Forum Topic

The latest advice on coronavirus seems to be useless

There's an interesting and rather disturbing article on research on the transmission of coronavirus today (and spare us the silly comments about the Guardian). I can't provide a direct link, only this one: https://www.pressreader.com/…/the-…/20200313/281651077173006; it is based on research in Belgium and the Netherlands.Now there are clearly uncertainties in the figures because of the lack of precise information, but the evidence of the research is that (a) in Singapore, between 45% and 84% of the infections appear to come from people incubating the disease but not yet showing symptoms, and (2) in the Chinese outbreak the corresponding figures were were between 65% and 87%.Although there are obviously difficulties in dealing with a fast-moving situation in which the data available are not wholly reliable, it looks from this that around three quarters of cases of transmission of the disease occur from people who are not yet showing symptoms. If this is anywhere near the truth, it indicates that the current government advice, that you should self-isolate only once you are showing symptoms, is utterly and completely useless.

Richard Carter ● 2279d29 Comments

Just to add, there's a lot of conflicting news reports and interpretations so some think 18 months is a more realistic timeframe for a vaccine ...https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/coronavirus-canadian-researchers-make-progress-toward-vaccine

Michael Ixer ● 2278d

I guess the fact that COVID-19 is a new variant of the Coronavirus family, and its characteristics are still being researched and understood means the response has to be tactical - we don't want to panic unnecessarily and ruin the economy but do need to take the risks seriously and protect high risk groups. We should follow the science but unfortunately as we learn more about the virus the recommendations may change and even contradict previous one; I guess that's life: Newton's rules of gravity were fine until Einstein came along. Fortunately, we live in a world where science research progresses at an incredibly fast rate - well, if its appropriately funded it can - so some research groups think a vaccine might be available in around a year (obviously no certainty, I did see a more optimistic estimate of possibly 9 months from a Canadian research group but that seems very unlikely):https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-covid19-vaccine-testing-a4387271.html

Michael Ixer ● 2278d

Like most sensible organisations l believe the boat race are reviewing it day by day. Having just come back from PHS l was pleased to see it busy with shoppers and a queue of cars to get into the Exchange car park.  We really need to stop this Putney moaning and support business. If you are fit and healthy go out.  If you have underlying health issues take care and make your own sensible call.

Robert Wheeler ● 2278d

I really think things are progressing on a day to day basis, govt and healthcare wise.  There is a certain amount of watch and wait.  If everything was closed, society could break down and there would be even more chaos, however I'm glad that large gatherings are being postponed and flights being cancelled.I believe the Boat Race has been cancelled or it that a rumour?

Bunny Payne ● 2278d

The general view here seems to be that there have been over-reactions to the whole thing: the panic buying of bog paper, for example, and even worse the vicious attacks on some eastern-looking people over "their" coronavirus.On the other hand, complacency is also a danger, characterised in the reactions in some quarters of the kind "Things may be bad, but we'll cope because we're British." And I do feel there are elements of that in the government's response so far: they say that they are relying on the science, and that's obviously sensible. But I have to admit to being genuinely confused on one thing: why are most of the European countries following a different path? Are they also following the science, and if so, is their European science better than - or less reliable - than our British science? This issue was discussed on Any Questions yesterday (repeated today) but the explanations given didn't really convince: mostly stuff about their being at a different stage of the development of the crisis: what, all of them? We could really so with some enlightenment here.A further issue is the way that the firm advice from the authorities that there would definitely be no action to stop large gatherings from taking place, only for this to be reversed the very next day: this smacked at best of disorganisation and at worst of panic in government, which isn't reassuring.

Richard Carter ● 2278d

*stand-offish is the word I wanted!

Philippa Bond ● 2278d

They live differently, they are much more family orientated living in closer family groups and are much more touchy feely than we the stand offy British are.

Philippa Bond ● 2278d

There are a lot of us with pre-existing conditions and it seems that the best we can do is to try and stay well, put our affairs as best in order as we can and take precautions like the hand washing.  Also teach grandchildren to cover their mouths with the crook of the arm when coughing - it is better than the hand and to wash hands more often like we used to do!  We didn't snack so much.The trouble with closing the schools is that someone is going to have to look after the children - is that the parents many of whom may be working in social care and the NHS etc - or the vulnerable elderly grandparents?Good luck everyone.

Philippa Bond ● 2278d

Lets wait and see if  Italy is better than us.it may well be but will be interesting to see.

