Like Tree160Likes

Travelling to the UK during this pandemic.

Reply
Page 13 of 20 FirstFirst ... 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... LastLast
  1. #121

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    22,262
    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: 285
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.

  2. #122

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,762

    i) It's basically because there aren't many people who travel between France/Spain & HK, relative to UK & HK.

    The high risk country labelling is more about putting the financial and logistical burden of a positive onto the individual rather than the HK govt and acting as a disincentive to travel. Hk can bear the low numbers (no direct flights) from France and Spain. There's also the potential politics of further punishing students, the main group likely to return to HK from the UK.

    But as the partner of a French girl looking to go back to France next month, there is now a serious risk of being added to the high risk list whilst there . . . which doesn't help HK much at all, but would cost us a lot of unnecessary expense and stress upon rtn.

    ii) A good question - a well placed lie and indirect flights may well be the solution....

    Last edited by Sage; 27-09-2020 at 02:50 PM.
    HK_Katherine likes this.

  3. #123

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    12,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Peaky:
    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?
    Re 2), you are required to fill in a form (online) arriving back into HK. I believe this form has some legal status, such that if found out in a lie, you could be prosecuted. How likely it is that they will find out... hard to say. I have pondered this exact question myself.

    HK's entire approach to covid encourages deciet. A more rational approach would result in more truthful answers I think (and more people would have taken part in the community testing).

  4. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by Sage:
    It seems we agree in several the fundamental ways (the most important ones I'd say) but disagree in the conclusions one might draw. You clearly understand what is going on from the covid data, unlike many.

    I'd say it's misleading to say that infections have not decoupled from deaths, as they obviously have - in the comparative data.

    Attachment 82559

    But it's also true to say they haven't entirely decoupled in reality.

    AND it's also true to say that the relationship between cases and deaths has weakened in reality - This is categorically and undeniably the case, due to:
    • More effective treatment
    • Many nursing homes have already been hit - so their residents are now immune/recovering/ or deceased
    • More immunity in the wider population


    However I agree absolutely that the decoupling in the data can be attributed most significantly to testing. I have been a strong and vocal advocate from day 1 that the over-reaction to covid has been based on the literal (and incorrect) way's the data is read by Joe public and so this is proving true.

    So you're totally right that shitty data is responsible for poor conclusions, but the effect is in the opposite direction than people like Hull have been showing to believe.

    The data that is shit is that from the 1st half of the year that has ingrained in some people this idea that if they catch it they'll die or spend weeks in ICU, which simply isn't the case for the vast majority of people. - Though it IS still the case for some people, nobody's denying that (obviously)

    As we know, the rise in deaths trails the rise in new infections by about 3 weeks - this can be seen in both the UK's and Korea's latest data for Aug/Sept - So again, yes, deaths are proportional to cases - but not to the extent that many still believe, which remains my central point.

    Attachment 82555
    Attachment 82556
    Attachment 82557
    Attachment 82558

    We can see that SK's deaths are going to fall in the next few weeks and the UK's are going to rise. But they're not going to 'skyrocket'. Relative to everyday deaths in the UK (2,200 per day) , they'll still be low, but they will increase relatively..... but with less magnitude as time progresses: Remember those in the higher risk categories are more likely to get infected for the same exposure as those lower risk, and thus the ratio of higher risk to lower risk in the population who haven't had covid will decrease as time progresses.

    Where SK data differs from UK data in terms of predicting the relationship between cases and deaths, is that SK returns a positive rate per test at about 2.5x the rate of the UK. This implies 2 things
    1) Korea has less cases per population (which we know is true)
    2) Korea is more likely to capture a positive test in the population (we're talking about now, Sept 24 not March) than the UK. Which suggests that the UK's testing is still missing a lot of positive cases relative to SK, and of course SK will also be missing positives themselves....

    And of course we have plenty of other indicators that the UK is still missing lot's of cases - sero testing and plain common sense

    So what much of this boils down to, is that we know with very high certainty what daily deaths are (allowing the fearful to fixate on that) but with much less certainty what the daily infection numbers are. What we DO know though is that infection daily rate is way way higher than recorded cases.

