Let's get a few things straight 2
Sunday 5th April 2020 – 11.30am
At last!
In today's media, Prof. Neil Ferguson, the epidemiologist who has been advising the govenment finally broadcasts through a BBC interview what he has written elsewhere (but the government has not disseminated) and warns the country that the UK could see 7,000 to 20,000 deaths during the pandemic.
His questioner, some bloke called Marr (obviously an assumed name for fear of ridicule, although given the meaning of the word it seems ironically appropriate) then failed to ask him what happens if the current govenment measures are not effective. Which is silly as these figures too have been written elsewhere. Why hide them? Because they are extremely depressing? Not good enough.
I am going to highlight one or two things from the source document, but I would encourge readers to read the original where context is set out more fully.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/196234/covid-19-imperial-researchers-model-likely-impact/
Firstly, Professor Ferguson (who is head of the Global Infectious Disease Analysis team at Imperial College) makes it clear that even if 'flattening the curve' works, the disease will still probably 'peak over a three-to four-month period during the spring/summer'. Let's pause right there. That means, if we start from now, that the 'flattened curve' policy and the peak intensity of the disease will last from now until mid-August.
This puts paid to the loose talk (mostly from government) about the peak arriving in the next ten days. This encourages people to think that the worst will be over in a fortnight. After all, a peak is a peak. After the peak, things will be getting better, right? Sorry, no. Remember this is a flattened curve. There is no peak as such. It merely flattens the figures out (reducing them from a peak) but stretches them over a longer period. This is not a fun prospect. It's great for reducing the pressure on the NHS and is to be welcomed for that. No doubt it will save lives. But it simply does not mean that the worst will be over once the peak (the top number of deaths) has been topped. Far from it.
Professor Ferguson's report presents two scenarios. The first is slowing the spread, the second suppressing the outbreak. In the first scenario the report says that: "the optimal policy would combine home isolation of cases, home quarantine and social distancing of those over 70 years. This could reduce the peak healthcare demand by two-thirds and reduce deaths by half. However, the resulting epidemic would still likely result in an estimated 250,000 deaths and therefore overwhelm the health system (most notably intensive care units)." Note the first three words...that is the optimal policy.
The talk today from Ferguson follows only the most optimistic projections. What it amounts to is that, if we are lucky, and everyone does what they are told (which is one hell of a presumption) we may get away with 'a little over 20,000' deaths. But it all depends he said. It all depends on "how effective the current measures are." In other words he doesn't know how many will die. How can he?
So there we have it. My interpretation of it is that we will definitely experience more than 20,000 deaths, perhaps two or three times that, and maybe as high as 100,000 deaths. I am loathe to say, or more, but that too is possible.
The truth is that no-one knows, and even these expert projections suggest a truly staggering carnage. Trying to get your mind around those figures is not easy, but, for comparison's sake, Britain experienced 67,000 civilian deaths in the Second World War.
At last!
In today's media, Prof. Neil Ferguson, the epidemiologist who has been advising the govenment finally broadcasts through a BBC interview what he has written elsewhere (but the government has not disseminated) and warns the country that the UK could see 7,000 to 20,000 deaths during the pandemic.
His questioner, some bloke called Marr (obviously an assumed name for fear of ridicule, although given the meaning of the word it seems ironically appropriate) then failed to ask him what happens if the current govenment measures are not effective. Which is silly as these figures too have been written elsewhere. Why hide them? Because they are extremely depressing? Not good enough.
I am going to highlight one or two things from the source document, but I would encourge readers to read the original where context is set out more fully.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/196234/covid-19-imperial-researchers-model-likely-impact/
Firstly, Professor Ferguson (who is head of the Global Infectious Disease Analysis team at Imperial College) makes it clear that even if 'flattening the curve' works, the disease will still probably 'peak over a three-to four-month period during the spring/summer'. Let's pause right there. That means, if we start from now, that the 'flattened curve' policy and the peak intensity of the disease will last from now until mid-August.
This puts paid to the loose talk (mostly from government) about the peak arriving in the next ten days. This encourages people to think that the worst will be over in a fortnight. After all, a peak is a peak. After the peak, things will be getting better, right? Sorry, no. Remember this is a flattened curve. There is no peak as such. It merely flattens the figures out (reducing them from a peak) but stretches them over a longer period. This is not a fun prospect. It's great for reducing the pressure on the NHS and is to be welcomed for that. No doubt it will save lives. But it simply does not mean that the worst will be over once the peak (the top number of deaths) has been topped. Far from it.
Professor Ferguson's report presents two scenarios. The first is slowing the spread, the second suppressing the outbreak. In the first scenario the report says that: "the optimal policy would combine home isolation of cases, home quarantine and social distancing of those over 70 years. This could reduce the peak healthcare demand by two-thirds and reduce deaths by half. However, the resulting epidemic would still likely result in an estimated 250,000 deaths and therefore overwhelm the health system (most notably intensive care units)." Note the first three words...that is the optimal policy.
The talk today from Ferguson follows only the most optimistic projections. What it amounts to is that, if we are lucky, and everyone does what they are told (which is one hell of a presumption) we may get away with 'a little over 20,000' deaths. But it all depends he said. It all depends on "how effective the current measures are." In other words he doesn't know how many will die. How can he?
So there we have it. My interpretation of it is that we will definitely experience more than 20,000 deaths, perhaps two or three times that, and maybe as high as 100,000 deaths. I am loathe to say, or more, but that too is possible.
The truth is that no-one knows, and even these expert projections suggest a truly staggering carnage. Trying to get your mind around those figures is not easy, but, for comparison's sake, Britain experienced 67,000 civilian deaths in the Second World War.
Comments
Post a Comment