The Lemon Fool

Mike4 wrote:If asymptomatic infection was allowed to become rife in under-40s who (understandably) by and large don't care personally if they catch it, my quality of life would have to take a massive dive. I would feel no option but to fiercely self-isolate in order to avoiding catching it from them all. This I would have to do in order to (hopefully) achieve my previously likely 24 year life expectancy from now.

Everyone has been forced to fiercely isolate as it is. Our family has associated with no-one for two months except two or three local families we illegally meet occasionally to prevent us and the kids going nuts. Our 17yo son is still forcibly separated from us. We've had no business income for two months, our staff have received no pay. Nice to see some older people enjoying their lockdown so much.

The terror of CV displayed above is completely out of proportion IMO. Very few people die of CV, even old people, and that rate will fall as vulnerable people have died and treatments improve. With a death rate of 1% there is less than a 1 in 100 chance of succumbing, so the expected drop in a person's life expectancy is only a month or two, three at the most. Far more people will succumb to heart disease or cancer so the wrong bogeyman is being feared here.

Maybe someone can explain why CV is so much more terrifying than a heart attack or ovarian cancer that they'd feel the urge to hide under the bed?

GS

GoSeigen wrote:
Maybe someone can explain why CV is so much more terrifying than a heart attack or ovarian cancer that they'd feel the urge to hide under the bed?

I don't actually know of anyone that's 'hiding under the bed', but on your more general point, might one of the reasons be down to the fact that heart attacks or ovarian cancer aren't known to be infectious novel diseases?

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

XFool wrote:

Clitheroekid wrote:Our Government's biggest error is their bone-headed insistence on treating everyone the same, whereas there should be different rules / guidance according to age. It's been crystal clear for some time now that healthy people under 40 are at no significant risk at all from CV, and they could therefore be quite safely released from lockdown immediately, albeit with instructions to avoid contact with old / unwell people. This would enable many bars, shops, restaurants, sports venues etc to re-open, as most of their staff and customers are young anyway.

And this fortunate group probably don’t need to bother about social distancing outdoors at all, as it seems the virus is extremely difficult to transmit in the open air. I also suspect that the social distancing rules could be greatly relaxed for them even indoors. Although such measures may be justified in workplaces, where they have no choice, they could be lifted entirely in places of leisure, where younger people can choose whether or not they want to take the risk.

The same principle should apply to older people. Having been advised as accurately as possible about the statistical risk involved, they should also be allowed to make their own decision as to the level of risk they're willing to accept. I'm sure there are many high risk elderly people who’d prefer to accept that risk in order to re-establish contact with others, and they should be permitted to do so.

This seems to me to illustrate the problem with this POV, which is a commonly held one.

It isn't 'All About You!' - Or all about any particular person or group. COVID-19 is an infectious disease, which means it gets passed from person to person. Think about it. The virus does not ask to see anyone's birth certificate or other means of identification before going on it's way.

An analogy would be the risk of being killed or injured in the street by a bus. Your argument might simply be applied in such a case, where one person being hit by a bus doe not have any obvious bearing on the risk of any other person being hit, whatever their injuries or how old they are. Not so with the virus - a 20 year old may well be less "at risk", but they are presumably just as much at risk (possibly more?) of being infected and thus passing it on to others of their own age or older. And there are more higher risk groups than the aged.

I don't get what xfool is saying here. Is he agreeing or disagreeing with CK? What is the point exactly?

Very much agree with CK's POV. Over the long term, the effect of CV on UK life expectancy is likely to be a month or two (and would have been similar even without lockdown). The lockdowns have been a huge over-reaction and as CK said, have been misapplied. It seems to me their only purpose was to help the NHS cope in the local areas experiencing an outbreak and to assuage politician's feelings of obligation to their boomer voters.


GS

Itsallaguess wrote:

GoSeigen wrote:
Maybe someone can explain why CV is so much more terrifying than a heart attack or ovarian cancer that they'd feel the urge to hide under the bed?

I don't actually know of anyone that's 'hiding under the bed', but on your more general point, might one of the reasons be down to the fact that heart attacks or ovarian cancer aren't known to be infectious novel diseases?

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Precisely -- we humans, particularly elderly ones, hate new stuff especially scary new stuff.

GS

Itsallaguess wrote:

GoSeigen wrote:
Maybe someone can explain why CV is so much more terrifying than a heart attack or ovarian cancer that they'd feel the urge to hide under the bed?

