FootballFan
Striker
I agree, the exit strategy might throw up other problems mind, for now its just about getting over the first wave
Herd immunity, letting infection spread while deaths still happening
I agree, the exit strategy might throw up other problems mind, for now its just about getting over the first wave
Hansel
Winger
Matt Hancock said just days ago that Porton Down have such a test and are deploying it to survey the spread of the virus in the general population.
D
Deleted member 6694
Guest
Aye good point and very difficult indeed. This isn't ending next week that's for sure but when it does some people are going to have this exact scenario! I'm fortunate that my 4 vulnerables all live alone now but I do know other family and friends who will be in this exact situation.
They will be in that position until they've had it or a vaccine is found. I wonder how many fit and healthy people would prefer to take the chance themselves of being infected and going through it just so they know they probably won't pass it on and live in fear of doing it? They could of course die plus even after recovering (in a safe place) they could still pass it on by bringing someone else's virus into the home. They could still bring it into the home on their person but I do think some would take up the option of being infected if it was there. Someone should start a poll 
Charles Eats Grass
Midfield
Is that not just herd immunity though, pretty much?
Osklen
Winger
Aye good point and very difficult indeed. This isn't ending next week that's for sure but when it does some people are going to have this exact scenario! I'm fortunate that my 4 vulnerables all live alone now but I do know other family and friends who will be in this exact situation.
Yeah I’ve kind of personally felt am I better getting it now, with the wife and kids in the hope that we will all be ok, then at least we can then help our parents and get back to a routine safe in the knowledge that we have built an immunity to it. I guess there is still the chance the virus could morph again and you could still get it again and also that there may already be several different strands of it.
Do you think travel will be permitted anytime soon? I just can’t see it as how do they control the virus not spreading again.
Good post mate.Reet it's a long post so just close the thread if your on a phone as I can type fast as fuck so my posts go on a bit. Bear with me as I'm hoping people get what I mean and possibly discuss their own speculation or just let the thread die
I'm wondering why there is still no increased lockdown as you'd think with all the people going out that it would mean tougher lockdown measures. Yet not even an increase in the fines or possibly a permit of some kind being suggested, just more warnings.
Hancock did mention capacity the beds/ventilators increasing etc and about keeping this below capacity which we've known. The government are aware of the knackers going out but are they letting people still mill about knowing that the vast majority of the vulnerable and oldies are now self isolating and being very vigilant? That means more infections but probably still less hospital admissions and deaths?
Given the lockdown is now 2 weeks, it makes you wonder just how fast the infection rate is now compared to before the lockdown? I have seen the r0 drop mentioned and I'm not sure if it was 0.9 and before it was 2.3 or summit, maybe higher. You obviously can't look at cases rising as the infection rate still rising like some will. They're also increasing testing and testing medical staff who simply may be self isolating so cases will rise also due to that. They will have access to all this data and aye young fit people are getting ill and dying but they will know the percentages of all the relevant demographics they'll have, not just UK. If it's low then are those who are freshly infect being classed as 'collateral damage' given the impact on the whole population from a complete lockdown? I'm not talking about workers etc who can't avoid it, it's the knackers who still clearly pose a risk at spreading this even more than it should be.
If they still let people get infected but in time a smaller percentage actually need admission due to not being old/vulnerable then it means less deaths. What is the death rate of those who aren't at old or vulnerable? This is a link that shows a graph but it's mid March but I'll still use it as an example. The UK government's scientific advisers reckoned the overall percentage to be 0.5% to 1%.
Coronavirus death rate: What are the chances of dying?
The current best guess of a 1% death rate does not apply to everyone.www.bbc.co.uk
However that is over all ages and if you take away the 70+ (and vulnerables) then the overall percentage would be even smaller. Even if it was 5% if you take away a huge chunk of those dying due to self isolating then surely the new overall average for under 70's/health percentage would be far lower? In Germany the average age of infection is 49 but the average age of deaths is 82. South Korea had 30% in the 20-29 age range who were positive so it shows the young, although dying are a far smaller percentage.
