emax

So why have behavioural and medical scientists, if a mathematical risk analyst can do the job better? All these "experts" are always going to pop up at times like these, but that doesnt mean they're "experts"!!

1. Yes obviously, but its a very vague way of deciding if you have it or not 2. That bloke is a philosopher, not a behavioural scientist. Yes he gets plenty of praise, but he's by no means someone that any government should consider taking advice from.

I'm not in any way suggesting we should take this at face value, and rely on your opinion (as thats not fair on you), but out of interest, in what way could you tell the difference? It might help a few as a rough guide.

8 million is the total figure of hospitalisations, including all ages. 7 million if you take away over 70s. 2.4 million in serious condition if you take away over 70's. I've included the under 30's, and they are still included in the infection numbers, whereas over 70's wouldnt be (in theory) Going by your idea of stripping out under 30's and over 70s, the figures I get are actually approx 1.6million 30-70 year olds in serious condition. Its all just worst case random maths, which could mean absolutely nothing, but just thought it worth pointing out.

As much as that's an unhappy statistic, the article also says: "The specialist explains that it also regularly occurs with regular flu that younger people end up in intensive care. "You can see that with the flu: those people get serious double-sided pneumonia." In addition, the elderly also choose not to be treated in intensive care." And another snippet which I haven't heard much about: "The average age of all covid-19 ic patients in Lombardy, Italy, was 70 years, according to which 'the main risk factor for ic uptake is obesity'."

Just a note on that, they're on Good Morning Britain tomorrow or Tuesday I think

Thing is, people are getting carried away with Chinese stats. China stopped including positive results with no real symptoms, so the Chinese overall data isnt that accurate. No country's data are accurate enough to compare figures like that at this early stage.

Early intervention? How? That may well work in the sparse areas of Scotland, but not in most of the UK. The virus is out there, everywhere now. If you test 10,000 a day, and 90% are either negative or mild cases, then what have you achieved? Yes you know where those cases are, but what if most of them stay mild and dont go anywhere near hospital? All you've achieved is a figure to add to some statistics. Yes, a majority could end up going to hospital, but you wouldn't know that until they turn up at hospital. So if a cluster of mild cases appear, do you relocate resources to a certain area, just in case? Then what happens when those cases dont turn up at hospital? Now you have a load of unused resources needing to be moved yet again. The UK is roughly 5th in the world for amount of tests done (thats not 100% accurate because of poor data, but its the best I can find, so will give a rough idea). Yes thats not per million, so the ranking goes down if you class it per population size, but if as you say "its not a great drain on resources" then why aren't other countries at least matching the UK for number of tests, if its so easy to test everyone?

Oh I agree with that, but, that unfortunately has to come later. Using any resources available to increase the NHS capacity is better than using those resources to crudely estimate a CFR, just to make people feel better. Its pretty clear, people will panic unnecessarily no mater what is done, so I think we're past trying to calm the public now. Any available resources need to be used to prepare for if and most likely when, the NHS is overwhelmed.

In the UK, on average in winter, someone dies every single minute. Obviously the extra deaths are on top, and its still bad clearly, but it does make it sound that bit worse when specific deaths are recorded.

Looking at the future, I think this is very likely, at least in the short term afterwards anyway. So thats a minor positive at least.

So where has it been said that social distancing and lockdowns arent going to happen?

Hospital testing. Thats how you know its bad enough. Its certainly not ideal, but community testing is NEVER EVER going to give you an accurate enough figure, not now anyway, so why waste resources on it?

I dont get how you think using up resources to test people with a cough will help the situation at this present time? Community wide testing is for later, not now. If you could use up every testing resource available and manage 10,000 per day, in a week you will have tested 0.1% of the population. Even if a massive 50% of those tests are positive, the other 50% will have to be tested at a later date. So all that resource over a week, and you will have captured 0.05% of the population that "potentially" would need to be tested. All that in a week that is probably the most important as preparations are being ramped up as quickly as possible. As for the rapid tests, they are confirmed to be coming, but a definite date isnt set. Could be a few weeks, could be a month, who knows.

Yeh, they're all sat back drinking brandy and smoking cigars, wondering what all the fuss it about..................................on the other hand, maybe they just aren't bothered with explaining every tiny little bit of detail that may or may not happen. Silence until something is needed, is the best approach. Just look at all the "leaks" that get misinterpreted, mostly by the media, which just makes the governments job even harder. Funny though, Americans dont think USA is doing enough, French dont think France is doing enough, Germans dont think Germany is doing enough, and Italy and probably Spain are already buggered..........people will have a political bias and complain, no mater that!!!

Yeh, to an extent you would expect normal flu to slowly fade from now on. But you still cant test everyone, and there will be a lot of people who just have a normal flu, so you cant take if for granted that they'd had it.

If you're biased, your biased, no discussion will change that!

Obviously, but now is not the time for that. Resources should be directed elsewhere as best they can. Once the "rapid" tests are rolled out in big numbers, then you can start testing everyone. But its clearly not "counter to the government's plans", when its the government that made the decision lol

But its now largely completely pointless testing someone who's having a mild dose. And what of the thousands that test negative? They'll quite likely be tested again down the line at some point, so really its just a waste of resources now. I'd rather they put what limited resources they have into other more important things, rather than testing people with a cough!

As has already been mentioned several times, todays numbers were expected. Testing those in hospital means the case rate will fall, and the positive % will increase. The numbers are largely meaningless, however, now would be a good time to start a benchmark. It will start giving an idea of the rate of increase of people in hospital with it, and really, thats all that matters. Critical care numbers are the other good indicator too, but I should imagine most countries are reluctant to give regular updates on that for obvious reasons.

All I would say on that point, is that our testing rates per million are still fairly high compared to most European countries, not the best by any means, but its fairly good. The daily testing has been gradually going up too, so although you may still be right, I dont think you can solely rely on the daily case increase, and probably not compare most of Europe at least.

I totally get your point, and I'm not for one minute saying the NHS will sail through this if even the best case figures end up being accurate. Its just you've based this on there being no lockdowns, crowd banning, or social isolation, when quite clearly that is and always will be planned to happen, so I dont get how you can accurately say this is all over a 6 month duration?

Oh dont get me wrong, you could sadly be right. I just think that we just really dont know for sure yet. Best to plan for the worst obviously, and I'm sure there are lots of people scurrying away increasing the NHS's capacity as we speak, and I guess the advantage is that we are at least (even if only a few days) behind other countries, rather than being at the front like Italy.

I dunno, but from reports at least, you could definitely compare Wuhan to Italy. Yes many other poorer countries will struggle if it takes off for them, but I'm solely talking about UK at the moment.

Oh yeh, I totally get all that. I was just replying to kold because he suggested the CFR would go back up again with a struggling health service, so I was saying that is already factored in to your point, so as you say, the CFR is still probably much lower.