TonyParrsDodgyMic
Well-known member
Do you support another two week lockdown?
Of course, if there is another national lockdown I will follow it, but at the moment it does not look justified. I do suspect that if they closedown the whole country again it will end up being for more than two weeks.
Yes. Especially as the scientific advice was given on 21 September and the rate of infection is much higher now.This is a good point, it's a lot harder to leave lockdown than it is to go into it, odds are that this circuit breaker could end up being extended and extended again, especially if compliance is much worse than first time around.
The two week lockdown is the scientific advice; it’s not being advanced for political reasons despite what Lost Seasider claims.
Thanks for that. Now read paragraph 6 of the minutes.This is the advice: https://assets.publishing.service.g...768_Fifty-eighth_SAGE_meeting_on_Covid-19.pdf
Note the key words "should be considered", not "should be implemented".
This is what Prof Hunter thinks of the idea: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...aker-national-lockdown-wont-have-much-impact/
A two-week 'circuit breaker' ......... probably wouldn't have "much impact" on the overall trajectory of the virus, a leading professor has warned.
Thus it's entirely appropriate for the government to consider it then decide it's not a good idea.
The labour leaders call for the imposition of lockdown is of course entirely politically motivated and is designed to create a win/win for himself and no-one else.
That’s pretty clear advice that Starmer is now saying should be followed. That’s not politics - except in the sense of the Leader of the Opposition doing his job, in the interests of the country.
I agree a two week circuit breaker probably wouldn’t now be terribly effective. But that’s because it should have been implemented shortly after the meeting on 21 September. As per the scientific advice.Again no, he's cherry picking one particular option and pushing it for purely political reasons.
And to repeat my earlier posts, a circuit breaker would do very little to actually slow down the virus and would achieve this at very great cost.
I agree a two week circuit breaker probably wouldn’t now be terribly effective. But that’s because it should have been implemented shortly after the meeting on 21 September. As per the scientific advice.
The R rate was lower then.Can we see your evidence that it would've been more effective in September?
The R rate was lower then.
Not rocket science is it?
Well if commensense doesn’t work for you why not refer to the sage minutes you posted as evidence? Specifically para 2.Ergo it would be less effective.
Apparently it is.
Well if commensense doesn’t work for you why not refer to the sage minutes you posted as evidence? Specifically para 2.
“The shortlist of NPIs that should be considered for IMMEDIATE (my emphasis) introduction includes a) a circuit breaker (short period of lockdown) to return incidence to low levels”.
Immediate. As in 21 September or within a day or so. When the R Number was lower.
What you chaffing about?Common sense? You understand that the R rate is not driven by the actual number of cases in the community don't you?
Common sense is that a circuit breaker is more effective when the R rate is high than when it is low, because more new cases happen when R is high than when it is low.
And again the key word is considered, and lockdown was one of 5 measures.
You are basically re-writing the SAGE minutes to suit your own agenda now.
What you chaffing about?
On 21 September one of the recommendations was for the IMMEDIATE introduction of a circuit breaker. It’s now 14th October and we still don’t have a circuit breaker.
Just admit it. You’re fed up of the lockdown. You want the virus to go away. You want to get back to normal ASAP. And, based on not very much evidence at all but against the advice of government experts, you think the best way to do that is let the pandemic rip whilst in some vague and unspecific way “protecting the elderly and vulnerable”.
What if the businesses you talk about don’t have the collateral to pay members of staff for sitting in the house ? The government will pay for a portion but employers will need to pay the rest. Rishi may have a magic money tree but lots of businesses don’t.The two week lockdown is the scientific advice; it’s not being advanced for political reasons despite what Lost Seasider claims.
That said, that was the advice on 21 September, so two weeks would presumably not be long enough now given the rate of infection.
If there is a lockdown then any business forced to close should be properly compensated.
Very good point and I’m certainly not underplaying the devastating effect on businesses and the economy. That said under the furlough scheme lots of employees only received the 80% and the employer didn’t top up the balance.What if the businesses you talk about don’t have the collateral to pay members of staff for sitting in the house ? The government will pay for a portion but employers will need to pay the rest. Rishi may have a magic money tree but lots of businesses don’t.
