Citizen scientists: the power of people data to manage public health

[jcampbellsmith]

Citizen scientists: the power of people data to manage public health

When the World Health Organization declared Covid-19 a global pandemic in March 2020, very little was known about the raging infection. Testing capability was limited and data sparse. Yet one citizen science project managed to gather and process...

eandt.theiet.org

Regards
JCS

 

[CarlW]

Fascinating article. I particularly like the idea - although they didn't use these words - that Covid19 has somehow democratised science.

 

[timbrayford]

I hope that at some point a serious scientific study is made of whether any of the lockdown/social distancing measures taken brought the benefits that they were alleged to do. At the moment far too many people appear to taking the CMO/SAGE advice in good faith as being accurate without question.

 

[mealiejimmy]

I don't think you need a serious scientific study to determine whether or not lockdown brought the benefit of slowing infection rates and reducing hospitalistions and deaths
Before the first lockdown,infection rates were increasing exponentially - with hospitalisations and deaths increasing accordingly
After 3 weeks of lockdown, the infection rates had dropped and in due course so did hospitalisations and deaths
After the easing of restrictions during the summer/autumn,the infection raters again increased exponentially and only a second lockdown combined with the vaccination programme has got us to where we are now - low infection rates. low numbers of hospitalisations and low numbers of deaths.
The government has already announced a public enquiry into how the UK has handled the Covid pandemic and I'm sure the efficacy of the CMO/SAGE advice will be closely examined.
Also, remember that that CMO/SAGE advice to the government does not come with 100% certainty - rather it is given on a sliding scale of probabilities.
It is also only one source of advice on which the government bases its decisions

Cheers

Bruce

 

[timbrayford]

I don't think you need a serious scientific study to determine whether or not lockdown brought the benefit of slowing infection rates and reducing hospitalistions and deaths
Before the first lockdown,infection rates were increasing exponentially - with hospitalisations and deaths increasing accordingly
After 3 weeks of lockdown, the infection rates had dropped and in due course so did hospitalisations and deaths
After the easing of restrictions during the summer/autumn,the infection raters again increased exponentially and only a second lockdown combined with the vaccination programme has got us to where we are now - low infection rates. low numbers of hospitalisations and low numbers of deaths.
The government has already announced a public enquiry into how the UK has handled the Covid pandemic and I'm sure the efficacy of the CMO/SAGE advice will be closely examined.
Also, remember that that CMO/SAGE advice to the government does not come with 100% certainty - rather it is given on a sliding scale of probabilities.
It is also only one source of advice on which the government bases its decisions

Cheers

Bruce

There were a lot of other seasonal factors involved too, and as for those circuit breaker lockdowns were they so successful that vaccination became superfluous?

 

[Apthorpe]

I don't think you need a serious scientific study to determine whether or not lockdown brought the benefit of slowing infection rates and reducing hospitalistions and deaths
Before the first lockdown,infection rates were increasing exponentially - with hospitalisations and deaths increasing accordingly
After 3 weeks of lockdown, the infection rates had dropped and in due course so did hospitalisations and deaths
After the easing of restrictions during the summer/autumn,the infection raters again increased exponentially and only a second lockdown combined with the vaccination programme has got us to where we are now - low infection rates. low numbers of hospitalisations and low numbers of deaths.

Except this isn't actually true. Infection rates had already peaked before the first lockdown started. The second and third lockdowns do not show any obviously detectable efficacy either.
If lockdowns worked, a fortnight would have been entirely adequate.
Everyone seems to forget we've had three national lockdowns not two, and at least three waves of covid.
The whole policy towards covid has been an obscenity in many different respects, but most of all a total disregard for sensible healthcare. We've spent something in excess of £2million to avoid each projected possible death, yet usually refuse to spend 5% of that sum to prevent definite deaths.

 

[mchughcb]

Except this isn't actually true. Infection rates had already peaked before the first lockdown started. The second and third lockdowns do not show any obviously detectable efficacy either.
If lockdowns worked, a fortnight would have been entirely adequate.
Everyone seems to forget we've had three national lockdowns not two, and at least three waves of covid.
The whole policy towards covid has been an obscenity in many different respects, but most of all a total disregard for sensible healthcare. We've spent something in excess of £2million to avoid each projected possible death, yet usually refuse to spend 5% of that sum to prevent definite deaths.

Spot on.

I can tell you they announced stage 4 lockdown here for 4 months 23 hours a day, after infection rates had already peaked.

Still the premier who authorised it has fallen down drunk and broke is back at a party. Karma has a way of catching up with people. Now the health officer that banned all activities while other state health officers didn't must be worried about the hand of god.

 

[TomDeer]

What intrigues me is when we will be allowed to dispense with the surveillance state aspects of being expected to leave contact trace details everywhere. The "it's for your own protection" line only lasts so long before it starts to look like something else. I would speculate that there may be a reluctance to dispense with it on the part of some.

 

[mealiejimmy]

What intrigues me is when we will be allowed to dispense with the surveillance state aspects of being expected to leave contact trace details everywhere. The "it's for your own protection" line only lasts so long before it starts to look like something else. I would speculate that there may be a reluctance to dispense with it on the part of some.

What else does it look like?
Track and trace seems a perfectly reasonable and sensible way to try to warn people that they may be infected with Covid

Cheers

Bruce

 

[Freeforester]

Call me a crank, () but I still think prevention is better than cure. True, there’s no money in this idea, but maybe the emphasis should be on public health; just a thought!

 

[TomDeer]

What else does it look like?
Track and trace seems a perfectly reasonable and sensible way to try to warn people that they may be infected with Covid

Cheers

Bruce

My question was how long will it last and whether we will see the back of it. Those at most significant risk of Covid have predominantly now been vaccinated.

maybe the emphasis should be on public health

Perhaps a line that might have been better considered by government before significantly delaying the imposition of quarantine from high risk areas back in early 2020 and also earlier this year in respect of the Indian variant?

 

[Freeforester]

My question was how long will it last and whether we will see the back of it. Those at most significant risk of Covid have predominantly now been vaccinated.



Perhaps a line that might have been better considered by government before significantly delaying the imposition of quarantine from high risk areas back in early 2020 and also earlier this year in respect of the Indian variant?

Perhaps, as you say, but we are where we are. They still have some learning to do, judging by the experiences of others.