And I have to say, the whole thing was very professionally and efficiently (and as already noted, quickly) done as far as I can see. Maybe Serco weren’t such a bad choice for the job.
I know face masks can be plain, or sometimes patterned but why has no company produced give-away ones with an advert on them?
I got a nice branded black satin mask included with a recent mail order from a local shop. Our local transit authority is handing out cloth masks with the transit logo by the thousands. I also have a Frozen mask.
PangolinGuerre:
If this seems out of sequence, I am responding to a post on the thread: What will the church look like at the end of this year? People don't want that derailed by arguing about lockdown, so I am trying to avoid that.
Even the head of public health in Sweden has admitted that the Swedish approach was a mistake.
Actually Anders Tegnell has protested many times about being misquoted. So please try to give actual quotes.
Tegnell, unlike Politicians, is not under pressure to say that he has never made a mistake. And indeed he has said that they could have done better. Peersonally I think anyone who says their approach was perfect is a fool. I'm not sure even Boris would say that.
Tegnell has fully faced up to the fact that Sweden's care homes were extremely badly supported, and this is their most obvious mistake. And is one of the key factors for overall COVID deaths in all countries. So yes, that was bad, as in UK.
Then his general; attitude is summed up in this quote:
If we were to run into the same disease, knowing exactly what we know about it today, I think we would end up doing something in between what Sweden did and what the rest of the world has done
This is far from saying that the Swedish approach was a mistake, and he for sure has never ever supported national lockdown. He has said they could have done better, just as the Norway Health Chief has said the lockdown was unnecessary and not to be repeated. Doesn't mean it was a mistake given what they knew at the time.
Every government made mistakes, it is a new virus after all. Far from everything is known about it even now after intensive research.
But it’s attitude that matters imo. If the government has a good, caring attitude and motivated by this and is ready to learn (see New Zealand) then things go well. People trust that their best interests are at the heart of every decision.
The US and U.K.? Absolutely the opposite.
I am a naturally trusting and optimistic person but I don’t trust the prime ministers or his government at all. They have only their own and their backers interests at heart.
This virus has flushed out the selfish and self centred in a big way.
It has also highlighted the real heroes too. The carers and frontline workers, the volunteers and people who just get on with it. The people who have stoically stayed at home with little or no contact with others for months. They are the truly strong people.
An outdoor location, with plenty of air movement, room for social distancing and likely to be used on high UV days is unlikely to be the biggest risk.
There appears to be a correlation between areas experiencing recent increases in infections and areas that have significant numbers of large multigenerational families sharing the same house.
An outdoor location, with plenty of air movement, room for social distancing and likely to be used on high UV days is unlikely to be the biggest risk.
There appears to be a correlation between areas experiencing recent increases in infections and areas that have significant numbers of large multigenerational families sharing the same house.
Which shouldn't come as a surprise, particularly given that in poorer areas many of these families are in overcrowded accommodation.
An outdoor location, with plenty of air movement, room for social distancing and likely to be used on high UV days is unlikely to be the biggest risk.
There appears to be a correlation between areas experiencing recent increases in infections and areas that have significant numbers of large multigenerational families sharing the same house.
Which shouldn't come as a surprise, particularly given that in poorer areas many of these families are in overcrowded accommodation.
At least in our country those people are also the most likely to have no choice but to be essential workers, and thus at a high risk of getting covid.
PangolinGuerre:
If this seems out of sequence, I am responding to a post on the thread: What will the church look like at the end of this year? People don't want that derailed by arguing about lockdown, so I am trying to avoid that.
Even the head of public health in Sweden has admitted that the Swedish approach was a mistake.
Actually Anders Tegnell has protested many times about being misquoted. So please try to give actual quotes.
Tegnell, unlike Politicians, is not under pressure to say that he has never made a mistake. And indeed he has said that they could have done better. Peersonally I think anyone who says their approach was perfect is a fool. I'm not sure even Boris would say that.
Tegnell has fully faced up to the fact that Sweden's care homes were extremely badly supported, and this is their most obvious mistake. And is one of the key factors for overall COVID deaths in all countries. So yes, that was bad, as in UK.
Then his general; attitude is summed up in this quote:
If we were to run into the same disease, knowing exactly what we know about it today, I think we would end up doing something in between what Sweden did and what the rest of the world has done
This is far from saying that the Swedish approach was a mistake, and he for sure has never ever supported national lockdown. He has said they could have done better, just as the Norway Health Chief has said the lockdown was unnecessary and not to be repeated. Doesn't mean it was a mistake given what they knew at the time.
Of course it was a mistake and one knowable at the time, it was against the advice of almost all of the experts.
And I don't think the quote you give is 'far from saying it was a mistake". ISTM, it is exactly how a politician says 'We made a mistake' without using those actual words.
An outdoor location, with plenty of air movement, room for social distancing and likely to be used on high UV days is unlikely to be the biggest risk.
There appears to be a correlation between areas experiencing recent increases in infections and areas that have significant numbers of large multigenerational families sharing the same house.
Which shouldn't come as a surprise, particularly given that in poorer areas many of these families are in overcrowded accommodation.
At least in our country those people are also the most likely to have no choice but to be essential workers, and thus at a high risk of getting covid.
That too. Many of the students I taught in Blackburn (A-level lessons for a college but taking place at a private Islamic theological school, so predominantly of Pakistani, Indian or Bangladeshi heritage) would spend their holidays driving taxis for firms run by relatives.
