R51 – Ministerial Report from the SoS for Health and Social Care - Coronavirus Watch

This discussion is closed.
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#81
Report 4 weeks ago
#81
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
It is indeed very bad. I also didn't realize influenza could lead to a surgery.
Could just be clearing of the airways.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#82
Report 4 weeks ago
#82
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
Since we last talked:

- 220 more confirmed cases
- the virus crossed another hard border into Hong Kong (and 2 cases)
- cases in Thailand tripled
- UK begins screening
- Europe got its first suspected case (in Russia)
- deaths gone from 9 to 17
- Wuhan now in complete lockdown. Nobody is allowed to leave the city
- "Experts believe it is quite possible the disease, which causes coughing, fever and breathing problems, will arrive in the UK. It can take at least five days for symptoms to show. If flights resume, the airport checks may not pick it up, but will serve to alert people to the need to get medical attention if they fall sick."
- "Prof Neil Ferguson’s team at Imperial College London, who carry out disease modelling for the WHO, said they had increased their estimate from 1,700 cases at the end of last week to 4,000. However, they say there is considerable uncertainty and the true number could be between 1,000 and 9,700." [ibid]
- "Experts say the spread of the coronavirus fulfils the criteria for the WHO to declare it of international concern. “Personally, I think this is a big event,” said Horby. “Is it extraordinary? Yes, it pretty much is. We haven’t seen this large-scale spread since Sars.”" [ibid]
- While we're talking about the PHE, who by the way does not agree with your incorrect opinion: "From today, 22 January 2020, enhanced monitoring will be in place from all direct flights from Wuhan to the UK. The enhanced monitoring package includes a number of measures that will help to provide advice to travellers if they feel unwell."

The WHO failing to update after one day of meeting does not in any way means they "agree" with you. It simply means they need more time to analyze the data they have obtained.

None of these is my opinion. It's the opinion of medical professionals, it's the opinion of numerous governments in the world, including the one the UK has. Both Imperial College London (not the LSE, btw) and Hong Kong University have produced reports. Yet, you, who are not a medic, not a statistician is here acting like you know better than they are. Oh wait, I studied a statistics course at Oxford too, does it make my opinion very valid now?

The situation has gotten so severe that a metropolis of 11 million people is literally getting shut off, during the most culturally important festival of the year. But yes, hold on to your outdated WHO guidelines issued in better times when we weren't getting hundreds of new cases and a new jurisdiction and a handful of deaths every single day.
You aren't a doctor either, nor a statistician, and yet you claim to know better than them. I shall ask again: why is PHE England wrong and you're right?

It's amazing just how many times you have dodged that and instead go on about how the WHO guidelines were published nearly two weeks ago as if that matter, it's almost as if you believe that should their advice won't bother telling anybody, keep it a secret so nobody can act on it.

You say you've studied a stats course (I kinda did a maths degree and had to study stats so yup, definitely know nothing about stats) and yet seem to be citing the 1700, now 4000 figure, as fact and completely ignore the CI, nor the fact that some very small changes to the parameters cause significant changes to the outcome.

How about another point you incessantly ignore being a factor in the rapidly increasing number of lab confirmed cases, tests are becoming easier to do, more tests can be carried out per day, more cases can be confirmed (or suspected cases shown to be false) than there could before.


Likewise you conveniently ignore the details of the deaths, namely the profiles of the deceased: mostly elderly, 60s 70s and 80s (8 of the 17 being in their 80s), and almost all have underlying health conditions; one of them had this as their medical history: COPD, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, chronic renal insufficiency, ascending aortic artificial aortic replacement, abdominal aortic stent , Cholecystectomy, multiple organ damage. AND it remains only 3% of confirmed cases.

The suspension of public transport in Wuhan, Huanggang, and trains in Ezhou isn't reason to jump to these extremes either because the point of those moves is to contain, and only a few days ago you were using the inaction over SARS as reason why these actions are needed, now action is being taken you say that is proof something needs doing. IT was also an action not recommended by WHO, and one suspects it was taken by politicians who are well aware of the reaction to the handling of SARS and so taking very drastic action to be able to say "look, we did something"
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#83
Report 4 weeks ago
#83
(Original post by Bailey14)
I am happy I took action when I did.

