4 ms·

I watched a part of the presentation, but it was actually unclear to me what is the peak infections mentioned. I mean, in Italy, the numbers are very small comp

I watched a part of the presentation, but it was actually unclear to me what is the peak infections mentioned. I mean, in Italy, the numbers are very small compared to 80% of population, and the health system is already not able to cope, and mortality rate is quite high. Does it mean that UK will wait for their numbers to be 10 times the current Italy numbers before starting the quarantine?

gambiting 7y ago
No, it means that UK government knows that it cannot stop the situation getting a lot worse, and a quarantine will be a lot more effective as a tool later on. They seemed to be quite realistic about this, not going " it will be all fine, trust us". They know things will get fucked and a full quarantine is one of the many tools to use against the virus - so let's use it when it's most effective. Otherwise like they said - if we quarantine the entire country right now, it won't stop the spread anyway. So we'll come out of quarantine and then have to do it again in a month - and people will get fed up with it and won't obey a quarantine if it goes on for too long or too frequently. So if the spread is inevitable, let's use the quarantine at the point that prevents the most possible number of infections.
- mistersquid 7y ago
  The UK are not following quarantine and isolation protocols to mitigate the virus because they are trying to protect the economy post-Brexit.
  - gambiting 7y ago
    I mean, maybe, but I'm yet to see proof of that. The reaction yesterday seemed perfectly reasonable.
- wwweston 7y ago
  I can see some discussion about trying to figure out which restrictions will work best with the psychology of a given population. But the idea that the "most effective" time is going to be later doesn't make much sense to me. Marginal rate changes in exponential spread are most likely to have the biggest impacts early. It doesn't much change the total volume of people who get sick, but it very likely changes the volume of people who get sick at once, and that can save lives. This sounds like saying "we can only imagine quarantine working if things get fucked, so we're going to let things get fucked, so that the quarantine will work except for the fact that things are already fucked oh well too late."
  - aljungberg 7y ago
    Sweden is making the same decision and they explained it quite well. A quarantine means children stay home from nurseries, daycare and school. This increases the stress on the medical system because some doctors and nurses have to stay home to take care of their children. In addition, new constellations of people gathering become likely. E.g. children from different schools may play together more in the neighborhoods, opening new pathways for the disease to spread. So when a quarantine is not expected to help in most cases (because most people are not infected), the drawbacks easily outweigh the benefits.
    - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
      They are smaller pools in the neighborhood, than in a school. Slowing down the infection rate is the whole game right now. Closing schools is a huge step toward that. It seems strange a hospital cannot respond to daycare needs in their own population in a situation like this...
      - aljungberg 7y ago
        It’s not the size of the pool but the novelty of the configuration of people. Every time an infected individual meets a healthy one that’s a new chance to spread the infection. But you can only spread it once to each person, so if you meet the same people over and over that’s okay. When you ask people to change their routines, you also encourage new “lateral” disease spread. I don’t think hospitals have “emergency daycare” available generally speaking. If it does come down to quarantine, I’m sure efforts will be made. It is still a cost and a negative outcome of the quarantine so my point remains: when the benefit is very small, the costs easily outweigh the benefits.
        JoeAltmaier 7y ago
        Now that isn't right. Meeting the same people over and over spreads the disease - we don't all get it at the same moment, and each contact even with the same person is a new opportunity to get infected (because they got it from somewhere else since your last contact). Social distancing, reduce frequency of contact, stop meeting in large groups. That's the whole ballgame now.
marcosdumay 7y ago
Ideally, a government would quarantine all probable cases with the aim of extinguishing the disease. But if the disease is spread enough (inside or outside your borders) so that is impossible, the next best thing is to reduce social interaction just before your health system collapses, and just enough to avoid a collapse. That minimizes both the cost and time of isolation.

gambiting 7y ago

No, it means that UK government knows that it cannot stop the situation getting a lot worse, and a quarantine will be a lot more effective as a tool later on. They seemed to be quite realistic about this, not going " it will be all fine, trust us". They know things will get fucked and a full quarantine is one of the many tools to use against the virus - so let's use it when it's most effective. Otherwise like they said - if we quarantine the entire country right now, it won't stop the spread anyway. So we'll come out of quarantine and then have to do it again in a month - and people will get fed up with it and won't obey a quarantine if it goes on for too long or too frequently. So if the spread is inevitable, let's use the quarantine at the point that prevents the most possible number of infections.

mistersquid 7y ago
The UK are not following quarantine and isolation protocols to mitigate the virus because they are trying to protect the economy post-Brexit.
- gambiting 7y ago
  I mean, maybe, but I'm yet to see proof of that. The reaction yesterday seemed perfectly reasonable.
wwweston 7y ago
I can see some discussion about trying to figure out which restrictions will work best with the psychology of a given population. But the idea that the "most effective" time is going to be later doesn't make much sense to me. Marginal rate changes in exponential spread are most likely to have the biggest impacts early. It doesn't much change the total volume of people who get sick, but it very likely changes the volume of people who get sick at once, and that can save lives. This sounds like saying "we can only imagine quarantine working if things get fucked, so we're going to let things get fucked, so that the quarantine will work except for the fact that things are already fucked oh well too late."
- aljungberg 7y ago
  Sweden is making the same decision and they explained it quite well. A quarantine means children stay home from nurseries, daycare and school. This increases the stress on the medical system because some doctors and nurses have to stay home to take care of their children. In addition, new constellations of people gathering become likely. E.g. children from different schools may play together more in the neighborhoods, opening new pathways for the disease to spread. So when a quarantine is not expected to help in most cases (because most people are not infected), the drawbacks easily outweigh the benefits.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    They are smaller pools in the neighborhood, than in a school. Slowing down the infection rate is the whole game right now. Closing schools is a huge step toward that. It seems strange a hospital cannot respond to daycare needs in their own population in a situation like this...
    - aljungberg 7y ago
      It’s not the size of the pool but the novelty of the configuration of people. Every time an infected individual meets a healthy one that’s a new chance to spread the infection. But you can only spread it once to each person, so if you meet the same people over and over that’s okay. When you ask people to change their routines, you also encourage new “lateral” disease spread. I don’t think hospitals have “emergency daycare” available generally speaking. If it does come down to quarantine, I’m sure efforts will be made. It is still a cost and a negative outcome of the quarantine so my point remains: when the benefit is very small, the costs easily outweigh the benefits.
      - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
        Now that isn't right. Meeting the same people over and over spreads the disease - we don't all get it at the same moment, and each contact even with the same person is a new opportunity to get infected (because they got it from somewhere else since your last contact). Social distancing, reduce frequency of contact, stop meeting in large groups. That's the whole ballgame now.

marcosdumay 7y ago

Ideally, a government would quarantine all probable cases with the aim of extinguishing the disease. But if the disease is spread enough (inside or outside your borders) so that is impossible, the next best thing is to reduce social interaction just before your health system collapses, and just enough to avoid a collapse. That minimizes both the cost and time of isolation.