Over reaction to current situation

[JumbleDuck]

For example, in the UK deaths have been rising at an exponential rate which, if unchanged, will lead to 2 million deaths a day by the end of April.

Your "if unchanged" is key here. It must change, because exponential growth (which means a growth rate proportional to the number infected) can only continue when the population is effectively infinite. Once a significant number of people are infected the rate has to reduce, because a smaller proportion of contacts will be susceptible. Eventually, and obviously, the growth rate reaches zero when everybody has had it.

You clearly understand, but I am deeply frustrated by the number of people who project exponential growth indefinitely. They are probably the same people who think that multi-level marketing schemes and chain letters work.

 

[dom]

.....but I am deeply frustrated by the number of people who project exponential growth indefinitely. They are probably the same people who think that multi-level marketing schemes and chain letters work.

True, and finance is indeed a sitting duck for this. For example, Metcalfe’s law tells us that the value of a social network/teleco network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users.

Such projections must - as you say - be capped, and in finance the limiting constraint should include the total addressable market (TAM). Fail to do that and one runs into the infinity problem, the bedrock for every manner of financial scam.

 

[chriscallender]

I think it is good to keep in mind that this is nothing about us as indivduals, and nothing about our chosen hobby. Yes, it would be possible for one individual to sail with fairly minimal risk of infecting or being infected. Not zero, because they may need to buy fuel and that involves touching the pump (even with gloves, the risk isn't zero), they may run aground, need rescued whatever. Maybe people can minimise those risks too by sticking to local areas that they have a good knowledge of, not go out in above force X etc but nobody can guarantee that they sail and don't come into contact directly or indirectly with another indivdual as a result.

The problem is that even if the government said it was OK to go sailing under certain conditions like this (and they don't have time to to think up of what those conditions are, nor policing resources to make sure they are followed) then it is Spring, so tens or hundreds of thousands of people would want to take advantage of being allowed on their boats in the next month or so, and unfortunately a certain percentage would get into trouble in some way, or make a mistake, or even deliberately break some rule - a certain percentage of people are just ass holes.

Then it is even bigger than that. Of course, the government can't just do that for sailing and say everything else is still banned. There are probably what might appear safe ways to do a million other hobbies that people enjoy - say hillwalking, or golfing alone or photography, or driving vintage cars, or endless things, which can also be done rather safely under certain careful social distancing conditions without big obvious human contact. But here's the thing - if there was a nice weekend and people have been cooped up in their home office all week, what are they going to want to do if they are allowed to do these things? The motorways would be gridlocked, AA and RAC would have their hands full, fuel stations would be busy, people would be picking up snacks for their day out, accidents and mishaps would be happening in all the sports all over the place, people getting into trouble, lots more contact between people would inevitably occur without planning it to happen. And then we have the ones that deliberately break the rules, which is arguably a bit different, but it will also happen a lot more if more people are out and about.

So that's why I think this isn't an overreaction (although generally I am not at all a big Boris/nanny state fan), and it is for the best not think of it in terms of individually being stopped from doing something you love, but just accept that the whole country has to be stopped from normal-ish life for a while, and the only way that can be achieved is with broad and simple blanket rules accross the board and applying to everyone. It sucks but thats the way it is and has to be, it is only one year out of our three score years and 10 on earth and can be more than made up for by the other good ones past and future.

The other thing is that the media does focus too heavily on deaths in all of this. It is of course tragic if wonderful people are gone too soon, but personally I'd be more worried about barely surviving Covid with permanant damage that meant I couldn't be independent and have a good quality of life doing all these things in future years, so that's my other motivation to stay in and stay safe. Although I know that I'm only best case going to be able to sit it out until a vaccine is available, and worst case catch it anyway and whatever will be will be, I'm fairly hopeful that the vaccine will come. Or at least, if humans can't make one, it is not for lack of incentive, both financial and otherwise.

 

[Triassic]

Great post Chriscallender, thanks.

 

[pvb]

The only reason we have the current lockdown is that our beloved NHS has done nothing over the years to prepare itself, despite numerous warnings. Exercise Cygnus in 2016 was the most recent warning, but it was simply suppressed for fear of alarming people. The almost complete absence of a testing system, months after it was obvious it would be essential, is another scandal.

 

[Mister E]

I wonder how many of those claiming an overreaction are volunteering for the front line, helping the country through this?

Or is it just being brave with other peoples lives, while hiding in their bunkers?

 

[Baggywrinkle]

To get all this into perspective ....

In the western world, the death rate is approx 10 people per 1,000 population per year. So in the UK, approx. population 70M we can expect 700,000 deaths per year from all causes. That equates to approx. 1900 deaths per day, give or take - I guess it varies slightly dependent on season.

Our NHS, palliative care, emergency services, hospitals, ICUs, crematoriums etc. are all geared up to cope with about 2000 deaths a day spread over the whole of the U.K. and ranging from no intervention to full ICU use.

