Data?
1 Like
Flattening the curve may lead to a reduction in COVID-related deaths, not just a delay. Reduced infections rates mean that fewer people will be infected before effective treatments and vaccines become widely available.
There’s always the possibility that it can’t be dealt with once it’s become rampant and extreme attempts to control it are simply adding economic pain on top of the additional deaths.
We’re just talking in circles, though. You believe in the power of science to slow the virus down so that hospitals are not overwhelmed until a vaccine solves the problem. I believe that a lockdown is too extreme to try and slow a virus that I don’t believe can be dealt with anyway and which doesn’t kill or harm enough people to warrant such a damaging measure.
It looks like politicians are going to try to implement national lockdowns because they don’t know what else to do. I’m not sure the public are going to stand for it.
1 Like
There is plenty of evidence that non-pharmaceutical interventions help slow transmission rates.* If transmission rates are increasing rapidly in a given area–and we are getting pretty good at tracking that though big data initiatives–then it makes sense to put more restrictions in place to slow the spread. That said, I do believe that if the public actually made common sense decisions at the individual level (actually covering your nose with the mask, avoiding crowds), we would not need more draconian measures.
Edit: added a few references since this is the research thread:
*Nonpharmaceutical interventions implemented by US cities during the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic - PubMed
Association of Public Health Interventions With the Epidemiology of the COVID-19 Outbreak in Wuhan, China - PubMed
Effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions to contain COVID-19 in China - PubMed
Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe - PubMed
The effect of large-scale anti-contagion policies on the COVID-19 pandemic - PubMed
1 Like
Do we need more draconian measures and how effective are they are the questions? The last lock down slowed the virus enough that ICUs weren’t on the verge of being overwhelmed for a couple of months. Then people have started calling for another lockdown because they could be overwhelmed. The key word there is could.
So, another lockdown that destroys the economy and lives to buy a further breathing space of a few months. Does the increased number of deaths really justify that?
The politicians seem to think so as they don’t know what to do but need to do something. I don’t think the general public are going to accept another lockdown, whatever the science says.
Everybody and their horse are pumping out simple papers analysing coronavirus infection .
There’s going to be a whole lot of rubbish out there.
1 Like
It doesn’t have to be an on/off switch that affects large economies. Public health interventions can be targeted at areas with rising incidence. For example, some Met York is targeting hotspots within the state that have increasing rates.
https://www.newsday.com/news/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-long-island-new-york-1.50038988
Yes. And they are getting reviewed and published in record time, which can’t be good for quality iverall. Were the ones I pasted particularly rubbish-worthy?
Well Diabetes India doesn’t inspire confidence, just as a publication of note, and also the fairly basic analysis done. I didn’t click on the others yet
They tried that in Ireland and in some countries. This place level 2, that place level 3. It works for a while but eventually it just kind of gets…everywhere.
Maybe it’s controllable that way , maybe not.
For what it’s worth I’m not pushing ‘national lockdowns’ either they are hugely damaging and depressing I’m sure. But if a given country hasn’t invested in more health facilities and staff and able to test fast enough…Not sure what else they can do. The virus multiplies extremely fast , much faster than the flu, the second wave lept out of the gates faster than most predictions.
Some say …Oh we can ignore it let old people die.
Well a) those old people are our parents and citizens and friends so no
b) they will fill up every hospital and more…So you won’t be getting much of any health treatment no matter who you are…So yeah it will bite back at non baby boomers
C) with a rampant epidemic, folks just aren’t going to be doing much business anyway, no travelling, staying in hotels , eating out, going to the gym, going to work etc. Students can’t be taught by teachers and lecturers who are sick .
Yes you could go through this process and get some kind of herd imminity EVENTUALLY but how is that better than a vaccine program ?
Answer ? It isn’t.
1 Like
The first one was not Diabetes India, but Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews. The
others were all JAMA and Nature. Doesn’t mean they are not trash too, but at least trash with a high impact factor.
Sorry…I just saw Diabetes India written and made an assumption. They are better journals but also so many thousands of papers being published one individual one is not really relevant on its own.
1 Like
It’s not two extremes between ignoring the virus and national lockdown. The degree to which the spread of the virus can be controlled and the economic fallout that control causes is the issue. The previous lockdowns slowed down the spread to a point where people weren’t calling for a national lockdown again for a couple of months. Sir Jeremy Farrar is now calling for an immediate 3 week national lockdown in the UK.
I don’t think the British will accept it anymore. They’ll need to put troops on the streets. The virus is supposedly rampant in the UK now and business still continues there, other than businesses that have been forced by the government to close.
1 Like
Diabetes India may be the society. The journal is published by Elsevier.
Well, no, but I wasn’t prepared to do a meta-analysis for this thread :-). My point was that there is substantial evidence that non-pharmaceutical interventions can favorably affect the course of infection and even mortality.
Oh really is that new 
Is your issue that it was a foetus, that it was a baby (not the same thing), or that it was aborted? Or just that it’s a vaccine, and vaccines are evil?
They are isolating because they are ill, and some because they have tested positive or been told to isolate. It is literally the virus causing a shutdown or slowdown in production. The other issue they are now having to deal with is getting people back to work. This is a generally older workforce and a lot of them are being hit hard by the virus and are not coming straight back to work.
This is my primary objection. I personally view foetuses as human life, the same as a baby or any other human. Therefore I wouldn’t take any vaccine that is derived / developed using human cells from an abortion.
I don’t view them as “evil”. I’ve had vaccines in the past. But I also believe it’s a personal choice and people should be free to accept vaccines and to decline them.
Adult cadavers are acceptable because presumably the person gave permission before they died?