Yes. Go back to sleep Rip Van.ANOTHER 2 week lockdown???
Have I missed something?
That’s pretty much where I am, save that I don’t think 2 weeks would be long enough now, bearing in mind how long the first lockdown lasted. Bit like the 10pm curfew I’m worried it’ll have little impact on the public health crisis but major damage to the economy.I voted "Yes", but I can see the arguments on both sides.
My feeling is that at the moment what we have is clearly not working, and the lack of clarity is giving people who don't want to be socially responsible a fig leaf to hide behind. So from a public health perspective, a lockdown makes some sense. Economically, I'm much less sure. And to be honest, if I was 35 and working in the "wrong" sector of the economy, I daresay I would feel very differently.
I voted "Yes", but I can see the arguments on both sides.
Talking of rewriting things to suit your own agenda.No room for arguments on either side Basil, SAGE demanded that the government implement this immediately and on pain of death at whatever the cost, Mex told me so.
Oi!!!You can tell who the retirees are and have no friends or social life
But I’m also a long ways from being persuaded by the “let rip” brigade either.
Age | Mean age | Remaining life expectancy | Population | Base infection rate | Lockdown effect | Lockdown infection rate | Patients | Mortality rate | Deaths | Life years lost | Value per life year | Life value lost |
20–24 | 25 | 55 | 4,297,000 | 80.00% | 0.00% | 80.00% | 3,440,000 | 0.01% | 344 | 18,920 | £60,000 | £1,135,200,000 |
25–29 | 25 | 55 | 4,307,000 | 79.00% | 0.00% | 79.00% | 3,400,000 | 0.01% | 340 | 18,700 | £60,000 | £1,122,000,000 |
30–34 | 35 | 45 | 4,126,000 | 78.00% | 0.00% | 78.00% | 3,220,000 | 0.03% | 966 | 43,470 | £60,000 | £2,608,200,000 |
35–39 | 35 | 45 | 4,194,000 | 77.00% | 0.00% | 77.00% | 3,230,000 | 0.03% | 969 | 43,605 | £60,000 | £2,616,300,000 |
40–44 | 45 | 35 | 4,626,000 | 76.00% | 0.00% | 76.00% | 3,520,000 | 0.07% | 2,464 | 86,240 | £60,000 | £5,174,400,000 |
45–49 | 45 | 35 | 4,643,000 | 75.00% | 0.00% | 75.00% | 3,480,000 | 0.07% | 2,436 | 85,260 | £60,000 | £5,115,600,000 |
50–54 | 55 | 25 | 4,095,000 | 74.00% | 90.00% | 7.40% | 300,000 | 0.30% | 900 | 22,500 | £60,000 | £1,350,000,000 |
55–59 | 55 | 25 | 3,614,000 | 73.00% | 90.00% | 7.30% | 260,000 | 0.30% | 780 | 19,500 | £60,000 | £1,170,000,000 |
60–64 | 65 | 15 | 3,807,000 | 72.00% | 90.00% | 7.20% | 270,000 | 1.00% | 2,700 | 40,500 | £60,000 | £2,430,000,000 |
65–69 | 65 | 15 | 3,017,000 | 71.00% | 90.00% | 7.10% | 210,000 | 1.00% | 2,100 | 31,500 | £60,000 | £1,890,000,000 |
70–74 | 75 | 5 | 2,463,000 | 70.00% | 90.00% | 7.00% | 170,000 | 3.40% | 5,780 | 28,900 | £60,000 | £1,734,000,000 |
75–79 | 75 | 5 | 2,006,000 | 69.00% | 90.00% | 6.90% | 140,000 | 3.40% | 4,760 | 23,800 | £60,000 | £1,428,000,000 |
| | | 45,195,000 | | | | 21,640,000 | | 24,539 | | | £27,773,700,000 |
| | | | | | | 47.88% | | | | | |
Assumptions and variables | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Value of one life year | | | £60,000 | | | | | | | | | |
Starting rate of infection | | | 80.00% | | | | | | | | | |
Age-infection decline rate | | | 1.00% | | | | | | | | | |
Lockdown age | | | 50 | | | | | | | | | |
Lockdown effect | | | 90.00% | | | | | | | | | |
These are my workings, I'd be happy to see yours.
