Life in West London during the coronavirus outbreak is a surreal experience. A normal existence, as we knew it less than two months ago, seems to have taken place in another life. Some of us, the elderly, have experienced the nervous insecurities of the Cold War, and we are all concerned about the future challenges of climate change. But it is quite another thing.
As a 58 year old diabetic, my sensitivity to this virus has increased. Like my son’s asthma. None of us are among the 1.5 million most vulnerable people identified by the British government. However, we are open enough to complications to be voluntarily more or less completely isolated from the rest of the household that supports us. Various in-laws and outlaws seem to be doing their best to lure us into the dangerous afterlife, but so far we are holding on.
Data available quickly
I am neither a virologist nor an epidemiologist. I am not even a statistician. But I have an O level in math. And although this achievement may be modest in the wider academic field, it is enough to identify trends and draw conclusions from data accessible to anyone with an Internet connection and with a good knowledge of Google. For this reason, I shudder at the apparent confusion of many considered expert commentators.
While facing the crisis, my government has insisted that it “follows the science”. Political speakers are always accompanied by medical consultants and scientists who have a lot of order and appreciation. Yet what seems to be the best scientific advice of one day seems to fall the next. Our initial reluctance to expose major sporting events was therefore based on “scientific advice”, according to which there was no evidence that a large number of very compact people constituted an ideal environment in which a virus could spread, just for the contrary advice . barely a day or two later. Likewise pubs and restaurants. “Follow the science” has even been proposed to explain the shortcomings in the provision of protective equipment for frontline workers and testing capability. One may wonder whether politics has been informed by science or vice versa.
Long shelf
It was then. Today we are in curfew and the discussion has developed how we are going to get out of it. There is inevitably a nervous gaze on the navel when it becomes clear to the big and the good, political and scientific that a vibrant market economy cannot be kept in a floating animation forever. Where does it all go from here?
If you want to know what is likely to happen in the future, the past and present often serve as helpful guides. And there is enough information in the statistical data that we have collected since the first epidemic in Wuhan due to the exponential increase in the number of infections and deaths before closing and the most welcome signs that have started to come from Italy and more recently. Spain to give us an idea of our destination.
First, the long plateau, followed by a gradual decline in staff, reflects the less drastic approach of European democracies than that adopted by China. When a crisis strikes, there may be a price to pay for enjoying the benefits of a free and open society. In southern Europe, the descent from the “peak” of the epidemic is significantly slower than the initial ascent. Since the UK closure is less severe than that of Spain or Italy, the unfortunate fact is that we can expect our recovery from this first peak to be even more labor intensive. ‘artwork.
Reproduction number
The basic reproduction number is the mathematical term used by epidemiologists to quantify the rate of infection of a virus or disease. Experts have calculated that the reproduction number (or R0) of Covid-19, if not questioned, is around 2.5. This means that on average, each infected person transmits the virus to 2.5 other people, resulting in exponential spread.
Locks, public awareness campaigns and social distancing measures are designed to reduce R0 below 1.0, thereby reducing the spread of infections over time and ultimately sto