I don't actually know of anyone that's 'hiding under the bed', but on your more general point, might one of the reasons be down to the fact that heart attacks or ovarian cancer aren't known to be infectious novel diseases?

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

IMHO it's actually more basic than that - it's possible to avoid getting COVID-19 if you isolate yourself whilst this is not the case for other potentially fatal diseases, like cancer or heart conditions. So it's basic human nature to protect yourself in that scenario and why would you not isolate until things are clearer? However, I think considering death only is wrong and misses the point that even if you get COVID and survive, there are signs there are likely to be longer term health implications e.g. lung damage.

All the best, Si

GoSeigen wrote:

Itsallaguess wrote:

GoSeigen wrote:
Maybe someone can explain why CV is so much more terrifying than a heart attack or ovarian cancer that they'd feel the urge to hide under the bed?

I don't actually know of anyone that's 'hiding under the bed', but on your more general point, might one of the reasons be down to the fact that heart attacks or ovarian cancer aren't known to be infectious novel diseases?

Precisely -- we humans, particularly elderly ones, hate new stuff especially scary new stuff.

I try to watch most of the nightly briefings, and when the top medical and scientific officers in the land are still repeatedly fending off questions by using the statement "this is a new virus, and there's still lot's we don't know about it", then I can't really blame anyone for being concerned about it, in all honesty..

That situation is likely to change for all parties concerned as time passes, but right now it's surely quite right for people to be generally wary...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

This is American but does shed some light on whether social distancing worked over there. Make of it what you will.

I was surprised with the finding that banning large events had little effect.

Strong Social Distancing Measures In The United States Reduced The COVID-19 Growth Rate

(A scholarly study to be published in the July 2020 edition of Health Affairs shows why slowing the exponential spread of CV-19 early in an outbreak can prevent many infections and deaths.)



ABSTRACT:

State and local governments imposed social distancing measures in March and April of 2020 to contain the spread of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). These included large event bans, school closures, closures of entertainment venues, gyms, bars, and restaurant dining areas, and shelter-in-place orders (SIPOs).

We evaluated the impact of these measures on the growth rate of confirmed COVID-19 cases across US counties between March 1, 2020 and April 27, 2020.

An event-study design allowed each policy’s impact on COVID-19 case growth to evolve over time.

Adoption of government-imposed social distancing measures reduced the daily growth rate by 5.4 percentage points after 1–5 days, 6.8% after 6–10 days, 8.2% after 11–15 days, and 9.1% after 16–20 days.

Holding the amount of voluntary social distancing constant, these results imply 10 times greater spread by April 27 without SIPOs (10 million cases) and more than 35 times greater spread without any of the four measures (35 million).

Our paper illustrates the potential danger of exponential spread in the absence of interventions, providing relevant information to strategies for restarting economic activity.

[Editor’s Note: This Fast Track Ahead Of Print article is the accepted version of the peer-reviewed manuscript. The final edited version will appear in an upcoming issue of Health Affairs.]

Link to peer reviewed study:

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/pdf/1 ... 2020.00608

GoSeigen wrote:I don't get what xfool is saying here. Is he agreeing or disagreeing with CK? What is the point exactly?

It's very simple - it is being discussed here purely in simple terms as a 'My Risk' condition: like a heart attack or ovarian cancer.

But as has already been pointed out above, these are familiar conditions and are not infectious. Your heart attack doesn't affect my risk of having a heart attack. What is so difficult about understanding that an infection disease is necessarily different?

As for "the expected drop in a person's life expectancy is only a month or two, three at the most." - Well, as ever, the 'average' family has two point five children... (Do I have to explain this too?)

But anyway, from now on it is more about how to operate with social distancing, rather than the lockdown.

GoSeigen wrote:Very much agree with CK's POV. Over the long term, the effect of CV on UK life expectancy is likely to be a month or two (and would have been similar even without lockdown).

I think somebody is missing the point here (probably more that one point).

GoSeigen wrote:The lockdowns have been a huge over-reaction and as CK said, have been misapplied. It seems to me their only purpose was to help the NHS cope in the local areas experiencing an outbreak...

It seems so to everyone, as that was one of the originally stated purposes! "Stay home - Protect the NHS - Save lives"

GoSeigen wrote:

Mike4 wrote:If asymptomatic infection was allowed to become rife in under-40s who (understandably) by and large don't care personally if they catch it, my quality of life would have to take a massive dive. I would feel no option but to fiercely self-isolate in order to avoiding catching it from them all. This I would have to do in order to (hopefully) achieve my previously likely 24 year life expectancy from now.

