New guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on enforcement of emergency legislation in England aimed at containing the spread of the coronavirus states that exercising more than once a day is likely to be a reasonable excuse for leaving the house, as is driving to undertake exercise.
News of the guidance comes after foreign secretary Dominic Raab confirmed yesterday that the current lockdown across the UK would continue in force for a further three weeks, with no changes to existing rules.
> Cycling dos and don’ts in a time of pandemic – how to be a responsible cyclist
Under The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, reasons people may leave their home include to undertake exercise, provided it is done alone or with household members.
But the absence of any stipulation in the legislation of duration or distance of any exercise, not to mention whether multiple sessions are allowed during the day has led to confusion since Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced the rules on 23 March.
Now, the CPS has produced guidance to police forces in England – legislation is devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and may vary slightly – over what is likely to constitute a reasonable excuse for leaving the house, and what is not.
The CPS guidance has been republished here by the College of Policing and National Police Chiefs Council, who say: “Some public statements made soon after the adoption of the Regulations suggested that members of the public could only leave their homes if ‘essential’ to do so.
“However, this is not the test set out in the Regulations and there is no legal basis for a requirement in those terms to be imposed. The applicable threshold is that of ‘reasonable excuse’.”
They point out, however, that “each case still needs to be considered based on the individual facts as they present themselves,” and that the list “is not exhaustive and officers are required to use their discretion and judgement in deciding what is and what isn’t ‘reasonable’ in the circumstances.”
Under the heading of “Exercise,” the CPS says that activities that are “likely to be reasonable” include “going for a run or cycle or practising yoga, walking in the countryside or in cities,” and “attending an allotment.”
Also deemed “likely to be reasonable” are the following:
Driving to countryside and walking (where far more time is spent walking than driving).
Stopping to rest or to eat lunch while on a long walk.
Exercising more than once per day – the only relevant consideration is whether repeated exercise on the same day can be considered a ‘reasonable excuse’ for leaving home.
According to the CPS, activities that are “not likely to be reasonable” are:
Driving for a prolonged period with only brief exercise.
A short walk to a park bench, when the person remains seated for a much longer period.
In comments to the guidance, the CPS says: “Exercise can come in many forms, including walks. Exercise must involve some movement, but it is acceptable for a person to stop for a break in exercise.
“However, a very short period of ‘exercise’ to excuse a long period of inactivity may mean that the person is not engaged in ‘exercise’ but in fact something else.
“It is lawful to drive for exercise,” the CPS adds.
82 thoughts on “Exercising more than once a day is reasonable during lockdown, says new CPS guidance for England”
So it’s not really a lockdown
So it’s not really a lockdown then…?
That might help to explain this:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-by-coronavirus-study-predicts
Obvious other factors include the systematic asset stripping of the NHS for the last decade and the total utter incompetence of the Government in all matters of handling this…
I predict this weekend will see a massive rise in traffic on the roads as people go “ooh look, we can drive, let’s go to [insert tourist spot of choice] with a picnic and a pile of drinks”. Cue a massive rise in road accidents followed a couple of weeks later by a big spike in infections.
From my very annecdotal
From my very annecdotal personal experience, the roads have been getting busier every day since this weekend, I was hoping that the large increase of traffic on Tuesday was the need to get out for “essential” reasons after the closures, especially because Sunday was the most closed of the entire year, possibly decades, but no, it just keeps going up.
ktache wrote:
Agreed, that’s what I am noticing when I go out for food/a run/a ride/a walk every day.
I’m still working, cycling
I’m still working, cycling home each day, it seems more and more like a normal day on the roads. Not quite, but definately getting busier.
That’s not a very good
That’s not a very good article to try and prove your point. It predicts a projected peak of 2,932 on 17 April, which is today and seems extremely unlikely based on the last few days totals. We’ve been averaging around 800 deaths per day for the last 5 days, hopefully that will be what they call the plateau.
The elephant in the room, so to speak with all these scenarios is there being no end point/exit strategy. There is no vaccine at the current time and absolutely no guarantee that there will be one any time soon or at all for that matter. If the vaccine doesn’t happen in a timely manner (within a year), then the only logical conclusion is that we will need to reach herd immunity the natural way i.e. most of the population will have caught it. That’s somewhere around 80% of the population, which is a sobering thought.
Unfortunately the 800 number
Unfortunately the 800 number is only the numbers dead in hospital confirmed with Covid. It doesn’t count those who die at home or in care homes, the weekly ONS data will at least try to cover that, and it would seem that there may be uncounted numbers where no Covid is mentioned at all on the death certificate where it should at least mention it’s possibility, the very unfortunate incresease in the death rate compared to averages from previous years will probably show some of this.
ktache wrote:
Going from around 800 to 2932 is a big leap and shows that the base data and assumptions that they used are very wrong.
Yes – that particular study
Yes – that particular study doesn’t seem to have gotten the predictions right. One article said that uncounted hospital deaths are about 75% of the hospital numbers, which would bring the figure up to roughly 1400 – still well short of 2900.
