Coronavirus - worldwide spread and control

A bit of hope:

Yesterday in Italy there were 6557 new cases (+13,94%), but today only 5560 (+10,38%).

 

Today the Norwegian Institute of Public Health launched an online register for anyone who has symptoms which may be Covid-19 such as cough, breathing difficulties or fever. They've received 24 000 reports already.

For context:
Number of cases reported in Norway: 2,123 (per March 21)
Reported tests: 54,393 (per March 22)

 

New Buzzfeed article which presents it as the government's scientific advisors being opposed to stronger measures on social distancing:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/boris-johnson-coronavirus-lockdown-cabinet-mutiny

 

Avoid hospitals if you can. And healthcare workers need good personal protection and disinfection routines.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1241767407242416130

 

Decentralised care sounds like a great idea, but I wonder how hard it is to implement? Partially implementing it is what I guess might be possible.

 

The opposite would be to eliminate the virus - this will not work anymore, you would need to do the hole world quarantine for two weeks minimum.

So the question is what the right speed of spreading will be, so that everybody who can be saved will be saved and the hospitals will not be overwhelmed. Another factor is to gain time for the development of medicals and vaccination, if this could succeed in some time.

Nobody knows the right speed, nobody knows the ratio between severe cases (and deaths) and real infections. Obviously the different numbers from different countries are not comparable.

 

Now there are 8 confirmed cases linked to the ski-resort Après-ski and nightclubs have now been closed, but the slopes are still open, the buses are still running etc...

I really wish Sweden was a bit better and faster at learning from others' mistakes (this is just one of many examples). They had plenty of time to consider what happened in the Alps, and to do things differently, but they chose not to.

 

The doctors from Bergamo published this letter in NEJM Catalyst https://catalyst.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/CAT.20.0080

Some interesting quotes:

 

“Insiders told BuzzFeed News that the scientific advice from the government's experts still dictated that now was not the right time to implement a full-scale lockdown. They insisted that they would be guided by the science and take the appropriate measures if and when they become necessary.”

Im sorry if I’ve missed it over the past few days, or if someone’s posted this already and I’ve forgotten. Has anyone managed to dig out which part of the “science” they are using, is telling them when to delay or why? And what the “right time” would be?

I note Vallance shared the research that has been published (I haven’t gone through this):
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...vidence-supporting-the-uk-government-response

 

New UCL research - UK’s current (latest) strategy likely to cause 35,000 -70,000 excess deaths

https://twitter.com/user/status/1241882011507310594


https://twitter.com/user/status/1241882094269272064

 

Our PM (NZ) has just announced that we are going to go into a 4 week lockdown in the next 48 hours. Only essential services will be allowed to operate and all New Zealanders are to isolate at home for the next 4 weeks.

 

Not that I've seen. They keep talking about following the science and evidence, but without presenting it. Or if what they've presented is 'it', then 'it' is not impressive.

 

I disagree.

As I have been saying for about a month the is NO RIGHT SPEED that will avoid complete health care breakdown (which we already have) that will deal with this in less than about TEN YEARS. Nobody seems to have noticed that in the UK government. Moreover, allowing a pandemic to evolve slowly is the best way to allow mutation to generate more lethal strains. It is playing with fire with no water to damp it down. Nobody is saved by dying slowly.


I see no reason why the epidemic should not be stopped since it has been stopped in Asian countries. Some countries may not be able to lockdown but then there must be a long term travel ban.

There is some sense in closing down until a vaccine is developed but in practice any lockdown that allows you to then reintroduce some normal living patterns is going to need to be stringent enough that you might as well try to eradicate. There is not the slightest point in trying to stem the tide to a trickle and not just stop it. There is no way of reliably doing that.

International travel is going to be out for a couple of years - barring essential freight - whatever policy is used. There is no economic recovery to be achieved in that area.

I agree with @lunarainbows that the government still seem to be in a slowly-slowly mindset that makes no sense. The WHO does not take that view as fas as I can see. The stupidity of the UK advisors seems mind-blowing.

Edit: There is an excellent article circulating called 'Hammer and Dance' that explains the detail of this.

 

I'm guessing this is the article you mean?

Code:

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56

Click on white text in image below to go to article, or copy and paste link above.

 

Listening to Talk Radio this morning, the presenter and some of her guests are saying that the government plan is still aiming to develop herd immunity, but just slowly to protect the most vulnerable. The presenter said that this is what all other countries are doing, but just not admitting to it. She keeps talking about how the government are and always have been 'following the science' and people (including other 'armchair' scientists) should stop criticising what our leader have been and are doing. So the herd immunity idea is still very much alive in the British public's conciousness.

Has the UK government actually come out and said that are completely wrong about herd immunity, that no one knows whether recovered people develop long term immunity?

 

yes

 

CNN just reported that Wuhan, China reports no new cases for the last 5 days.

 

I agree with those who have said that the herd immunity issue makes no sense. You need about 80% + of people to have had the disease to get that and that means 80% of the population exposed to the dangers involved - saving a few percent of people from getting it is hardly a policy.

I think the government have actually admitted, or even boldly stated, that their policy was never about herd immunity. And I agree, it was just something thrown in by Vallance to sound clever. The policy is about having a slow rather than a quick epidemic. The Talk Radio person seems to have no clue. It is quite extraordinary how almost everyone in mainstream communication has no idea. Just a few people writing in blog type outlets seem to have some common sense.

 

Pleased to hear that ...but the WHO situation report for 22 March says 82 confirmed new cases reported. Which is still amazingly good (1% of the total number of cases and less each day).

 

on C4 news last night
Jackie Long was trying to get across how quickly the virus was spreading

"It took 90 days to record the first confirmed 100,000 cases. The second 100,000 took 12 days to record. The third 100,000 - recorded today - took just four days. (Subscribe: https://bit.ly/C4_News_Subscribe) "

if anyone missed it it's available on youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHPGApz7qsU