Andy Pike ● 2278d

Thanks to Craig and Richard for their kind words. But in fact we’re fine. I was trying to make the point that many elderly people, say 70+, have other longer term health issues which raise the risk level. I was concerned that readers might think that if there are so many non-symptomatic people who have the virus already in the population that there is no need to take precautions, And I’m worried the NHS will be overwhelmed.I do think that it is foolish for the government to reverse and reduce testing now. They should close schools. They need to follow the German lead and make large sums available to business to stop collapses. By not acting they are increasing the risk of panic buying and uncontrolled effects that will make the circumstances even worse than they might have been. This situation is not short-term.Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 2278d

https://apple.news/AIbR0Yy0VTkKrXgmuVE8Vfgfor some more info on how different countries compare

Philippa Bond ● 2278d

Italy has better provision than we do and from reports it is like a war zone. Hospital operating theatres and cupboards have been turned into intensive care space there.  We just don't have enough specialist equipment or staff.Here we are trying to slow the inevitable spread down which is why WE ALL have to keep on washing our hands and being thoughtful about who we visit and where we go.The NHS has tremendous shortages of staff.

Philippa Bond ● 2279d

Bunny there is no health system in the world who could cope with a vast population needing medical care at the same time. I think we all need to use common sense around this, don’t stockpile and don’t over analyse or politicise the situation.  Let’s all be grateful that we have a free NHS at the point of entry.  Hopefully all of us will stay well.

Robert Wheeler ● 2279d

I think the point with Italy is that their resources have been overwhelmed by the huge demand. Do we have the same (or higher) level of resources? I haven't seen any evidence either way; I don't think we can afford to be complacent.And certainly agree with Craig's message to Nick and his wife.

Richard Carter ● 2279d

I certainly agree that panic is unnecessary and unhelpful, what we really need is accurate, unbiased information, and I'm not sure we're getting it.There's a very long and interesting piece here: https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca  It looks very considered and impressive, but I'm simply not sure what to make of it. Various commentators below the line have pointed out that the author, Thomas Pueyo, doesn't seem to have any medical or epidemiological qualifications, consequently dismissing his piece as a result. Are they right? I simply haven't a clue on that, but it's an interesting piece nonetheless because it uses modelling and other analytical methods in an apparently intelligent way. We shall just have to judge for ourselves.Meanwhile, Jeremy Warner a few days ago in the Telegraph drew a comparison of the current outbreak to the 1918-19 flu epidemic, and noted the high death amongst working age people during the latter. He went on:"This  is quite unlikely to occur this time around.  Not to put too fine a point on it, from an entirely disinterested economic perspective, the COVID-19 might even prove mildly beneficial in the long term by disproportionally culling elderly dependents."How charming for it to be regarded as "beneficial" for we older folk to be culled like animals!

Richard Carter ● 2279d

Great point, Bunny.  Arguably this is why Italy’s death rate is much higher - they just don’t have the facilities to cope.  Which is why I think the media reaction has made everything significantly worse, leading to the ‘healthy’ clogging up the system and stockpiling unnecessarily.  Nick - sending you and your wife every positive wish during what must be a very stressful time for you

Craig Fordham ● 2279d

I believe that a large amount of all the governmental reaction is to do with the fact that we don't have the facilities to cope with large numbers of seriously ill people, who could be cured with appropriate hospital care.The media have latched onto this and blown the virus out of proportion, rather than questioning our capabilities to cope with an epidemic.

Bunny Payne ● 2279d

Michael, my thoughts exactly.  Many of us have had a really rotten bout of chest infections, sore throats, dry cough, etc this winter... who knows?What I don't like is the fact that they're not really doing testing any more, so we don't have up to date figures.  I understand that we don't really have the facilities or the NHS staff to do this, but I believe it is important.  I guess they'll just have figures of those admitted to hospital.  Sorry to be so gloomy!!

