Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Coronavirus - worldwide breaking news, discussion, stats, updates and more

I don’t understand the logic in all these countries lifting all restrictions, and I don’t say that as code for “I don’t approve of it”, I mean it literally- I don’t understand why they think it’s the right thing to be doing. Sweden is doing the same at the end of this month. All restrictions cancelled.

The virus has not gone away and we know even fully vaccinated people can catch it, pass it on and become seriously sick. So what’s the perceived benefit of rolling back restrictions and letting the virus get passed around more efficiently?
 
I don’t understand the logic in all these countries lifting all restrictions, and I don’t say that as code for “I don’t approve of it”, I mean it literally- I don’t understand why they think it’s the right thing to be doing. Sweden is doing the same at the end of this month. All restrictions cancelled.

The virus has not gone away and we know even fully vaccinated people can catch it, pass it on and become seriously sick. So what’s the perceived benefit of rolling back restrictions and letting the virus get passed around more efficiently?

Well a large number of countries would have been very tempted to let it rip in the first place, even before the vaccine era, if they were really confident that the number of hospitalisations would not break their healthcare systems.

So a lot of the strong responses were simply about that numbers game and now that game has changed. There are obviously still some risks, but if they have to u-turn again in winter they'd mostly still prefer to give it a try now anyway.

And if they need additional justifications for that sort of stance, they can poke around in areas such as 'vaccine isnt completely preventing cases but hybrid immunity from combination of vaccine and infection seems to confer much greater protection' and 'everyone will catch it or be exposed to it at some point'.

This is not how I would have ideally handled the exit from the acute phase of the pandemic, its not without risk and some people will end up dead as a result, but I can see why authorities went down this path at this time.
 
Well a large number of countries would have been very tempted to let it rip in the first place, even before the vaccine era, if they were really confident that the number of hospitalisations would not break their healthcare systems.

So a lot of the strong responses were simply about that numbers game and now that game has changed. There are obviously still some risks, but if they have to u-turn again in winter they'd mostly still prefer to give it a try now anyway.

Thanks, I’m sure you’re right as throughout the pandemic, the economy seems to have weighed more heavily on some politicians’ minds than the value of lives lost.

And if they need additional justifications for that sort of stance, they can poke around in areas such as 'vaccine isnt completely preventing cases but hybrid immunity from combination of vaccine and infection seems to confer much greater protection' and 'everyone will catch it or be exposed to it at some point'.
This bit about hybrid immunity might be what I was missing in my thinking. I didn’t realise that catching it after having been vaccinated puts you in a much better position after recovery than just being vaccinated alone.

Thanks elbows :thumbs:
 
In terms of economic considerations and lives lost, I'm reasonably confident that even on a forum like u75, if it had only been a question of the deaths then I think more people would have argued against a strong, disruptive response to the pandemic. Because they would have pointed to the advanced age of the majority of those killed by the virus.

We were spared more of that shit only because the age profile of those requiring hospitalisation was far broader, and the magnitude of hospitalisations so huge.
 
Only if you could guarantee recovering with zero consequences, otherwise it doesn't. Avoiding getting infected at all is the best gambit.

Thats still my preferred approach but I'm aware that authorities and some individuals seek a much quicker exit from the situation, there is a lack of staying power for reasons good and bad.
 
Thanks, I’m sure you’re right as throughout the pandemic, the economy seems to have weighed more heavily on some politicians’ minds than the value of lives lost.


This bit about hybrid immunity might be what I was missing in my thinking. I didn’t realise that catching it after having been vaccinated puts you in a much better position after recovery than just being vaccinated alone.

Thanks elbows :thumbs:
I thought Hybrid (or at least the most beneficial version) was actually the other way round, I.e. infection then vaccine?
 
this might be of interest. the impact of the pandemic on life expectancy.


 
Singapore is apparently having a rather quiet outbreak at the moment. I have a friend who lives there and he reckons that they're up to 3000 cases a day which is roughly equivalent to 40,000 in the UK (adjusted for population). I've not checked his maths.
 
I see Australia is reopening its international border next month, but not initially to foreigners.

I have a friend trying to get there with her two children. Her husband returned, he's Australian although I think she has citizenship too, to look for work before they joined him. Then Covid hit, now they've been separated for over two years.
 
Russia doing quite bad with deaths shooting to their highest level since the start of the pandemic, and that is the underestimated daily reports which tend to be revised seriously higher up later on.
 
