Corona Virus

[ithuriel]

I think the reason we are less shocked is simply that an accident, terror attack is a surprise, with this virus,  we know these deaths are coming 

Some of the stuff in this video is interesting.

 

[reynard]

2 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Strangely on the nose commentary from cult indie DJ Simon Price:

 

It is weird how quickly our brains insulate us from the size and horror of these numbers.

 

You can see it in the media coverage; Spain and Italy are dysfunctional, a horror show beyond imagination, surely it couldn't happen here - but now it is happening here, it's weirdly undramatic.

 

It's not a criticism on my part of anything or anyone, I think it's more that we can only take in and process so much

 

Now we're starting to see pictures in the press of the deceased. It is starting to resemble the media coverage of the deaths in WWI where daily casualty lists were published and newspapers were full of those killed. Obviously we are some way off those numbers but the principle is the same.

[String fellow]

With these awful daily death figures, shouldn't we be talking about how to increase the lock-down, not how soon restrictions will be relaxed? My heart is grieving particularly for the residents of care homes, who are at great risk. 

[Heathrow fox]

11 minutes ago, String fellow said:

With these awful daily death figures, shouldn't we be talking about how to increase the lock-down, not how soon restrictions will be relaxed? My heart is grieving particularly for the residents of care homes, who are at great risk. 

I do find it odd that a week ago the tone seemed to be what restrictions would be next?Then with in days the attention is when will things be relaxed?Even though the UK is hitting the so called peak.I wouldn’t expect a relaxation of any measures for weeks to come.Any thing else is a bonus.The media are really starting to get on my nerves now.Im trying to avoid watching any news.Mostly keeping up to date reading this thread.

[Lionator]

18 minutes ago, String fellow said:

With these awful daily death figures, shouldn't we be talking about how to increase the lock-down, not how soon restrictions will be relaxed? My heart is grieving particularly for the residents of care homes, who are at great risk. 

It's pretty pointless to increase the lockdown at this point. The damage was done in the past 3-6 weeks, the virus is currently transmitting a lot less now. 

[Ross-Kemp]

Apologies if it’s been posted or if I’ve missed it, but is there actually any scientific proof that once you’ve had Covid-19, you can’t catch it again?

 

 

[steflcfc]

Unfortunately as sad as it is, the death toll is going to look more bleak as the coming days pass by the looks of things.

 

This Virus doesn’t attack a “type”.....bottom line is no one is

definitively safe.

 

If I catch it,  No scientist cannot 100% say I definitely won’t suffer hospitalisation/death.

As we know there isn’t a vaccine yet and there are too many variables, like how do I know I don’t have an underlying heath condition that’s undetected?

 

I want to be at home where I know I’m safer, apart from having risk food shopping once a week.

Yes it will get harder in the coming weeks, but we only get 1 life.

I have the rest of my live when this is over to socialise/earn money etc.

I'm just mentally telling myself this will be a short-term inconvenience, to hopefully return to some normality in the long term.

 

The lockdown shouldn’t be lessened for a good 3 months in my opinion, until new infections have slowed with and deaths have reduced massively as 1 is 1 too many.

 

Letting people move freely extremely early is just going to play with peoples lives, and put more pressure on the NHS.

 

Keep strong everyone and 99.9 percent of us are abiding by the rules.

 

Stay safe. 

[Lionator]

6 minutes ago, Ross-Kemp said:

Apologies if it’s been posted or if I’ve missed it, but is there actually any scientific proof that once you’ve had Covid-19, you can’t catch it again?

 

 

There's loads which have shown that the body has created antibodies, to the extent that babies have presented with antibodies from their pregnant, infected mother.

 

If it mutates (normally less severe version), you could catch it again but every other coronavirus can only be caught once, like most viruses in general. 

 

It's important to remember there'll always be anomalies, people get chicken pox twice for example. But the stand alone chances of an individual being infected twice are tiny. 

[Heathrow fox]

4 minutes ago, Ross-Kemp said:

Apologies if it’s been posted or if I’ve missed it, but is there actually any scientific proof that once you’ve had Covid-19, you can’t catch it again?

 

 

This has been covered quite well in the last 5 or so pages.I think the answer is I bloody hell hope not.

[davieG]

7 minutes ago, steflcfc said:

Unfortunately as sad as it is, the death toll is going to look more bleak as the coming days pass by the looks of things.