Public Health England are now initiating measures. I hope members realise that the actions of myself as this government were not an overreaction.Attachment 875612
I suggest you look at the measures they're implementing, they are totally different measure to those you took on the advice of a loon who sees a new disease in China and shouts SARS!

What has PHE advised and the government implemented: leaflets and an announcement before disembarkation. An information campaign except for when there are indications of an infected passenger; it is being handled the same as in previous cases of a new disease, don't do detailed screening because it is generally ineffective and try to ensure those who might be infected seek medical attention if they exhibit symptoms so they can be tested.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#84
Report 4 weeks ago
#84
With several thousand quarantined due to either suspected infection or possibility of infection via close proximity to an infected person waiting for lab results, I predict that tomorrow there will be scores more confirmed cases and hundreds more people told they can go home because they didn't actually pick up the disease, I also expect there will be a couple more fatalities among the ancient. Naturally our esteemed LotO will focus on how many suspected cases have been confirmed and completely ignore what WHO says if it doesn't conform with his extremism.
0
SnowMiku
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#85
Report 4 weeks ago
#85
Good to see action being taken, coronavirus isn't looking to be anything else but deadly.
I would support steps being taken at other airports, however.
1
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#86
Report 4 weeks ago
#86
(Original post by SnowMiku)
Good to see action being taken, coronavirus isn't looking to be anything else but deadly.
I would support steps being taken at other airports, however.
Erm, in 96% of confirmed cases the patient is still alive? in 4% of confirmed cases patients have been released having recovered? There are likely hundreds of mild or asymptomatic cases out there where people have recovered or are recovering?

There is objective proof that ti is stuff other than deadly. I shall ask you the same as Bailey, and Baron, both of whom have been unable to answer: why are you right and PHE wrong?
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#87
Report 4 weeks ago
#87
This is so serious that WHO have once again NOT declared a PHEIC

And contrary to SnowMiku's declaration it isn't anything but deadly we have WHO declaring "We know that this virus can cause severe disease, and that it can kill, although for most people it causes milder symptoms.

We know that among those infected, one quarter of patients have experienced severe disease"

Most have mild symptoms, only a quarter severe, and not even all of those die

And those who have died have mostly had compromised immune systems:
""We know that most of those who have died had underlying health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease that weakened their immune systems""

And human-to-human is thus far limited only to those in close proximity, i.e. family and medical staff:
"We know that there is human-to-human transmission in 🇨🇳, but for now it appears limited to family groups & #healthworkers caring for infected patients. At this time, there is no evidence of human-to-human transmission outside 🇨🇳, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen"

And the guidance from 13 days ago remains in place, it has been explicitly stated there is no change
"For the moment, WHO does not recommend any broader restrictions on travel or trade.

We recommend exit screening at airports as part of a comprehensive set of containment measures"
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#88
Report 4 weeks ago
#88
Baron of Sealand

Oh look, the 13 day old guidance remains the current guidance with it having just been reiterated, you were saying that it was meaningless due to being 13 days old?
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#89
Report 4 weeks ago
#89
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
You aren't a doctor either, nor a statistician, and yet you claim to know better than them. I shall ask again: why is PHE England wrong and you're right?

It's amazing just how many times you have dodged that and instead go on about how the WHO guidelines were published nearly two weeks ago as if that matter, it's almost as if you believe that should their advice won't bother telling anybody, keep it a secret so nobody can act on it.

You say you've studied a stats course (I kinda did a maths degree and had to study stats so yup, definitely know nothing about stats) and yet seem to be citing the 1700, now 4000 figure, as fact and completely ignore the CI, nor the fact that some very small changes to the parameters cause significant changes to the outcome.

How about another point you incessantly ignore being a factor in the rapidly increasing number of lab confirmed cases, tests are becoming easier to do, more tests can be carried out per day, more cases can be confirmed (or suspected cases shown to be false) than there could before.


Likewise you conveniently ignore the details of the deaths, namely the profiles of the deceased: mostly elderly, 60s 70s and 80s (8 of the 17 being in their 80s), and almost all have underlying health conditions; one of them had this as their medical history: COPD, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, chronic renal insufficiency, ascending aortic artificial aortic replacement, abdominal aortic stent , Cholecystectomy, multiple organ damage. AND it remains only 3% of confirmed cases.