Everyone has been forced to fiercely isolate as it is. Our family has associated with no-one for two months except two or three local families we illegally meet occasionally to prevent us and the kids going nuts. Our 17yo son is still forcibly separated from us. We've had no business income for two months, our staff have received no pay. Nice to see some older people enjoying their lockdown so much.

The terror of CV displayed above is completely out of proportion IMO. Very few people die of CV, even old people, and that rate will fall as vulnerable people have died and treatments improve. With a death rate of 1% there is less than a 1 in 100 chance of succumbing, so the expected drop in a person's life expectancy is only a month or two, three at the most. Far more people will succumb to heart disease or cancer so the wrong bogeyman is being feared here.

Maybe someone can explain why CV is so much more terrifying than a heart attack or ovarian cancer that they'd feel the urge to hide under the bed?

GS

I'm surprised you cannot see the difference. Heart attacks and ovarian cancers kill people at a broadly steady pace. The number deaths from CV19 left unchecked in a population increases broadly exponentially, until the disease runs out of victims. Or do you not accept that as true?

Mike4 wrote:
I'm surprised you cannot see the difference. Heart attacks and ovarian cancers kill people at a broadly steady pace. The number deaths from CV19 left unchecked in a population increases broadly exponentially, until the disease runs out of victims. Or do you not accept that as true?

Evidence?

Bubblesofearth wrote:

Mike4 wrote:
I'm surprised you cannot see the difference. Heart attacks and ovarian cancers kill people at a broadly steady pace. The number deaths from CV19 left unchecked in a population increases broadly exponentially, until the disease runs out of victims. Or do you not accept that as true?

Evidence?

It's infectious?

Of course "runs out of victims" can mean many things: Everybody has already been infected, the people still around are mostly immune, a successful vaccination programme. In these cases it presumably ends up being endemic, which it likely will do. But that's a whole new problem.

But why are some people apparently having difficulty with the concept of 'infectious'?

XFool wrote:

GoSeigen wrote:I don't get what xfool is saying here. Is he agreeing or disagreeing with CK? What is the point exactly?

It's very simple - it is being discussed here purely in simple terms as a 'My Risk' condition: like a heart attack or ovarian cancer.

But as has already been pointed out above, these are familiar conditions and are not infectious. Your heart attack doesn't affect my risk of having a heart attack. What is so difficult about understanding that an infection disease is necessarily different?

Well, if one picks on just those conditions then one could make an argument I guess (I chose them as common killers in the UK). But what about flu, MRSA, whooping cough (which my DD contracted), TB, malaria, AIDS, and a myriad other transmissible conditions which are still deadly in many parts of the world? What is the point if you include those in the discussion?

To be clear, I personally abided by the shutdowns because I understood the rationale AND its necessity given how little was known about the virus 2-3 months ago. The situation is far clearer now, clear enough that the way we handle it can be exactly as proposed by CK.

GS

There is not one version of death.
Massive heart attack is top of my list.
The lower reaches of this list are not somewhere I wish to go personally I but was dragged around in that area last year by my dad.
What I know of it, I would take Covid as opposed to some of the alternatives.
You can't opt out of all of them.
Well you can but most don't.
Be careful what you wish for (by omission).

W.

Mike4 wrote:

GoSeigen wrote:

Mike4 wrote:If asymptomatic infection was allowed to become rife in under-40s who (understandably) by and large don't care personally if they catch it, my quality of life would have to take a massive dive. I would feel no option but to fiercely self-isolate in order to avoiding catching it from them all. This I would have to do in order to (hopefully) achieve my previously likely 24 year life expectancy from now.

Everyone has been forced to fiercely isolate as it is. Our family has associated with no-one for two months except two or three local families we illegally meet occasionally to prevent us and the kids going nuts. Our 17yo son is still forcibly separated from us. We've had no business income for two months, our staff have received no pay. Nice to see some older people enjoying their lockdown so much.

The terror of CV displayed above is completely out of proportion IMO. Very few people die of CV, even old people, and that rate will fall as vulnerable people have died and treatments improve. With a death rate of 1% there is less than a 1 in 100 chance of succumbing, so the expected drop in a person's life expectancy is only a month or two, three at the most. Far more people will succumb to heart disease or cancer so the wrong bogeyman is being feared here.

Maybe someone can explain why CV is so much more terrifying than a heart attack or ovarian cancer that they'd feel the urge to hide under the bed?