 

This Virus doesn’t attack a “type”.....bottom line is no one is

definitively safe.

 

If I catch it,  No scientist cannot 100% say I definitely won’t suffer hospitalisation/death.

As we know there isn’t a vaccine yet and there are too many variables, like how do I know I don’t have an underlying heath condition that’s undetected?

 

I want to be at home where I know I’m safer, apart from having risk food shopping once a week.

Yes it will get harder in the coming weeks, but we only get 1 life.

I have the rest of my live when this is over to socialise/earn money etc.

I'm just mentally telling myself this will be a short-term inconvenience, to hopefully return to some normality in the long term.

 

The lockdown shouldn’t be lessened for a good 3 months in my opinion, until new infections have slowed with and deaths have reduced massively as 1 is 1 too many.

 

Letting people move freely extremely early is just going to play with peoples lives, and put more pressure on the NHS.

 

Keep strong everyone and 99.9 percent of us are abiding by the rules.

 

Stay safe. 

In my mind I've written the summer off, in effect hibernating until the autumn/winter arrives

[simFox]

6 minutes ago, Lionator said:

There's loads which have shown that the body has created antibodies, to the extent that babies have presented with antibodies from their pregnant, infected mother.

 

If it mutates (normally less severe version), you could catch it again but every other coronavirus can only be caught once, like most viruses in general. 

 

It's important to remember there'll always be anomalies, people get chicken pox twice for example. But the stand alone chances of an individual being infected twice are tiny. 

Not quite true, we know with the 4 types of Dengue fever, if you catch one of the other stains after catching one, it is much worse.

 

I believe there are now multiple strains of COVID-19.

[st albans fox]

41 minutes ago, String fellow said:

With these awful daily death figures, shouldn't we be talking about how to increase the lock-down, not how soon restrictions will be relaxed? My heart is grieving particularly for the residents of care homes, who are at great risk. 

 

22 minutes ago, Lionator said:

It's pretty pointless to increase the lockdown at this point. The damage was done in the past 3-6 weeks, the virus is currently transmitting a lot less now. 

the govt have more detailed analysis than us mere mortals ....... they will know the daily admissions stats and I doubt they see any need to increase the current arrangements ...... of course they will be looking for evidence that that people are tiring of the restrictions and plenty of house parties/bbq’s will be happening today in the sunshine .... but the modelling will assume that a fair percentage wouldn’t comply .....

[Lionator]

4 minutes ago, simFox said:

Not quite true, we know with the 4 types of Dengue fever, if you catch one of the other stains after catching one, it is much worse.

 

I believe there are now multiple strains of COVID-19.

Dengue Fever isn't the same type of virus as a coronavirus though. The reinfection stuff usually comes from scaremongering media sources, the science leans towards the idea that you can't at this point. That may change of course.

[SpacedX]

12 minutes ago, Lionator said:

It's pretty pointless to increase the lockdown at this point. The damage was done in the past 3-6 weeks, the virus is currently transmitting a lot less now. 

And we hand over live to an unscheduled statement by Health Secretary Matt Hancock convened in the last half hour at Downing Street:

 

"Good Morning everyone. Contrary to the ongoing advice, research and data from Public Health England, our Chief Scientific Advisers at Imperial College, and a select team of epidemiologists, virologists and immunologists at the World Health Organisation, we are pleased to announce that the current lockdown policy across the United Kingdom will be relaxed as of next Monday and in line with the Bank Holiday. This is decision has been reached upon no empirical, evidence based medical research whatsoever, rather, uniformed anecdotal incredulity and baseless online lay opinion derived from a random post that I read this morning on a thread in a provincial football forum. Thank you. Enjoy the Easter Break"  

[Lionator]

2 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

 

the govt have more detailed analysis than us mere mortals ....... they will know the daily admissions stats and I doubt they see any need to increase the current arrangements ...... of course they will be looking for evidence that that people are tiring of the restrictions and plenty of house parties/bbq’s will be happening today in the sunshine .... but the modelling will assume that a fair percentage wouldn’t comply .....

The original Imperial paper was mostly based on 75% complying I believe, yet the reports now indicate at least 90% are complying so that's a positive. 