Age Mean age Remaining life expectancy Population Base infection rate Lockdown effect Lockdown infection rate Patients Mortality rate Deaths Life years lost Value per life year Life value lost 20–24 25 55 4,297,000 80.00% 0.00% 80.00% 3,440,000 0.01% 344 18,920 £60,000 £1,135,200,000 25–29 25 55 4,307,000 79.00% 0.00% 79.00% 3,400,000 0.01% 340 18,700 £60,000 £1,122,000,000 30–34 35 45 4,126,000 78.00% 0.00% 78.00% 3,220,000 0.03% 966 43,470 £60,000 £2,608,200,000 35–39 35 45 4,194,000 77.00% 0.00% 77.00% 3,230,000 0.03% 969 43,605 £60,000 £2,616,300,000 40–44 45 35 4,626,000 76.00% 0.00% 76.00% 3,520,000 0.07% 2,464 86,240 £60,000 £5,174,400,000 45–49 45 35 4,643,000 75.00% 0.00% 75.00% 3,480,000 0.07% 2,436 85,260 £60,000 £5,115,600,000 50–54 55 25 4,095,000 74.00% 90.00% 7.40% 300,000 0.30% 900 22,500 £60,000 £1,350,000,000 55–59 55 25 3,614,000 73.00% 90.00% 7.30% 260,000 0.30% 780 19,500 £60,000 £1,170,000,000 60–64 65 15 3,807,000 72.00% 90.00% 7.20% 270,000 1.00% 2,700 40,500 £60,000 £2,430,000,000 65–69 65 15 3,017,000 71.00% 90.00% 7.10% 210,000 1.00% 2,100 31,500 £60,000 £1,890,000,000 70–74 75 5 2,463,000 70.00% 90.00% 7.00% 170,000 3.40% 5,780 28,900 £60,000 £1,734,000,000 75–79 75 5 2,006,000 69.00% 90.00% 6.90% 140,000 3.40% 4,760 23,800 £60,000 £1,428,000,000 45,195,000 21,640,000 24,539 £27,773,700,000 47.88% Assumptions and variables Value of one life year £60,000 Starting rate of infection 80.00% Age-infection decline rate 1.00% Lockdown age 50 Lockdown effect 90.00%
Sorry but you’re going to have to send links to the underlying data/stats as well as evidence of your assumptions.These are my workings, I'd be happy to see yours.
Age Mean age Remaining life expectancy Population Base infection rate Lockdown effect Lockdown infection rate Patients Mortality rate Deaths Life years lost Value per life year Life value lost 20–24 25 55 4,297,000 80.00% 0.00% 80.00% 3,440,000 0.01% 344 18,920 £60,000 £1,135,200,000 25–29 25 55 4,307,000 79.00% 0.00% 79.00% 3,400,000 0.01% 340 18,700 £60,000 £1,122,000,000 30–34 35 45 4,126,000 78.00% 0.00% 78.00% 3,220,000 0.03% 966 43,470 £60,000 £2,608,200,000 35–39 35 45 4,194,000 77.00% 0.00% 77.00% 3,230,000 0.03% 969 43,605 £60,000 £2,616,300,000 40–44 45 35 4,626,000 76.00% 0.00% 76.00% 3,520,000 0.07% 2,464 86,240 £60,000 £5,174,400,000 45–49 45 35 4,643,000 75.00% 0.00% 75.00% 3,480,000 0.07% 2,436 85,260 £60,000 £5,115,600,000 50–54 55 25 4,095,000 74.00% 90.00% 7.40% 300,000 0.30% 900 22,500 £60,000 £1,350,000,000 55–59 55 25 3,614,000 73.00% 90.00% 7.30% 260,000 0.30% 780 19,500 £60,000 £1,170,000,000 60–64 65 15 3,807,000 72.00% 90.00% 7.20% 270,000 1.00% 2,700 40,500 £60,000 £2,430,000,000 65–69 65 15 3,017,000 71.00% 90.00% 7.10% 210,000 1.00% 2,100 31,500 £60,000 £1,890,000,000 70–74 75 5 2,463,000 70.00% 90.00% 7.00% 170,000 3.40% 5,780 28,900 £60,000 £1,734,000,000 75–79 75 5 2,006,000 69.00% 90.00% 6.90% 140,000 3.40% 4,760 23,800 £60,000 £1,428,000,000 45,195,000 21,640,000 24,539 £27,773,700,000 47.88% Assumptions and variables Value of one life year £60,000 Starting rate of infection 80.00% Age-infection decline rate 1.00% Lockdown age 50 Lockdown effect 90.00%
Spot on. It's quackery and too many people continue to cling to their every word. Still, I get to laugh at "follow the science" goons who have forgotten the Nazi party had scientists.I love scientists according to them to could reduce deaths by between 3000 and 107,000. So it's not an exact science then?