It is hard to know what the
It is hard to know what the numbers mean. We are left to understand them as the “death toll”. But they are in fact the numbers who died with, not necessarily of, covid. The BBC has had a stab at understanding what they mean, and how much uncertainty remains:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51979654
Listened to a good podcast
Listened to a good podcast from the Economist today while trundling up Alpe du Zwift.
The experts seemed to think that the second half of 2021 was the earliest we could see mass availability of a vaccine.
In better news, a study from the Netherlands found that the number of people with antibodies to the virus is 25 times higher than the official case numbers.
So, hopefully herd immunity won’t take as long to reach as feared.
So, hopefully herd immunity
So, hopefully herd immunity won’t take as long to reach as feared.
In the absence of a vaccine, the only way to gain antibodies and immunity is to catch the virus.
The reason herd immunity was abandoned as a strategy is that if a large proportion of us get the virus, tens or hundreds of thousands of us will die of it.
That makes your statement preposterous – dangerously daft.
Even Cummings might have
Even Cummings might have moved on…
ktache wrote:
Wasn’t he last seen sprinting off down Downing Street when Johnson announced he’d tested positive? I wonder if that counted as his one form of exercise that day…?
Herd immunity hasn’t been
Herd immunity hasn’t been abandoned.
You might not realise it but it’s still the strategy just about everywhere.
What do you think flattening the curve actually means?
Flattening the curve means
Flattening the curve means trying to prevent the health system being overwhelmed while we wait for a vaccine.
You got the first bit right.
You got the first bit right.
It means slowing the spread of infection, not stopping it.
There’s no guarantee a vaccine will even be possible and if it is it will likely be 18 months until it’s ready in sufficient quantity for mass immunisation.
So if the virus spreads slowly for 18 months we’ll be pretty much at herd immunity before a vaccine is even ready.
As the number of people who are immune grows then the potential peak of infection will decrease meaning we will need fewer and fewer measures to keep the peak below NHS surge capacity.
As things stand herd immunity is the only potential way out.
If the virus becomes seasonal even that won’t be an option.
No expert thinks ‘herd
No expert thinks ‘herd immunity’ should be obtained by letting the virus run through the population, you achieve it via a vaccine.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/16/number-coronavirus-pandemic
You realise that article
You realise that article actually quotes experts questioning the need for lockdown right?
I’m sure you also realise that other countries, notably Sweden, are managing this without a lockdown.
So there are plenty of experts who are proposing herd immunity via infection as the way out.
If you actually look at the policies of virtually all countries worldwide they are designed to achieve herd immunity via infection.
Sweden only has a population
Sweden only has a population of about 10M and a density of 23 compared with 424 for England and 272 for the UK. They also have one of the highest single occupant % of dwelling in europe, so they naturally have ‘distancing’.
Their PM recently said he didn’t think they had done enough in advance.
I’m sure you also realise
I’m sure you also realise Sweden isn’t doing especially well, despite having much lower population-density than the UK.
That article quotes one outlier ‘expert’ making a throwaway remark that isn’t backed-up with any analysis. And then explains why it doesn’t work as a solution. What do you think is wrong with the explanation given, and can you explain how the first ‘expert’ arrived at their conclusion?
Where do you get that “so…” from in your third sentence? It implies the rest of the sentence follows from what came before, and yet it doesn’t, it is just an assertion, without any argument preceding it.
Your fourth sentence also seems to have no supporting evidence.
Edit – another epidemiologist making similar points.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/14/california-coronavirus-herd-immunity-early-spread-stanford-expert-interview
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Now that’s been shown to be nonsense you’ve changed tack.
There are plenty of experts proposing herd immunity, if you bothered reading outside your echo chamber you’d realise that.
The entire point of the lockdown is to prevent healthcare capacity being exceeded.
Sweden has so far managed to minimise economic damage without surpassing the capacity of their healthcare system to cope.
As long as healthcare capacity is not exceeded then the mortality of the infection should be the same regardless of whether the infections take place over a 3, 6, 12 or 18 month period.
Sweden has a higher number of deaths now because it has more infections, when other countries release their lockdowns (which they will have to do) their infection rates will increase and so will the number of deaths.
If you lockdown too early you cause economic damage for no long term benefit in terms of coronavirus mortality.
Therefore if you aren’t close to exceeding the capacity of your healthcare system you shouldn’t lockdown.
In the UK we’re a long way from exceeding the (newly expanded) capacity of our healthcare system. In Wales we’re currently only using about half the beds available.
If the virus is far more widespread than initially though and largely asymptomatic (as suggested by the research in the article) then herd immunity will be achieved far faster than initially thought.
Infection rates will drop as more of the population becomes immune. The peak will not be as high as initially modelled and therefore it may not have been necessary to lockdown at all.
Your first line is a complete
Your first line is a complete non-sequitor that makes no sense. Why did you bother with it?
Sweden has a very high level of deaths because the disease is being allowed to spread, and it’s killing vulnerable people in care homes particularly, as a result. Sweden is not doing particularly well, compared to other similar Scandinavian countries. They are of course free to try that approach, but I don’t think it looks promising as an example to follow.