[Sampson]

6 minutes ago, Line-X said:

And we hand over live to an unscheduled statement by Health Secretary Matt Hancock convened in the last half hour at Downing Street:

 

"Good Morning everyone. Contrary to the ongoing advice, research and data from Public Health England, our Chief Scientific Advisers at Imperial College, and a select team of epidemiologists, virologists and immunologists at the World Health Organisation, we are pleased to announce that the current lockdown policy across the United Kingdom will be relaxed as of next Monday and in line with the Bank Holiday. This is decision has been reached upon no empirical, evidence based medical research whatsoever, rather, uniformed anecdotal incredulity and baseless online lay opinion derived from a random post that I read this morning on a thread in a provincial football forum. Thank you. Enjoy the Easter Break"  

Where has anyone on here or in public suggested anything like that?

 

Lionater is completely right though. The current death toll doesn't show whether lockdown is working or not because the vast majority of these deaths would have caught it pre-lockdown.

 

Doesn't mean he thinks we should relax lockdown,.

 

What a weird post.

Edited 11 April 2020 by Sampson

[Lionator]

7 minutes ago, Line-X said:

And we hand over live to an unscheduled statement by Health Secretary Matt Hancock convened in the last half hour at Downing Street:

 

"Good Morning everyone. Contrary to the ongoing advice, research and data from Public Health England, our Chief Scientific Advisers at Imperial College, and a select team of epidemiologists, virologists and immunologists at the World Health Organisation, we are pleased to announce that the current lockdown policy across the United Kingdom will be relaxed as of next Monday and in line with the Bank Holiday. This is decision has been reached upon no empirical, evidence based medical research whatsoever, rather, uniformed anecdotal incredulity and baseless online lay opinion derived from a random post that I read this morning on a thread in a provincial football forum. Thank you. Enjoy the Easter Break"  

Or somebody who works in the scientific research field who has a very basic understanding of epidemiology and viral biology, enough to be able to interpret conclusions from some research papers who wants to help to inform responsibly and just so happens to support Leicester city.

Edited 11 April 2020 by Lionator

[Bellend Sebastian]

1 hour ago, davieG said:

It's always struck me how we as a nation led by the media can make so much of just a single death than we can of 1000s. I guess the smaller the number we get to know the people involved more especial if it's a one of catastrophic event. 

 

1 hour ago, reynard said:

Now we're starting to see pictures in the press of the deceased. It is starting to resemble the media coverage of the deaths in WWI where daily casualty lists were published and newspapers were full of those killed. Obviously we are some way off those numbers but the principle is the same.

The reality is you just can't report mass deaths in the same way, can you? 15 people die in a terror attack and you can learn a lot about them as individuals from the tributes and stories in the papers. There's just not the pages for 1000 people, be they sailors gone down with a battleship in world war II, a Japanese town levelled in an earthquake, victims of a pandemic or whatever.

 

According to the missus (a psychologist) it's a defence mechanism, particularly acute in the current circumstances, because unlike with something very specific like a transport disaster or terror attack, where a high degree of misfortune is needed to become a victim, this is potentially so close to home that we just shut it out, rather than devoting a lot of emotional energy to making sense of it.

 

Well it sounded good to me, anyway

 

 

[st albans fox]

8 minutes ago, Line-X said:

And we hand over live to an unscheduled statement by Health Secretary Matt Hancock convened in the last half hour at Downing Street:

 

"Good Morning everyone. Contrary to the ongoing advice, research and data from Public Health England, our Chief Scientific Advisers at Imperial College, and a select team of epidemiologists, virologists and immunologists at the World Health Organisation, we are pleased to announce that the current lockdown policy across the United Kingdom will be relaxed as of next Monday and in line with the Bank Holiday. This is decision has been reached upon no empirical, evidence based medical research whatsoever, rather, uniformed anecdotal incredulity and baseless online lay opinion derived from a random post that I read this morning on a thread in a provincial football forum. Thank you. Enjoy the Easter Break"  

I think you misread a post somewhere ........ 

[SpacedX]

15 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Where has anyone on here or in public suggested anything like that?

 

Lionater is completely right though. The current death toll doesn't show whether lockdown us working or not because the vast majority of these deaths would have caught it pre-lockdown.

 

Doesn't mean he thinks we should lift lockdown, 

 

What a weird post.

I was simply being irreverent and facetious...why the indignation? and at no point was 'lifting' mentioned by either of us - rather relaxing. 

