Like Tree160Likes

Travelling to the UK during this pandemic.

Closed Thread
Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 3 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... LastLast
  1. #101

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,886
    Quote Originally Posted by AsianXpat0:
    I haven’t looked at it lately, but while it may be true that improved treatment approaches (among other things) seem to have reduced mortality, it has also been suggested that with the age profile of those affected being younger, it might take longer for the number of fatalities to show up in the numbers. There also remains a high amount of uncertainty as to the sequelae (refer to literature on “long-haulers”) meaning a degree of caution really is warranted around contracting it.

    The problem really is the potential exponential trajectory of any spread. Paradoxically the more seriously and responsibly everyone takes the threat, the less paranoid overall measures need to be.

    To borrow a phrase from a different context, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
    Agree with the central theme, but I think you'll find that the time taken for deaths to show up is the same once it gets amongst those who are high risk - And that is in itself part of the point. You just don't see 'any' deaths until it hits the high risk - The low risk are truely low risk (not just low risk relative to the high risk).

    As for long haul - how about we frame this differently. Recovery time for covid can be way way longer for some people than would be the case for the flu, so yes some degree of caution is undoubtedly required.

  2. #102

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,886
    Quote Originally Posted by ArrynField:
    Garbage in Garbage Out....
    The term 'garbage' however is best applied to the data that was coming out when people were forming their impressions of how dangerous covid was to them, a view they now find difficult to update now that data has greatly improved.
    HK_Katherine likes this.

  3. #103

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,886
    Quote Originally Posted by hullexile:
    The 2000 deaths per day (46000/23) that Sage was talking about that I responded to in the comment you quoted. In fact my comment that you responded to in #104 starts with "of the. 2000 deaths a day". So you replied to a comment without bothering to read it first.
    Correction, actually about 2,200 deaths per day 66m/81.16 (UK life expectancy)/ 365

  4. #104

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    29,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Sage:
    I posted the age breakdown for UK deaths in Sept here and you have ignored it, just like all the other data that doesn't fit your view.
    You asked for a reason for the reduced death rate. I gave one, lower age profile of cases now (which is related to dramatically increased testing).

    You argument as far as I can work out is:

    The earlier data was wrong. No it was the data we had at the time and gives a picture of what was happening then, or have you forgotten the images of the hospitals in Italy and New York?

    Based on this wrong data people made wrong conclusions (that is not the same as yours)
    No, most scientists probably made the right conclusions which is why they strongly recommended lockdowns and travel restrictions. Of course they should have junked their science and gone with your ideas.

    Most people, based on the wrong data, think if you catch it you are going to die or end up in ICU. I don't know anyone who believes this. It is always going to be a small minority who suffer severe illness, but perhaps people differ on how important that is.

    Compared to other causes of death covid19 is insignificant. Not even worth discussing. A million dead is a million dead.
    Insomnia likes this.

  5. #105

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,886
    Quote Originally Posted by walkup:
    Unfortunately those who argue that risk of infection is low do so based on mathematical equal distribution across the population whereas the actual spread breaks out in clusters. As for 'only' focussing on death there is also an assumption that the infection itself is a non-lasting unpleasant flu-like experience for most people with no damaging after-effects. These are the arguments. The practice is to ignore masks, social distancing and care for others. The result is that the experience in the UK is sufficiently different than in parts of Asia for individuals with a choice to make the decision not to travel to the UK considering it to be less safe for now. I originally had a HKG-LHR flight to the UK back in April. Delayed it to August. Now pushed it back to July 2021. Nobody I know in the UK suggesting I should do otherwise in light of current developments. Next Spring is their earliest forecast for a safe return.
    Errrr yup - so what you are saying is that if you're not in a cluster there is effectively zero risk, but if you are in a cluster you need to be more cautious - yup, I think we all took that for granted, but agreed.

    As for Long haul, nobody is saying their is no risk of a longer recovery time for s.o.m.e, but nobody has any good data on the percentages that might be affected nor the time scale. But what we do know from experience is that every time we get early data on an infection related problem, it always looks (to the untrained eye) to be far more problematic than the longer term data proves. So until we know more, I predict that's the case for 'long haulers' too.

    Perhaps what you don't appreciate is that 'deaths' are used as a proxy for bad outcomes, I use them because they're relatively very accurate (in developed nations). All of the trends suggest that as deaths reduce so do 'all negative outcomes' and thus it's not really necessary to be compared, it's simply understood. But yes, if you need it acknowledged, ICU, Hospitalisation, longer term recovery are also potential outcomes...... As long as you also acknowledge that 'no infection', followed by infection but no symptoms at all, followed by speedy full recovery (in a week or two), are by far the biggest likely outcomes.
    Insomnia likes this.

