Jump to content

Coronavirus


Recommended Posts

Since the start of this back in Feb / March, anyone credible has been pretty clear that the key to managing it is to have an effective test, trace and isolate system and to act fast. We haven't even managed to get one of the three things mentioned above in place properly. 

Lock-downs, early pub closures, "rules of six" etc. are just incremental mitigants. They all help a bit, and a full lock down is obviously temporarily effective, but they aren't enough if you don't know where the virus is and don't take and enforce steps to isolate it, and they are not sustainable. 

The idea that "the science" has been ambiguous or fickle is pony. We were unprepared and we have been unable to get our act together.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, benjii said:

Since the start of this back in Feb / March, anyone credible has been pretty clear that the key to managing it is to have an effective test, trace and isolate system and to act fast. We haven't even managed to get one of the three things mentioned above in place properly. 

Lock-downs, early pub closures, "rules of six" etc. are just incremental mitigants. They all help a bit, and a full lock down is obviously temporarily effective, but they aren't enough if you don't know where the virus is and don't take and enforce steps to isolate it, and they are not sustainable. 

The idea that "the science" has been ambiguous or fickle is pony. We were unprepared and we have been unable to get our act together.

Exactly. That was the whole idea behind the circuit break, try and get the r rate down while the numbers are low to give us time to sort out track and trace for when it opens up again. If the numbers are at a manageable level then in theory a good track and trace system might be able to control it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, benjii said:

The idea that "the science" has been ambiguous or fickle is pony. We were unprepared and we have been unable to get our act together.

The Government and NHS had a certain level of contigency planning, but it was based on assumptions, and some of it was cut back a few years ago. This article was printed in February ....

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-government-s-plans-for-a-pandemic-are-both-reassuring-and-alarming

 

As for being 'unable to get our act together', the Government was elected to 'Get Brexit Done' and has proved to be incapable of managing anything else, ( and it hasn't yet successfully accomplished it's one avowed aim ).

Edited by badgerx16
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it, barely 30 hours since Rabb was lecturing us on Breakfast TV that a second national lockdown was out of the question? 
 

In times of national emergency, you elect a government who you hope will actually govern. These bunch of idiots must be up there as our most incompetent, useless government in history. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, buctootim said:

The point sailing over your head again huh. Wales have had the local firebreaks in place for weeks which is exactly why they don't need the more draconian English national lockdown to be announced by Sir Boris the Brave 

Mental.

I think you've missed all the points once more.

Wales had local lockdowns since mid September - a big hint for you so you don't miss the point once more, this is where the statistics will come from. England have also introduced local lockdowns. Even you can't have missed Manchester and Liverpool.

Wales instigated a national lockdown (fire break) on Friday the 23rd. Another hint for you, this will have generated more statistics in terms of controlling the virus on a national level and whether or not this tactic is successful.

I'm pretty sure everyone else understood the subtleties, but do please raise your hand if you're still struggling.

Perhaps one more point, if it doesn't push you over the edge, whilst England are looking at a longer, full lockdown, Wales are saying that they are sticking to their original two week plan and not looking to extend it, even though they have the highest R rate in the UK which doesn't appear to be reducing despite a full lockdown and several local lockdowns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope we have learnt from the Welsh and not thinking of essential items only.

Feel for the poor shops who might have recuperated some sales before Xmas. Now Bezos going to reap even more benefit. Of course an online sales tax is far too complicated to 8mpose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, whelk said:

Hope we have learnt from the Welsh and not thinking of essential items only.

Feel for the poor shops who might have recuperated some sales before Xmas. Now Bezos going to reap even more benefit. Of course an online sales tax is far too complicated to 8mpose.

To be fair, those with an online presence will be fine.  Those that don't have an online presence were probably struggling before Covid became a factor.

Hospitality will be screwed again - although November is traditionally a quiet month anyway, but they are unlikely to 'catch up' like they normally do with the Xmas period as I can't imagine Xmas parties will take place on the same scale as usual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

 but they are unlikely to 'catch up' like they normally do with the Xmas period as I can't imagine Xmas parties will take place on the same scale as usual.

“Unlikely“!!!

They’re screwed, a Tory Government has screwed them. My mate makes his money June-Aug, then Dec. He ticks over the remaining months. He had a great pub, totally viable, but all his profit is in a few months.  Live music, place is hopping weekends and now it’s like a fucking restaurant. He hasn’t even had a lock in for 3 weeks. 

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

“Unlikely“!!!

They’re screwed, a Tory Government has screwed them.

So, what would you do if you were in charge at the moment ? The Government may be constantly playing catch up, but keeping everything open isn't working.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

“Unlikely“!!!

