Lockdown diary, day 37
Another day working from home.
A few more virtual meetings being set up: signs that people are adapting to making better use of new technology.
A challenge for those of us, like myself, in the telecommunications industry to make sure our infrastructure can cope with it.
I've already referred to the "Clap for Carers" and to Captain Tom's birthday. Also good news that we clearly now seem to be past the peak of the first wave of the pandemic.
To steal a line from the late Ian Fleming,
But, but, but and again, but ...
A few more virtual meetings being set up: signs that people are adapting to making better use of new technology.
A challenge for those of us, like myself, in the telecommunications industry to make sure our infrastructure can cope with it.
I've already referred to the "Clap for Carers" and to Captain Tom's birthday. Also good news that we clearly now seem to be past the peak of the first wave of the pandemic.
To steal a line from the late Ian Fleming,
But, but, but and again, but ...
The challenge is going to be to balance the understandable wish to get the economy going again with the need to make sure we continue to protect lives.
I'm told that every major pandemic in history had more than one wave. Most often three.
We cannot afford to assume that this one won't do the same.
We must make sure when measures are taken to partially relax the lockdown that we continue to modify our behaviour to minimise transmission of disease and that we are better prepared for the second wave, to minimise the number of people it kills.
This is not over.
Britain needs to play the long game. The important thing is to get the balance right.
And all the people on either side of the argument who are announcing that the UK government has done well or badly are a bit like the people calling the result of a test cricket match half way through the first of the five days of play.
Keep well.
Comments
adding them together may give a national average type of curve, but with this a general fall in rates may be hiding several localised increases.
I quite like the criket annalogy of calling the responce half way though the first day.
The government were only prepared for a flu pandemic, they continued to use the flu plan for far too long when presented with a SARS type disease that needs a totally different approach. There are nightingale hospitals built and ready to take covid patients, though they are still in the general hospitals meaning other treatmeants are being cancelled, postponed and, given the option, pople wont use any services that are avilable.
So cricket annalogy:
On the first day of the test match, one side has turned up with a team of Ice Hockey players, they decide to go into bat using their hockey sticks and wearing their skates. After the first hour when it was noted that they were being hammered out there and the strategy was not working, as a last minute plan they turned on a sprinkler system so rain could stop play for a while (lock down). It getting towards lunch time day one and the croud are getting annoyed as they want to get on with things, so there is pressure to turn off the hoses and go back out.
The ice hockey players have left and we now have a cricket team (not following flu plan and are ramping up tests). We also have cricket whites, bats and shoes available to the team, but since the skates are still fine and are not damaged yet they are going to go on using them.
You cant really blame people for commenting that the governments performance so far has been less than tremendous.
I don't claim to be an expert on epidemiology, but those who actually are experts in this subject appear to think that major outbreaks of disease do come in waves.
There are local variations yes: as I see it there are local and national ripples of what is quite clearly a global phenomenon.
You've obviously put a lot of thought into extending my test cricket analogy. What you write is very clever but I think it a premature assessment.
Im not arguing that pandemics come in waves, what I am saying is that the waves they come in are localised.
You can add up all the localised waves and put that to a national figure, but it does not mean much. Certainly not from an epidemiological point of view. Figures can be aveaged and you see a fall in new cases, but this could very very easily be hiding some localised increases. With a highly contagious disease and without localised test and trace in place thats still a big problem.
I dont claim to be an expert on Epidemiology either, Im only first year and have touched on it, but no where near to a high level. So I read a lot from someone who is generally as references are always provided.
And yes as you rightly point out its a global phenomenon, thats true, but global figures of new cases rising or falling again dont help much, at least not to nations where cases are rapidly rising. You would not take the global figures, see they are falling and make a global policy desision based on that.
I think we're agreed that track and test is very important.
I think you have also highlighted why all the output of the cottage industry of drawing graphs of infections and deaths in various countries and comparing them needs to be taken with great caution even in the minority of cases where the people doing it understand the first thing about statistics.