop them, intend to voluntarily isolate if I get it, and still wear a mask in the shops for now. But I also don't think it's the end of the world. Some country has to go first and test the waters, and you know what Boris is like for U turns if it goes wrong.

And I guess whilst far from a right winger, I am more of the libertarian type than I thought. I much favour encouraging the people to do things like masks and isolation voluntarily, for it to be seen as common courtesy like it is in Asia, rather than writing everything into law. We needed it when the IFR was insane, sometimes you do need the government to step in, but I do side with "the government needs to dictate peoples lives as little as possible as soon as possible"

ETA: I also fully support continued research towards better treatments and better vaccines. I don't think anyone saying "eh, this news isn't the end of the world" is suggesting that we shouldn't care about covid at all. In fact one of the positive sides to the pandemic is it's greatly advanced things to the point where there may soon be vaccines for HIV and cancer. An overall net positive in the long term perhaps, it's just a shame it always takes a disaster or a war (hot or cold) to shift science along a bit.

IF COVID was just a respiratory disease, then trying to live with it “for the sake of the economy” makes (a little) sense. The fact we have put up with 3-5,000 flu deaths a year and the hospital overcrowding every winter doesn’t make sense when some simple preventative measures could reduce that trial significantly beyond the “choose a few variants and hope” of three current flu vaccination policy.

But COVID isn’t just a disease of the lungs. That needs to be stressed more and more.
You don’t want to catch it even if you are healthy. Blood vessels, nerves, kidneys and more are at risk from even the “milder” Omicron.

Making more than a thousand people a week so unwell they become long-term dependent on healthcare and economically inactive isn’t good for the economy in the long run.

Given that testing is estimated to discover only half of those infected because they had a test voluntarily, it doesn’t bode well for significant numbers volunteering to stay at home when they are carrying it. And that puts everyone at risk.

[snaff]

Research has begun into the possible side effects of the vaccines.

[Dio]

Yeah, it's terrible, it's killed 40 million people in this country!

[Dio]

Given that testing is estimated to discover only half of those infected because they had a test voluntarily, it doesn’t bode well for significant numbers volunteering to stay at home when they are carrying it. And that puts everyone at risk.

What do you think we should be doing at this point?

[PFVA]

Covid has reached grand nephews and parents. Grandniece had it last week and her mother too. They had some symptoms.
Grandnephew and his parents are having it this week, so far without symptoms.

[zip accident]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-60362529

New Zealand plays Barry Manilow to repel parliament protesters

Anti-vaxers being hit really hard.

[merman]

Given that testing is estimated to discover only half of those infected because they had a test voluntarily, it doesn’t bode well for significant numbers volunteering to stay at home when they are carrying it. And that puts everyone at risk.

What do you think we should be doing at this point?

Keep the legal requirement to self-isolate on a positive test.
Keep masks on public transport and indoor spaces.
No charges for LFTs, PCRs easily available for the clinically vulnerable
Support the vaccination programme in poorer countries.

[Dio]

Separating the last, which is another thing entirely.

That was pretty much the regime in November / December and that didn't actually appear to slow the virus down much, what changed to let the hospital numbers drop at the moment is simply that the vast majority of people have now had it fairly recently and there are few unvaccinated and uninfected people left to get it seriously. It's not at all obvious it achieved much then, and now we've been through the last wave and most people who're going to get it seriously have already had it, such a limited scheme of measures are the appearance of doing something rather than achieving much.