Again, that the virus is very contagious and so has spread more than first thought, still does not put us near ‘herd immunity’. We won’t get there till a great many more people have died. You seem very blase about that, though.
I have seen some of those other ‘experts’, and they strike me as ideologically biased.
For example this one
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/opinion/coronavirus-pandemic-social-distancing.html
Note he takes the DP passengers CFR as being 1%. Despite the fact that when he wrote that, almost none of them had recovered and many were still critical. That was known at that time. Since then more of them have died so the CFR for that groups is now almost 2% (and a few are still critically ill). I just wonder why an ‘expert’ made such a basic failure of reasoning as to ignore all those still critically ill.
Yesterday there was
Yesterday there was widespread coverage of an interview with Sweden’s chief epidemiologist who stated that Stockholm would likely reach herd immunity ‘in weeks’.
The Financial Times also analysed the hospitalisation rate in Stockholm which clearly showed that the peak of infections had passed.
(Neither of those stories were covered at all in The Guardian. Clear evidence, if more were needed, that they are politicising their coverage.)
Obsessing over the current death rate shows a complete lack of understanding of the topic.
This disease will not go away until herd immunity is achieved. Countries with low death rates now are simply at an earlier stage in the spread.
If Sweden does imminently achieve herd immunity then they will be spared any future spikes in disease activity and their death rate and infection rate will plummet whilst those countries that locked down will see theirs continue to rise.
As for case mortality that is an unknown but given the data from the Netherlands showing an antibody rate 25 times higher than the official infection rate it is likely to be a fraction of 1% when all cases are accounted for.
A cruise ship full of elderly people is not an adequate proxy for an entire society but it is useful for demonstrating that certain groups are at higher risk which is the point made in the NYT piece.
It doesn’t matter if the mortality is 1% or 2%, the point was that it is higher in ‘at risk’ groups.
Virtually all modelling done for countries that have locked down shows further subsequent spikes in infection, if those spikes occur during the winter as they are now quite likely to do then the effect will be devastating.
Hospitals and Intensive Care facilities are usually at their busiest during the winter, adding a huge spike in Coronavirus cases and you will have a massive amount of excess mortality.
That is the reason that people are proposing herd immunity, as they believe it will lead to fewer deaths in the long run.
If you accept that there will be no vaccine for 18 months and if you can keep the number of infections below your hospital and ITU capacity then there is no additional risk in concentrating 18 months worth of infections into the first few months.
So, no additional risk and potentially huge benefits in terms of lives saved.
You need to think long term with this infection.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Population density of Stockholm is similar to greater London
I don’t see that anyone knows
I don’t see that anyone knows _for sure_ how to resolve this. The countries that aggressively used test-and-trace, like South Korea, _seem_ to be doing best so far, but nobody is out of the woods yet, and it could yet go wrong for them.
It’s clearly a learning process and, from what I can see, everyone is stumbling around in the dark (it doesn’t seem as if there’s any certainty about where the virus originated, even).
But I am bemused by the existence of a kind of cult-of-contrarian-cleverness, that you appear to be subscribing to, along with the likes of David Halpern and his ‘nudge unit’, who seem to think they are much cleverer than everyone else and have _the_ answer, against the advice of most epidemiologists, in the form of ‘herd immunity through infection’.
Where are you lot getting this from? It seems to me there’s a particular (overwhelmingly privately-educated white guy) demographic – essentially the sort who listen uncritically to the Freakanomics podcast – who seize on things like this as a point of faith, despite the rather weak evidence for it. The Hoover Instituation has been pushing related ideas as well, so far via a military historian and a law professor – both misrepresenting themselves as ‘experts’ in epidemiology.
Why are some so besotted with the idea of ‘herd immunity through infection’? The majority of actual epidemiologists I’ve seen talk about it seem to consider that a high-risk policy – especially when accompanied by a refusal try and flatten the curve via lock-downs, as the UK government initially proposed, before it was panicked into following the majority.
Sweden is so far doing worse than Denmark, Norway or Finland. Again, while no country seems to have a definitive answer, Sweden don’t seem a great example to follow.
You seem to be struggling
You seem to be struggling with the basic principles at play here.
We are faced with a situation in which the virus will continue to spread until we reach herd immunity either through infection or vaccination.
There is no guarantee a vaccine will ever be found.
If a vaccine is found most experts believe that it will take a minimum of 18 months to be able to carry out mass vaccination.
That means that we likely have a minimum of 18 months of continual spread of this infection.
During those 18 months a very large proportion of our population is likely to be infected.
If the speed of viral spread can be curtailed enough to prevent the health service being overwhelmed then there is no additional risk in reaching herd immunity in 6 months compared to 18.
If we achieve herd immunity more quickly then the economic damage will be less and therefore there will be less damage to human health.
It is currently the least bad option we have.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Poor journalism, the confirmed cases are not even all the symptomatic cases, only those severe enough to reach hospital for treatment. If the number of real cases is only 500,000 we should not have had nearly as many deaths as we have.
Extending the current lockdown for a year while we wait for a vaccine that may not even come is not sustainable.
What do you think flattening
What do you think flattening the curve actually means?