Well, you can color this person relieved. Washington State University has told its students the new year will be distance-learning which will mean there will not be a huge influx of students this fall. It might mean my new job will be canceled; but, at this point, my health is more important than a few extra bucks. 2021, here we come.
OK Gramps - I'm glad it suits you. In contrast, I just got a contract (again, HE) through for next year - I really thought all temp staff were going to get the chop, but it seems no. There's a big form along with it to help them judge returning staff members' vulnerability to Covid infection.
An outdoor location, with plenty of air movement, room for social distancing and likely to be used on high UV days is unlikely to be the biggest risk.
There appears to be a correlation between areas experiencing recent increases in infections and areas that have significant numbers of large multigenerational families sharing the same house.
Which shouldn't come as a surprise, particularly given that in poorer areas many of these families are in overcrowded accommodation.
Multi-generational living is also cultural though. Asian families often live with their older relatives and not simply because they are poorer. Some will be but some are not.
Every government made mistakes, it is a new virus after all. Far from everything is known about it even now after intensive research.
But it’s attitude that matters imo. If the government has a good, caring attitude and motivated by this and is ready to learn (see New Zealand) then things go well. People trust that their best interests are at the heart of every decision.
The US and U.K.? Absolutely the opposite.
Do you not think though that New Zealand also has the advantage of having a relatively small and not so densely packed population in addition to not having the vast number of people travelling in and out of their country that certainly the UK experienced, especially at the time Covid first hit us (thinking February half term among other things)? New Zealand has shut its borders to all but returning citizens (and trade, obviously). How long can it maintain that position? To be Covid-free surely it will have to maintain it until there is a vaccine or effective treatment?
Of course it was a mistake and one knowable at the time, it was against the advice of almost all of the experts.
So presumably you don't class Anders Tegnell as an expert. I've never said all evidence is on one side.
And I don't think the quote you give is 'far from saying it was a mistake". ISTM, it is exactly how a politician says 'We made a mistake' without using those actual words.
Well Tegnell is not a Politician in the usual sense of the word. Of course everyone is a politician to some extent. But as I have said (too?) many times, if the Constitution of Sweden had given the decision to politicians rather than medical experts, I am sure lockdown would have been imposed. Maybe you prefer it that way.
And your talk may vary, but for myself, a mistake is more open and shut than a generally sensible action, given the known facts, which could still have been improved on.
There is an interview published in unherd and on YouTube which is recent. I don't know all the rules for how much we are allowed to quote but the following response to the question of whether a Sweden lock down would have made a significant difference strikes me as balanced.
We don’t know. It would have made maybe some difference, we don’t know. But on the other hand we know that lockdowns also have big other effects on public health. We know that closing schools has a great effect on children’s health in the short and the long term. We know that people being out of work also produces a lot of problems in the public health area. So we also have to look at what are the negative effect of lockdowns, and that has not been done very much so far.
An outdoor location, with plenty of air movement, room for social distancing and likely to be used on high UV days is unlikely to be the biggest risk.
There appears to be a correlation between areas experiencing recent increases in infections and areas that have significant numbers of large multigenerational families sharing the same house.
Which shouldn't come as a surprise, particularly given that in poorer areas many of these families are in overcrowded accommodation.
Multi-generational living is also cultural though. Asian families often live with their older relatives and not simply because they are poorer. Some will be but some are not.
I agree, but thank you for clarifying if I was unclear. A Sikh colleague of mine bought a large house with extended family to share, so I'm vaguely familiar with the other end of the scale. I was just highlighting that the risk from large household size was likely compounded with overcrowding among the poorer section of the Asian population.
PangolinGuerre:
If this seems out of sequence, I am responding to a post on the thread: What will the church look like at the end of this year? People don't want that derailed by arguing about lockdown, so I am trying to avoid that.
Even the head of public health in Sweden has admitted that the Swedish approach was a mistake.
Actually Anders Tegnell has protested many times about being misquoted. So please try to give actual quotes.
Tegnell, unlike Politicians, is not under pressure to say that he has never made a mistake. And indeed he has said that they could have done better. Peersonally I think anyone who says their approach was perfect is a fool. I'm not sure even Boris would say that.
Tegnell has fully faced up to the fact that Sweden's care homes were extremely badly supported, and this is their most obvious mistake. And is one of the key factors for overall COVID deaths in all countries. So yes, that was bad, as in UK.
Then his general; attitude is summed up in this quote:
If we were to run into the same disease, knowing exactly what we know about it today, I think we would end up doing something in between what Sweden did and what the rest of the world has done
This is far from saying that the Swedish approach was a mistake, and he for sure has never ever supported national lockdown. He has said they could have done better, just as the Norway Health Chief has said the lockdown was unnecessary and not to be repeated. Doesn't mean it was a mistake given what they knew at the time.[/quote
Posting just to acknowledge your response (and, busy day plus time difference). I'll give your response due thought on Saturday. And, thank you for splitting off to the more appropriate thread.
And I don't think the quote you give is 'far from saying it was a mistake". ISTM, it is exactly how a politician says 'We made a mistake' without using those actual words.
Well Tegnell is not a Politician in the usual sense of the word.
He is part of the government. His responses will be political.
Of course everyone is a politician to some extent. But as I have said (too?) many times, if the Constitution of Sweden had given the decision to politicians rather than medical experts, I am sure lockdown would have been imposed. Maybe you prefer it that way.
Yes. Lockdown woulld have seen fewer sick and dead. Sweden has the worst record of the Scandinavian countries because they did not lock-down.