Bunny Payne ● 2279d

As a 72 year old type 1 diabetic I think it sensible to take reasonable precautions, so yes I’m worried. Richard’s point that many of the spreaders of the virus show no symptoms is well made, and it’s therefore difficult to know how to behave as a result. In any event I shall be avoiding large crowds, reducing my travel on public transport until the position is clearer. I hope to avoid people showing symptoms and urge them to stay at home.Meanwhile I’ve been following the pandemic statistics on the following website, which is updated daily. See  https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/You can see what is happening in the US as well as most countries around the world, including the UK. These are shown in graph form of reported cases each day. The only problem is that now the UK has decided NOT TO TEST everyone who is showing mild symptoms, while not stopping large gatherings or closing schools and colleges the “number of cases confirmed” statistic will become increasingly irrelevant. As the Crime Minister said yesterday there are probably between 10,000 and 15,000 in the population already. Looks like Boris is hoping for “herd antibodies” to increase before next winter.I’d like to know that the number of ventilators in stock is increasing rapidly, and beds in Intensive Care similarly. And the staff to use them being trained as we speak. But  Hancock is giving very  little relevant information. We are facing a pandemic with the NHS at its lowest ebb because of Tory austerity policies over the last 10 years.But I do know if I or my wife get it we are at high risk of getting a fatal infection.  It seems the government's claim to be trying to flatten the curve is pretty ineffective, and the whole think is a lottery, with more chance of getting Covid19 than winning the lottery. But I will keep on washing my hands.Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 2279d

Well said Craig, by thoughts entirely!

Simon Knight ● 2279d

I agree with you Craig. I copied Richard's link but it didn't work so I can only consider his own comments about it.  Covid-19 is a novel coronavirus so nobody actually knows for sure how long it incubates, or how long it remains active for transmission. So basically the article is based on guesswork. This is from the gov.uk website and is not guesswork:"As of 9am on 13 March 2020, 32,771 people have been tested in the UK, of which 31,973 were confirmed negative and 798 were confirmed as positive. 10 patients who tested positive for COVID-19 have died."We know that people are not being tested until they are symptomatic so these figures probably do indicate that many have/had similar symptoms but were only suffering from the normal cold and flu illnesses that are common at this time of year.  The media panic frenzy needs to be dialled down I think.

Sue Hammond ● 2279d

Well, if self-isolation will save 15 to 25% of onward transmission then that is worthwhile in itself, I should think. As I said, I am not sure.

David Ainsworth ● 2279d

"I am, frankly, staggered, by the level of panic around Covoid-19.  I had to visit four different shops before I could find a pack of toilet rolls yesterday!  Why?!"It wouldn't have happened when everybody got their news from newspapers, not the web. I shall be sitting down cutting my old recyclables into neat squares for the duration. The Internet of Things does not include a bidet. Yet.https://www.auntannie.com/FridayFun/DollChain/DollChainsDiagonal440.jpg

David Ainsworth ● 2279d

Well said Craig the media is making this worse.  To answer Richard’s main point, if you have a temperature and cough clearly it is an infection and you should not be struggling into work. The Government are just reinforcing common sense at the moment.  Or are we now going to dispute the U.K. world respected public health experts.

Robert Wheeler ● 2279d

Right, I'm going to stick my head above the parapet on this one (which I'll probably regret), but here goes... I am, frankly, staggered, by the level of panic around Covoid-19.  I had to visit four different shops before I could find a pack of toilet rolls yesterday!  Why?!I get that the virus poses a significant risk for those with underlying health conditions and I am hugely sympathetic.  However, much of everyday life must pose high levels of risk for such individuals.  Of course we should aim to provide protection for them, but wouldn't it be better to isolate the really vulnerable (as probably happens on an everyday basis to a degree anyway), than to bring the whole country / world to a complete standstill and lead everyone to think we're all going to be wiped out!Unless Ive missed something (very happy to be corrected) evidence seems to suggest that for anyone who is even relatively healthy, Covoid-19 results in a couple of days of symptoms  - which I've seen repeatedly described as milder than flu, if you get any at all - before a complete recovery.  I don't get, therefore,  why we are we being subjected to relentless updates of which 20-something sports star or celeb has it now or why we're potentially talking about asking everyone to barricade themselves in their homes for days on end?!  I can't help feeling that the media is getting off on the whole thing.The virus is already out there.  A lot of us will get it -  hell, some of us have probably already had it without even realising - but for the overwhelming majority we'll be back to normal in a few days.  Surely we'd be better off telling most people to get on with it, rather than working them up to behave as though we're on the verge of armageddon.  We might then be able to allow our support services to focus solely on those who really do need help

Craig Fordham ● 2279d

"One big word in there.    IF" and "I'm not sure about "utterly" or "completely""Good to see the usual constructive criticisms here, I don't think.

Richard Carter ● 2279d

I'm not sure about "utterly" or "completely".

David Ainsworth ● 2279d

One statistic I haven't seen is the number of people tested, the proportion found positive and the trends with time of those by region or country. Obviously, when no tests were being done no one was found positive but if that research is correct it could have been lurking these, unseen but spreading ...

Michael Ixer ● 2279d

One big word in there.    IF

Andy Pike ● 2279d