It means reducing new infections and therefore hospitalisations and deaths. It does not mean, ‘ooh, I hope we all catch this.’
You might not realise it…
This is a failure to understand the very basic facts of this pandemic, disguised as superior insight.
Please explain what will
Please explain what will happen to immunity levels in society with a flattened curve of infection?
I can’t wait for your insight.
Still pushing that nonsense?
Still pushing that nonsense? Are you Dominic Cummings?
Good point, the study that
Good point, the study that article is based on hasn’t aged well. But…of course the official death toll still doesn’t include non-hospital deaths, so the study’s forecast might not be quite as distant from reality as it seems.
This article was published
This article was published ten days ago, making a prediction that UK would be short of 85,000 hospital beds on 17 April (today). It was wrong.
And your comment has nothing to do with the orginal article.
The most important part of
The most important part of this article is this:- “Exercising more than once per day – the only relevant consideration is whether repeated exercise on the same day can be considered a ‘reasonable excuse’ for leaving home”
It’s not really a change of rule/green light to go out as often as you want.
I take this to mean, for example, that if you take your kids out for bit a walk, its reasonable to also go out for a spin on your bike to get your exercise.
The rules:
The rules:
6(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—
(a)to obtain basic necessities, including food and medical supplies for those in the same household (including any pets or animals in the household) or for vulnerable persons and supplies for the essential upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household, or the household of a vulnerable person, or to obtain money, including from any business listed in Part 3 of Schedule 2;
(b)to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household;
(c)to seek medical assistance, including to access any of the services referred to in paragraph 37 or 38 of Schedule 2;
(d)to provide care or assistance, including relevant personal care within the meaning of paragraph 7(3B) of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006(1), to a vulnerable person, or to provide emergency assistance;
(e)to donate blood;
(f)to travel for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work, or to provide those services, from the place where they are living;
(g)to attend a funeral of—
(i)a member of the person’s household,
(ii)a close family member, or
(iii)if no-one within sub-paragraphs (i) or (ii) are attending, a friend;
(h)to fulfil a legal obligation, including attending court or satisfying bail conditions, or to participate in legal proceedings;
(i)to access critical public services, including—
(i)childcare or educational facilities (where these are still available to a child in relation to whom that person is the parent, or has parental responsibility for, or care of the child);
(ii)social services;
(iii)services provided by the Department of Work and Pensions;
(iv)services provided to victims (such as victims of crime);
(j)in relation to children who do not live in the same household as their parents, or one of their parents, to continue existing arrangements for access to, and contact between, parents and children, and for the purposes of this paragraph, “parent” includes a person who is not a parent of the child, but who has parental responsibility for, or who has care of, the child;
(k)in the case of a minister of religion or worship leader, to go to their place of worship;
(l)to move house where reasonably necessary;
(m)to avoid injury or illness or to escape a risk of harm.
Does anyone actually proof
Does anyone actually proof read/check these articles. My god. You reference the legislation and then can’t be bothered to go and actually read it!
I quote “Under The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, reasons people may leave their home include to undertake one form on exercise a day, provided it is done alone or with household members.”
Ignoring the typo (my god), this is just wrong.
Regulation 6(b) of said regulations does not mention the amount of times that you can exercise, as you claim. It quite clearly states:
“During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse…. a reasonable excuse includes the need…to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household”
That is why the CPS is saying what it is, because even they realise that if someone were charged with exercising twice in a day, that charge wouldn’t stand up in court as it’s not an offence to exercise more than once in a day.
Moral of the story, if you’re going to publish something, please make it correct!
Indeed, there are two
Indeed, there are two narratives in play. There is the law, and then there are all the “rules” spoken by politicians or even published by government agencies, and the media, which have taken on a life of their own and inspired all manner of local over-interpretations. Even senior police officers have been caught up, with talk of road-blocks and shopping bag inspections.
And as you point out, the “one form of exercise” mantra does not appear in the legal text referred to in the article. It is part of the ever growing body of politicians’ “rules”. It is a shame that this article trips over its own laces right off the bat.
Presumably we live under the rule of law, not the “rules” of politicians.
Unfortunately motorist
Unfortunately motorist vigilantes and torch and pitchfork wielding villagers don’t really care about the exact wording of the legislation, for them it’s whatever version of “narrative” they have dreamt up that matters.
Well said, too much of what
Well said, too much of what politicians say and not what they actually legislate.
The morning after Boris’ initial ‘lockdown’ speech (23.03?) Michael GOVE states on television that exercise should be of ‘about an hour’ maximum duration.
Also, I have a leaflet from the ‘UK Government’ entitled
‘CORONAVIRUS
STAY AT HOME
PROTECT THE NHS
SAVE LIVES’
I got it together with a letter from the PM. I presume that every household in the U.K. received both.
It clearly states that ‘You should only leave the house for very limited reasons:
(of the four reasons)
One form of exercise a day…
(my emphasis).
WHAT A SHAMBLES!
zero_trooper wrote:
You mis-quote what Michael Gove actually said, or at best paraphrase.