They’re screwed, a Tory Government has screwed them. My mate makes his money June-Aug, then Dec. He ticks over the remaining months. He had a great pub, totally viable, but all his profit is in a few months.  Live music, place is hopping weekends and now it’s like a fucking restaurant. He hasn’t even had a lock in for 3 weeks. 

Agreed.  More destruction for the local / independents with more going to the wall.

Larger chains will likely survive.

It is a resilient sector though and once the world re-opens - next summer? - the closed pubs will be snapped up at bargain basement prices and we'll start all over again!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

So, what would you do if you were in charge at the moment ? The Government may be constantly playing catch up, but keeping everything open isn't working.

Closing everything won’t work either. You can’t control this virus. You just have to let it burn out.

They’re acting like those primitive societies that thought that human sacrifices were the answer to everything. When they didn’t work the answer was even more sacrIfices.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Closing everything won’t work either. You can’t control this virus. You just have to let it burn out.

They’re acting like those primitive societies that thought that human sacrifices were the answer to everything. When they didn’t work the answer was even more sacrIfices.

Nonsense. Someone posted a graph earlier on in the thread showing what will happen, it will be wave - lockdown - wave - lockdown - wave - lockdown ... etc until eventually herd immunity is reached by either a vaccine or naturally.

Lockdowns are not aimed at stopping the virus just slowing the spread and stopping the nhs getting overwhelmed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Nonsense. Someone posted a graph earlier on in the thread showing what will happen, it will be wave - lockdown - wave - lockdown - wave - lockdown ... etc until eventually herd immunity is reached by either a vaccine or naturally.

Lockdowns are not aimed at stopping the virus just slowing the spread and stopping the nhs getting overwhelmed.

Yeah, it’s all about ‘protect the NHS’. It’s supposed to be the NHS that protects us. You won’t ever get herd immunity by repetitive lockdowns. How long will it take to get 30m or 40m infected?  Relying on a vaccine is asking to be disappointed.

Lockdowns are killing the country.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Yeah, it’s all about ‘protect the NHS’. It’s supposed to be the NHS that protects us. You won’t ever get herd immunity by repetitive lockdowns. How long will it take to get 30m or 40m infected?  Relying on a vaccine is asking to be disappointed.

Lockdowns are killing the country.

Some hospitals are being stretched at the moment, even with all the restrictions. I’m not sure what you are expecting to happen by just letting it spread? There was an expert on Radio 5 the other day explaining the numbers, it would get really ugly.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This disease is a bastard because the outcome of getting it isn't just binary: die or fully recover. Those who advocate not doing anything and relying on herd immunity seem to believe it is. Even if we accept a 1-2% mortality rate (which is ten times or more higher than the flu), how can we accept 20% or higher of those who don't die having long term, maybe permanent, organ damage?

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-tragedy-of-the-post-covid-long-haulers-2020101521173

Published studies (see here and here) and surveys conducted by patient groups indicate that 50% to 80% of patients continue to have bothersome symptoms three months after the onset of COVID-19 — even after tests no longer detect virus in their body.

 

Long-haulers include two groups of people affected by the virus:

  • Those who experience some permanent damage to their lungs, heart, kidneys, or brain that may affect their ability to function.
  • Those who continue to experience debilitating symptoms despite no detectable damage to these organs.
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

human sacrifices were the answer to everything. When they didn’t work the answer was even more sacrIfices.

Its worth trying tbf. It won't stop the virus but if we choose the right people it would make life worth living again... 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

So, what would you do if you were in charge at the moment ? The Government may be constantly playing catch up, but keeping everything open isn't working.

Well I wouldn’t start from here. 

Every single year, NICE make decisions on whether life saving/changing drugs are affordable, whether they are value for money. They  make a calculation based on years of life saved against cost to the taxpayer. It’s why parents take their kids to America & it’s why my sister in law was denied a drug that would have prolonged her life. NICE decided the drug was too expensive to be paid for by the taxpayer, so she was denied a couple of years of life. How many years of life are being saved by these lockdown , against the misery, death & poverty they’ll cause long term? A heartless comment, maybe, but I repeat, NICE do this every single year.

If health trumped everything else, why are schools remaining open? The Government are basically agreeing with me. They’ve calculated that education is more important than absolute health protection. I think the economy is just as important. The response today is not proportionate to the threat. It’s inconceivable that previous generations would have behaved like this. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone appalled at the level of presentation at the highest level in the land?

id had been embarrassed to present those graphs and that detail if I was presenting at uni.

At one point they were showing a basic Excel spreadsheet. You are meant to distill facts not show slide that people,squint at whilst not paying attention to.the speaker. Oh and the margins - need to fit on screen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Coronavirus is killing people.