This looks promising Merck says COVID-19 pill cuts risk of death, hospitalization

...not sure what the chances of it becoming widely available via our Broken NHS are though.
It looks dramatically problematic to me.

This is a pill you have to take before things get bad in order to be effective. Which means you are asking everybody that tests positive to medicate. As well as the big problem that medication always has side-effects, there are also the issues that come with routinely medicating huge chunks of the population — cost and medicalisation of everyday life to name but two.

And then for all that, it only actually cuts hospitalisation and death by half. Half those who would have been severely ill still will be severely ill. This is an improvement in a context-free vacuum. However, in the real world, you can expect that people who believe there is a safety net will act in riskier fashion. There’s every chance that behaviour change will undo the benefit of the drug.

So we have the mass medicalisation of hundreds of thousands of people per week with all the problems that brings and the likelihood that it’s for no benefit anyway, since behaviour change makes up the slack. That’s all great for the profits of Merck but a bit shit for society.

Meanwhile, I’ve not even touched the fact that people who believe there is a cure are less likely to take the vaccine…
 
This is a pill you have to take before things get bad in order to be effective. Which means you are asking everybody that tests positive to medicate.
I don't know how it is proposed to use this drug, but in the trials it was only given to people considered to be at particular risk of serious illness.
 
Drugs like that are likely to be a useful part of the mix in terms of learning to live with covid-19 long term.
 
I don't know how it is proposed to use this drug, but in the trials it was only given to people considered to be at particular risk of serious illness.
It has to be given before any serious illness develops though.

You know that there will be a clamour to have this from people that develop symptoms regards of their underlying risk factors. And the US courts have already shown their willingness to impose penal awards against insurance companies that refuse to pay for this kind of thing merely on the grounds that it is likely to not help.
 
New Zealand has given up on its zero COVID strategy - sad to see, though I guess the delta variant may have made this inevitable.


"We’re transitioning from our current strategy into a new way of doing things,” Ms. Ardern told reporters. “With Delta, the return to zero is incredibly difficult, and our restrictions alone are not enough to achieve that quickly. In fact, for this outbreak, it’s clear that long periods of heavy restrictions has not got us to zero cases.”

“What we have called a long tail,” she added, “feels more like a tentacle that has been incredibly hard to shake.”


 
I'd say a number of things made it inevitable, it was only a question of when.

Timing factors:
Vaccines changed the equation.
They had a plan they were happy to show off but Delta pissed on it a bit.
They are now heading towards seasons that arent winter.
Australia revealed their exit strategy.
The situation in some parts of New Zealand dragged on for longer than what they were able to get away with effectively earlier in the pandemic.
They actually diverged away from their original approach earlier in September, but misleadingly claimed they hadnt abandoned the goal of stamping out the outbreak entirely, even though it was reasonable to conclude they had. ( ‘Calculated risk’: Ardern gambles as New Zealand Covid restrictions eased )
The opposition revealed their alternative strategy just a few days ago ( ‘Clearly not working’: How New Zealand’s consensus on striving for Covid zero is finally cracking )

I will judge them by how well they handle the next few stages and what sort of levvels of hospitalisation and death result. Minorities and the vulnerable tend to get fucked over at this phase of the pandemic response in all countries, and things will have an uncomfortable feeling in New Zealand because their extremely low number of deaths so far is expected to be dwarfed by what will come in the vaccine era. There are a lot of things they will need to do right now in order to reduce that to whatever an acceptable level is deemed to be. We'll have a fresh chance to judge their establishment and how much of a shit they really give. No reason to expect them to live up to zero covid idealists sense of balance in this pandemic, bit I'd hope they still manage to make the UK establishments 'cant be bothered' approach in so many areas look bad.

It is a shame that public announcements and fanfare about their exit plan couldnt have been neatly timed to work with appropriate vaccination milestones. But then again the plans are on paper at least still supposed to be linked to vaccinated population percentages, and part of the story may be other political and journalistic forces simply making the most of such timing by taking the opportunity to pretend other forces are in the driving seat and dictating the pace of change. Take one of those Guardian headlines as an example, "finally cracking".