The suspension of public transport in Wuhan, Huanggang, and trains in Ezhou isn't reason to jump to these extremes either because the point of those moves is to contain, and only a few days ago you were using the inaction over SARS as reason why these actions are needed, now action is being taken you say that is proof something needs doing. IT was also an action not recommended by WHO, and one suspects it was taken by politicians who are well aware of the reaction to the handling of SARS and so taking very drastic action to be able to say "look, we did something"
Which was why I quoted reports and comments from medical professionals and universities, unlike you, who is relying on yourself to rubbish university research with the support of someone who said he'd taken one statistics course at university.

After all this time, you still fail to understand this: this is not about how much I know and how much you know. I have been quoting comments and reports from the professionals. I didn't estimate that 1700 number, nor did I make that 4000 number. Imperial College London researchers did. You will need a little more than a maths degree to convince me you know better than professors at Imperial College London.

Speaking of expert opinion, there's Professor Yi Guan from the University of Hong Kong, who worked on SARS and identified its source, saying this novel coronavirus is much, much worse than SARS, with his conservative estimates being 10 times of the infections when all is said and done.

(Original post by Jammy Duel)
With several thousand quarantined due to either suspected infection or possibility of infection via close proximity to an infected person waiting for lab results, I predict that tomorrow there will be scores more confirmed cases and hundreds more people told they can go home because they didn't actually pick up the disease, I also expect there will be a couple more fatalities among the ancient. Naturally our esteemed LotO will focus on how many suspected cases have been confirmed and completely ignore what WHO says if it doesn't conform with his extremism.
The way you put it it almost sounds as if WHO is against identifying suspected cases for testing and observation. Except they do not.

(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Erm, in 96% of confirmed cases the patient is still alive? in 4% of confirmed cases patients have been released having recovered? There are likely hundreds of mild or asymptomatic cases out there where people have recovered or are recovering?

There is objective proof that ti is stuff other than deadly. I shall ask you the same as Bailey, and Baron, both of whom have been unable to answer: why are you right and PHE wrong?
According to the pandemic severity index (PSI), 2% or above of a mortality rate is the "worst case scenario" and of the most severe category.

4% is 2 times of 2%, and we of course have to consider the fact that people aren't going to drop dead that quickly after getting infected either.
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Baron of Sealand

Oh look, the 13 day old guidance remains the current guidance with it having just been reiterated, you were saying that it was meaningless due to being 13 days old?
You really do seem like someone who just cannot stand losing an argument, but let's see what the WHO statement actually says:

It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO.

Countries are required to share information with WHO according to the IHR.

Technical advice is available here. Countries should place particular emphasis on reducing human infection, prevention of secondary transmission and international spread and contributing to the international response though multi-sectoral communication and collaboration and active participation in increasing knowledge on the virus and the disease, as well as advancing research. Countries should also follow travel advice from WHO.


I'm sure your plan of inaction counts as active surveillance and early detection.

---

Since the last time we talked:

- China closed down 5 more cities to a total of 6
- Japan confirmed another case
- Vietnam now has confirmed cases
- Singapore confirmed its first case
- Taiwan banned masks exports.
- Macau begins rationing masks, urges everyone to wear a mask.
- Wuhan criminalized not wearing masks in public.
- First death happened outside Hubai province
- The University of Chester said it has notified its students currently in the UK that if they return to China for Chinese New Year they will not be readmitted without a suitable quarantine period.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#90
Report 4 weeks ago
#90
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
Which was why I quoted reports and comments from medical professionals and universities, unlike you, who is relying on yourself to rubbish university research with the support of someone who said he'd taken one statistics course at university.

After all this time, you still fail to understand this: this is not about how much I know and how much you know. I have been quoting comments and reports from the professionals. I didn't estimate that 1700 number, nor did I make that 4000 number. Imperial College London researchers did. You will need a little more than a maths degree to convince me you know better than professors at Imperial College London.

Speaking of expert opinion, there's Professor Yi Guan from the University of Hong Kong, who worked on SARS and identified its source, saying this novel coronavirus is much, much worse than SARS, with his conservative estimates being 10 times of the infections when all is said and done.



The way you put it it almost sounds as if WHO is against identifying suspected cases for testing and observation. Except they do not.


According to the pandemic severity index (PSI), 2% or above of a mortality rate is the "worst case scenario" and of the most severe category.

4% is 2 times of 2%, and we of course have to consider the fact that people aren't going to drop dead that quickly after getting infected either.