As much as this is true, badger. There’s gonna be nothing to come back to very soon. 
 

this is a controlled demolition so they can role out digital currencies with ease whilst the world is in turmoil, and they’re using the green new deal as part of it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, whelk said:

Anyone appalled at the level of presentation at the highest level in the land?

id had been embarrassed to present those graphs and that detail if I was presenting at uni.

At one point they were showing a basic Excel spreadsheet. You are meant to distill facts not show slide that people,squint at whilst not paying attention to.the speaker. Oh and the margins - need to fit on screen.

Years ago I was employed at a health authority, one year out of university. The HIV epidemic hit and without any exaggeration I was given the current day equivalent of £50m to spend to provide specialist services - including prevention of transmission, outpatient clinics, a brand new inpatient ward and a hospice. When I asked for help or advice people just said 'theres no precedent, you'll just have to get on with it" . Seems like nothing much has changed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Raging Bull said:

As much as this is true, badger. There’s gonna be nothing to come back to very soon. 
 

this is a controlled demolition so they can role out digital currencies with ease whilst the world is in turmoil, and they’re using the green new deal as part of it. 

I love a good conspiracy theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Coronavirus is killing people.

I’ve lost a few close friends and associates over the past few months. Heart attack, aneurysm, brain tumour, brain tumour.

There were around 450 daily deaths from cancer over the past year. With the halt on treatments that will at least double in the future.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

I’ve lost a few close friends and associates over the past few months. Heart attack, aneurysm, brain tumour, brain tumour.

There were around 450 daily deaths from cancer over the past year. With the halt on treatments that will at least double in the future.

So the potential for an extra 450 cancer deaths per day upsets you but an extra 3,500 Covid deaths doesn’t?

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

So the potential for an extra 450 cancer deaths per day upsets you but an extra 3,500 Covid deaths doesn’t?

4000 deaths per day is an arbitrary number.

With a 2% death rate, that would require 200,000 people being infected every single day.  Not sure what the R would need to be in that scenario but it would be pretty high. Even with a completely flat growth rate in R that scenario would lead to herd immunity in about 6 months...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

4000 deaths per day is an arbitrary number.

With a 2% death rate, that would require 200,000 people being infected every single day.  Not sure what the R would need to be in that scenario but it would be pretty high. Even with a completely flat growth rate in R that scenario would lead to herd immunity in about 6 months...

2% death rate? What crack are you smoking? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

People still banging on about "herd immunity". Won't happen. This is a rapidly evolving coronavirus. There will be as much herd immunity as there is for the common cold.

Even when there are vaccines it will probably be the case that the vaccine needs to evolve and be taken annually or similar. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RedArmy said:

2% death rate? What crack are you smoking? 

46 million cases worldwide (confirmed through testing).  1.19 million deaths worldwide = 2.6% of those that have caught the virus have died (death rate).

However, we know that people can catch the virus and not have any symptoms and therefore would have no reason to be tested.  I'm also assuming that testing worldwide is not consistent and doubtless people with symptoms will not be tested (as happened in the UK in the early stages), so I would say a 2% death rate is probably about right.

Would love to hear how you think it is different.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, benjii said:

People still banging on about "herd immunity". Won't happen. This is a rapidly evolving coronavirus. There will be as much herd immunity as there is for the common cold.

Even when there are vaccines it will probably be the case that the vaccine needs to evolve and be taken annually or similar. 

I wan't 'banging on about' herd immunity.  Merely pointing out that 4,000 deaths per day is a completely arbitrary (and in my opinion, unrealistic) number.

To extrapolate from that - using a 2% death rate and an assumption that R remains at 1 (with 200,000 infections it would certainly be considerably higher, but run with it for illustration purposes) and an assumption that deaths occur 14 days after infection.

In month 1 there would be 6 million infections (200,000 per day from day 1) and 60,000 deaths (4,000 per day from day 15)

In month 2 there would be 6 million infections and 120,000 deaths (4,000 per day from day 1)

In month 3 there would be 6 million infections and 120,000 deaths

In month 4 there would be 6 million infections and 120,000 deaths

In month 5 there would be 6 million infections and 120,000 deaths - more than 50% of England would have been infected and therefore 'herd immunity' would begin to take over.

In this scenario the virus would definitely need to mutate drastically within the first five months for herd immunity not to be effective, but more likely would need to mutate every 2 months.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

46 million cases worldwide (confirmed through testing).  1.19 million deaths worldwide = 2.6% of those that have caught the virus have died (death rate).