What he actually said, when pressed by a journalist trying to tie him down to a time limit was “Well there is no limit, but perhaps a 30 minute run or an hours walk with cycling somewhere inbetween depending on your level of fitness“
yes it was the medias
yes it was the medias attributing of an invented limit from what Gove had said on the Andrew Marr show (actually 29.03, nine days after the lockdown speech) that led to people thinking it existed at all https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/an-hours-walk-should-do-says-michael-gove-9hq2qjsqb
largely on the basis well Gove is in the government, therefore what he says (or what the media says he said) is the government position and law.
Possibly confusing it with
Possibly confusing it with Wales
The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (Wales) Regulations 2020
(b)to take exercise, no more than once a day, either alone or with other members of the household;
But as you say, poor proof reading
i’m going out cycling now,
i’m going out cycling now, probably for three hours ish or 40 miles. Better now, literally zero cars but taxis at this hour. The legistlation is too confusing and mixed up. Police might stop us or ask where we are going, but only can fine you if you refuse to go home, or move as directed. Yet i ask, what if my grandparents 40 miles away need assistance, am i allowed to ride my motorbike/ drive there, or can i cycle to give them care? How is one to know if a cyclist is genuinely going to assist someone in need, perhaps a bicycle is their only form of transport atm due to lack of income. I havent been pulled over once yet, motorbike or bicycle, and i see very very police out there. If i get stopped, im just going to state the truth, im going out on my bike for exercise as i normally do. I dont see why they would have an issue with it.
so one fine early evening
so one fine early evening this week, we did our 2 hour walk, mainly footpaths, but taking in a loop road that it quite popular with dog walkers. A white Discovery hammers past us. Further round the loop, it stops and out get three Labrador dogs. The dogs scamper along the road, the Discovery trundles along for 5 minutes behind them, then halts then the dogs get back in and that’s walkies over with today, apparently.
no doubt the guy was recovering from an injury / had done a 12 hour shift in intensive care.
random.
The biggest issue with the
The biggest issue with the “herd immunity” strategy is that we don’t currently know what kind of immunity you can get from contracting the virus. If you get long-lasting immunity, then all well and good (apart from killing off the older population and people with pre-existing conditions). If it’s more like the common cold where you’re immune for about two weeks, then the herd immunity isn’t going to work. Also, what happens if immunity means that you don’t get symptoms but are still able to transmit it?
The problem is that we don’t have enough information yet.
Herd immunity requires about
Herd immunity requires about 60% of the population to have immunity so it is possible to achieve herd immunity without exposing vulnerable people to the risk of infection.
If there is no lasting immunity (as with the coronaviruses that cause common colds) then we’re screwed any way as that will likely make vaccination impossible.
There’s a reason there isn’t a common cold vaccine despite it being a guaranteed money maker.
the reason is on the whole
the reason is on the whole the common cold doesnt tend to kill you, so whilst it can make you feel rotten and people would appreciate a vaccine, the big pharma industries can make more money from solving bigger problems.
we never use to have a vaccine for flu, it was only introduced in the UK as a routine vaccination from 2009.
The amount of money you can
The amount of money you can make from a drug has nothing to do with how big a problem it treats.
Antibiotics save many lives but are not very profitable.
Hair loss drugs are the complete opposite.
A common cold vaccine would likely be very lucrative, (colds cost the US economy $40 bn/year) the reason it doesn’t exist is because it is too technically difficult.
As I understand it there are
As I understand it there are a couple of hundred different “colds”, of which coronoviruses cause around 15%, once you catch a cold and fight it off, you get immunity to it and remain immune for quite a few years. Though it may be that for coronoviruses it might not be as good. There would have to be many different cold vaccines. We get a ‘flu vaccine every year, the one that has been guessed at to fight the expected years ‘flu. Many different types of ‘flu. Though only one virus “type”, colds 3 main “types”
Diseases of the Western world are the ones that make real money, if malaria was a real problem in the developed world then a lot more work would be done about it by the large pharmecuetical companies. That’s how it works.
I know people who work on both SARS and MERS vaccines, but because it’s a problem that can be solved by public health measures and with MERS, it doesn’t effect the West, it’s not very well funded. Covid does and is and will become very well funded.
hawkinspeter wrote:
In which case we are all f’ed anyway because the immune response from a vaccine will never be better than the immune response from having the actual virus. Ideally it will be the same, more likely it will be slightly worse. The benefit of vaccine is not in increasing the immune response compared to infection, but in lowering the risk.
So unless we are going to vaccinate thd entire population on the same day, then neither a vaccine nor controlled/slow spread of the disease are solutions.
This leaves only 2 options 1) permanent societal change similar to the current lockdown conditions, or 2) eradicate the virus completely before returning to normal.
The window for achieving 2 is long gone as the disease is now widespread in most countries, so even if a country could eradicate the virus, it would soon be reimported.
Based on numbers from Iceland (widespread testing and case fatality rate if 0.5%) and San Marino (0.1% of population already killed.) The infection fatality rate is somewhere between those figures and the number of people already exposed to the virus in this country is between 3,000,000 and 14,000,000.