GS

I'm surprised you cannot see the difference. Heart attacks and ovarian cancers kill people at a broadly steady pace. The number deaths from CV19 left unchecked in a population increases broadly exponentially, until the disease runs out of victims. Or do you not accept that as true?

No that's not the whole story, and it is not the path we chose. We've had the lockdown already. And we know more about the nuances of Covid now. As CK said, in younger people hardly anyone will die, similar to numerous other infectious diseases we cope with. With older people, they are going to die anyway, once they get the virus or from some other condition (even I am going to die and I am immortal!), but as CK said, that day can be delayed by two effects: lockdown of vulnerable people; and the spread of the virus in the remainder of the population rendering many (most?) of them immune.

Personally I am fed up of being held hostage by this mindset of terror. Even if Covid runs rampant it is unlikely to be what kills me, whatever age I am.

GS

Mike4 wrote:
I'm surprised you cannot see the difference. Heart attacks and ovarian cancers kill people at a broadly steady pace. The number deaths from CV19 left unchecked in a population increases broadly exponentially, until the disease runs out of victims. Or do you not accept that as true?

Reply here.

GS

XFool wrote:

Bubblesofearth wrote:

Mike4 wrote:
I'm surprised you cannot see the difference. Heart attacks and ovarian cancers kill people at a broadly steady pace. The number deaths from CV19 left unchecked in a population increases broadly exponentially, until the disease runs out of victims. Or do you not accept that as true?

Evidence?

It's infectious?

Of course "runs out of victims" can mean many things: Everybody has already been infected, the people still around are mostly immune, a successful vaccination programme. In these cases it presumably ends up being endemic, which it likely will do. But that's a whole new problem.

But why are some people apparently having difficulty with the concept of 'infectious'?

To abide by the moderators I've responded here;

viewtopic.php?f=83&t=22737

Clitheroekid wrote:
Our Government's biggest error is their bone-headed insistence on treating everyone the same, whereas there should be different rules / guidance according to age. It's been crystal clear for some time now that healthy people under 40 are at no significant risk at all from CV, and they could therefore be quite safely released from lockdown immediately, albeit with instructions to avoid contact with old / unwell people. This would enable many bars, shops, restaurants, sports venues etc to re-open, as most of their staff and customers are young anyway.

And this fortunate group probably don’t need to bother about social distancing outdoors at all, as it seems the virus is extremely difficult to transmit in the open air. I also suspect that the social distancing rules could be greatly relaxed for them even indoors. Although such measures may be justified in workplaces, where they have no choice, they could be lifted entirely in places of leisure, where younger people can choose whether or not they want to take the risk.

The same principle should apply to older people. Having been advised as accurately as possible about the statistical risk involved, they should also be allowed to make their own decision as to the level of risk they're willing to accept. I'm sure there are many high risk elderly people who’d prefer to accept that risk in order to re-establish contact with others, and they should be permitted to do so.

Obviously, restrictions might have to be tightened again if hospitals became under pressure, but all the evidence from elsewhere seems to be that relaxing lockdown is not resulting in major problems – quite the opposite.

Completely agree with your general point about treating different ages in different ways. Healthy people under 40 could get back to normal, with a bit of care about not sneezing in public or getting too close to others. But the problem is that they will then visit their parents and drop the kids off for child-minding, and their parents are more vulnerable.

A lot of older people are simply not going to make informed risk-based decisions. They'll just want to cuddle their grandkids and meet all their elderly friends for coffee.

All these individual decisions will add up to another big outbreak and thousands upon thousands of unnecessary, preventable deaths.

zico wrote:A lot of older people are simply not going to make informed risk-based decisions. They'll just want to cuddle their grandkids and meet all their elderly friends for coffee.

It's a hard choice though. Who would blame them for making an informed risk-based decision to cuddle their grandkids, when the alternative is to never do it again?

I'm sure many are not doing it now, because of the law and because of the "protect the NHS" mantra, but once those are out of play it will be different.

Scott.

zico wrote:

Clitheroekid wrote:
Our Government's biggest error is their bone-headed insistence on treating everyone the same, whereas there should be different rules / guidance according to age. It's been crystal clear for some time now that healthy people under 40 are at no significant risk at all from CV, and they could therefore be quite safely released from lockdown immediately, albeit with instructions to avoid contact with old / unwell people. This would enable many bars, shops, restaurants, sports venues etc to re-open, as most of their staff and customers are young anyway.