    How much higher is it in the UK in September?
    2x? 4x? 8x? One thing is sure, is that there is still significant incentive for people who are low risk (the vast majority) to neither report covid like symptoms nor get tested.

    Obviously the greater the disparity between actual positives and recorded positives, the lower the risk (as perceived by your average Joe on this forum) to each and everyone of us.

    The lower the actual risk vs perceived risk of:
    • A severe case of covid
    • hospitalisation
    • ICU
    • death
    • long-haul symptoms


    So with a new death to new recorded infection rate in the UK of about 1%; once we factor in the multiples of missed infections we are looking at a death rate now of 0.5%? Yes at the absolute maximum. 0.3%? maybe. 0.1%? possibly.

    And if we are getting down to levels of below 0.5% then the death rate is still far worse than that of flu (today), but it's not incomparable to flu.

    I would suggest that in the earlier years of flu's evolution to humans (when it was a new infection, like covid is now) the flu would have been significantly more deadly than covid is now. And logically, in future years, when one catches covid again, the result will be more akin to the common cold than to a serious flu today.

    So whilst covid is not 'the flu', it's also not, 'the spanish flu' nor 'the SARS' nor 'the ebola' nor 'the cancer'

    The longer covid is with us (even before a vaccine), the lower the measured death rate will become. So has it been the case up to now, and so will it continue....
    Good, you finally got the part that infection rates were underreported in the spring. Now I will explain to you why your next conclusion is as rubbish as your first conclusion. Covid is as deadly or perhaps even more deadly than the Spanish Flu without the intervention of modern medicine. There are plenty of studies that seem to indicate such. One just has to look at public health systems that got overwhelmed, such as observed in Wuhan, Northern Italy, New York, and Belgium, to realize that the natural death rate is far higher. In other words, death rates were not anywhere near 0.5% once people were no longer able to access public health. Since public health services are a finite resource we have to rely on lockdowns, shutting down tourism, masks, and all kinds of other restrictions to keep the health system humming so that death rates can be kept at 0.5%. If this cannot be achieved, then death rates will not only go up for Covid, but also the cancer patients who rely on the same system for treatment. Thus your assumption that we impose restriction on society based on fear that we're about to die at anytime is nothing but a strawman. The goal is to keep the health system intact so that we don't experience Spanish Flu type levels of deaths.
    hullexile likes this.

  5. #125

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,762
    Quote Originally Posted by civil_servant:
    Good, you finally got the part that infection rates were underreported in the spring. Now I will explain to you why your next conclusion is as rubbish as your first conclusion. Covid is as deadly or perhaps even more deadly than the Spanish Flu without the intervention of modern medicine. There are plenty of studies that seem to indicate such. One just has to look at public health systems that got overwhelmed, such as observed in Wuhan, Northern Italy, New York, and Belgium, to realize that the natural death rate is far higher. In other words, death rates were not anywhere near 0.5% once people were no longer able to access public health. Since public health services are a finite resource we have to rely on lockdowns, shutting down tourism, masks, and all kinds of other restrictions to keep the health system humming so that death rates can be kept at 0.5%. If this cannot be achieved, then death rates will not only go up for Covid, but also the cancer patients who rely on the same system for treatment. Thus your assumption that we impose restriction on society based on fear that we're about to die at anytime is nothing but a strawman. The goal is to keep the health system intact so that we don't experience Spanish Flu type levels of deaths.
    "Finally", ha! nice attempt, but very wide of the mark. That data massively under-reports infections, supports my position far better than yours. Every way you cut it, covid is less damaging to ones health and less lethal than many believe, that it’s also less lethal than it was in the spring is further good news for all.

    As for death rates being far higher, you seem to have already forgotten your opening line, “that infection rates were underreported in the spring.”…. That didn’t take long did it?

    The economist calculates 12x underreported in August in the UK, so what, 30x underreported in April?