You really do seem like someone who just cannot stand losing an argument, but let's see what the WHO statement actually says:

It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO.

Countries are required to share information with WHO according to the IHR.

Technical advice is available here. Countries should place particular emphasis on reducing human infection, prevention of secondary transmission and international spread and contributing to the international response though multi-sectoral communication and collaboration and active participation in increasing knowledge on the virus and the disease, as well as advancing research. Countries should also follow travel advice from WHO.


I'm sure your plan of inaction counts as active surveillance and early detection.

---

Since the last time we talked:

- China closed down 5 more cities to a total of 6
- Japan confirmed another case
- Vietnam now has confirmed cases
- Singapore confirmed its first case
- Taiwan banned masks exports.
- Macau begins rationing masks, urges everyone to wear a mask.
- Wuhan criminalized not wearing masks in public.
- First death happened outside Hubai province
- The University of Chester said it has notified its students currently in the UK that if they return to China for Chinese New Year they will not be readmitted without a suitable quarantine period.
It's almost as if you have completely ignored my position and projected the one you want, it's almost as if the position that the actions set out in the statement are excessive because it runs contrary to WHO and PHE guidance means I support absolutely no action rather than...erm...WHO and PHE guidance...

You can keep saying "since the last time we talked China wanted to show it has learnt from SARS all you like, but do you know what hasn't changed? The WHO guidance that says:
"WHO does not recommend any specific health measures for travellers. It is generally considered that entry screening offers little benefit, while requiring considerable resources. In case of symptoms suggestive to respiratory illness before, during or after travel, the travellers are encouraged to seek medical attention and share travel history with their health care provider. WHO advises against the application of any travel or trade restrictions on China based on the information currently available on this event."

I'll ask again, WHO say entry screening generally offers little benefit and instead should focus on ensuring travellers act correctly should they display symptoms, PHE clearly agree, I consequently agree. Why are WHO and PHE wrong about a second round of the sort of screening you endorse?

You like listening doctors who talk to the media, and the media companies whose job it is to write sensationalist headlines to get clicks, but you don't seem to be too interested in listening to those who are actually responsible for trying to manage the spread of disease and coordinate efforts to fight them, and have huge amounts of experience doing exactly that, instead do what the paper says and look at what the Chinese government is doing to try to shed the SARS perception.

Here's a fun one, the face mask business is ultimately just a PR thing too, they're only really effective for reducing the spread of disease in hospital environments where they're used properly, whereas with the general public they aren't used properly and as such the benefits are not too compelling at best. Thing is if people think it helps then making it mandatory to have one makes it look like you're taking serious measures to tackle the disease.
Last edited by Jammy Duel; 4 weeks ago
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#91
Report 4 weeks ago
#91
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
It's almost as if you have completely ignored my position and projected the one you want, it's almost as if the position that the actions set out in the statement are excessive because it runs contrary to WHO and PHE guidance means I support absolutely no action rather than...erm...WHO and PHE guidance...

You can keep saying "since the last time we talked China wanted to show it has learnt from SARS all you like, but do you know what hasn't changed? The WHO guidance that says:
"WHO does not recommend any specific health measures for travellers. It is generally considered that entry screening offers little benefit, while requiring considerable resources. In case of symptoms suggestive to respiratory illness before, during or after travel, the travellers are encouraged to seek medical attention and share travel history with their health care provider. WHO advises against the application of any travel or trade restrictions on China based on the information currently available on this event."

I'll ask again, WHO say entry screening generally offers little benefit and instead should focus on ensuring travellers act correctly should they display symptoms, PHE clearly agree, I consequently agree. Why are WHO and PHE wrong about a second round of the sort of screening you endorse?

You like listening doctors who talk to the media, and the media companies whose job it is to write sensationalist headlines to get clicks, but you don't seem to be too interested in listening to those who are actually responsible for trying to manage the spread of disease and coordinate efforts to fight them, and have huge amounts of experience doing exactly that, instead do what the paper says.
Dr Nathalie MacDermott, NIHR academic clinical lecturer, King’s College London, said: “It is wise to implement checks at this stage given the evidence on increasing spread of the virus to other countries and across continents, but largely for the purpose of being in contact with travellers from affected regions in case they become unwell.

“If they were to be unwell at the airport or become unwell in the future it will allow more prompt isolation and testing of the patient, with appropriate tracing of any people the patient may have been in contact with.

