Who's had the vaccine?

[[XAP]Bob]

I think the concept of the NHS being overwhelmed is not a good measure for anything - partially because it is ill defined. If NHS is 100% loaded with staff working 23 hrs a day it is not "overwhelmed" because it is coping with the Covid load (albeit unsustainably). In other respects, if the NHS is at 20% of capacity of Covid patients but e.g. lifesaving cancer diagnoses & treatments are not happening and backlogs are building the NHS is overwhelmed.

Politicians simplistic view and use of "not overwhelmed" seems to be if somebody catches Covid a bed will be found - ignoring the failure to diagnose and treat so many other life threatening diseases & conditions (that don't cause a queue of ambulances outside A&E).

The Government should be concerned about the health of the nation not about keeping a public service working flat-out; and that means considering things like long-Covid and other complications e.g. cardiac damage, etc.

Ian

It's an awful measure - but it's what's being used.

[[XAP]Bob]

? Not sure you got my point, it was an argument in favour of earlier lockdowns.

Nope - because if you lock down earlier the exponential curve upwards doesn't have as long to increase the base number of infections, so the lockdown doesn't need to be as long to keep that absolute number low.

Regardless this is not true, exponentials work both ways and applies to the decline. The time to get from 10000 cases to 1000 cases will be the same as to get from 1000 to 100. if lockdown/not lockdown Rs remain the same then total time in lockdown required remains the same regardless of what case rate numbers you define lockdown off and on to be.

As I noted, it is likely that R can be kept lower when case rates are lower, so fixed Rs are a 'worst case' assumption. Even in such a case though it is still better to be proactive as it keeps deaths down. (Not to mention mutation risks etc etc)

I think the concept of the NHS being overwhelmed is not a good measure for anything

Well no, but it was nonetheless the one the government appeared to be working on. As for ill defined, I think it was defined for them as 'people dying in hospital corridors will look bad in the news for us'.

I disagree, but I think we're arguing the same thing with different semantics - exponentials do work both ways, but if the "upward" exponent is 1.5 and the "downward" exponent is 0.9 then a short delay on the upslope requires a longer recovery time on the downslope. My recollection is that the lockdown R was relatively close to 1, and the open R was significantly higher.

If R=1.5 for 10 generations then 100 cases become 5767 cases
If R=0.9 for 5 generations then those 5767 become 3405

If R=1.5 for 11 generations then 100 cases become 8650 cases
If R=0.9 for 5 generations then we're down to 5108 cases
6 generations is 4597
7 - 4137
8 - 3723
9 - 3351

i.e. one week delay took four additional weeks to recover - and the government never rushed into a lockdown, there was always a "now that it's obvious we can't deny it forever we'll lock down from next week".

Yes, you get down to ~60% after the same time, but the "not going to overwhelm" number didn't change by delaying, only the size of the wave.
The larger hump also gives more long covid cases (i.e. increased load), more nurses off, more doctors off, more cleaners off (i.e. decreased capacity), and of course more opportunity for mutations.

If we take magic numbers of 5k to enter and 3k to leave, with the same exponents as above then.
We lock down at the end of week 10 and come out week 22

If we delay by a week after the 5k then we come out in week 26 (i.e. three additional weeks in lockdown).

[Stevek76]

I was more thinking about the proportion of time spent in lockdown over multiple waves. That steady state always tends to the same proportion and is only dependent on the two R values. E.g. for 1.5 & 0.9 it's ~79% of the time in lockdown which is fairly much what your examples show, every 1 week out needs ~4 weeks in to recover.

i.e:
1-(1 / (1-log0.9(1.5) ))

Over multiple waves the threshold points at which to enter and exit lockdown don't matter here, they change the frequency and length of lockdowns and the average case numbers but not the proportion.

[[XAP]Bob]

Yes, assuming a consistent approach to lockdowns and no new variants - and no “non lockdown” approaches to reducing R values (masks, distancing, ventilation, air filtration…)
You also get to maintain a lower peak, allowing the NHS to do some of its regular work

Neither of which are true.

Besides which I’d expect that short sharp lockdowns, which could then be localised, would likely get far more traction (and therefore be more effective) than nationally determined policy without the required financial support.

[kylecycler]

Did anyone get bad vibes listening to Boris yesterday? Or did anyone just turn it off because they couldn't suffer listening to Boris? Some Prime Minister...

[mjr]

Did anyone get bad vibes listening to Boris yesterday? Or did anyone just turn it off because they couldn't suffer listening to Boris? Some Prime Minister...

Unsurprisingly, he decided to make this announcement at 5pm while most people who will be put at risk by it were still at work, instead of 8pm like some previous announcements.

This plan is simply unfair to millions of young people working in hospitality and retail who cannot be double-jabbed before old Tory voters will be allowed to lick each other (or their aides!) and send cases soaring. Government is meant to make reasonable efforts to protect us from dangerous fools, whether they drive drunk or go to restaurants sneezing out covid.

[thirdcrank]

I thought that most of the political pressure to ease restrictions was coming from commercial interests such as festival organisers and nightclub owners, and I suspect that a lot of the pressure to retain the restrictions is from worried older people, who are less likely to go to pop festivals.

There's obviously selective reporting but the stuff I see where social distancing has been ignored does tend to involve younger people who believe they are at less risk.

[kylecycler]

I'm fatalistic about it - to some extent we just have to live with human nature and do the best we can.

[Stevek76]

It's a complete mixed bag from what I can see, plenty of telegraph etc readers (mostly older and retried) who seem to think (or been indoctrinated by their reading) that the minor inconvenience of a mask is one of the greatest civil liberties infringements to happen (while the policing bill waltzes through parliament of course).

Neither of which are true.

Yep, but not really my point, which was more that: given how easily it can be demonstrated with a very simplified example that can be shown in a spread sheet in less than 5 minutes that, even with assumptions stacked against restrictions, there is no possible benefit to delaying them, how then did we end up with a government repeatedly procrastinating on them. Are civil servants struggling to talk down to Johnson's level or is that level even lower.


Either way, the North East seems of interest at present, above English average vaccination in the 45-65 ages but also increasing case rates in those ages, the government is massively gambling on the mass of cases that will happen not producing any new variants of concern.

[[XAP]Bob]

Of course they are gambling - they’ve never known a gamble to have adverse personal consequences.

[Oldjohnw]

Johnson demonstrates his contempt for us by making his statement on TV rather than to parliament. He promises so-called freedom for some whilst denying it to others. As always with this government, the,poor and the weak pay for the rich and well.

The Health Secretary said that shops can require masks if they wish. What planet is he on? Just how would it be enforced?

[[XAP]Bob]

Are civil servants struggling to talk down to Johnson's level or is that level even lower.

There is a shortage of crayons.

[pete75]

There's a new campaign to persuade anti-vaxxers to reconsider.

https://newsthump.com/2021/01/05/govern ... HcIhxQTk1Y

[Psamathe]

There's a new campaign to persuade anti-vaxxers to reconsider.

https://newsthump.com/2021/01/05/govern ... HcIhxQTk1Y

Good one. It would probably work!

Ian

[peetee]

I’m all jabbed up against COVID 19 and currently suffering from a cold. It’s the first one I have had for a number of years and it’s an absolute belter. I have taken a test which confirms it’s not ‘the big one‘ and having had flu I know it’s nowhere near severe enough for that but I find it curious it’s hit me so badly so soon after the vaccination.