U.K. Death Rate 1950-2020

Yesterday, the UK recorded 569 deaths from CV-19 .... other European countries are recording 1000 CV-19 deaths per day. Italy has averaged 750 CV-19 deaths per day for the last 2 weeks and has 4000 people in critical condition - double the normal daily death rate. Al the other stuff, heart attacks, cancer, accidents etc. are also still happening on top.

Thats a 25-50% increase on the load for the entire healthcare chain - and it would grow exponentially if allowed to.

Italy have the crematoriums in the northern states running 24/7 and they still have to use the army to ship corpses out to less badly affected areas because they don't have the capacity to burn the bodies that are stacking up - think about that for a moment.

The same is true for their hospitals where people are dying on trolleys for lack of staff and ICUs with ventilators - people are dying who might otherwise live. They are triaging patients and letting people die because they are overwhelmed.

It is everybodys duty to avoid infection and help the healthcare services cope with the massive and increasing load they are under.

Stay at home !!!. Flatten that curve and help keep someones mother, son, father or daughter alive - or at least give them a chance by ensuring there is as little parrallel need for hospitalisation as possible.

.... and on top of that, the NHS staff dealing with this crisis are putting their own lives at risk, especially those coming out of retirement to help, so perhaps do it for them too, they are worth way more to society than some sleb or football player.

 

[Sealong]

Yes, well said Chriscallender. These restrictions hurts us as individuals but the needs of society must come before those of the individual.

 

[newtothis]

TL;DR? Then here's Chris' post in musical format:

I think it is good to keep in mind that this is nothing about us as indivduals, and nothing about our chosen hobby. Yes, it would be possible for one individual to sail with fairly minimal risk of infecting or being infected. Not zero, because they may need to buy fuel and that involves touching the pump (even with gloves, the risk isn't zero), they may run aground, need rescued whatever. Maybe people can minimise those risks too by sticking to local areas that they have a good knowledge of, not go out in above force X etc but nobody can guarantee that they sail and don't come into contact directly or indirectly with another indivdual as a result.

The problem is that even if the government said it was OK to go sailing under certain conditions like this (and they don't have time to to think up of what those conditions are, nor policing resources to make sure they are followed) then it is Spring, so tens or hundreds of thousands of people would want to take advantage of being allowed on their boats in the next month or so, and unfortunately a certain percentage would get into trouble in some way, or make a mistake, or even deliberately break some rule - a certain percentage of people are just ass holes.

Then it is even bigger than that. Of course, the government can't just do that for sailing and say everything else is still banned. There are probably what might appear safe ways to do a million other hobbies that people enjoy - say hillwalking, or golfing alone or photography, or driving vintage cars, or endless things, which can also be done rather safely under certain careful social distancing conditions without big obvious human contact. But here's the thing - if there was a nice weekend and people have been cooped up in their home office all week, what are they going to want to do if they are allowed to do these things? The motorways would be gridlocked, AA and RAC would have their hands full, fuel stations would be busy, people would be picking up snacks for their day out, accidents and mishaps would be happening in all the sports all over the place, people getting into trouble, lots more contact between people would inevitably occur without planning it to happen. And then we have the ones that deliberately break the rules, which is arguably a bit different, but it will also happen a lot more if more people are out and about.

So that's why I think this isn't an overreaction (although generally I am not at all a big Boris/nanny state fan), and it is for the best not think of it in terms of individually being stopped from doing something you love, but just accept that the whole country has to be stopped from normal-ish life for a while, and the only way that can be achieved is with broad and simple blanket rules accross the board and applying to everyone. It sucks but thats the way it is and has to be, it is only one year out of our three score years and 10 on earth and can be more than made up for by the other good ones past and future.

The other thing is that the media does focus too heavily on deaths in all of this. It is of course tragic if wonderful people are gone too soon, but personally I'd be more worried about barely surviving Covid with permanant damage that meant I couldn't be independent and have a good quality of life doing all these things in future years, so that's my other motivation to stay in and stay safe. Although I know that I'm only best case going to be able to sit it out until a vaccine is available, and worst case catch it anyway and whatever will be will be, I'm fairly hopeful that the vaccine will come. Or at least, if humans can't make one, it is not for lack of incentive, both financial and otherwise.

 

[LBRodders]

Some good rational posts above ^^

Another interesting point is that whilst the 'young and healthy' may not die as a result of this virus they may still need hospitilisation. That puts strain on resources and may/will cost a vulnerable person their life. After all, we have seen/heard about the prioritisation of resources that NHS staff must control.

 

[Baggywrinkle]

The only reason we have the current lockdown is that our beloved NHS has done nothing over the years to prepare itself, despite numerous warnings. Exercise Cygnus in 2016 was the most recent warning, but it was simply suppressed for fear of alarming people. The almost complete absence of a testing system, months after it was obvious it would be essential, is another scandal.