Logon or register to see this image
If you try to eliminate all deaths then you would have to lockdown with harsher measures and for quite some time. Plus after a harsher lockdown you'd have even more potential people at risk of infection so again it could spike. Also not forgetting those who can't go out will be stuck at home even longer without a partial lockdown reprieve.
Obviously the antibody tests will be a game changer and the sooner they come in the better. There's talk of an immunity pass that will allow those who've had it to not be held back by countdown measures. If there's no sign of vaccine coming by say Christmas then they must be looking at herd immunity as they want to try to get a bigger percentage of the country out of lockdown each time. If they slow the rate of infection too much this won't happen.
If out of every 100,000 infections the estimated 1% die that's 1,000 deaths. If you look at the graph those under 70 make up 75% of the overall deaths. If you take away the vulnerables/oldies that drops to a few 250 deaths per 100,000. I'd also reckon the over 60's will drop as many will be taking precautions unlike before so that would drop so say 200 deaths per 100,000. Obviously deaths have dropped dramatically but people still need hospital treatment and letting it spread means hospital admissions won't drop as much. With all the new beds and ventilators then they may well cut down on deaths but be able to treat a far higher amount of people who have a far higher chance of surviving.
I know deaths are still going up but some of this is still from infections prior to lockdown as you don't die the next day after being infected, plus the death reports are delayed even further. The government will know the demographics of the new admissions every day and they may be seeing a change as the average age goes down and less vulnerables. They will also be able predict just how many will actually recover and it should be higher percentage than prior to lockdown given the different demographics due to less oldies/vulnerables.
If they're seeing less oldies/vulnerable being admitted then do they try to save a few more 1,000 lives over the next few months (I know it sounds f***ing daft) with a complete lockdown? Basically this is what they've said all along, keeping below the capacity and I don't recall them ever saying they'd be eliminating all deaths. In fact I think it was said along the lines of "it's all about managing the curve"
We simply can't stay in lockdown even as it is now as look what it's like after 2 weeks and this first wave still hasn't receded. They government know this and that means lives are going to come at a cost of the rest of the population and economy sadly to avoid public unrest and financial ruin of many 1,000's more if they can't get up and running in some way soon enough.
Fuck me did I just type all that? You get 10,000 characters so why not use them?
It is - and that is the only way out of this mess - but it is a controlled herd immunity. We could have herd immunity by June if we really wanted it, but we'd also have tens of thousands of people dying because we don't have any ventilators left for them.
Beery
Striker
you are missing the fact that a % of these people will need hospital treatment
I think there is some confusion about the age v recovery rate and what that recovery entails
Last edited:
What do you mean?
Beery
Striker
in terms of scale - age population in UK is approx 35m under 40 ,21m 40-70 and 9m over 70
I'm agreeing with you, just because younger people recover doesn't mean they don't need medical treatment to recover - that's the bottleneck that the Herd immunity isnt taking account of
Last edited:
SurreyMackem
Striker
The Gov Health Expert hinted that future relaxations could be age related.
SurreyMackem
Striker
Agree, I assume the Govmt have the stats showing they need less hospitalisation and recover quicker.
D
Deleted member 6694
Guest
If we don't go into further lockdown and the NHS recovers etc and has plenty capacity again, I can see them replacing the exercise rule. This would allow people to go out and travel to meet see family/friends etc but still no large gatherings in public that we had in place before lockdown.
The app proposed app would be really good for this. The sooner people realise that using that app could, in fact it's a certainty that it will save lives the better. It's a f***ing small price to pay to allow the government to track you so they can warn you and others of possible infection outbreaks and help stop the spread quickly! South Korea is testament to that aren't they @Slim999?