And your talk may vary, but for myself, a mistake is more open and shut than a generally sensible action, given the known facts, which could still have been improved on.
Mistakes do not have to be complete failure. And recommending a soft course of action when no one knows how bad something will be is not sensible.
New Zealand had a lockdown, New Zealand had almost no cases. Hmmm...
We can all trade faulty logic.
Japan had no lockdown and hardly any cases. Hmmmm.
Event X preceded event Y, therefore it caused it. This is the post hoc propter hoc fallacy. And it is used to "prove" all sorts of things. The UK imposed austerity and the balance of payments improved so it proves that austerity was the cause. No it doesn't. Basing policy on known logical fallacies is not helpful. It needs to be backed by research.
Maybe we'll never know. Norway did the research and concluded the lockdown was not needed. I'd love to read the report but it's in Norwegian, so I only have second hand information which I admit is probably biassed.
He {Anders Tegnell] is part of the government. His responses will be political.
Maybe, but he's an unelected official and he shows far more willingness to be frank than people like Boris and Trump. I have previously noted the irony that many of the people who praise Tegnell were also Brexiteers who hated the fact that Unelected Officials had so much power. It was Juncker who rather candidly said of politicians that "we often known the right thing to do, but not how to be re-elected after we've done it". Boris' decisions in my unresearched opinion are led by polls and focus groups not science.
Sweden has the worst record of the Scandinavian countries because they did not lock-down.
That's correct but it's far from clear to me how Sweden will be judged in a year's time or even longer. It depends on how much of a delay you think is needed to come to a conclusion. You have to look at non medical interventions in the same way as medical ones. You balance benefit against harm. You may choose not to raise this, since you are ISTM so focussed on COVID as to be obsessed, but I doubt very much that you deny the knock-on effects: short-term in terms of other (currrently suspended) treatments for cancer, mental health and other conditions as well as domestic violence. Then there are the longer term effects of unemployment, loss of education etc. Remember ~20% of COVID cases in the UK were caught in hospital so you could have reduced our COVID deaths by 20% by including "do not go to hospital" in the lockdown. You could probably point out the flaw in that.
In the short term it can appear bad. But there is a downside to short-termism.
An outdoor location, with plenty of air movement, room for social distancing and likely to be used on high UV days is unlikely to be the biggest risk.
There appears to be a correlation between areas experiencing recent increases in infections and areas that have significant numbers of large multigenerational families sharing the same house.
Which shouldn't come as a surprise, particularly given that in poorer areas many of these families are in overcrowded accommodation.
Multi-generational living is also cultural though. Asian families often live with their older relatives and not simply because they are poorer. Some will be but some are not.
I agree, but thank you for clarifying if I was unclear. A Sikh colleague of mine bought a large house with extended family to share, so I'm vaguely familiar with the other end of the scale. I was just highlighting that the risk from large household size was likely compounded with overcrowding among the poorer section of the Asian population.
There is also the perception of what ‘household’ means.
Our lovely neighbours are of Pakistani origin. They are highly educated, she is a pharmacist and he is a lawyer. Yet they have had various family members, parents, brothers etc visiting all through lockdown. In every other way they are being really careful - keeping distance, wearing masks, working from home when possible etc.
(This seems a good moment to mention again a finding from way back in April - when the Koreans were testing everyone but no-one else was, they found a really big chunk of asymptomatic cases amongst young people in their 20s. In cultures where those folks kept on socialising and going home to extended family - at the time, Italy - results were tragic. It may be that a similar effect is in play amongst British Asians, significantly attenuated by greater caution amongst many people compared to that which we all employed when all this was new, in March).
There are some signs of the start of a possible second wave in Spain, France and Germany with increases in the daily numbers of new cases. I think these will test both the effectiveness of tracking and tracing processes, and speedy reaction to localised outbreaks. In short, whether the risks can be contained. A second wave is not inevitable provided that precautionary measures now in place will work. Plus (and it's a big plus) people co-operate with any localised reversion of relaxations.
The virus is completely indifferent to cultural variations in social behaviour. If opportunities are provided for it to spread, it will spread. Here is a link (about two months old) to information about the contagion risk associated with the now dominant mutated form. It's not good news.
It remains to be seen whether containment measures and public co-operation will continue to work well. I have no doubt that it is better to try, not least because even partially successful containment will help to stop an overload of medical services and reduce sickness and death in the short term. But while the vaccines are being developed, the continuing success of such containment measures which are in place are bound to vary from country to country. Some people are a lot more bothered than others.
The virus is completely indifferent to cultural variations in social behaviour. If opportunities are provided for it to spread, it will spread.
While it's self-evident that if an opportunity to spread is presented then the virus will spread, it doesn't follow that cultural variations are irrelevant. Having spent time in Japan, and still having friends there, I've been following what's happening there, and it's very clear that the cultural differences compared to the West have been important in the very different outcomes in relation to the pandemic to date. Just three examples of the differences in culture that have been significant:
1. It's normal for people to wear face masks, so there has been no resistance to increasing the use of masks to near universal levels in public space.
2. The culture of eating out, and especially bars, is very different with the norm being for small venues or for larger venues to be split into small booths or rooms, resulting in very little social interactions between different groups of customers.
3. The culture is a lot less individualistic, with a greater emphasis on acting for the common good, and also of following the directions of more senior people. Someone in government saying "it'll be better to work from home where possible" is enough to get everyone who can work from home doing so. It would be unthinkable for members of government to act in any way different from the rules they've set for everyone - and, if they did then there would be a very public apology and resignation.
