Covid 19 outbreak - arguing about Stats (again)

[thirdcrank]

AIUI, the countries which have been able to depend on test and trace stopped the infection getting out of control from the outset with strong border controls, something which should be facilitated by being a group of islands.

[Psamathe]

AIUI, the countries which have been able to depend on test and trace stopped the infection getting out of control from the outset with strong border controls, something which should be facilitated by being a group of islands.

But in those countries did mates of the leader get prestigious jobs despite their total lack of experience, did large corporations get lucrative contracts with loads of taxpayer money despite having no experience in such operations?

Ian

[Oldjohnw]

On Australia, people coming into the country were put in hotels and kept there in isolation for two weeks. In the UK they just filtered into the population.

[thirdcrank]

.... But in those countries did mates of the leader get prestigious jobs despite their total lack of experience, did large corporations get lucrative contracts with loads of taxpayer money despite having no experience in such operations?

I don't know - although I understand you are implying they did not. In the context of their effectively controlling the epidemic, I'm not sure it matters.

Perhaps its relevance to what happened here, is that it's been a sign of the almost complete lack of any real preparation and consequent dependence on spin and the need to be seen to doing something, even if it's been utterly ineffective.

The governments of some countries in the Far East seem to have learned from the experience of previous viruses and their populations have accepted the restrictions consequently imposed; not from some innate deference, but because they know the score from their own experience.

On that basis, the authorities here failed to learn from the painful experience of others. In particular, they assumed it wouldn't get this far or at least not in a deadly form. When it was looming large, the mantra was "Protect the NHS." ie We don't want images of dying people on trolleys queuing in corridors.

[Vorpal]

On Australia, people coming into the country were put in hotels and kept there in isolation for two weeks. In the UK they just filtered into the population.

Norway closed the borders, except for key workers. When they opened them again, they required isolation for people travelling from any country over a threshold community transmission level (IIRC 20/100k), except for people who were travelling for business/work & resident in Norway. IMO, they should not have allowed that exception, as I understand it is the primary source of our current outbreak.

[thirdcrank]

From my layman's dull perspective, if you want to stop anything getting into the country, you don't let it in. As this lurgy seems to have symptomless carriers that's probably harder than it sounds, but doing it from the very start has more chance of being effective than waiting till it's widespread in the destination country. It would also need preparation in the form of regulations and plans being ready in case they were to be needed.

[The utility cyclist]

From my layman's dull perspective, if you want to stop anything getting into the country, you don't let it in. As this lurgy seems to have symptomless carriers that's probably harder than it sounds, but doing it from the very start has more chance of being effective than waiting till it's widespread in the destination country. It would also need preparation in the form of regulations and plans being ready in case they were to be needed.

When you say carriers do you mean people who can infect others? Because the long held evidence and more keeps coming out that this is in fact not true at all.
Government have allowed those with certain status and their families to travel without any restrictions or testing whatsoever no matter how they presented.
ATEOTD the risk is so tiny overall that the over reaction has done massively more harm, testing and restrictions now are simply killing the population even quicker further down the line and destroying the economy which will in turn destroy the NHS even more than it already is.

[Jdsk]

From my layman's dull perspective, if you want to stop anything getting into the country, you don't let it in. As this lurgy seems to have symptomless carriers that's probably harder than it sounds, but doing it from the very start has more chance of being effective than waiting till it's widespread in the destination country. It would also need preparation in the form of regulations and plans being ready in case they were to be needed.

When you say carriers do you mean people who can infect others? Because the long held evidence and more keeps coming out that this is in fact not true at all.

What evidence is that please?

Thanks

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

... When you say carriers do you mean people who can infect others? ...

I am saying:-

There is a virus

It's passed from people who are infected with it to those who are not infected.

Some people who are infected with the virus do not display symptoms of infection.

[Jdsk]

... When you say carriers do you mean people who can infect others? ...

I am saying:-

There is a virus

It's passed from people who are infected with it to those who are not infected.

Some people who are infected with the virus do not display symptoms of infection.

An answer with that degree of clarity would be very welcome.

Jonathan

[Oldjohnw]

From my layman's dull perspective, if you want to stop anything getting into the country, you don't let it in. As this lurgy seems to have symptomless carriers that's probably harder than it sounds, but doing it from the very start has more chance of being effective than waiting till it's widespread in the destination country. It would also need preparation in the form of regulations and plans being ready in case they were to be needed.

When you say carriers do you mean people who can infect others? Because the long held evidence and more keeps coming out that this is in fact not true at all.
Government have allowed those with certain status and their families to travel without any restrictions or testing whatsoever no matter how they presented.
ATEOTD the risk is so tiny overall that the over reaction has done massively more harm, testing and restrictions now are simply killing the population even quicker further down the line and destroying the economy which will in turn destroy the NHS even more than it already is.

I wonder if the UC could give the evidence for the numbers of people dying from testing and restrictions.

[horizon]

... When you say carriers do you mean people who can infect others? ...

I am saying:-

There is a virus

It's passed from people who are infected with it to those who are not infected.

Some people who are infected with the virus do not display symptoms of infection.

Apparently, according to some reports, asymptomatic people are not infectious. Whether those reports are credible or reliable is another matter. Here's one report to chew over that does query the issue and is reputable (perhaps?) but isn't conclusive as far as I can make out:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3

The problem AIUI is that no-one can tell whether someone is pre-symptomatic (i.e. on the way to getting the disease) or asymptomatic (i.e. won't be going down with it). Both, AIUI would test positive.

[Jdsk]

Apparently, according to some reports, asymptomatic people are not infectious. Whether those reports are credible or reliable is another matter. Here's one report to chew over that does query the issue and is reputable (perhaps?) but isn't conclusive as far as I can make out:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3

What does "asymptomatic people are not infectious" mean? Does that refer to asymptomatic infected people or asymptomatic noninfected people? Because it's obviously true for the second case.

Which "reports" are suggesting that no asymptomatic infected people are infectious?

Because that Nature article certainly isn't.

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

... Apparently, according to some reports, asymptomatic people are not infectious. Whether those reports are credible or reliable is another matter. Here's one report to chew over that does query the issue and is reputable (perhaps?) but isn't conclusive as far as I can make out:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3

The problem AIUI is that no-one can tell whether someone is pre-symptomatic (i.e. on the way to getting the disease) or asymptomatic (i.e. won't be going down with it). Both, AIUI would test positive.

We seem to be looking down opposite ends of the spyglass. It seems to me the the big problem with people who are infected but are not displaying symptoms is that the risk that they may transmit the infection will go unnoticed.

If the suggestion is that somebody testing positive may not transmit the virus then IMO until that's resolved for certain then it's best to err on the side of assuming they are infectious.

[reohn2]

On Australia, people coming into the country were put in hotels and kept there in isolation for two weeks. In the UK they just filtered into the population.

Correct!
It was that stupid approach by a stupid and corrupt PM,stupid and corrupt government completely out of their depth was what led to the blue touchpaper being lit,in turn leading to a collapse of the economy,a near collapse of the NHS,many sick people and so many needless deaths!