And this fortunate group probably don’t need to bother about social distancing outdoors at all, as it seems the virus is extremely difficult to transmit in the open air. I also suspect that the social distancing rules could be greatly relaxed for them even indoors. Although such measures may be justified in workplaces, where they have no choice, they could be lifted entirely in places of leisure, where younger people can choose whether or not they want to take the risk.

The same principle should apply to older people. Having been advised as accurately as possible about the statistical risk involved, they should also be allowed to make their own decision as to the level of risk they're willing to accept. I'm sure there are many high risk elderly people who’d prefer to accept that risk in order to re-establish contact with others, and they should be permitted to do so.

Obviously, restrictions might have to be tightened again if hospitals became under pressure, but all the evidence from elsewhere seems to be that relaxing lockdown is not resulting in major problems – quite the opposite.

Completely agree with your general point about treating different ages in different ways. Healthy people under 40 could get back to normal, with a bit of care about not sneezing in public or getting too close to others. But the problem is that they will then visit their parents and drop the kids off for child-minding, and their parents are more vulnerable.

A lot of older people are simply not going to make informed risk-based decisions. They'll just want to cuddle their grandkids and meet all their elderly friends for coffee.

All these individual decisions will add up to another big outbreak and thousands upon thousands of unnecessary, preventable deaths.

You are far too binary!

Change your will for might and you are closer to the truth. (Or change "they" for "some").

This is the general reason, I think, that relaxing rules is so difficult, and slower than might otherwise be the case. Further why relaxing rules across regions, or ages, or other demographics, is difficult to introduce. The authorities have to assume that a number of people will disregard the rules, or assume they only apply to others etc.

dealtn wrote:

zico wrote:

Clitheroekid wrote:
Our Government's biggest error is their bone-headed insistence on treating everyone the same, whereas there should be different rules / guidance according to age. It's been crystal clear for some time now that healthy people under 40 are at no significant risk at all from CV, and they could therefore be quite safely released from lockdown immediately, albeit with instructions to avoid contact with old / unwell people. This would enable many bars, shops, restaurants, sports venues etc to re-open, as most of their staff and customers are young anyway.

And this fortunate group probably don’t need to bother about social distancing outdoors at all, as it seems the virus is extremely difficult to transmit in the open air. I also suspect that the social distancing rules could be greatly relaxed for them even indoors. Although such measures may be justified in workplaces, where they have no choice, they could be lifted entirely in places of leisure, where younger people can choose whether or not they want to take the risk.

The same principle should apply to older people. Having been advised as accurately as possible about the statistical risk involved, they should also be allowed to make their own decision as to the level of risk they're willing to accept. I'm sure there are many high risk elderly people who’d prefer to accept that risk in order to re-establish contact with others, and they should be permitted to do so.

Obviously, restrictions might have to be tightened again if hospitals became under pressure, but all the evidence from elsewhere seems to be that relaxing lockdown is not resulting in major problems – quite the opposite.

Completely agree with your general point about treating different ages in different ways. Healthy people under 40 could get back to normal, with a bit of care about not sneezing in public or getting too close to others. But the problem is that they will then visit their parents and drop the kids off for child-minding, and their parents are more vulnerable.

A lot of older people are simply not going to make informed risk-based decisions. They'll just want to cuddle their grandkids and meet all their elderly friends for coffee.

All these individual decisions will add up to another big outbreak and thousands upon thousands of unnecessary, preventable deaths.

You are far too binary!

Change your will for might and you are closer to the truth. (Or change "they" for "some").

This is the general reason, I think, that relaxing rules is so difficult, and slower than might otherwise be the case. Further why relaxing rules across regions, or ages, or other demographics, is difficult to introduce. The authorities have to assume that a number of people will disregard the rules, or assume they only apply to others etc.

Yes, of course not everyone will behave irresponsibly. Maybe only 20% of the 9 million UK citizens in their 70's and 80's, but that's still 1.8 million irresponsible people. Maybe only 20% of the 17 million UK citizens in their 20s and 30s, another 3.4 million irresponsible people. That's a lot of disease spreaders. It's deeply frustrating that the population at large can't be trusted to make sensible risk-based informed decisions, but they can't so here we are. When lockdown was imposed, government knew that not everyone would follow it, but enforcing clear rules meant that a big enough percentage followed the rules to reduce the prevalence of the virus.

Anyway, without getting political, this is all irrelevant now because several government ministers have made statements this morning along the lines that you are justified in breaking the lockdown rules if you believe you're doing what's right for your family.