 

13 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Or somebody who works in the scientific research field who has a very basic understanding of epidemiology and viral biology, enough to be able to interpret conclusions from some research papers who wants to help to inform responsibly and just so happens to support Leicester city.

But that's the point, there is currently insufficient data either way and I would welcome a cautious approach. If I misinterpreted your post, then I apologise, but I think there are strong arguments for more stringent measures albeit in the short term. 

 

As a matter of interest, what area of research do you work in and in what capacity? 

Edited 11 April 2020 by Line-X
Spelling correction

[fox_up_north]

I really think they should have cancelled the Bank Holiday. Yes, there's some that will benefit from it but they could just been given regular holiday. Tesco near me yesterday was absolutely awful at half 8 in the morning. 30 minutes waiting and I left the queue to get in. No point. 

 

Especially with the good weather tempting idiots out. Just push it back and reschedule it for some point in July or September. It's the equivalent to booking a holiday abroad and staying in your room. 

[StanSP]

Nadine Dorries tweeting 'The whole country can breathe again' following news Boris is recovering without any hint or sense of irony is disgusting.

 

Before anyone jumps in, yes it is good that Boris is recovering and out of ICU.

 

But saying 'the whole country can breathe again' after daily death tolls are nearly hitting 1000 in the UK and we're in a lockdown, let alone the actual virus gripping the country as case numbers remain high is just ridiculously stupid.

[Toddybad]

1 hour ago, bfox said:

It may have already been discussed, but I was wondering how long people thought this current lock down will last?, How will it be lifted, specifically in relation to getting people back to work/not working from home?

 

The things I've read suggest 6-8 weeks like this, with more chance of stricter rules than reduced rules during that time. But lots of ministers etc want us then to start looking at things sector by sector to see what might be lifted. My understanding is the science suggests keep the lockdown until a vaccine is available but it's quite hard for a government to do that when cases tail off and people want some form of normality. 

[SpacedX]

6 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

I think you misread a post somewhere ........ 

Possibly. My point was, I concede perhaps unnecessarily and crudely put, that we need clear evidence that we have passed the peak before any suggestion of relaxation. Since many are still not adhering to the rules imposed by lockdown (and I do understand that this will always be flouted), if anything, this needs to be more stringently enforced and yes, I do think that increasing the measures would be prudent. 

[Sampson]

25 minutes ago, Toddybad said:

The things I've read suggest 6-8 weeks like this, with more chance of stricter rules than reduced rules during that time. But lots of ministers etc want us then to start looking at things sector by sector to see what might be lifted. My understanding is the science suggests keep the lockdown until a vaccine is available but it's quite hard for a government to do that when cases tail off and people want some form of normality. 

I've not seen any science suggest lockdown should stay until the vaccine. I think every one I've heard has said it's unrealistic and unfeasible.

 

I'm sure it would be true if it were just about killing the virus, but they'll be a point where the virus death rate gets lower where you're killing more people than you're saving if you stay in full lockdown.

 

Simple things like someone not going to the doctors after they found a lump or a rash until after lockdown by which point it's too late, to more obvious stuff like cancer patients not being able to get the treatment they need, to the economic stuff of people who's livelihoods have been lost, to the suicides or stress-related illnesses caused by the mental health issues involved with lockdown - all of which is entirely unquantifiable.

 

Chris Whitty said in one of the press conferences- the direct deaths of the virus are one of only 4 types of deaths they have to take into account when doing the modelling and informing public policy - the other 3 are indirect deaths caused by the virus (by people not getting treatment for other ailments), mental health related deaths and deaths caused by the economic issues related to the lockdown.

 

Social distancing will be here to stay until the vaccine but I can't see anyone advocating lockdown going beyond the end of the summer. Most countries will end up accepting a society similar to that of Sweden or Iceland where social distancing will be in place, football matches won't have crowds, but we'll be able to travel across the country to see friends and family and go back to schools, offices, cafes, restaurants and hair dressers again- though all desks and tables will now have to be spread 2m apart

 

That's what makes this whole thing so many different levels of sad - the death rates we get only count deaths with people who've tested positive and directly killed by the virus. They'll be millions of deaths for years after the pandemic is over which were caused by the virus which we can't quantify.

Edited 11 April 2020 by Sampson