You can't run a health service with a permanent 30-70% overcapacity. It makes no financial sense. The only thing that can be done in response to these things is to have a plan to cope - and even the best laid plans can't cover every eventuality.

Yes, the NHS has been underfunded for years, but if it hadn't been, it would still be overwhelmed, just a few days, maybe a week later.

The effective testing, tracing and quarantining of CV-19 cases requires that the population is also controlled at the same time - the spread needs to be paused and the contagion mopped up. That is how China got it under control.

Western civilisations will not accept that level of government control until they see the effects for themselves - Germany has been testing like crazy but are still following a similar curve when you look at the number of critical cases and deaths.

 

[pvb]

Yesterday, the UK recorded 569 deaths from CV-19 ....

Thats a 25-50% increase on the load for the entire healthcare chain

These were deaths with CV-19, not necessarily from it. Healthcare professionals say that 75-80% of people dying with CV-19 would have died anyway within a few months from underlying conditions. So it's skewing the overall rate of deaths, but not increasing the overall figure by much.

 

[pvb]

You can't run a health service with a permanent 30-70% overcapacity. It makes no financial sense. The only thing that can be done in response to these things is to have a plan to cope - and even the best laid plans can't cover every eventuality.

Yes, the NHS has been underfunded for years, but if it hadn't been, it would still be overwhelmed, just a few days, maybe a week later.

Germany seems to manage to have many times the number of ICU beds than the UK, and they are very careful with their money.

The NHS was warned it needed to plan for a pandemic, but ignored the warnings.

The NHS isn't underfunded, it's badly run. But no government has the balls to actually tackle the problem; it's easier just to keep throwing money at it.

 

[Babylon]

These were deaths with CV-19, not necessarily from it. Healthcare professionals say that 75-80% of people dying with CV-19 would have died anyway within a few months from underlying conditions. So it's skewing the overall rate of deaths, but not increasing the overall figure by much.

In which case 20-25% of deaths were premature, many by years if not decades.

Unchecked by any lockdown of the whole population (rather than just isolating the old and vulnerable) the percentage would be much, much higher.

 

[bedouin]

The only reason we have the current lockdown is that our beloved NHS has done nothing over the years to prepare itself, despite numerous warnings. Exercise Cygnus in 2016 was the most recent warning, but it was simply suppressed for fear of alarming people. The almost complete absence of a testing system, months after it was obvious it would be essential, is another scandal.

That is not really correct.

We do seem to have reasonable plans for a pandemic but they are based on a Flu-type pandemic as the vast majority that we have seen (Spanish Flu, Swine Flu, Bird FLu etc).

Coronavirus is not flu and so the assumptions on which the plans were based were not correct - specifically the comparatively high load on ICU

The biggest criticism of the government is not changing their plans fast enough when it became apparent coronavirus was not flu. We could have started ramping up at least 2 weeks earlier and done so much more aggressively (in say testing capability and the ordering of ventilators).

 

[Poignard]

The only reason we have the current lockdown is that our beloved NHS has done nothing over the years to prepare itself, despite numerous warnings. Exercise Cygnus in 2016 was the most recent warning, but it was simply suppressed for fear of alarming people. The almost complete absence of a testing system, months after it was obvious it would be essential, is another scandal.

Was it suppressed for fear of alarming people or fear of being unable to cut taxes due to the pressing need to spend more public money?

 

[Baggywrinkle]

Germany seems to manage to have many times the number of ICU beds than the UK, and they are very careful with their money.

The NHS was warned it needed to plan for a pandemic, but ignored the warnings.

The NHS isn't underfunded, it's badly run. But no government has the balls to actually tackle the problem; it's easier just to keep throwing money at it.

Germany has an excellent healthcare system .... but it will break in the next few weeks too. I'm sitting in the middle of it, just outside Bavarias capital, and Germany is following the same grim death-curve as every other european country, just lagging a bit.


... and they also now have over 4000 people in critical condition.

Maybe they'll keep it under control, but not because of the health service, because of the willingness of the population to isolate and the relative strength of the economy pre-covid, which means there's cash in the coffers to ride out the economic effects of the lockdown.

 

[Resolution]

Your "if unchanged" is key here. It must change, because exponential growth (which means a growth rate proportional to the number infected) can only continue when the population is effectively infinite. Once a significant number of people are infected the rate has to reduce, because a smaller proportion of contacts will be susceptible. Eventually, and obviously, the growth rate reaches zero when everybody has had it.

JD, you are of course quite correct that extrapolations need to be used carefully. The number of deaths is also not the best thing to choose when trying to judge where we are in the spread of the epidemic, the total number of infections would be much better. But we know that without masses of testing that number is impossible to measure with any accuracy.

 

[pvb]

Was it suppressed for fear of alarming people or fear of being unable to cut taxes due to the pressing need to spend more public money?

Were taxes cut in 2016?

 

[Poignard]

Were taxes cut in 2016?

Alright, let's say to avoid increasing taxes in future.