Let me clarify. The innate contagiousness of the virus is the same regardless of where it is found. That’s what I should have said.
And there is a variation on that as well. The innate rate is the same for the current dominant mutation. I think there are other less prevalent forms which are less innately contagious.
Alan, your point about rule makers sticking themselves to the rules they make for others is very important.
An outdoor location, with plenty of air movement, room for social distancing and likely to be used on high UV days is unlikely to be the biggest risk.
There appears to be a correlation between areas experiencing recent increases in infections and areas that have significant numbers of large multigenerational families sharing the same house.
Which shouldn't come as a surprise, particularly given that in poorer areas many of these families are in overcrowded accommodation.
Multi-generational living is also cultural though. Asian families often live with their older relatives and not simply because they are poorer. Some will be but some are not.
Whilst this is true the kinds of areas that have suffered from outbreaks are the sort where people are more likely to live together out of necessity than choice.
In the case of one bad work practices -- essentially sweatshops that successive governments had turned a blind eye to -- also featured heavily.
Slight tangent from comments above: if you have elderly relatives in the UK who don’t speak much English, and you don’t think they will be safe to live on their own for much longer, there are limited options apart from having them to live with you. They won’t be happy in a residential home if they can’t communicate, quite apart from other cultural and dietary differences.
I don’t know whether any other parts of the UK have much provision for elderly non-English speakers. Cardiff doesn’t have that much, despite its very long multicultural history.
New Zealand had a lockdown, New Zealand had almost no cases. Hmmm...
We can all trade faulty logic.
Japan had no lockdown and hardly any cases. Hmmmm.
First, let me apologise. My brain confused you with alienfromzog and I had forgotten about your attempts to discredit lockdown. I should have ignored the post, but I didn't and will reply to this one and then go back to ignoring further the lockdown is a lie posts.
Japan didn't have total lockdown, but they did restrict activities. Since they've began opening back up, the cases are shooting up. The have not even reached a plateau, much less a downturn in infections. The lower number of overall deaths is still a mystery, but countries with similar policies have higher rates, so the official strategy is no likely the reason.
Maybe we'll never know. Norway did the research and concluded the lockdown was not needed. I'd love to read the report but it's in Norwegian, so I only have second hand information which I admit is probably biassed.
Sweden has the worst record of the Scandinavian countries because they did not lock-down.
That's correct but it's far from clear to me how Sweden will be judged in a year's time or even longer. It depends on how much of a delay you think is needed to come to a conclusion.
Rubbish. Swedish victims are not going to become alive again.
The death pattern is that those counties that had tighter restrictions had fewer deaths. Pretty simple.
lillbuddha:
I think you're wise to suppose that we will only talk past each other.
But if, over time, the excess deaths provoked by lockdown exceed those saved by it, and EVEN THEN you would say "Rubbish. Swedish victims are not going to become alive again" it seems that COVID deaths in particular occupy a different position in your priority chain than deaths, say, from cancer.
That's all that I understand Tegnell to be asking, and if, over time, it becomes clear that this is not the case, then your criticism about lockdown not being imposed holds. And I assume you are convinced beyond serious doubt that this will be the case. I'm not.
And BTW I have never criticised the UK Government for the lockdown, but I guess you never noticed that, though I have repeated it several times. I'm not even sure that calling the lockdown a lie means.
And we know from hospital data that heart and stroke admissions went down, even though the rates are normally fairly consistent. Not to mention people who haven't been to the doctor and got a referral for things like cancer, or have had treatment disrupted because of the risk involved in suppressing their immune system.
I support the lockdown - but a friend of mine had his chemo interrupted, and they're not going to restart it. It's just a great big case of it is what it is.
This seems pretty unlikely unless you massively push down on estimates of excess deaths prevented by lockdown.
Well certainly if you take, for example, the Imperial Study that claims that lockdown saved 470, 000 lives. I think that is simply not credible. There have been other more sober estimates. But equally there have been very high estimates of the unnecessary deaths caused by the lockdown. Figures of 150,000 deaths due to cancelled treatment have been bandied around. No doubt there is exaggeration on both sides.
I'd be interested in your own best guess as to how many lives have been saved by lockdown and what the basis for that is, as well as how many deaths will be a result of lockdown.
I do think the case of Norway is of interest, since their report was based not on modelling which can give you any result you want, but on detailed investigation of what actually happened. And as we know Camilla Stoltenberg, the head of Norway's Public Health Institute said:"“We could have achieved the same effects [in terms of taming COVID] and avoided some of the unfortunate impacts by not locking down.”
I am not resting all the weight of my argument on one statement. But I do think there's a compelling argument that if lockdown has had the huge effects that some studies claim, why did their research miss that? Or is their Public Health Director being simply perverse?
The lockdown is past history, and I am not blaming Boris who acted the same as all euro-Politicians. But for me it is hugely important to put in the work to assess its effectiveness by doing a detailed retrospective study as Norway has done. My fear is that the natural desire for arse-covering will make the Boris highly reluctant to look at the data, especially when it seems the British people by a majority believe he is the hero who has saved hundreds of thousands of lives. And the atmosphere seems to be building where it is viewed as somehow unethical to question Government policy. Which suits Boris fine, but doesn't help us to learn lessons.
The thing is, Johnson was late to lockdown, and is clearly trying to rush the end of lockdown. Saying that lockdown is a political move doesn't make sense because lockdown isn't something that Johnson or the Tory party in general want to do any more than they have to, and it's clear that they'd much rather err on the side of too little lockdown than too much.