“This will hopefully limit the amount of people the person may have contact with while unwell and so limit the spread of the virus.”

It's interesting that you say "actually responsible for trying to manage the spread of disease and coordinate efforts to fight them, and have huge amounts of experience doing exactly that", because it appears that you don't think the medical professionals who have actually been on the ground dealing with the diseases are worth listening to.

---

You have offered no plans for early detection, which the WHO explicitly called for, specifically for this disease (versus making a general comment). Why is the WHO wrong and you right?
0
Em.-.
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#92
Report 4 weeks ago
#92
While the mortality rate is low at the moment, the number of those in “critical condition” is considerably high. If measures aren’t taken soon enough the virus could mutate and become much more deadly. Additionally it’s unfair to people who are more vulnerable to see the virus as insignificant simply because at the moment it hasn’t been fatal to the majority.

A doctor who worked to help with the sars outbreak has said he is much more worried about this new virus. There are likely many more cases than have been reported, likely in the thousands. Had efforts been taken to prevent the spread sooner we may not be in this situation. The virus first became known in December.

If this fortunately happens to blow over, China should take action and ban the markets where these diseases are transferred to humans. Certain animals are not suitable for consumption, the people who have been eating things like “bat soup” need to understand that.

*Edit: there is already evidence of the virus starting to mutate.
Last edited by Em.-.; 4 weeks ago
2
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#93
Report 4 weeks ago
#93
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
Dr Nathalie MacDermott, NIHR academic clinical lecturer, King’s College London, said: “It is wise to implement checks at this stage given the evidence on increasing spread of the virus to other countries and across continents, but largely for the purpose of being in contact with travellers from affected regions in case they become unwell.

“If they were to be unwell at the airport or become unwell in the future it will allow more prompt isolation and testing of the patient, with appropriate tracing of any people the patient may have been in contact with.

“This will hopefully limit the amount of people the person may have contact with while unwell and so limit the spread of the virus.”

It's interesting that you say "actually responsible for trying to manage the spread of disease and coordinate efforts to fight them, and have huge amounts of experience doing exactly that", because it appears that you don't think the medical professionals who have actually been on the ground dealing with the diseases are worth listening to.

---

You have offered no plans for early detection, which the WHO explicitly called for, specifically for this disease (versus making a general comment). Why is the WHO wrong and you right?
Again, citing individual people talking, not the bodies that do this for a living.

It seems you have not bothered looking up PHEs actions given you are claiming I have no plans despite my position being that nothing in excess of PHE recommendations is necessary at this time.
Step 1: there's exit screening, nearly all symptomatic cases will be picked up there with the patient being denied travel
Step 2: if cabin crew become aware of a patient becoming symptomatic during the flight the ground is informed and appropriate action is taken which I would guess is quarantine for at all those on the plane until tests are completed, if negative they let out, if positive treat patient and test other passengers and crew
Step 3: if nobody becomes outwardly symptomatic operate on an information basis, short of quarantining all passengers you have to rely on them. An announcement is made on the plane with information, information leaflets are distributed and a ground team greets the plane for if any action is required or to provide more information
Step 4: if a passenger becomes symptomatic and they pay attention to the information they're given they then go to the hospital, informing the hospital beforehand so they can be prepared to take a potential case.

It isn't really a complicated idea, symptomatic patients should be picked up in China, asymptomatic patients are unlikely to become symptomatic during the flight, consequently full screening on arrival adds little benefit and you have to put control in the hands of the passengers.
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#94
Report 4 weeks ago
#94
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Again, citing individual people talking, not the bodies that do this for a living.

It seems you have not bothered looking up PHEs actions given you are claiming I have no plans despite my position being that nothing in excess of PHE recommendations is necessary at this time.
Step 1: there's exit screening, nearly all symptomatic cases will be picked up there with the patient being denied travel
Step 2: if cabin crew become aware of a patient becoming symptomatic during the flight the ground is informed and appropriate action is taken which I would guess is quarantine for at all those on the plane until tests are completed, if negative they let out, if positive treat patient and test other passengers and crew
Step 3: if nobody becomes outwardly symptomatic operate on an information basis, short of quarantining all passengers you have to rely on them. An announcement is made on the plane with information, information leaflets are distributed and a ground team greets the plane for if any action is required or to provide more information
Step 4: if a passenger becomes symptomatic and they pay attention to the information they're given they then go to the hospital, informing the hospital beforehand so they can be prepared to take a potential case.

