Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
[COVID-19] General Discussion
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Yoshimitsu" data-source="post: 992700" data-attributes="member: 71899"><p>"Like" is completely the wrong sentiment but you've obviously put some thought into that post. As I've stated before (up-thread) I'm not an epidemiologist but I have been following this closely since it emerged in China. In my opinion the west have been slow to recognise the threat and slower still do do anything about it.</p><p></p><p>"Flattening the curve" is only a really viable strategy if you can scale a health service to deal with it and are willing to employ draconian measures to control the populace (and that the idiots listen). Additionally you have to be able to roll-out significant economic and social support to avoid dangerous social upheaval. Demographics also plays a massive part as does the overall health of the population. South Africa also has a relatively young society compared to the U.K for example. This is a disease that by and large is killing older weaker citizens. There also seems to be a correlation with things like obesity / diabetes etc. The U.S. and U.K. will pay a heavy toll on that front. </p><p></p><p>I'd say it's a far more balanced position in South Africa than most of Europe. Politically the likes of Boris couldn't back a policy that ended up with lorries full of dead elderly being buried en masse. Even if it were likely to lead to a better overall result.</p><p></p><p>As it happens the U.K's initial approach was to let this run its course (whilst protecting the most vulnerable) and emerge on the other side with herd immunity. This was only scuppered when the real world experience didn't tally with the models being used. Those being that Italy's experiencing a 5% + case fatality rate. If that experience were mirrored in the U.K rather than 510,000 deaths predicted by Imperial College (modeled at 0.9% IFR) you'd be looking somewhere north of 2 million. I doubt our political class would survive that politically or potentially physically. The U.K. cannot for example use the same capabilities as Singapore as our social model is significantly different and judging by our behaviour over the weekend people aren't capable of complying with "advice".</p><p></p><p>The "let it burn approach" will lead to lots of dead people (but so will unworkable alternatives). The actual risk of fatality for an individual only really being apparent after the event or post mortem. However, if the alternatives cannot be managed i.e. healthcare won't cope anyway and social and economic support can't be given then it may be the only viable option. Best strategy in that case is probably isolation for a long period for the frail (where possible) and securing vital infrastructure whilst the epidemic runs its course. Additionally you'll need some efficient services to deal with the bodies of those who succumb to avoid secondary health issues. You'd also need a strong government that was willing to stay the course. Once you embark down this road, there's no turning off it. Finally some difficult decisions about alleviating suffering will need to be made. I'd dearly love to live in a society where this is possible but the U.K. is very cautious about delegating life and death decisions (understandably so to a degree). But if you're dealing with mass casualties with no way of caring for them adequately then mercy seems like a good option to me.</p><p></p><p>I suspect there are no really good options unless someone pulls a rabbit out of their hat. To date despite some bluster the U.S. seem to be in serious trouble as do some advanced European nations. </p><p></p><p>Good luck. Everyone is going to need it I fear.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Yoshimitsu, post: 992700, member: 71899"] "Like" is completely the wrong sentiment but you've obviously put some thought into that post. As I've stated before (up-thread) I'm not an epidemiologist but I have been following this closely since it emerged in China. In my opinion the west have been slow to recognise the threat and slower still do do anything about it. "Flattening the curve" is only a really viable strategy if you can scale a health service to deal with it and are willing to employ draconian measures to control the populace (and that the idiots listen). Additionally you have to be able to roll-out significant economic and social support to avoid dangerous social upheaval. Demographics also plays a massive part as does the overall health of the population. South Africa also has a relatively young society compared to the U.K for example. This is a disease that by and large is killing older weaker citizens. There also seems to be a correlation with things like obesity / diabetes etc. The U.S. and U.K. will pay a heavy toll on that front. I'd say it's a far more balanced position in South Africa than most of Europe. Politically the likes of Boris couldn't back a policy that ended up with lorries full of dead elderly being buried en masse. Even if it were likely to lead to a better overall result. As it happens the U.K's initial approach was to let this run its course (whilst protecting the most vulnerable) and emerge on the other side with herd immunity. This was only scuppered when the real world experience didn't tally with the models being used. Those being that Italy's experiencing a 5% + case fatality rate. If that experience were mirrored in the U.K rather than 510,000 deaths predicted by Imperial College (modeled at 0.9% IFR) you'd be looking somewhere north of 2 million. I doubt our political class would survive that politically or potentially physically. The U.K. cannot for example use the same capabilities as Singapore as our social model is significantly different and judging by our behaviour over the weekend people aren't capable of complying with "advice". The "let it burn approach" will lead to lots of dead people (but so will unworkable alternatives). The actual risk of fatality for an individual only really being apparent after the event or post mortem. However, if the alternatives cannot be managed i.e. healthcare won't cope anyway and social and economic support can't be given then it may be the only viable option. Best strategy in that case is probably isolation for a long period for the frail (where possible) and securing vital infrastructure whilst the epidemic runs its course. Additionally you'll need some efficient services to deal with the bodies of those who succumb to avoid secondary health issues. You'd also need a strong government that was willing to stay the course. Once you embark down this road, there's no turning off it. Finally some difficult decisions about alleviating suffering will need to be made. I'd dearly love to live in a society where this is possible but the U.K. is very cautious about delegating life and death decisions (understandably so to a degree). But if you're dealing with mass casualties with no way of caring for them adequately then mercy seems like a good option to me. I suspect there are no really good options unless someone pulls a rabbit out of their hat. To date despite some bluster the U.S. seem to be in serious trouble as do some advanced European nations. Good luck. Everyone is going to need it I fear. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
[COVID-19] General Discussion
Top