I think the Imperial study is the likely result of the government's original herd immunity strategy. Not having lockdown wouldn't have saved the lives of those undergoing cancer treatment, but rather placed them at greater risk. When there is a lethal disease present in hospitals doctors are going to have to make a risk assessment on whether immuno-compromising treatment could go ahead. There has to be a distinction drawn between decisions made due to lockdown and decisions due to the disease itself.
I obviously have the minority view on this ship. And I am aware that I have not got the solid evidence to back it up, so I am never going to persuade. Proof on the other side is also lacking. And there are experts and studies on both sides.
So I agree with Tegnell that we won't be able to evaluate lockdown for quite a long time, probably more than the year he suggests. And the discussion becomes sterile so I'm really going to try to stay away from it until some real evidence emerges. It difficult because one can become obsessive about this, but that has no good outcome.
Focusing exclusively on deaths seems like it's buying into a dualistic narrative of COVID-19, where the two outcomes are either death or recovering and being just as healthy as you were before. This is not the case for many people.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledged Friday that a significant number of COVID-19 patients do not recover quickly, and instead experience ongoing symptoms, such as fatigue and cough.
As many as a third of patients who were never sick enough to be hospitalized are not back to their usual health up to three weeks after their diagnosis, the report found.
“COVID-19 can result in prolonged illness even among persons with milder outpatient illness, including young adults,” the report’s authors wrote.
The acknowledgement is welcome news to patients who call themselves “long-haulers” — suffering from debilitating symptoms weeks and even months after their initial infection.
At present we don't know what the long-term effects of COVID-19 are going to be. The short- and mid-term effects don't look encouraging. The virus doesn't just attack the lungs, it also goes after the heart, the kidneys, the digestive tract, . . . the brain. Pretty much everything. Even people who are considered asymptomatic can have some damage that's medically detectable.
So policies should be assessed not just according to a live/die criterion (though that's obviously both important and easiest to measure), but in terms of thing like how many people will live the rest of their lives with diminished lung capacity? Kidney failure? Brain damage? Those are additional costs of COVID-19 beyond the immediate death toll.
Imho it will all continue to remain a case of theory v experience.
For many people, if they do not experience something for themselves ....or nearest and dearest.... then no amount of information will get through.
Or maybe that information can be impartially considered and then discarded as wrong.
For some, it all stops at Yes it is bad and Yes it is terrible, but so is life and one has to live with risk.
One of my ( not at all elderly or ill ) in laws was hospitalised, that family embrace lockdown and take no risks.
Croesos is right to point to the long term sickness effects. Certainly in our experience a quite high proportion of those we know who have had the virus and survived are still suffering, months later, from continuing breathing problems, very high levels of post viral fatigue and anxiety. The medical cost of this virus should not just be measured in deaths.
In time I have no doubt that further improvements in means of treatment will be found and there is evidence that treatments already in place are reducing the numbers dying. I think it's still early days in finding out what will be best for the increasing numbers of "long haulers".
Croesos is right to point to the long term sickness effects. Certainly in our experience a quite high proportion of those we know who have had the virus and survived are still suffering, months later, from continuing breathing problems, veryt high levels of post viral fatigue and anxiety. The medical cost of this virus should not just be measured in deaths.
At this point, it is hard to say what percentage of COVID 19 survivors are going to be experiencing long term effects from the virus. We have no idea how many have been asymptomatic. These cases will have to be followed for months, even years before we will have a full understanding of how many will experience long term effects. After all, this virus will be with us for a very long time even with a vaccine.
My post-viral syndrome (postural tachycardia, which manifests with fatigue, anxiety and mild breathing problems) appears to be almost gone, hopefully permanently. It has taken 4 months to recover and my initial illness was mild/moderate and managed at home.
My post-viral syndrome (postural tachycardia, which manifests with fatigue, anxiety and mild breathing problems) appears to be almost gone, hopefully permanently. It has taken 4 months to recover and my initial illness was mild/moderate and managed at home.
And from what you have posted, you have the advantage of being a trained nurse and able to design a programme of rehabilitation for yourself. Another person who doesn't have your expertise could be left with those symptoms for far longer.*
* I hope you don't mind me saying I really admire your determination, which I think has been another factor.
I agree, Huia, I think it is terrible that there isn’t more advice on managing symptoms. Part of the difficulty with some post-viral syndromes is that it may be necessary to be persistent when it feels like you are making yourself worse. It seems counter intuitive to stand up and walk if standing up and walking gives you tachycardia, for instance. Yet a simple thing like increasing fluid intake might make it manageable for some people. But people need medical support to make these decisions. I gather the UK government is setting up a programme to support recoverers but I suspect it will be geared to those hospitalised when other people need it too. But, as other people have noted, post-viral syndromes have been long ignored by the medical community.
I have an additional advantage in that I self-manage my bipolar disorder using CBT - rehab is part of my everyday life.
I believe that the long term follow up studies are being set up. My place of work is a teaching hospital with a large research department that has been involved in a lot of the Covid-19 trials, so they have patients to monitor. The big problem with following up cases like Heavenlyannie's, that never made it to hospital, is that we weren't confirming them by testing, so although we can be 99% certain, it can't be proven that they are definitely a Covid-19 patient to track recovery.
