Covid-19 response

[Amity Island]

As I said, it would depend.

@Bruce Stephens I don't understand what you mean.

It's Monday 23rd March 2020, you are on air, about to deliver the first general public health message for the pandemic.

Is it stay at home, regardless of whether you are well or sick or stay at home if you are sick?

 

[Bruce Stephens]

It's Monday 23rd March 2020, you are on air, about to deliver the first general public health message for the pandemic.

Is it stay at home, regardless of whether you are well or sick or stay at home if you are sick?

In the situation then? Stay at home. We'd seen the videos from northern Italy, and that could have been much worse in the UK and there was too much uncertainty to risk doing too little.

I can certainly see merit in asking people who feel sick to stay at home (or, when they leave home for essential purposes, to be cautious and wear a mask). I seem to remember one minister pretending to be surprised that people in the UK went out to work when they clearly had flu.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

A or B?

How about ‘C‘ Stay at home if you might be infectious while having no evident symptoms?

In my opinion we locked down too late, and some massive sporting events (international footie and that horse racing thing) were allowed to go ahead when they should have been cancelled.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

In my opinion we locked down too late, and some massive sporting events (international footie and that horse racing thing) were allowed to go ahead when they should have been cancelled.

If I remember correctly there's some controversy over how much the events mattered (though I think there's evidence they made a difference locally).

One of the disappointing things is that we don't really know how much each of the interventions helped (or didn't). Apart from a few (locking up outdoor playgrounds surely didn't help much), anyway. (I agree it's disappointing we don't know, but I'm not so convinced that it would help to know for the next pandemic; I think it depends so much on details of the virus (or other infection) and surely the next one will vary enough that what the best things to do will end up being different.)

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

If I remember correctly there's some controversy over how much the events mattered (though I think there's evidence they made a difference locally).

Well I’m not all that surprised that there's some uncertainty over their impact to be honest - but instinctively it just felt wrong to me at the time for those events to go ahead.

And I remember hearing accounts from countries like NZ which had acted sooner and more boldly having far fewer deaths.

 

[Satan’s little helper]

It certainly would have. "Coughs and sneezes spread diseases." Although during the pandemic, this well known and established fact was turned on it's head, like just about every other thing we've ever known about science.

This "coughs and sneezes spread diseases" became:

"Anyone infected with COVID-19 can spread it, even if they do NOT have symptoms."

Now tell me this, how can anyone have this serious and deadly disease called covid 19 and not have symptoms? If you have no symptoms then you don't have covid 19. To have a confirmed case of covid19 you would need both a positive sarscov2 pcr test + symptoms of covid19.

Here was the first national tv alert from our pm back in March 2020. At no point on the national tv alert was it mentioned about staying at home if you are sick! Instead they locked everyone in their homes, shut businesses, schools, began the two year path of destruction.

Ah, protect the NHS.. Same fall back with a London bus with the familiar blue logo used to promote the “B” word.

However, there were folks coming back from ski trips in Italy? One “vlogged” as a T1? Isolated then tested positive & came down bad. From memory. So bad he documented calling an ambulance.

In contrast. I’ve never tested positive for it.

Was it all a waste of time? Funny how all flights can stop during “911.” But not during a recognised pandemic?
To my thinking, it may have been more viable to suport UK citizens stranded abroad, snowboarding.

I never contracted C19 or a variant, to date. But I did comply with advice & also test. But then as a T1.
I’m used to it in one form or another. Don’t try to shoot me with an anxiety bullet.

I wouldn’t visit vulnerable relatives if I had flu. & I cancelled Christmas a number of years before covid happened. I knew I was possibly, a “gun.”

 

[Bruce Stephens]

Well I’m not all that surprised that there's some uncertainty over their impact to be honest - but instinctively it just felt wrong to me at the time for those events to go ahead.

I suspect that by the beginning of March it was all over the country already and we just hadn't noticed.

And I remember hearing accounts from countries like NZ which had acted sooner and more boldly having far fewer deaths.

I think we're not NZ just as much as we're not Sweden, but perhaps it was mostly our government which was relatively inexperienced and chaotic (so not trusted by the public and any many ways not that effective).

 

[bulkbiker]

How about ‘C‘ Stay at home if you might be infectious while having no evident symptoms?

That means that everyone should stay at home forever?

if you have no symptoms how can you think/know you might be infectious?

 

[Amity Island]

In the situation then? Stay at home. We'd seen the videos from northern Italy, and that could have been much worse in the UK and there was too much uncertainty to risk doing too little.

I can certainly see merit in asking people who feel sick to stay at home (or, when they leave home for essential purposes, to be cautious and wear a mask). I seem to remember one minister pretending to be surprised that people in the UK went out to work when they clearly had flu.

The basis (apparent reason) for the lockdowns, masks, social distancing of "well" people (and subsequent destruction of our way of life, the economy, the nhs, businesses and jobs) is that people who have no symptoms are transmitting the virus.

Using a test that replicates a molecule a billion times (45 cycles) is not a reliable test. As confirmed by Fauci, any of the tests ran at cycles of over 35 is un-tenable and not reliable even at 36,37. The UK and other countries ran tests at 45 cycles. If a sample of the virus can be found in just about anyone or anything, then asymptomatic transmission is not a reliable thing either.

Having two asymptomatic people who have been in contact, testing and finding a positive test with a cycle threshold of 45 means nothing! This does not confirm asymptomatic transmission, only that the cycle threshold is too high.

Also, what sort of definition of pandemic are we using when millions of people have no symptoms?

Thus; if you don't get any symptoms then you certainly haven't had covid19.

As I say, asking those with symptoms to stay at home is a satisfactory way to reduce transmission, rather than the option B they chose amongst all the other things that destroyed our country.