    A few hospitals were indeed overwhelmed, the vast majority were not, but as long as stringent steps are taken to isolate those at high risk the NHS will cope admirably.

  6. #126

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    27,367
    Quote Originally Posted by Sage:
    "Finally", ha! nice attempt, but very wide of the mark. That data massively under-reports infections, supports my position far better than yours. Every way you cut it, covid is less damaging to ones health and less lethal than many believe, that it’s also less lethal than it was in the spring is further good news for all.

    As for death rates being far higher, you seem to have already forgotten your opening line, “that infection rates were underreported in the spring.”…. That didn’t take long did it?

    The economist calculates 12x underreported in August in the UK, so what, 30x underreported in April?

    A few hospitals were indeed overwhelmed, the vast majority were not, but as long as stringent steps are taken to isolate those at high risk the NHS will cope admirably.
    Less lethal than many believe. Evidence on what people believe? I would say it is a lot more lethal than many believe. What is important is what the majority of experts tell us not people on the internet.

  7. #127

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    12,060

    It's certainly true that if hospitals are overwhelmed, that's an issue. Nothing like Spanish Flu though which killed mainly young people. The impact of a disease which affects very old people worst is much less than one which kills people in their 20's. No - all lives are NOT equal - the death of someone 90 may result in "one-year-equivlant" of live lost .... that of a 20 year old perhaps "70-years-equivalent". Without taking this into account, comparing Covid to Spanish Flu makes no sense at all.

    Further, our ability to build new hospitals (at least in HK and other developed countries) has been highlighted as being much greater than zero. So the chance of overwhelming them is consequently less.

    Sage and Cheeky Kiwi like this.

  8. #128

    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,241
    Quote Originally Posted by Sage:

    covid is less damaging to ones health and less lethal than many believe, that it’s also less lethal than it was in the spring is further good news for all.
    Proof/evidence please.


    Or , did the virus (Covid) personally whisper it into your ears " hey.....pssssst.....we're actually not that dangerous as people think we are, okay mate ?"

  9. #129

    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    2,141
    Quote Originally Posted by hannah01:
    Proof/evidence please.


    Or , did the virus (Covid) personally whisper it into your ears " hey.....pssssst.....we're actually not that dangerous as people think we are, okay mate ?"
    It's a stupid statement that can be made true depending on what you want to portray...You can find plenty of people who believe the virus is nothing or even a hoax like many Trump supporters and there are others who are perhaps more concerned than they need to be like the picture below.



    Some of these comparisons are idiotic like the Spanish Flu. How can you compare death rates of different eras? Nutrition, treatment, medical access etc... were so different. The same goes with each country's response. If you take a densely populated country like Vietnam with restricted medical access. It makes a lot of sense to try to avoid high levels of infections whereas a western country with a lower density can afford to be less strict with consequences that will likely be less severe.

    And in the end, it goes back to the same moral choice. ls it acceptable to let a significant amount of people catch the disease and possibly die in order to allow the majority to live a more normal life. If you are in the rich, strong, healthy category, it's a lot easier to accept the deaths and health consequences of outliers as your risk is much much lower. The answer to these questions is not in questionable numbers and statistics though they are meant to help.
    TaD_LaLa likes this.

  10. #130

    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,241
    Quote Originally Posted by Aramis:
    The same goes with each country's response. If you take a densely populated country like Vietnam with restricted medical access. It makes a lot of sense to try to avoid high levels of infections whereas a western country with a lower density can afford to be less strict with consequences that will likely be less severe.

    Well, I wish I could agree with that but take a look at the United States and the UK ( or to any other developed countries that are pioneers in science and medicine); and then, turn to the rest of the world. Not much difference in (the) way the virus is making its invasion in the Western or the Eastern (North or South) -- in short, I don't see the richer (nations) making any massive and or contributive difference in their efforts in fighting the invisible foe. The mortality rate shows that all.

Reply
Page 13 of 20 FirstFirst ... 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... LastLast