It isn't really a complicated idea, symptomatic patients should be picked up in China, asymptomatic patients are unlikely to become symptomatic during the flight, consequently full screening on arrival adds little benefit and you have to put control in the hands of the passengers.
For those travelling back directly from Wuhan, this includes a Port Health team who will meet each direct flight aircraft to provide advice and support to those that feel unwell. The team will include the Principal Port Medical Inspector, Port Health Doctor, Administrative Support, and Team Leader.

They will check for symptoms of coronavirus and provide information to all passengers about symptoms and what to do if they become ill. Mandarin and Cantonese language support will be available to Public Health England (PHE) and leaflets will be available to passengers.

Why is the PHE wrong and you right? I'll read your answer tomorrow.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#95
Report 4 weeks ago
#95
https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov...-need-to-know/
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#96
Report 4 weeks ago
#96
Shall we continue the "since we last spoke game", now China is awake updates have been made with ~200 more cases and 6 fatalities, keeping the mortality rate at ~3%. The sources being used haven't given any details on the 6 new dead although one suspects they're all or almost all pensioners and/or have preexisting conditions that compromise their immune system. 1072 suspected cases and 34 cured.

Hebei has a second confirmed case, and it appears it was a post mortem confirmation, 80 years old. 76 close contacts in isolation awaiting test results
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#97
Report 4 weeks ago
#97
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Shall we continue the "since we last spoke game", now China is awake updates have been made with ~200 more cases and 6 fatalities, keeping the mortality rate at ~3%. The sources being used haven't given any details on the 6 new dead although one suspects they're all or almost all pensioners and/or have preexisting conditions that compromise their immune system. 1072 suspected cases and 34 cured.

Hebei has a second confirmed case, and it appears it was a post mortem confirmation, 80 years old. 76 close contacts in isolation awaiting test results
I'm glad you acknowledged that the situation is still quickly worsening. Although I'm sorry to tell you the situation has worsened even further. The fatalities have gone from 17 a day ago to 25 now. That's 8 additional deaths, or 7 if you compare it to the last report (18).

Thank you for calculating the mortality rate again. Anything 2% or above is a flu that's at the worst case scenario, and in the highest of the severity scale in the US.

It's interesting that you're saying it as if Britain doesn't have old people or people with preexisting conditions. Regardless, an infectious disease is infectious only if it doesn't kill the host too early, so I'm sure the the reality, as it has been the case in the past few days, will prove you wrong again soon.

It's of course interesting that you're insisting the myth that there's no screening done at the airport in the UK. There's a team who will meet every flight, and an isolated area just to receive them. If there's no screening done, no question asked, then you must think they are all just standing around doing nothing, with an empty area reserved for nothing next to them. Asking the pilots to report on cases quite clearly is still an entry screening and not an exit screening.

So...why is the PHE wrong and you right?

I just got back on because I forgot to submit a bill, this time you will not hear from me for some hours. It's suspicious that now you've gone from giving me a gazillion notifications in multiple threads to not quoting or mentioning me. Regardless of your intent, do note that if you don't quote or mention me, you definitely cannot expect a response.
0
JMR2020.
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#98
Report 4 weeks ago
#98
Isn't it better to overreact and have it be less serious that expected, than undereact and it being more serious than expected?
3
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#99
Report 4 weeks ago
#99
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
I'm glad you acknowledged that the situation is still quickly worsening. Although I'm sorry to tell you the situation has worsened even further. The fatalities have gone from 17 a day ago to 25 now. That's 8 additional deaths, or 7 if you compare it to the last report (18).

Thank you for calculating the mortality rate again. Anything 2% or above is a flu that's at the worst case scenario, and in the highest of the severity scale in the US.

It's interesting that you're saying it as if Britain doesn't have old people or people with preexisting conditions. Regardless, an infectious disease is infectious only if it doesn't kill the host too early, so I'm sure the the reality, as it has been the case in the past few days, will prove you wrong again soon.

It's of course interesting that you're insisting the myth that there's no screening done at the airport in the UK. There's a team who will meet every flight, and an isolated area just to receive them. If there's no screening done, no question asked, then you must think they are all just standing around doing nothing, with an empty area reserved for nothing next to them. Asking the pilots to report on cases quite clearly is still an entry screening and not an exit screening.