  6. #106

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,886
    Quote Originally Posted by walkup:
    Of course one of the advantages of younger people not taking reasonable care and getting asymptomatic infection is that there is a good chance of spreading it to their more elderly parents or even grandparents and thereby standing an improved chance of receiving their inheritance earlier than they would have otherwise done. If this strategy pays off there is the justification that the risks were low, they never intended such a thing to happen and so on.
    I'd say that if you have a chance to spread it to your grandparents you need to act like someone who's high risk, just don't expect me to do the same.

  7. #107

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,886
    Quote Originally Posted by HK_Katherine:
    The economist has a very good article this week which tackles that. https://www.economist.com/briefing/2...l-figures-show

    Basically, I think their answer is "the number of actual cases in the first wave was 10-40 x higher than reported; plus treatments are better now".
    Yes an excellent article, the Economist always delivers.

    However, as far the argument now is concerned, the ratio of recorded to actual cases in the UK today (latter half of Sept) is what matters. It's clear that recorded cases in the past where so far behind actual as to be almost meaningless.
    This fact has, and continues to be, a major factor behind people failing to update their view of actual risk and so needs spelling out.

    But how far behind actual are recorded cases in the UK now? I model that it's not 10x, and is more than 2x; could be as high as 5x?
    Last edited by Sage; 27-09-2020 at 02:31 PM.
    HK_Katherine likes this.

  8. #108

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,886
    Quote Originally Posted by hullexile:
    You asked for a reason for the reduced death rate. I gave one, lower age profile of cases now (which is related to dramatically increased testing).

    You argument as far as I can work out is:

    The earlier data was wrong. No it was the data we had at the time and gives a picture of what was happening then, or have you forgotten the images of the hospitals in Italy and New York?

    Based on this wrong data people made wrong conclusions (that is not the same as yours)
    No, most scientists probably made the right conclusions which is why they strongly recommended lockdowns and travel restrictions. Of course they should have junked their science and gone with your ideas.

    Most people, based on the wrong data, think if you catch it you are going to die or end up in ICU. I don't know anyone who believes this. It is always going to be a small minority who suffer severe illness, but perhaps people differ on how important that is.

    Compared to other causes of death covid19 is insignificant. Not even worth discussing. A million dead is a million dead.
    No, you haven't worked out my argument well at all (or you're deliberately misrepresenting it), all I can say is go back and read this thread again with an open mind.
    Last edited by Sage; 27-09-2020 at 02:32 PM.

  9. #109

    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    1,478

    So, back onto travelling to/from the UK... I'm curious as to:

    i) Why on earth France and Spain (at least) wouldn't be on the list at the same time
    ii) What ability is there (if any) to know if someone has been through the UK but has flown into HK from France, Germany, Holland, Finland etc.?

    I recall at the start of the pandemic when Italy was being singled out it was just a polite enquiry at the immigration gates... presume it's more or less the same now?

    HK_Katherine likes this.

  10. #110

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    23,652
    Quote Originally Posted by hullexile:
    Of the 2000 deaths per day how many do you think are road accidents?
    The UK's Government's actions no doubt resulted in the huge increases in the number of deaths at care homes.

    Protecting the election losing NHS appeared to be the mantra. Images of the NHS failing similar to the scenes in Italy or New York would of lost votes for a generation. And it was done at all costs. Patients were pushed out of hospitals back to care homes to ensure the huge monolithic and emotive NHS was not a political liability. Care homes are poorly regulated in the UK in terms or preparedness for for disease. HK has basic requirements of care workers only being allowed to work for one care home and all homes must have months of PPE just in case.

    There will be studies on the infectious routes for Covid-19 and what facilitate it spread. Some that clearly are important are

    - Connectedness - Dennis King is not the world's best Premier with only 58 cases and no deaths. One Bridge
    - Mask adoption
    - Test, Track and Trace capabilities
    - Urban / Suburban / Rural
    - Social distancing and social discipline
    - Age of Population

    Name:  covid UK deaths.png
Views: 286
Size:  65.4 KB

    Authoritarian regimes can lock down with ease but that can and should not be possible in developed countries where consent is required to take drastic action. Jurisdictions on the edge of the world can manage arrivals.

    For the majority of countries that leaves slowing the disease down with an 'acceptable' level of loss of life and sufficient economic activity to keep paying for societies needs.

    If the UK had a more decentralised / privatised health system I suspect the death rates may of been much lower as better decisions would of been made. It will be interesting to see how countries normalise with a sustained level of deaths from Covid-19 and better treatments
    Sage likes this.

Closed Thread
Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 3 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... LastLast