Yes, tracking recovery is difficult as many of us who got it early aren’t confirmed cases. And post-viral symptoms can be quite random and unfamiliar; I spent several days thinking I had anxiety and my problem was actually my pulse rate. I can’t fault the hospital for investigations though, I’ve had a chest x-ray, a lung CT, a 24 hour ECG and an echocardiogram to make sure it wasn’t my heart or lungs causing the problem.
Hopefully I'm allowed to comment on the legislation to mandate face masks.
The usual objection to face-masks (outside the libertarian one) is that they will make people over confident and more liable to avoid distancing and/or staying at home whenever they have symptoms that may indicate COVID infection.
Mine is a different one, about the sort of society Boris (my usual epithet for the headless chickens that are in power) is creating. The problem springs from the difficulty of framing effective legislation which is not open to fairly obvious legal challenges. To avoid this the legislation is very flexible. Initially Boris hopes that people will believe the bullshit he puts out, and are rather amazed when they find out the difference between that and the actual legislation.
So the actual situation as I understand it is: Any person can self-certify as exempt from wearing a face mask. They are not required to have any medical backing, nor are they required to wear any badge declaring themselves exempt. They are not obliged to give any reason to anybody in the shop in fact a shop attendant should not even ask, although if the shop calls the police, the police are allowed to ask for a valid reason, but since they are virtually powerless to dispute them and not keen on using resources on such a case, they are unlikely to be called. It is even the case that if somebody is refused service, a shop could be charged under discrimination legislation, although litigating would be too much of a hassle unless a group got together to form a campaign.
So how is it intended to enforce the legislation? The clue is in Michael Gove's "social shaming". In effect the government is relying on The British People to be arsey toward those who cannot wear a mask. God help us if obese people ever are told to stay at home relying on the public to shame fatties into staying at home.
I'd be interested to know how many on this ship would be aggressive towards non-wearers. From some posts, I would say quite a few. Would it make a difference if the person went to the trouble of printing out a do-it-yourself badge citing exemption? Do you think that someone who threw a can of cream over a non-wearer was a hero or a bully? (Maybe there's a middle ground - just prejudiced and ignorant).
Of course, if everyone behaved in a civilised manner to those exempt from the legislation, mask wearing would fairly quickly die out. Which I would see as a good result, but the majority on this ship would see as a bad result. This is only against face masks to the extent that it is against any legislation which relies on social aggression towards minorities to be enforced.
Comments
Thanks be to God!
I got a nice branded black satin mask included with a recent mail order from a local shop. Our local transit authority is handing out cloth masks with the transit logo by the thousands. I also have a Frozen mask.
According to the BBC tracker, there are 5 new cases, down 2 from the previous week.
I live fairly near the beaches, which common sense tells me are where most risk is involved.
So yes, the number of cases in my locality has risen alarmingly from 4 to 9. That's worth watching but hopefully you'll forgive me for not panicking.
But relative statistics are much better. Bournemouth Area Cases Double After Wild Beach Party.
If this seems out of sequence, I am responding to a post on the thread: What will the church look like at the end of this year? People don't want that derailed by arguing about lockdown, so I am trying to avoid that.
Actually Anders Tegnell has protested many times about being misquoted. So please try to give actual quotes.
Tegnell, unlike Politicians, is not under pressure to say that he has never made a mistake. And indeed he has said that they could have done better. Peersonally I think anyone who says their approach was perfect is a fool. I'm not sure even Boris would say that.
Tegnell has fully faced up to the fact that Sweden's care homes were extremely badly supported, and this is their most obvious mistake. And is one of the key factors for overall COVID deaths in all countries. So yes, that was bad, as in UK.
Then his general; attitude is summed up in this quote:
This is far from saying that the Swedish approach was a mistake, and he for sure has never ever supported national lockdown. He has said they could have done better, just as the Norway Health Chief has said the lockdown was unnecessary and not to be repeated. Doesn't mean it was a mistake given what they knew at the time.
But it’s attitude that matters imo. If the government has a good, caring attitude and motivated by this and is ready to learn (see New Zealand) then things go well. People trust that their best interests are at the heart of every decision.
The US and U.K.? Absolutely the opposite.
I am a naturally trusting and optimistic person but I don’t trust the prime ministers or his government at all. They have only their own and their backers interests at heart.
This virus has flushed out the selfish and self centred in a big way.
It has also highlighted the real heroes too. The carers and frontline workers, the volunteers and people who just get on with it. The people who have stoically stayed at home with little or no contact with others for months. They are the truly strong people.
There appears to be a correlation between areas experiencing recent increases in infections and areas that have significant numbers of large multigenerational families sharing the same house.
Which shouldn't come as a surprise, particularly given that in poorer areas many of these families are in overcrowded accommodation.
At least in our country those people are also the most likely to have no choice but to be essential workers, and thus at a high risk of getting covid.
And I don't think the quote you give is 'far from saying it was a mistake". ISTM, it is exactly how a politician says 'We made a mistake' without using those actual words.
That too. Many of the students I taught in Blackburn (A-level lessons for a college but taking place at a private Islamic theological school, so predominantly of Pakistani, Indian or Bangladeshi heritage) would spend their holidays driving taxis for firms run by relatives.
Do you not think though that New Zealand also has the advantage of having a relatively small and not so densely packed population in addition to not having the vast number of people travelling in and out of their country that certainly the UK experienced, especially at the time Covid first hit us (thinking February half term among other things)? New Zealand has shut its borders to all but returning citizens (and trade, obviously). How long can it maintain that position? To be Covid-free surely it will have to maintain it until there is a vaccine or effective treatment?
