Shandypants
Well-known member
Definitely 100% I want two weeks of putting my feet up. I'm being run ragged at the minute and would love some down time.
No point in a lockdown if test, trace, isolate isn't used effectively in the post lockdown period. That's why it's 'out of control' again. Political failure, N, S and W of the border.
That's why I mentioned a full lockdown even stricter than before, perhaps more like Italy or France or more extreme - however that can only be countenenced from an economic perspective if we are almost certain that we have an effective vaccine that is almost ready.We get those numbers if we have a circuit breaker now or not, in fact what it does show is that if we're going to go down the circuit breaker route we should save it until we really need it, not use it as a political stunt because we must do something.
Does anyone have any idea what the NHS could cope with in terms of covid patient numbers? We're at about 5,000 today, I think there's about 12,000 spaces in the Nightingale's not yet being used, could we cope with 20,000 patients? How about more?
That's why I mentioned a full lockdown even stricter than before, perhaps more like Italy or France or more extreme - however that can only be countenenced from an economic perspective if we are almost certain that we have an effective vaccine that is almost ready.
One thing that a circuit break would do is provide time for these incompetent fools to try and fix the "world beating" test, track and trace system!
Do you support another two week lockdown?
How can it be working?Is there any proof that test and trace isnt working? I know labour and the media are always screaming about it, but is there any proof?
As I’ve said above, I think your case number projections are likely to be over-estimated. We possibly got to a level of maybe 100K -200K per day last time, but the virus clearly had limitations....I've seen no evidence that France/Spain's super strict lockdown was any more effective than ours.
Anyway I've run a few scenarios that keep patient numbers below certain thresholds to see what it would look like:
View attachment 3192
If the target is one million cases per week or fewer then it's 2 weekly lockdowns:
for a grand total of 8 weeks lockdown over November, December and January.
- 2 weeks from today;
- 2 weeks after that;
- 3 weeks after that;
- 5 weeks after that;
The upside is that only about 35% of the population get the virus, the downside is that there's a risk that compliance may be more limited with multiple lockdowns and we may be less well prepared going into next winter.
If we can manage 1.5m cases per week then:
for a grand total of 4 weeks lockdown in November/December.
- lockdown 3 weeks from today;
- second lockdown 3 weeks after that;
The upside, only 2 lockdowns, the downside, there's a very long tail to the epidemic so of all the scenarios this one generates the most cases, about 53% of the population.
If we can manage 2m per week cases then:
The upside of this case is that 48% of the population are infected, however what happens in this scenario is that R drops below 1 during the second lockdown thus the virus never stages a comeback, in this scenario I would perhaps recommend the final lockdown be extended to 3 weeks, which would bring case numbers down to where they are today and avoid maybe 2m cases in total.
- lockdown 4 weeks from today;
- lockdown 5 weeks after that.
As I’ve said above, I think your case number projections are likely to be over-estimated. We possibly got to a level of maybe 100K -200K per day last time, but the virus clearly had limitations....
For starters, the more the numbers increase, then the more people are likely to isolate out of choice and so you would expect the R rate to come down.
Those limitations were called lockdown and summer.
Well in that case the pandemic bubbles along at 500k - 1m per week for the next five months and we end up in much the same place anyway.
In any event my focus was on the effect of a circuit breaker and in particular whether we need one today, 3 weeks from now or 4 weeks ago, the answer seems to be "not yet, wait and see what happens with NHS capacity".
Well the virus was also limited by the 'light-touch' measures in Sweden so I think there is likely more too it than lockdown and the weather...
I understand how you are coming at it. I just think that the modelling of the "optimum lockdown" is likely to be extremely sketchy... The timing of that relies on the idea that the virus would continue to rise exponentially and that a significant portion of the popuation would be infected.... My expectation would be that the virus would burn out long before we got to that kind of level.... So it might possibly hit the 1M infection per week level, but then fall off from there.
There is no magic wand The sooner people realise that and accept some form of damage limitation as the only viable approach the better.Sweden never got the same level of "seeding" as we did, together with France and Spain, it also performed far worse than their near neighbours.