So...why is the PHE wrong and you right?

I just got back on because I forgot to submit a bill, this time you will not hear from me for some hours. It's suspicious that now you've gone from giving me a gazillion notifications in multiple threads to not quoting or mentioning me. Regardless of your intent, do note that if you don't quote or mention me, you definitely cannot expect a response.
It is hilarious that in response to me declaring that we should follow PHE advice you state that I believe PHE wrong. You have great difficulty comprehending the English language given you state such contradictions and seem unable to even read a short post from PHE, might I suggest you do so before stating that PHE have advised the following action:

"All passengers travelling from Wuhan Tianhe International Airport (WUH) will be screened and asked the following questions:
- Where did you start your journey?
- Have you been in contact with anyone who is known to have the coronavirus disease?
- Have you visited or been near markets in the Wuhan region?
- Have you felt unwell, nauseous or have you been vomiting?
All passengers will also have their temperature checked and given advice should officials believe they have coronavirus."


In fact the action you are endorsing are weaker than those IRL.

Bailey14 Could you explain why in the screening process you have proposed, massively in excess of that implemented IRL on the advice of experts in the field, you give no advice to general travellers as to what they should do if they develop symptoms, and even worse why you say that passengers will only be "given advice" if they are suspected of being ill rather than quarantined until there is lab confirmation?
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#100
Report 4 weeks ago
#100
(Original post by JMR2020.)
Isn't it better to overreact and have it be less serious that expected, than undereact and it being more serious than expected?
That would be a brilliant thought if it weren't for the fact that there are considerations beyond the spread of the disease, how much of an overreaction is too much of an overreaction? Should we go so far as completely banning entry to people who have visited China in the last 14 days, overreaction sure, but better safe than sorry? And why stop at 14, it is assumed that symptoms will present in 14 days but it is not impossible it would be longer? Or perhaps we don't ban people from entry, but any flights from China require mandatory quarantine of all passengers until they have tested negative?

WHO advise against the action proposed (even when done properly in that you quarantine suspected cases rather than just giving advice to them) because it is generally ineffective, owing to the fact that people are unlikely to develop symptoms during travel, and are very resource intensive, you have a massive cost without much benefit and WHO have been doing this for nearly three quarters of a century, including dealing with several potential major threats in this modern day of tens of millions of aircraft movements and billions of passengers annually.

Let's run a very basic cost benefit consideration for the proposed action, without too much detailed thought (mainly so I have cover for missing some stuff) and then compare it to the RL action:

Benefit

  1. You are near enough guaranteed to catch every potential case where a fever has developed during the flight
  2. You know the travel history
  3. You know if the passenger has been in contact with a known case
  4. You know whether they possibly have direct exposure to the source
  5. You know if they have been feeling unwell


Costs

  1. If we assume 2 minutes per passenger to get the information and take the temperature, and it is a 300 person flight, it will take 10 man hours to process the flight
  2. There is a possibility that people will take more lightly the development of symptoms if cleared again in the UK
  3. There isn't a reinforcement of the information campaign, that they should report for testing should they present so there is an increased possibility they will not, ergo allowing the disease to spread if somebody becomes symptomatic after arrival


Why the benefits are likely to be artificial:

  1. Setting aside the fact development of symptoms during transit is unlikely, the RL procedure includes the ground team being made aware of any suspected cases before arrival which means there is a decent chance of patients who become symptomatic during travel being picked up
  2. You know their travel history from flight manifests, I would be surprised if part of the process that isn't mentioned to the public is trying to track back people arriving in the country, but yeah,. flight manifests are a thing
  3. One would hope if they had been in contact with a known case they would have already been picked up and tested in China, although it is also unlikely that somebody would both have not been tested in China and know that they have been in contact with a confirmed case given they were probably in contact when asymptomatic
  4. If we assume that the cases since the initial round of infections are human to human spread, and the source of the disease was dealt with in the first few days of the year (the market was disinfected) then anybody who want in contact with the source would be displaying symptoms by now or will have had a case mild enough as to be either asymptomatic or have only mild symptoms.
  5. The IRL system already has this via self referral on arrival, or even the ground team being made aware before landing, you also have that unless the symptoms developed during travel (in which case see point 1) they should have sought medical attention before traveling.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (479)
66.53%
No (241)
33.47%

Watched Threads

View All