This suggests we are somewhere between 3 months and 18 months away from achieving herd immunity.
The current lockdown is not reducing infections as far as I can see, it is maintaining a steady rate. An improvement on the initial exponential growth, bug in no way indicative of getting the virus under control of being able to reduce restrictions.
I wouldn’t read too much into
I wouldn’t read too much into the daily number of new cases or even the daily reported deaths.
Both numbers are inaccurate.
The best metric I can see is hospital admissions and hospital bed occupancy.
Both are reducing indicating that we are now past the (first) peak.
Some links for you..
Some links for you..
https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/24/12-experts-questioning-the-coronavirus-panic/
https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/28/10-more-experts-criticising-the-coronavirus-panic/
https://off-guardian.org/2020/04/17/8-more-experts-questioning-the-coronavirus-panic/
cycle.london wrote:
Interesting, thanks for the links. I was confused before, now I’m totally confused, and trying to construct some kind of conspiracy theory; I may have been locked down too long.
eburtthebike wrote:
I’m struck – depressed, if truth be told – by the ease with which the state was able to lock us down into what in effect is a state of martial law. Especially for what is effectively influenza.
My wife – who I may have mentioned is a bit of a mathematics goddess – has been keeping spreadsheets since this whole thing started. She is asthmatic and works in the NHS, so is pretty paranoid about catching it. But her statistics show that it was only about ten days ago that Covid-19 overtook the previous ‘excess deaths’ for the year before.
My default position is to believe that whenever a poltician speaks, he or she is lying. I’ve seen nothing so far to disabuse me of that view.
I take it her comparison of
I take it her comparison of covid-19 deaths vs last year’s flu deaths is a month by month comparison? If it’s an annual comparison it’s not really comparable since covid-19 started feb/mar and we’re obviously no where near year end yet.
What I’d really like to know is how many hospital beds are actually being used by covid-19 admittances vs bed capacity. Preferably this would exclude admittances for other reasons. We’re being told that we need to protect the NHS but are not being given information on how near to capacity they actually are.
cycle.london wrote:
Really? I must be very unobservant, because in all the times I’ve been out to exercise, or to the shops, I’ve completely failed to notice the soldiers on the streets.
If it was just politicians
If it was just politicians telling us to stay home and give up some personal freedoms then I’d be on the barricades waving a flag alongside you comrade.
But given that I do not, as a default position, believe in conspiracy theories, I will listen to and more importantly make what efforts I can to follow the advice of those same scientists, epidemiologists, virologists, statisticians, NHS managers and myriad other specialist experts who have qualified opinions based on actual data and who are currently advising government policy.
I don’t believe in conspiracy
I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. At least, not the type that claim that this is some sort of ‘engineered’ virus. But I am absolutely convinced that its appearance is being used to impose greater surveillance and control of the population.
And you are willing to gamble
And you are willing to gamble with other people’s lives that you are right and all the experts are wrong?
Mungecrundle wrote:
Of course not;
Mungecrundle wrote:
The gamble on the other side is equally dire – how many lives will be lost consequent on the lockdown?
And in not entirely unrelated
And in not entirely unrelated news, Grant Schapps, Transport Secretary, was interviewed for ten minutes on R4 yesterday, and mentioned planes, buses, trains, cars, even electric planes, but managed not to mention cycling. Mind you, it was the BBC, so they weren’t going to ask about cycling were they.
It’s here if you can stand it, starts at 2:18:50 https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000h932
Didn’t he also attract the
Didn’t he also attract the ire of the British travel agent industry by suggesting that people not rush out and book their summer holidays…?
Not that I want to encourage
Not that I want to encourage your take on the BBC, here is there take on “Villager views”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-52323784
ktache wrote:
Clicked through to the Twitter article.
‘Coveney – where “social distancing” means not marrying your sister’.
Juvenile, I know. Made me chuckle, though.
Me too.
Me too.
I liked the comments on the dangerous roof ladders shown in the background.
Do not treat this monster
Do not treat this monster lightly, it will kill you! we do not know who and why, yes those that are older or have co mobility are at higher risk, so are those in
ethnic minority (this may be social domestic not genitic!). Health care workers are at higher risk becuse the sicker you are the more you off load virus. Many who have died have not just have had years taken from them but decades! Do not be like the selfish right wing who think that this is just a problem for the poor the sick those who are not like us, It can kill you, yes you!!! Or it will kill some one who you infected but you are fine so that not a problem is it? Watch America it going to get realy realy bad trust me. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52301633
60kg lean keen climbing
Erm, no it won’t. Figures for those who have no existing comorbities are in the region of 0.025% – 0.6%.
It’s like claiming that taking a flight ‘will kill you!’
(give me some poetic licence, I know the figures are not identical!)
Or it will kill some one who
Or it will kill some one who you infected but you are fine so that not a problem is it?
You may be asytomatic but you can still pass it on to someone who will not be so lucky, they – you may also get proper sick and give it to a health care – Key worker, you know those faces that sine out from our screens working for jack all and die from this. Be less Trump Please!!!
