Coronavirus - worldwide spread and control

Sorry I misread then - I thought this was referring to "forced" quarantine for milder cases that never even needed hospital care. To avoid further transmission in households.

 

No problem . I have had a full day of getting the wrong gist of things ! Easily done.

 

I think there are a number of countries doing this and I haven't been shocked by the idea. In China I think they tested people and if they were positive they didn't go home --- would you want to infect vulnerable members of your family? In Australia it's off the plane and off to the quarantine hotel --- for 14 days? I heard a western academic who was quarantined in China (where he lives/works) he didn't mind that much.
TB quarantine would have been 6 months/year back in the day (1930s?).

 

Yeah. Give some people some power and they get carried away.... At the very least I wouldn't be at all surprised if under circumstances such as these there are some who would insist in treatment plans and recommendations.

I've been treated badly enough by docs with no legal power over me.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...in-failed-prepare-mers-sars-ebola-coronavirus

 

Interesting article about how these well known New Zealand businessmen helped to ready the country early for what was coming.

I noticed near the end of the article they were talking about after lockdown and how different life will be as an example when going to a café we will most likely have to write our name and phone number in a book so that we can be easily traced if someone gets the corona virus and had been to that particular café on the same day.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/12...yfe-worked-to-ready-country-for-covid19-fight

 

The problem is that serological tests have poor specificity, around 80-90% (possibly sensitive to antibodies to other coronaviruses). If you test the whole town, then you need to expect false positives.

Even at current infection rates it will take many years before 80% would get it. Even modest restrictions (mandatory self-quarantine for those with the virus and overseas arrivals, no large gatherings) will prevent this happening, unless a vaccine never eventuates. Also, the idea that many people won't notice they have it is total bullshit.

 

Case fatality came out 0.37%.

I think a case is anybody who tested positive.

Mortality was estimated 0.06%; I don´t know how they did it. For Ínfluenza it is done via excess deaths in a given periode (over an average evaluated over a longer periode).

If this were done here as well, then it would independly match up pretty well with 14%, if my maths didn´t fool me.

The PCR has been tested very quickly, but they said it didn´t show any cross reactivity with other corona viruses. If this holds the water - as assumed and accepted by everybody here - an adjustment is easily done.

 

I wonder when this occurred? Particularly in relation to Boris Johnson's experience. I fear that although Johnson is likely to stabilise he must have had sufficient pathology for him to be taken into ICU and there may well be sequelae from that over weeks or possibly years. Surely sooner or later those who still think it is OK to let everyone get ill will realise that the entire economy will be taken up with long term care of survivors.

The good news is that as Anthony Costello has pointed out it is never too late to get this right. At any point a month's hard lockdown will get us back to where we ought to be.

 

I agree I also think it is interesting that this was apparently a badly affected area. It strongly suggests that across a European country infection rates so far may be below 10%. That fits with Vallance's admission that in many places the rate is in single figures.

It will take four months for the current bump of the curve to play out. If that is 10% of people we can expect another 40 months of the same. And that will become ever more unsustainable as the load on the NHS of chronic survivors piles up. Thee is no second wave. Only a second, third, fourth, thirt-ninth and so on wave - or you do it the antipodean/Chinese way and have one wave.

 

With contact tracing you do not get a choice. It is routine for TB testing in the UK anyway. As I understand it if you are a contact you are legally obliged to be tested if you are dealing with a notifiable disease

 

or mexican?

 

I only caught a bit of this program but they as good as said that herd immunity is what they are aiming for.
Horizon: 2020 Coronavirus special part 1

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000h3nm/horizon-2020-coronavirus-special-part-1

 

All the articles (Guardian, BBC, independent, byline times) were published on Thursday (yesterday) and in all of them they say the Conference Call happened on “Tuesday”. By that I’m presuming this Tuesday just gone - 7 April. So very recently.

 

I did not watch this (I am not able to watch it at the moment as I find that watching things visually make things feel more real and distressing than if I read it or discuss the science or policies here).

I know they used to follow herd immunity and the leaked records and definitely suggest they’re still following it. But are they genuinely going to follow the same policy from now until the next few years? I simply don’t understand how they can. The hospitals are already overwhelmed and everything else has been cancelled. How will they keep this up - as Jonathan Edwards says - for years and years? And other countries will start to close their borders to us when so many people die here that aren’t dying there. I thought even the “science” had changed and they admitted as much. So why are they back on their old plan? What changed - did it say in the programme what modelling / what they are basing this on?

 

Sweden: "70 out of 100 infected at a party in Stockholm"

Göteborgsposten: 70 av 100 smittade på Stockholmsfest
Google Translate, English

 

Who said anything about RT-PCR? They were identifying antibodies in serum, aka serology.

We can't do any sort of adjustments unless they also used PCR tests in the same population and therefore had strong indications of the sensitivity and specificity of the antibody test.