Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
Well I couldn’t give a toss about the SNP person. Same way I didn’t give a toss about Cummings, or Kinnock or anyone.
We’re now a week into the sudden rise of infections.
One the attached images shows a definitive second wave of infections.
The second attachment shows the deaths. By this time next week if the death rate hasn’t rapidly shot upwards by at least a factor of 10 then there is an obvious disconnect between infection rate and death rate compared to the first wave.
It will be argued that there was much less testing first time around. Which is right.
But then I would suggest then that the “infection rate”: is the wrong metric on which to use them “whack a mole” strategy, as it is obvious the infection rate does not correlate to death/ hospital rate.
For judging whether to put extra restrictions on an area must surely be on the capability of the area to manage hospital cases. If the hospitals can not handle any more Covid cases, close the area down.
But if there is plenty of capacity, crack on.
|
It’d also be argued that treatments are better and care homes less exposed.
Infection rate alone is a bad metric to use. The direction of travel, who is getting infected, testing capacity and success or otherwise of contact tracing all have to be considered.
A random figure like say 10,000 cases a day wouldn’t be awful if we had high confidence we were finding and isolating them and their close contacts quickly. With testing capacity to make those available to those who need them quickly.
10,000 cases a day when it’s taking a week to get test results, many can’t book tests and we’ve a low confidence in track and trace is a different kettle of fish.
Scenario 1 can very quickly go out of control.