I think what's important is that it shows that timing of the lockdown is important, too early and it's ineffective and simply requires a repeat lockdown two weeks after you've come out of lockdown.
It's a very useful tool if we get to the stage where the NHS is approaching breaking point, it's not the magic wand that Sir Odd Stammer seems to think it is.
I’m not sue the seeding is particularly relevant tbh. They certainly experienced significant infection in the population (possibly more than us) So at some point the situation was comparable. So it was still self limiting, based on their light touch measures.Sweden never got the same level of "seeding" as we did, together with France and Spain, it also performed far worse than their near neighbours.
I think what's important is that it shows that timing of the lockdown is important, too early and it's ineffective and simply requires a repeat lockdown two weeks after you've come out of lockdown.
It's a very useful tool if we get to the stage where the NHS is approaching breaking point, it's not the magic wand that Sir Odd Stammer seems to think it is.
I don’t think it really does show that the timing is important tbh. I think if you actually considered the impact of the natural virus progression (considering the basic suppression measures) then it would have fizzled out long before any idea of optimum timing for a lockdown.
It also fails to address how an earlier lockdown might enable track and trace to become more effective and be better suppressed due to low numbers.
It’s not so much ‘magic immunity’ as simply reaching what constitutes ‘herd immunity’ in an environment where significant measures are being taken to suppress the virus. It’s inevitable that would be much lower than when normal mixing takes place.... It’s possible it’s wishful thinking, though it has been evidenced to some extent in Sweden, during the first spike.Well, there is the possibility that your theory of magic immunity or that the virus is somehow "self-limiting" is in fact wrong, that no such effect exists and is simply wishful thinking on your part.
At a minimum it looks like a sensible idea to plan for scenarios where the virus doesn't simply disappear of its own accord, and if it does then we don't need to implement the circuit breaker at all.
What is T&T going to do differently in two weeks time that it can't do after six months?
The reduction in numbers would likely only last a few days so that won't help either.
It’s not so much ‘magic immunity’ as simply reaching what constitutes ‘herd immunity’ in an environment where significant measures are being taken to suppress the virus. It’s inevitable that would be much lower than when normal mixing takes place....
I’ve already linked models that show the flaws in the basic binary R : Herd Immunity level equation. To the extent that herd immunity can be achieved at 17% with an R of 2.4.This is all factored into the model.
There are 2 key estimates, the R rate and the proportion of the population that have been infected and have immunity.
The R rate is the current estimated R of 1.5 adjusted to 1.65 (perhaps a touch on the high side) to allow for those who are already immune, this includes current control measures.
The immune population is the 7% that are believed to have been infected, if substantially more people are already immune then it means that the underlying R is much higher and the two effects cancel out, so if your theory is correct it actually means that far more people will need to contract the virus to achieve herd immunity.
I’ve already linked models that show the flaws in the basic binary R : Herd Immunity level equation. To the extent that herd immunity can be achieved at 17% with an R of 2.4.
Not sure about using a reproductive rate of 1,5 or 1.65. I’d say that’s likely to be off the mark. These levels are at the upper end of the estimate as things were a couple of weeks ago.
’m talking about a situation where we have implemented measures to suppress the virus, in the form of the proposed Tier 1,2,3 measures... which is essentially the alternative to circuit-break...
Haven't seen those, care to link again.
Not far enough off the mark to matter, 1.65 is the Ro by the way, what R would be if there was no immunity, it forms the basis for the calcution of effective R as the population develops immunity over time.
Which is what we have already and which gives us the R rates I've used.
Out of interest I've run the numbers if we assume that 21% of the population already has immunity (I don't believe this scenario one bit):
View attachment 3197
No significant difference from the scenarios already outlined.
How do you reckon case numbers are high?How can it be working?
How those long autumnal evenings must fly by in the Lost Seasider household.Haven't seen those, care to link again.
Not far enough off the mark to matter, 1.65 is the Ro by the way, what R would be if there was no immunity, it forms the basis for the calcution of effective R as the population develops immunity over time.
Which is what we have already and which gives us the R rates I've used.
Out of interest I've run the numbers if we assume that 21% of the population already has immunity (I don't believe this scenario one bit):
View attachment 3197
No significant difference from the scenarios already outlined.