However, we know that people can catch the virus and not have any symptoms and therefore would have no reason to be tested.  I'm also assuming that testing worldwide is not consistent and doubtless people with symptoms will not be tested (as happened in the UK in the early stages), so I would say a 2% death rate is probably about right.

Would love to hear how you think it is different.

Multiple studies, feel free to look them up. 
 

Even fear mongers sage say it’s 0.5% 

The WHO published a peer reviewed study from Stanford University putting the IFR at 0.23% and for healthy individuals under 70 they say it is 0.05% (recently updated to 0.03% but not peer reviewed yet) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

All a lockdown does is kick the can further down the road. At some point, someone is going to have to make some tough choices and face up to fact that we are going to be living with this virus for a long time. A vaccine isn't going to magically appear for all at Christmas and we cannot afford to keep locking down every two months. The tsunami of unemployment grows every single minute we are in lockdown and this will devastate so many businesses. 

What a mess. As a conservative, Johnson has now completely lost the little support I had left in him and must go, along with several others in the cabinet. Time to see what Sunak has. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Born In The 80s said:

All a lockdown does is kick the can further down the road. At some point, someone is going to have to make some tough choices and face up to fact that we are going to be living with this virus for a long time. A vaccine isn't going to magically appear for all at Christmas and we cannot afford to keep locking down every two months. The tsunami of unemployment grows every single minute we are in lockdown and this will devastate so many businesses. 

 

Absolutely spot on. 
 


 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Born In The 80s said:

All a lockdown does is kick the can further down the road. At some point, someone is going to have to make some tough choices and face up to fact that we are going to be living with this virus for a long time. A vaccine isn't going to magically appear for all at Christmas and we cannot afford to keep locking down every two months. The tsunami of unemployment grows every single minute we are in lockdown and this will devastate so many businesses. 

What a mess. As a conservative, Johnson has now completely lost the little support I had left in him and must go, along with several others in the cabinet. Time to see what Sunak has. 

Yea but do you think they should just carry on against all projections that hospitals will be overrun?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, whelk said:

Yea but do you think they should just carry on against all projections that hospitals will be overrun?

Aren’t they every winter? 
 

How many projections have SAGE got right so far? List them if you can. 
 

We should not be having policy dictated to us by a group that took the advice of a flawed model that also predicted Sweden would have 85,000 deaths without a lockdown. They’ve barely had any resembling a lockdown and they’ve had less than 6,000 deaths. 
 

The idea of 4,000 deaths per day before Christmas is ludicrous, scare mongering bullshit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RedArmy said:

Multiple studies, feel free to look them up. 
 

Even fear mongers sage say it’s 0.5% 

The WHO published a peer reviewed study from Stanford University putting the IFR at 0.23% and for healthy individuals under 70 they say it is 0.05% (recently updated to 0.03% but not peer reviewed yet) 

The latest Imperial study puts it at 1.15% for developed countries :

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/207273/covid-19-deaths-infection-fatality-ratio-about/

Using that would mean we would need close to 400,000 new infections every day to produce 4,000 deaths - that's with an R rate of 1.  Looks even more ludicrous when you use that percentage....

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's staggering that 9 months or so into this that there are people who still view the effects of Covid as living or dying. Don't have an opinion when you're plainly don't understand the subject. 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm heartily pissed off with the prospect of a second lockdown. The government is putting far too much store on the advice of so-called exerts, who are making lurid predictions of the number of deaths that will be caused unless we all live like hermits for the next month. There is not even universal agreement among virology experts, but neither could there be, as this Chinese virus is one on which there is not any accurate experience of a precedent. We can only go on the evidence of what has happened in other countries, and we have the example of Sweden which didn't have a lockdown, observed simple rules on self-isolation for the most vulnerable (the elderly) and is now in a situation whereby their deaths from the Chinese virus are not higher than most other countries, yet their economy has not been screwed in the process.

The trouble with so-called virology experts, is that they are there only to advise only on the virus and make guesses about the death rate. The government however, is there to assess this information and balance it against all of the other implications affecting the country and the economy. On the other side of the equation, the bit that they appear to judge as being of secondary importance, is the massive cost of the lockdown to the economy, the demise of much of the hospitality industry, many other businesses going under, resulting in a huge increase of unemployment, the rise of mental problems and domestic violence, and the increase of deaths from cancer and other illnesses and diseases because the NHS is concentrating on the Chinese virus. We have reached the stage whereby the cure is more deadly than the disease.

The lockdown is just kicking the can down the road, and will flare up again when it is eased in early December. There is rising civil disobedience against it, particularly among the young. I can't say I blame them, after all they are going to paying for all this through taxation for the next decade or so.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})