Well Tegnell is not a Politician in the usual sense of the word. Of course everyone is a politician to some extent. But as I have said (too?) many times, if the Constitution of Sweden had given the decision to politicians rather than medical experts, I am sure lockdown would have been imposed. Maybe you prefer it that way.
And your talk may vary, but for myself, a mistake is more open and shut than a generally sensible action, given the known facts, which could still have been improved on.
There is an interview published in unherd and on YouTube which is recent. I don't know all the rules for how much we are allowed to quote but the following response to the question of whether a Sweden lock down would have made a significant difference strikes me as balanced.
There are no easy answers but I'm with him.
I agree, but thank you for clarifying if I was unclear. A Sikh colleague of mine bought a large house with extended family to share, so I'm vaguely familiar with the other end of the scale. I was just highlighting that the risk from large household size was likely compounded with overcrowding among the poorer section of the Asian population.
New Zealand had a lockdown, New Zealand had almost no cases. Hmmm...
Japan had no lockdown and hardly any cases. Hmmmm.
Event X preceded event Y, therefore it caused it. This is the post hoc propter hoc fallacy. And it is used to "prove" all sorts of things. The UK imposed austerity and the balance of payments improved so it proves that austerity was the cause. No it doesn't. Basing policy on known logical fallacies is not helpful. It needs to be backed by research.
Maybe we'll never know. Norway did the research and concluded the lockdown was not needed. I'd love to read the report but it's in Norwegian, so I only have second hand information which I admit is probably biassed.
Maybe, but he's an unelected official and he shows far more willingness to be frank than people like Boris and Trump. I have previously noted the irony that many of the people who praise Tegnell were also Brexiteers who hated the fact that Unelected Officials had so much power. It was Juncker who rather candidly said of politicians that "we often known the right thing to do, but not how to be re-elected after we've done it". Boris' decisions in my unresearched opinion are led by polls and focus groups not science.
That's correct but it's far from clear to me how Sweden will be judged in a year's time or even longer. It depends on how much of a delay you think is needed to come to a conclusion. You have to look at non medical interventions in the same way as medical ones. You balance benefit against harm. You may choose not to raise this, since you are ISTM so focussed on COVID as to be obsessed, but I doubt very much that you deny the knock-on effects: short-term in terms of other (currrently suspended) treatments for cancer, mental health and other conditions as well as domestic violence. Then there are the longer term effects of unemployment, loss of education etc. Remember ~20% of COVID cases in the UK were caught in hospital so you could have reduced our COVID deaths by 20% by including "do not go to hospital" in the lockdown. You could probably point out the flaw in that.
In the short term it can appear bad. But there is a downside to short-termism.
There is also the perception of what ‘household’ means.
Our lovely neighbours are of Pakistani origin. They are highly educated, she is a pharmacist and he is a lawyer. Yet they have had various family members, parents, brothers etc visiting all through lockdown. In every other way they are being really careful - keeping distance, wearing masks, working from home when possible etc.
The virus is completely indifferent to cultural variations in social behaviour. If opportunities are provided for it to spread, it will spread. Here is a link (about two months old) to information about the contagion risk associated with the now dominant mutated form. It's not good news.
It remains to be seen whether containment measures and public co-operation will continue to work well. I have no doubt that it is better to try, not least because even partially successful containment will help to stop an overload of medical services and reduce sickness and death in the short term. But while the vaccines are being developed, the continuing success of such containment measures which are in place are bound to vary from country to country. Some people are a lot more bothered than others.
1. It's normal for people to wear face masks, so there has been no resistance to increasing the use of masks to near universal levels in public space.
2. The culture of eating out, and especially bars, is very different with the norm being for small venues or for larger venues to be split into small booths or rooms, resulting in very little social interactions between different groups of customers.
3. The culture is a lot less individualistic, with a greater emphasis on acting for the common good, and also of following the directions of more senior people. Someone in government saying "it'll be better to work from home where possible" is enough to get everyone who can work from home doing so. It would be unthinkable for members of government to act in any way different from the rules they've set for everyone - and, if they did then there would be a very public apology and resignation.
And there is a variation on that as well. The innate rate is the same for the current dominant mutation. I think there are other less prevalent forms which are less innately contagious.
Alan, your point about rule makers sticking themselves to the rules they make for others is very important.
Whilst this is true the kinds of areas that have suffered from outbreaks are the sort where people are more likely to live together out of necessity than choice.
In the case of one bad work practices -- essentially sweatshops that successive governments had turned a blind eye to -- also featured heavily.
I don’t know whether any other parts of the UK have much provision for elderly non-English speakers. Cardiff doesn’t have that much, despite its very long multicultural history.
Japan didn't have total lockdown, but they did restrict activities. Since they've began opening back up, the cases are shooting up. The have not even reached a plateau, much less a downturn in infections. The lower number of overall deaths is still a mystery, but countries with similar policies have higher rates, so the official strategy is no likely the reason.
Norway's conclusion is a little more nuanced than you imply.
Rubbish. Swedish victims are not going to become alive again.
The death pattern is that those counties that had tighter restrictions had fewer deaths. Pretty simple.
I think you're wise to suppose that we will only talk past each other.
But if, over time, the excess deaths provoked by lockdown exceed those saved by it, and EVEN THEN you would say "Rubbish. Swedish victims are not going to become alive again" it seems that COVID deaths in particular occupy a different position in your priority chain than deaths, say, from cancer.
