Peak infections occurred before full lockdown

Brompton Bruce

Coffeeeeeeeee pleeeeease
https://www.soundhealthandlastingwealth.com/health-news/coronavirus-uk-did-crisis-peak-before-lockdown/

(It took me ages to find a non-tabloid citation for this,so be grateful!)

This matches the analysis on R4s More-or-less, but they don't have graphs.
Carl Heneghan is a GP (and the head of the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine) and not an epidemiologist. He's entitled to his views but I'd prefer to hear what a specialist has to say. The science is tricky and the data are poor. We don't know the level of infection within the UK and there are questions about the death rate. I'd be wary of anyone who talks about certainty in this uncertain time.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
Yes, it's not credible to claim reliability at this time. The UK government headline number is only confirmed hospital deaths. Half the story at best.

That article appears to be taken from the Daily Mail, which is not a reliable source. The images are served from i.dailymail.co.uk
 

tom73

Veteran
Location
Yorkshire
He's been on news night a few times and to be me he never comes across as someone who is 100% convincing.
He's entitled to his view but he appears not to be open to any idea that it may not be totally correct.
 

marinyork

Resting in suspended Animation
Location
Logopolis
This matches the analysis on R4s More-or-less, but they don't have graphs.
All right, that's great, but where does it get us even if it's true?

When's the second peak coming and how high will it be?

I suspect he doesn't have a serious answer for that. He could be a 1-peaker.

The Sweden Herd immunity thing is interesting but not seen any data to back this up.
 

Rezillo

TwoSheds
Location
Suffolk
Syndromic surveillance of ambulance calls show sharp peaks for chest pain, cardiac/respiratory arrest and breathing problems, all for the last week in March.

Caveat is "Please note: recent trends in syndromic indicators should be interpreted with caution due to recent changes in coding used in Ambulance Trusts in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We are working on developing a new indicator to improve our surveillance of potential COVID-19 activity, which will be included in future reports".

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/880760/NASS_Bulletin_2020_16.pdf

These reports are useful only as guides, plus public concern can influence the figures, but those peaks and falls all in the same period and all for symptoms potentially Covid-19 related are interesting. I'm not sure how the caveat above affects them; perhaps it will be clearer next week.
 

srw

It's a bit more complicated than that...
The observation (that more people were infected when there were no, or fewer, restrictions on everyday life than there are now) is obvious and trite. The conclusion (that the lockdown was unnecessary) is not a logical consequence of the observation.

The man's an idiot.
 

marinyork

Resting in suspended Animation
Location
Logopolis
The observation (that more people were infected when there were no, or fewer, restrictions on everyday life than there are now) is obvious and trite. The conclusion (that the lockdown was unnecessary) is not a logical consequence of the observation.

The man's an idiot.
I think you mean trivial.
 
OP
M

matticus

Über Member
The observation (that more people were infected when there were no, or fewer, restrictions on everyday life than there are now) is obvious and trite. The conclusion (that the lockdown was unnecessary) is not a logical consequence of the observation.
I don't think it's saying that. At the PEAK, the exponential growth had been throttled off (by some mechanism and/or effect). The data shows that full lockdown (UK-stylee!) was implemented AFTER this.

I'm not decrying the lockdown - I'm saying it doesn't appear to have had the effect that seems widely believed. It may well be an important factor in keeping a lid on things, but this data shows we would be on a down-slope without it.
 

srw

It's a bit more complicated than that...
I don't think it's saying that. At the PEAK, the exponential growth had been throttled off (by some mechanism and/or effect). The data shows that full lockdown (UK-stylee!) was implemented AFTER this.

I'm not decrying the lockdown - I'm saying it doesn't appear to have had the effect that seems widely believed. It may well be an important factor in keeping a lid on things, but this data shows we would be on a down-slope without it.
It's impossible, from the data we have, to work out whether the peak of infections occurred on March 16th or March 23rd, because testing in the UK has been very inconsistent.

Full lockdown happened a week after we were all encouraged to avoid social contact, and in the week between 16th and 23rd March a lot of people voluntarily adopted the lockdown restrictions. My organisation can't have been the only one to have sent everyone home on March 16th - my last public transport journey happened on March 18th in rush hour, and it was almost empty. So if you're looking for an effect, it's the gradual, voluntary and early adoption of rules that later became mandatory.

To deduce from bum data and an early, voluntary adoption of the rules that later became mandatory that the imposition of the rules wasn't necessary is the work of an idiot.
 
OP
M

matticus

Über Member
Full lockdown happened a week after we were all encouraged to avoid social contact, and in the week between 16th and 23rd March a lot of people voluntarily adopted the lockdown restrictions. My organisation can't have been the only one to have sent everyone home on March 16th - my last public transport journey happened on March 18th in rush hour, and it was almost empty. So if you're looking for an effect, it's the gradual, voluntary and early adoption of rules that later became mandatory.
<my bold>
Yes!!! That's what I think is interesting; it appears that the voluntary soft guidelines stuff was what had the effect.
 

Landsurfer

Über Member
We have never stopped working ... not from home ... in our 2 factories in Chesterfield.
The middle class "working from home" thing does not apply to people that make things with machines .....
Out of our 31 staff non have had or exhibited any C-19 symptoms ...
Our installation teams are working from Newcastle in the north to Bournemouth in the south, Essex in the east to Swansea in the west.
No illness reported or observed .....
Maybe we're just lucky .... or out of the high risk groups ..... and therefore able to keep on working ....
 

cyberknight

As long as I breathe, I attack.
We have never stopped working ... not from home ... in our 2 factories in Chesterfield.
The middle class "working from home" thing does not apply to people that make things with machines .....
Out of our 31 staff non have had or exhibited any C-19 symptoms ...
Our installation teams are working from Newcastle in the north to Bournemouth in the south, Essex in the east to Swansea in the west.
No illness reported or observed .....
Maybe we're just lucky .... or out of the high risk groups ..... and therefore able to keep on working ....
Indeed although some of us cant work as the just in time parts delivery system ground to a halt for us march 19th and we have been furloughed ever since.Looking to go back on 11 may assuming restrictions are lifted .Its very hard to control social distancing when you have 2000 odd over 2 shifts .
 
Top Bottom