60kg lean keen climbing
Well, yes. As I mentioned, my wife is asthmatic. She could die of it. I am technically ‘obese’ and in my mid-fifties (but am very tall so people just think I’m ‘a big bloke’), so I’m probably at risk, too.
Just as we are both at risk from the flu.
Here is another link which may be of interest..
https://off-guardian.org/2020/04/11/coronavirus-fact-check-3-covid19-is-20x-deadlier-than-the-flu/
I don’t care for that article
I don’t care for that article.
Firstly, it uses a straw-man. I had discussions with friends, back when the WHO came out with the 3.4% figure, where I expressed irritation that they were simply dividing the deaths by the confirmed infections, which of course is not going to give a reliable case-fatality-rate. That was obvious _at the time_ even to a complete layperson like me. We’d already realised that problem ourselves before the WHO even came out with that number.
Of course that wasn’t a good way to work out the CFR because you miss all the uncounted mild or asymptomatic cases from the denominator. So that the article goes on about that figure at such length is a little patronising.
(As I understand it, with flu they only work CFR out later, statistically, by looking at how many excess deaths occurred during the flu season – if you only go by confirmed cases the numbers are totally different, as both infections and deaths get miscounted)
So focussing on that 3.4% figure is a straw man argument. Nobody with any sense believed that to be the ‘true’ CFR. I personally put that down as a strike against the WHO that they would cite such numbers that would confuse anyone who didn’t think about it. (I don’t personally think the WHO has done a particularly great job on this, even if Trump is attacking them for his own self-serving reasons)
It was clear then that it was very hard to work out a ‘true’ fatality rate because the data was so poor. Iran, for example, had such an insanely high nominal fatality rate that it was clear they were massively undercounting infections.
Secondly, the article on that page seems to be cherry picking its own numbers and skewing how it describes them.
My first guess back then, based on the Korean numbers and the Princess Diamond passengers, that the true CFR might be about 1% or a bit lower. It’s obviously very, very hard to say because the data is so ‘dirty’. But even half of that is still much higher than flu. You only get the minimised numbers that article emphasises at the end by picking the outlier of the outlier, i.e. the lowest CFR anyone has suggested. Saying it’s at worst ‘slightly worse’ when it could in fact be 6 times as bad, is misleading. That’s not potentially ‘slightly worse’ it’s potentially a lot worse.
Next, those numbers totally ignore the question of how contagious this is. How many people it might kill is a function of both the case fatality rate and how contagious it is. Why does that article ignore the second factor? Because it doesn’t fit its minimisation agenda? I’ve read several ‘anti-hysteria’ articles that do that – they not unreasonably cite lower death rates but then ignore the question of how large the number of infected people could be.
It also ignores the question of what proportion of people only live because they get intense medical treatment. That is, after all, the whole point of the ‘curve flattening’ business.
For the Diamond Princess passengers the death rate is already over 1% (one anti-hysteria article I saw took it as 1% but ignored that at that time almost none of them had yet recovered – more have since died, so the death rate has gone up). On the one hand, those passengers were unusually old, on the other they all got first rate medical care.
That page does the same thing I see a lot with a certain type of anti-hysteria article. First it is patronising in over-stressing the bleeding obvious (that you can’t get a meaingful CFR by just dividing the confirmed deaths by the confirmed infections, and that the 3.4% is probably much too high) and at the same time it neglects an equally important issue (how widely this is likely to spread because we have no resistance and no vaccine).
cycle.london wrote:
It killed my wife’s best friend this week. It didn’t kill my father – he recovered from his covid19 infection – but he died in circumstances where he would probably have recovered but for the necessary coronavirus restrictions. It did however kill several people on the ward he was in at the time.
Perhaps we could agree that it probably won’t kill you, but it will kill some people, and will kill quite a lot of them.
My deepest sympathies to you
My deepest sympathies to you and your wife.
I could be alright, if I’m lucky, it might take my mother, my partner would get very ill and maybe not make it and her mothers chances don’t look great.
It’s not like seasonal ‘flu. It’s worse, far worse. Seems to be similar, same order of magnitude at least to so called “Spanish” ‘flu. I’m hearing a bit about cytokine storm, which is how “Spanish” ‘flu took so many young people, maybe.
There are ‘flu vaccines, we treat the vulnerable and old, I buy mine from Tescos, only £10, and antivirals that have been shown to work against ‘flu. Strangely, take up of ‘flu vaccine in front line NHS staff only runs at about 20%.
And one of those underlying medical conditions that makes Covid worse is obesity, we are quite an obese nation, that and it causing heart disease and diabetes.
ktache wrote:
No it isn’t. Some figures suggest it’s slightly worse. Many suggest it is less serious.
But the comments like ‘it might not kill you, but might kill someone you infect…’ could be said for the flu, as well. I don’t recall de facto (to appease the pedants) martial law being declared in 2017, or 2018, or 2019….
Look, I get it. It’s scary. But most of that fear is irrational. This is not the plague.
cycle.london wrote:
Umm, nope – that would mean the goverment had deployed the troops without bothering to officially announce it.
Try again.
mdavidford wrote:
You need to look up what de facto means, because I don’t think it means what you think it means.
