Re: part 2 An Ill Wind

This is not useful.

Adrian Midgley   http://defoam.net/  http://defoam.net/photo.defoam.net/

On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 at 16:21, Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186-1HOZaDBbGgxaa/[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 17/03/2020 15:52, Charles Lindsey wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 17/03/2020 11:22, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
> >> An Ill Wind
> >>
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XRc389TvG8
> >>
> >> So now we know: the UK government is planning to deliberately infect
> >> 60% to 80% of the population, over 40 million UK citizens with
> >> COVID-19; causing, on their own figures, 400,000 deaths. It has
> >> already begun.
> >
> > You are talking Rubbish.
>
> Well thank goodness the world's best epidemiologists, and now the
> Government, are talking the same Rubbish.
>
> My Postman was wearing a mask yesterday. I hope it was issued to him.
>
>
> > Until a large proportion of the herd get infected, the disease will not
> > go away
>
> Ah, here we disagree on two levels. First that a high proportion of
> infections will make the disease go away (herd immunity does not make a
> disease go away, it just stops it spreading), and second that there are
> no other ways to make the disease go away.
>
>
> > So you try to arrange that the younger part of the herd catch it first, because they don't get it so badly.
>
> If a huge infection ratio was _inevitable_ then I'd agree. Heck, when I
> thought so I did agree, and have said so elsewhere. That policy would
> still kill hundreds of thousands (the 20,000 figure is pure fantasy, eg
> see the ICL study) but it would save lives overall.
>
> Another fantasy is the idea that once the young'uns have had the disease
> the old folk can safely come out to play. Anyone with the disease is
> still going to be able to infect old folks at the same rate - just there
> will maybe be less people doing the infecting. Or maybe not, most of the
> old folks will probably be dead of old age before that actually happened.
>
>
> However we now know a huge infection ratio is very likely *not*
> inevitable, and we can probably limit UK deaths to a few thousand or less.
>
>
> > In fact, it seems children show almost no symptoms at all, so keeping schools open is a good strategy.
>
> In fact fact, we don't even actually know whether most children _get_
> the disease in the first place.
>
> We know a few do, and a few of those few can suffer and even die; but in
> China the rate of confirmed cases in under-18s is 1.7% of the adult
> rate, whereas 20% of the population are under 18.
>
> This does not mean much per se (apart from the very large Hallelujah!),
> but what it does mean is that we don't know how liable children are to
> getting the disease.
>
> Nor do we know comparatively speaking how infectious they are if they do
>   catch it - a large majority of Chinese paediatric cases are thought to
> be of adult-to-child, not child-to-child origin, though this may be
> another apparent-but-fallacious result of incomplete and biased
> data-collection.
>
> We just don't know.
>
>
> But closing schools does some other things. First of all it helps
> protect teachers, staff and parents. It encourages parents to stay at home.
>
> Most of all, it sends a message - this is really important s#*t. If we
> don't close schools, how can we expect Boris's Dad not to go down the pub?
>
>
> > The last thing we want is amateur computer modellers, who do not have
> > all the latest data available
>
> I note that all major publishers have made COVID-related material
> free-access.
>
>
> > So in China, there are many separate herds, and the Wuhan herd has probably got its immunity by now,
>
> Whooah, Wuhan got its immunity because they have prevented transmission
> by isolating people, rather than because of any herd immunity - over 95%
> of the population have not had the disease, so the effect of herd
> immunity on the basic reproductive ratio would be less than 5% - brr is
> proportional to susceptibility ratio, other things being equal.
>
> If they relax the "unnatural" social isolation restrictions, thereby
> increasing transmissibility, the disease will spread again from any
> spark or ember.
>
>
>
> Peter Fairbrother
>
>