But then I've probably ended up playing my own role in this stupid dance of using New Zealand to make broader pandemic political points, in my case usually in response to others using it in this way first. New Zealand and zero covid approach embarrassed those responsible for some other approaches and the resulting amount of death, even when the zero covid ambitions were temporary. One way to reduce that embarrassment about our priorities was apparently to go on the attack at every opportunity, writing stuff in the press that makes zero covid sound like a disease more worthy of eradication than covid itself. And of course I always felt the need to get gobby in opposition to such attacks. Hopefully I managed to show suitable admiration for zero covid ambitions whilst acknowledging various limitations, very much including its temporary nature, not sure I know of anyone who thought it would be sustained too far into the vaccination era. I'm sure there are people here who thought I went too far when talking about zero covid and what countries like the UK could or should have done, and I can understand why. But I dont feel bad about my stance because hopefully I made it clear that its about ambition and actually bothering to try to do as much as possible during the acute phases of a pandemic when there are few alternatives. Where all the options have downsides so at least start with the ones that involve the least death. That phase doesnt last forever, and if it drags on long enough in terms of the fundamentals then its inevitable people will pretend otherwise. ie I wanted us to do more and be more cautious but I am something of a realist about timescales I hope. I never expected that I'd be stuck to the same pandemic stance for too many years in a row, I know that people feel the need to move on and other parts of the balancing act grow heavier over time. Ideally the immunity/susceptibility picture moves at about the same pace as peoples attitudes to the virus, but its probably asking a bit much for these things to be perfectly in sync. And so the exit phases tend to be a bit messy and give me various reasons to moan. But move on we will, and even if I lag behind that a bit I will still be moving too.
 
Last edited:
I will judge them by how well they handle the next few stages and what sort of levvels of hospitalisation and death result.

How do you think it will be possible to make an assessment of how well they are doing - given that there's not really any other country to compare them with? And it already seems accepted that it can't be done without some degree of death and hospitalisation.
 
How do you think it will be possible to make an assessment of how well they are doing - given that there's not really any other country to compare them with? And it already seems accepted that it can't be done without some degree of death and hospitalisation.
I'll use a mix of the following sort of things:

What measures they are prepared to keep in place (masks etc) and the timing of their relaxations
The size of the gap between their rhetoric (which will reflect what they know they should be striving for) and their actual actions
The level of pressure their hospitals end up having to deal with
The extent to which they actually bother trying to protect communities which we already know from there and elsewhere face the highest burden
The evolution of public opinion there

I dont expect them to do ridiculously well because despite the aspects of their response that are worthy of praise and admiration, its not like I think New Zealand is a place with amazing political and economic beliefs and systems that stands in stark contrast to regimes everywhere else. They overachieved in the pandemic and some of those gains will probably fade away. All the same since levels of death in the vaccine era should not resemble those they would have had in the pre-vaccine era if they'd taken the same approach as our country back then, so I would hope their death totals will remain an embarrassment to other nations, especially ours.

And it will still be possible to compare them to various other countries despite some differences. Few places may have kept their numbers quite as low as New Zealand, but there are a bunch that kept them relatively low and that dont have huge levels of population immunity via prior infection. And thats certainly something that needs factoring in when judging them in the next phases, an area where depending on what happens next, we will be able to judge further the merits and downsides of their original approach. Likewise the extent to which they are forced to slam on the brakes in future will complete the picture as to just how much less time the people of that country had to spend under restrictive lockdowns etc compared to the likes of the UK, which is another key area we'll be able to use to celebrate or condemn various approaches around the world in this pandemic.
 
This is at least the 4th investment in an african vaccine facility this month. Respect :)

 
I don’t understand the logic in all these countries lifting all restrictions, and I don’t say that as code for “I don’t approve of it”, I mean it literally- I don’t understand why they think it’s the right thing to be doing. Sweden is doing the same at the end of this month. All restrictions cancelled.

The virus has not gone away and we know even fully vaccinated people can catch it, pass it on and become seriously sick. So what’s the perceived benefit of rolling back restrictions and letting the virus get passed around more efficiently?

Because the virus is not going away, it's endemic. Sweden hasn't had any excess death rate this year so why the need for any restrictions?
 
Because the virus is not going away, it's endemic. Sweden hasn't had any excess death rate this year so why the need for any restrictions?
Because when you limit the spread, you save people from death, serious illness and long term disability. Regardless of whether you judge the current death or infection rate as “excess” by some arbitrary standard.
 
Because when you limit the spread, you save people from death, serious illness and long term disability. Regardless of whether you judge the current death or infection rate as “excess” by some arbitrary standard.

So you think restrictions should stay forever?
 
Back
Top Bottom