Sorry but you’re going to have to send links to the underlying data/stats as well as evidence of your assumptions.
Ok. I’ll review and get back to youPopulation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom#Age_structure
Mortality rate: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02483-2
Value of 1 year's life (page 9): https://iea.org.uk/publications/coronavirus-and-the-economic-value-of-human-life/
The infection rates are I think reasonable guesses but feel free to play around with them, I've made some simplifying assumptions about life expectancy and excluded anyone over the age of 80; likewise there's no quality of life adjustment which would work in the other direction, again if you want to expand or improve on my model feel free to do so.
It's not perfect, but it's a good starting point for discussion, and it's far better sourced than anything I've seen from the circuit breaker camp.
Population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom#Age_structure
Mortality rate: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02483-2
Value of 1 year's life (page 9): https://iea.org.uk/publications/coronavirus-and-the-economic-value-of-human-life/
The infection rates are I think reasonable guesses but feel free to play around with them, I've made some simplifying assumptions about life expectancy and excluded anyone over the age of 80; likewise there's no quality of life adjustment which would work in the other direction, again if you want to expand or improve on my model feel free to do so.
It's not perfect, but it's a good starting point for discussion, and it's far better sourced than anything I've seen from the circuit breaker camp.
You may want to wait until this is put into the public domain;
What does ‘optimum lockdown’ mean?I am not an expert but I've created a model and the end results look plausible; this is what a circuit breaker looks like:
View attachment 3189
Red line is no lockdown, blue line is lockdown today, yellow is the optimum lockdown.
Lockdown today delays peak by 2 weeks and reduces total infection by about 500,000 (28,500,000).
Optimum lockdown terminates the peak at the point where about 40% of the population has been exposed (and is presumed to be immune), this means that there is sufficient herd immunity in the population that R cannot recover above 1, the optimum lockdown time would be the start of December and would reduce total infections to 22,000,000, reducing cases by 6,500,000.
That report from the BBC is likely highly misleading, it talks about "end of the year", however if you look at my model the peak is expected to be about the end of the year, so pushing the peak back by two weeks will of course reduce cases this year and achieve little of note at the same time. It also leads me to believe that my model is broadly correct.
What does ‘optimum lockdown’ mean?
If we have anything like 3.5 million cases a week then we will have major problems which could lead to alsorts of things including civil unrest.Optimium timing, about the first 2 weeks of December.
It's the point when about 40% of the population have the virus, which with a simple bit of probability theory is the point where Re should become naturally less than one, so if you lockdown at that point you reduce R to about 0.4, which reduces case numbers by a factor of four in two weeks and because Re is less than one it cannot then stage a comeback and peters out at least until next winter.
On the down side, it is about 3.5 million cases a week, but that's where you are with a October lockdown anyway.
If we have anything like 3.5 million cases a week then we will have major problems which could lead to alsorts of things including civil unrest.
Our NHS would not be able to cope with anything like those numbers of patients, even if the conversion rate from Covid + to hospital inpatient is lower than previously.
We do need a vaccine urgently - if there is a realistic prospect of a vaccine being available soon (i.e. January) then perhaps another full lockdown is the right approach.