That's all that I understand Tegnell to be asking, and if, over time, it becomes clear that this is not the case, then your criticism about lockdown not being imposed holds. And I assume you are convinced beyond serious doubt that this will be the case. I'm not.
And BTW I have never criticised the UK Government for the lockdown, but I guess you never noticed that, though I have repeated it several times. I'm not even sure that calling the lockdown a lie means.
This seems pretty unlikely unless you massively push down on estimates of excess deaths prevented by lockdown.
I'd be interested in your own best guess as to how many lives have been saved by lockdown and what the basis for that is, as well as how many deaths will be a result of lockdown.
I do think the case of Norway is of interest, since their report was based not on modelling which can give you any result you want, but on detailed investigation of what actually happened. And as we know Camilla Stoltenberg, the head of Norway's Public Health Institute said:"“We could have achieved the same effects [in terms of taming COVID] and avoided some of the unfortunate impacts by not locking down.”
I am not resting all the weight of my argument on one statement. But I do think there's a compelling argument that if lockdown has had the huge effects that some studies claim, why did their research miss that? Or is their Public Health Director being simply perverse?
The lockdown is past history, and I am not blaming Boris who acted the same as all euro-Politicians. But for me it is hugely important to put in the work to assess its effectiveness by doing a detailed retrospective study as Norway has done. My fear is that the natural desire for arse-covering will make the Boris highly reluctant to look at the data, especially when it seems the British people by a majority believe he is the hero who has saved hundreds of thousands of lives. And the atmosphere seems to be building where it is viewed as somehow unethical to question Government policy. Which suits Boris fine, but doesn't help us to learn lessons.
So I agree with Tegnell that we won't be able to evaluate lockdown for quite a long time, probably more than the year he suggests. And the discussion becomes sterile so I'm really going to try to stay away from it until some real evidence emerges. It difficult because one can become obsessive about this, but that has no good outcome.
At present we don't know what the long-term effects of COVID-19 are going to be. The short- and mid-term effects don't look encouraging. The virus doesn't just attack the lungs, it also goes after the heart, the kidneys, the digestive tract, . . . the brain. Pretty much everything. Even people who are considered asymptomatic can have some damage that's medically detectable.
So policies should be assessed not just according to a live/die criterion (though that's obviously both important and easiest to measure), but in terms of thing like how many people will live the rest of their lives with diminished lung capacity? Kidney failure? Brain damage? Those are additional costs of COVID-19 beyond the immediate death toll.
For many people, if they do not experience something for themselves ....or nearest and dearest.... then no amount of information will get through.
Or maybe that information can be impartially considered and then discarded as wrong.
For some, it all stops at Yes it is bad and Yes it is terrible, but so is life and one has to live with risk.
One of my ( not at all elderly or ill ) in laws was hospitalised, that family embrace lockdown and take no risks.
In time I have no doubt that further improvements in means of treatment will be found and there is evidence that treatments already in place are reducing the numbers dying. I think it's still early days in finding out what will be best for the increasing numbers of "long haulers".
At this point, it is hard to say what percentage of COVID 19 survivors are going to be experiencing long term effects from the virus. We have no idea how many have been asymptomatic. These cases will have to be followed for months, even years before we will have a full understanding of how many will experience long term effects. After all, this virus will be with us for a very long time even with a vaccine.
And from what you have posted, you have the advantage of being a trained nurse and able to design a programme of rehabilitation for yourself. Another person who doesn't have your expertise could be left with those symptoms for far longer.*
* I hope you don't mind me saying I really admire your determination, which I think has been another factor.
I have an additional advantage in that I self-manage my bipolar disorder using CBT - rehab is part of my everyday life.
The usual objection to face-masks (outside the libertarian one) is that they will make people over confident and more liable to avoid distancing and/or staying at home whenever they have symptoms that may indicate COVID infection.
Mine is a different one, about the sort of society Boris (my usual epithet for the headless chickens that are in power) is creating. The problem springs from the difficulty of framing effective legislation which is not open to fairly obvious legal challenges. To avoid this the legislation is very flexible. Initially Boris hopes that people will believe the bullshit he puts out, and are rather amazed when they find out the difference between that and the actual legislation.
So the actual situation as I understand it is: Any person can self-certify as exempt from wearing a face mask. They are not required to have any medical backing, nor are they required to wear any badge declaring themselves exempt. They are not obliged to give any reason to anybody in the shop in fact a shop attendant should not even ask, although if the shop calls the police, the police are allowed to ask for a valid reason, but since they are virtually powerless to dispute them and not keen on using resources on such a case, they are unlikely to be called. It is even the case that if somebody is refused service, a shop could be charged under discrimination legislation, although litigating would be too much of a hassle unless a group got together to form a campaign.
So how is it intended to enforce the legislation? The clue is in Michael Gove's "social shaming". In effect the government is relying on The British People to be arsey toward those who cannot wear a mask. God help us if obese people ever are told to stay at home relying on the public to shame fatties into staying at home.
I'd be interested to know how many on this ship would be aggressive towards non-wearers. From some posts, I would say quite a few. Would it make a difference if the person went to the trouble of printing out a do-it-yourself badge citing exemption? Do you think that someone who threw a can of cream over a non-wearer was a hero or a bully? (Maybe there's a middle ground - just prejudiced and ignorant).
Of course, if everyone behaved in a civilised manner to those exempt from the legislation, mask wearing would fairly quickly die out. Which I would see as a good result, but the majority on this ship would see as a bad result. This is only against face masks to the extent that it is against any legislation which relies on social aggression towards minorities to be enforced.