The attached screenshot may help. Now go away.
Um, I think you need to read
Um, I think you need to read and understand the screenshot you posted – I don’t think it says what you think it says.
Martial Law – the law administered by military forces that is invoked by a government in an emergency when the civilian law enforcement agencies are unable to maintain public order and safety
So ‘de facto Martial Law’ would mean that the law is in fact being administered by military forces.
As opposed to ‘de jure Martial Law’, which would be the legal transfer of the administration of law to the military.
Neither is currently the case.
Oh, and
No.
mdavidford wrote:
Well, not quite.
“De facto” martial law would be a situation with the trappings of martial law but without it being officially declared.
In this case the term has been used hyperbolically. So whilst we have not had tanks on the streets we have suffered restrictions to our liberties, enforced in some cases by aerial police surveillance, road blocks and state propaganda.
As for “de jure” martial law – legally recognised martial law – that is pretty much an oxymoron, since martial law generally entails the usurping the civilian rule from which the law gains its legitimacy.
Well, there are jurisdictions
Well, there are jurisdictions where there is legal provision for martial law in extremis. But in the UK, yes, ‘de jure martial law’ is oxymoronic, and equally ‘de facto martial law’ is tautologous. And, as you say (and my original point), hyperbolic – there’s a big distance between the current restrictions and martial law.
Richard D wrote:
Genuinely sorry for your loss. Two people I know (albeit distantly) have died of late, but I don’t know if they died of coronavirus, or with coronavirus. If you look at the way death rates and ’causes of death’ are handled in the UK, it’s diffiicult to know. Both of the people to whom I refer had pre-existing conditions – one cancer, the other cancer and diabetes.
It is very sad, and they may have lived for a good while. But they may not have, and influenza and/or pneumonia kills many, many people every year.
— Richard D
Again, the same could be said of influenza.
I am not a cold-hearted bastard, and I’m not ordinarily prone to buying into conspiracy theories. 9/11 was not an ‘inside job’, Princess Diana wasn’t killed by the Royal Family, and the Moon Landings did not happen inside a warehouse in the Nevada desert. But the actual impact of this Covid-19 shit is being wildly over-hyped for political reasons – of that, I am sure.
You and your partner might
You and your partner might want to get a ‘flu jab, maybe next year. Only £10 at Tescos, sometimes they give us a pound off voucher as you buy it. If you really think you might be a risk. I can spend more than 20 quid on trying to get over a cold, and ‘flu makes you feel really bad. It helps my better half not get it too.
Even when the bet on the wrong strain it still can help.
There is also a jab that can offer protection aginst pnuemococcal pnuemonia too, but that’s £70 from boots. Though it may confer longer term resistance than the yearly ‘flu jab.
The fact that there are ‘flu vaccines available and proven antivirals makes seasonal ‘flu less dangerous than Covid 19. When I can buy a Covid 19 jab in Tescos for £10 it will be on a par with seasonal ‘flu.
My 1st year medical microbiology lecturer was very old and not a well man, he used to bring his wife in, dressed in a bit of a nurses uniform, to change the OHPs. He talked longingly of pnuemonia, “the old mans friend” he used to call it, we even had to write an essay on it. He wasn’t my 2nd year medical micro lecturer. It’s what got my partner’s dad, he had terminal oesophageal cancer, to old and weak for treatment, but it was the pnumonia that got him in the end, relatively quick, wit a little bit of madness caused by the lack of oxygen. Poor bloke.
yes, the NHS is coping – as I
yes, the NHS is coping – as I understand it, the Nightingale hospitals are only seeing small numbers of patients. We are succeeding in “flattening the curve.” The NHS is making an all-out effort on this, which cannot be sustained at this rate by the staff indefinitely and don’t forget that to achieve this all other non-emergency activity has been put on hold in order that can’t last forever either.
Remember too that it is medicine, based on science and observable, reproduceable fact that will fix this. Politicising it, starting international blame games, me having every psychosomatic symptom my imagination could come up with, and the cyclists who close-passed me today and aren’t going to help very much.
No-one wanted or intended this to happen, no one wants to control the citizenry more, it wasn’t made in a lab – however maybe there are some who could have done things differently so it didn’t.
I had a chest infection in 2002 – it came from nowhere. If you breathed in deep, you got the distinct feeling your lungs were full, about half-way; my chest wheezed and gurgled and I was coughing-up rubbery phlegm for weeks afterwards. Although I don’t remember feeling ill, this plus memories of staying underwater just that little bit too long, and someone compressing my windpipe for a few seconds in a playground scrap mean I really don’t want to catch it. It sounds terrifying.
There is no point in a massive insolvency merry-go-round. we can’t stay “on hold” forever either. Maybe the onset of the northern hemisphere summer will buy us some time to get some new medicines worked out.
My feeling is based on a
My feeling is based on a safety first approach.
Ride less outdoors, don’t go out unless necessary and follow the advice.
I get all the arguments about comparing this to a standard flu and that this could be seen as the onset of marshall law, I do.
But I am taking no chances as i feel that sets the best example to my family.