See this discussion here at 4:50

and asymptomatic transmission

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

if you have no symptoms how can you think/know you might be infectious?

During the pandemic, when a highly contagious novel virus was in circulation to which (at the time) no one had any immunity, and which had been seen to cause widespread healthcare chaos in various countries in Northern Europe, and was resulting in a large number of deaths and ICU admissions.

 

[Amity Island]

During the pandemic, when a highly contagious novel virus was in circulation to which (at the time) no one had any immunity, and which had been seen to cause widespread healthcare chaos in various countries in Northern Europe, and was resulting in a large number of deaths and ICU admissions.

But how do we know if someone is infectious?

That was one of my bug bears with the tests, they didn't measure infectiousness. Yet they were requiring those testing positive with a test at such high and unreliable cycle thresholds (above 35) that didn't confirm infectiousness. This is why I think asking those with symptoms to stay at home an adequate strategy for slowing transmission, which doesn't destroy the country.

 

[bulkbiker]

During the pandemic, when a highly contagious novel virus was in circulation to which (at the time) no one had any immunity, and which had been seen to cause widespread healthcare chaos in various countries in Northern Europe, and was resulting in a large number of deaths and ICU admissions.

So we should all have stayed at home indefinitely even though the data from the Diamond Princess showed that it wasn't especially infectious and mainly impacted on the old and unwell? That was from Feb 2020.
Logically "stay at home" made little to no sense.

 

[Amity Island]

So we should all have stayed at home indefinitely even though the data from the Diamond Princess showed that it wasn't especially infectious and mainly impacted on the old and unwell? That was from Feb 2020.
Logically "stay at home" made little to no sense.

Not forgetting either, that the government were specifically informed that this virus was not a HCID high consequence infectious disease, just days before they called for lockdowns, for the well and the sick with covid of all age groups.

 

[Robin]

Not forgetting either, that the government were specifically informed that this virus was not a HCID high consequence infectious disease, just days before they called for lockdowns, for the well and the sick with covid of all age groups.

The problem with HCIDs is that in England, cases have to be transferred to one of a handful of infection control centres. That obviously wasn’t going to be a practical proposition with Covid. Having been recommended to be temporarily added to the list in January 2020 before much was known about it, I suspect it was removed when the consequences of letting it remain on the list were realised.

High consequence infectious diseases (HCID)

Guidance and information about high consequence infectious diseases and their management in England.

www.gov.uk

 

[Amity Island]

The problem with HCIDs is that in England, cases have to be transferred to one of a handful of infection control centres. That obviously wasn’t going to be a practical proposition with Covid. Having been recommended to be temporarily added to the list in January 2020 before much was known about it, I suspect it was removed when the consequences of letting it remain on the list were realised.

High consequence infectious diseases (HCID)

Guidance and information about high consequence infectious diseases and their management in England.

www.gov.uk

This to me this infers lockdowns were brought in as a result of acting too late and even then, lockdowns could have been avoided by advising those who are sick with covid to stay home. Instead they locked the well in, instead of the sick.

 

[Amity Island]

The problem with HCIDs is that in England, cases have to be transferred to one of a handful of infection control centres. That obviously wasn’t going to be a practical proposition with Covid. Having been recommended to be temporarily added to the list in January 2020 before much was known about it, I suspect it was removed when the consequences of letting it remain on the list were realised.

High consequence infectious diseases (HCID)

Guidance and information about high consequence infectious diseases and their management in England.

www.gov.uk

They should of known where the first transmission was going to appear as it was already identified in the BBC fake pandemic a few years earlier in Hasslemere.😉

BBC programme faked virus 'pandemic' in Haslemere two years ago

Contagion: The BBC Four Pandemic used Haslemere to launch its virus experiment

www.getsurrey.co.uk

 

[nonethewiser]

How about ‘C‘ Stay at home if you might be infectious while having no evident symptoms?

In my opinion we locked down too late, and some massive sporting events (international footie and that horse racing thing) were allowed to go ahead when they should have been cancelled.

Bloody Boris to blame for not locking down sooner, so many more lives could have been saved.

Still measures taken did save tens of thousands of lives, would like to think lessons will be learnt should something like covid hit again.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

So we should all have stayed at home indefinitely even though the data from the Diamond Princess showed that it wasn't especially infectious and mainly impacted on the old and unwell? That was from Feb 2020.
Logically "stay at home" made little to no sense.

The assumption (of our government, at least) was that when it got here everyone would become infected and those who'd die would die. Hence the "take it on the chin" comment: there wasn't a way to limit the spread.

What changed the policy was the increase in numbers a few weeks later (they thought it was doubling every 7 days or so and I think that we were about a month behind Italy; they were wrong about both) and the proportion who needed significant medical attention to survive. Their modelling suggested that things would be very bad without significant action, as it had been bad in northern Italy.

I think it's plausible that saying "stay home when you feel sick" or "work from home if you can" might have worked, but their modelling suggested more was needed. (Perhaps because they acted too late, or perhaps because they really didn't want to improve sick pay such that more people could stay home when they felt sick. That's one part of Sweden's situation that doesn't seem to appeal to anti lockdown sceptics.)

 

[Bruce Stephens]

Their modelling suggested that things would be very bad without significant action, as it had been bad in northern Italy.

Just to emphasise: this wasn't to try and avoid people getting infected. Everyone would. The idea was to try and ensure that when that happened, there'd be sufficient healthcare available to help those who could be helped.

 

[bulkbiker]

they really didn't want to improve sick pay such that more people could stay home when they felt sick

So instead they replaced working with furlough that cost the taxpayer a fortune. Kinda counterproductive.