One thing I forgot to mention is that they may make it compulsory that if infected you have to self isolate and you will be monitored to ensure you do this. This happens in other countries and they will also track you and it's fines/jail for breaking it given how you could spread it and it's only right given it could cost lives in the future. Again it's not failsafe if other are in home but in Asia they take it seriously and lock themselves in a room and only come out when people aren't there to go to bathroom. Again they will clean it all down also when someone else comes. Visits are cut down by people pissing in containers, sounds minging but again it limit the potential spread.
I'm not so sure about cinema, pubs, restaurants etc opening straight away as they're enclosed and can spread easier. If I had the money I'd be renting some land down Seaburnm Vaux and anywhere else nowt is happening and hoying up one of there HERE and have a huge drive in cinema with deliveries to your car. It would make an absolute fortune
I can't see certain business like those all opening after the relaxing of lockdown. Maybe a few weeks down the line once as their r0 estimation changes they can predict what effect it would have by allowing them places to open again. Flu I think has a r0 of 1.3 and I'm sure I saw a current r0 for COVID-19 of 0.9 due to lockdown measures yet was over 2 at one point. A quick google found this 1st link and it's one study that says it's lower and I'd like to imagine the government also have an idea of the range is now as this isn't fact of course.
Preliminary study finds UK lockdown is slowing spread of COVID-19
Lockdown and social distancing measures introduced by the British government to slow the spread of COVID-19 may already be working, according to preliminary research findings, and could soon see Britain's epidemic of infections declining.
www.reuters.com
The finding that the mean number of contacts per person measured is more than 70% lower now than before the lockdown suggests that the R0 reproduction value now would be between 0.37 and 0.89, they said, with the most likely value being 0.62.
This is an interesting read if anyone has the time
as it explains some stuff LINK. It's been posted elsewhere by Frijj and I don't know if he just read it or was involved somehow. It's from March 16th so not up to date but does give you ideas of how this will pan out. Look at the graph on page 10 and you will see the green line in picture (B) that shows the first wave and how it peaks was late April but hopefully it's not that late now given this is an old model. Page 12 shows the suppression strategy and the next few show you how they got all these predicted death totals. I'm not sure if there is a more recent model that's been made public yet but I'm sure they've got many scenarios and predictions and will use their best judgement to keep a balance all around once this main wave is finally over with! There's other stuff on there as Page 9 for example shows how various measures affect ICU cases you can get lost in but it fills in the time if people do like to read stuff like this.I know many people can't be socially distant at work and that will possibly end up being one of the places people end up being infected, along with seeing family, mates and people can still have house parties of course. If the app is in place and the 3 tests are here and can test 100,000's if not more a day if not more then come this magical time of lockdown being relaxed, they may just allow more freedom so the sensible masses can do what the selfish ignorant knackers are doing now
@DoctorMick @haway @mcq10 - This is a summary of my speculation bollocks above. Shit is still happening but slowing down and it's gonna get better in time. You will soon be able to go visit your bit on the side but nee wining or dining her but if all is well in a few months then aye, along with cinemas possibly but definitely cinema if I get my idea of drive in cinema up and running! There's some pretty graphs in the link if you like looking at pictures. Sadly nee going to see the lads at the SOL for a few months, if at all this year unless a vaccine is found this year before the next winter season!
Last edited by a moderator:
Beery
Striker
so between 1.2-1.5% ish so a bit higher then I thought taking it to over 30,000 requiring hospitalization for every 5 year age gap
What about the 60% I used - way off?
The % of the population who become infected - the attack rate - is disputed, though I believe estimates of how many people would need to catch it for us to reach the herd immunity threshold was about 60%.
There is academic disagreement in regards to what the current attack rate is. One of ICL's more recent papers estimated between 1% and 5% in the UK as of March 28th, whilst an Oxford paper a few weeks ago proposed the possibility of it being closer to 50%. I'm inclined to believe it is the former rather than the latter.
Some of the models used by the govt estimated the impact based on an attack rate over 80%.
SteveB
Striker
There is no way those figures can be accurate . There must be hundreds of thousands of people who have had been infected that are not counted in those stats. I think
