Corona Virus

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, MattP said:

 FFS

 

The Chinese have covered this up, lied to the World, used financial influence to exert their propaganda in press releases via the WHO, murdered whistleblowers who tried to warn us, intelligence tells us the figures are hidden by a factor of 15 to 40 but you'll jump on here defending them at any sign of dissent.

 

Now we shouldn't mention of that but we can go at the big bad US?

 

You are a good guy Mac and I enjoy reading your posts but your Trump Derangement Syndrome is off the scale sometimes.

Well, the post was at least partly tongue-in-cheek given the context (probably should have added a or something to make that clearer) and there are much more salient things than this that should mean Trump loses in November, but purely to respond I will make a couple of clarifications here:

 

- I've tended to respond to posts criticising China only when it's implied that they are the only ones to blame for the effects of all of this around the world, as it's pretty much by any measure factually inaccurate. When this is all over, they should be first among those answering for it all but there should be others, too. WRT the WHO, if what has been written here is true then it shows, yet again, that NGO's of that type need to be both more powerful and less subject to manipulation from any nation states in order to do the job that they were created to do...if people actually want them to do that job, that is.

 

- I'm having a go at the Trump administration and those who think like them, not "the big bad US" as a whole - thankfully the US government isn't its people, not always anyway, and there are a great many decent people over there. It's just unfortunate that some corrupt powermongers with remarkable low cunning and understanding of human base desire managed to convince enough people that they might be a good thing (and suppress the votes of others) to claim power.

[WigstonWanderer]

10 hours ago, Nod.E said:

Hundreds of thousands die every year in the UK from diseases related to obesity, but McDonald's is still open. We just 'carry on regardless', don't we? 

 

50,000 sounds like a big number but in the grand scheme of things, it is not.

 

The sacrifices aren't worth it. If they were we'd be doing more to stop other preventable deaths. Don't see how this is any different.

I'm not sure where you got the 50k number from but it sounds like a highly unlikely outcome to me. The Imperial College estimates IIR were between 250k & 500k deaths to reach herd immunity based on an assumed CFR of 0.5% and 1%. I'm pretty sure that this would likely be much higher if the NHS were to be swamped with cases, plus there would likely be significant collateral damage from cancer patients, or those with heart problems, etc not getting treatment, so "carrying on regardless" would likely be a much higher figure.

 

Loosening the restrictions without completely containing the virus is extremely dangerous as the graph below shows.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-25/model-shows-physical-distancing-is-vital-to-coronavirus-response/12086230

 

This is for Australia, but I'm confident that the same would apply to the UK. Basically, there is a very fine line between containing the virus and letting it spread, probably around 70% to 80% lockdown compliance. This means it's pretty much all or nothing. Over time you'd still end up with at least 250k deaths before reaching herd immunity.

 

As for the concept of herd immunity, there seems to be very little known as yet about this virus in terms of:

 

a) Whether recovery from infection confers immunity (almost certainly to some degree).

 

b) The percentage of those recovering that are actually immune.

 

c) How long such immunity might last.

 

For example if immunity were to only last for 6 months, all those deaths might be in vain as you could still get a second wave.

 

Until more is known, the only viable option is to get the virus fully under control before experimenting with loosening restrictions, and only then when testing is widely available to anyone suspected of having the virus so that contacts can be traced, etc. I'm very much clinging to the ideas discussed in the "Hammer and Dance" article as a potential way forward.

 

As for the economy, do you really believe that if the government had have let rip, or "taken it on the chin" as Boris was at one time musing, and with infection raging everywhere, that people would have simply gone about there business as usual? More likely a frightened population would have hid in their homes and economic disruption would have occurred anyway.

 

This is a very shitty situation, and there are only shitty choices. There is a delicate balancing act between keeping death rates low, saving the economy, and avoiding health services getting overrun. The same applies around the world, and only a few governments seem for the moment at least, to have managed to do so.

 

For what it's worth, I think that after a slow start the UK government are now trying to do the right thing, though when it comes to testing and PPE, their best might still not be good enough. They are not alone, most other western governments have trodden a similar path. Australia was also slow to respond but had the luxury of a few more weeks, so got away with it (so far) by applying restrictions earlier in the cycle.

[Nod.E]

3 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

I'm not sure where you got the 50k number from but it sounds like a highly unlikely outcome to me. The Imperial College estimates IIR were between 250k & 500k deaths to reach herd immunity based on an assumed CFR of 0.5% and 1%. I'm pretty sure that this would likely be much higher if the NHS were to be swamped with cases, plus there would likely be significant collateral damage from cancer patients, or those with heart problems, etc not getting treatment, so "carrying on regardless" would likely be a much higher figure.

 

Loosening the restrictions without completely containing the virus is extremely dangerous as the graph below shows.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-25/model-shows-physical-distancing-is-vital-to-coronavirus-response/12086230

 

This is for Australia, but I'm confident that the same would apply to the UK. Basically, there is a very fine line between containing the virus and letting it spread, probably around 70% to 80% lockdown compliance. This means it's pretty much all or nothing. Over time you'd still end up with at least 250k deaths before reaching herd immunity.

 

As for the concept of herd immunity, there seems to be very little known as yet about this virus in terms of:

 

a) Whether recovery from infection confers immunity (almost certainly to some degree).

 

b) The percentage of those recovering that are actually immune.

 

c) How long such immunity might last.

 

For example if immunity were to only last for 6 months, all those deaths might be in vain as you could still get a second wave.

 

Until more is known, the only viable option is to get the virus fully under control before experimenting with loosening restrictions, and only then when testing is widely available to anyone suspected of having the virus so that contacts can be traced, etc. I'm very much clinging to the ideas discussed in the "Hammer and Dance" article as a potential way forward.

 

As for the economy, do you really believe that if the government had have let rip, or "taken it on the chin" as Boris was at one time musing, and with infection raging everywhere, that people would have simply gone about there business as usual? More likely a frightened population would have hid in their homes and economic disruption would have occurred anyway.

 

This is a very shitty situation, and there are only shitty choices. There is a delicate balancing act between keeping death rates low, saving the econom, and avoiding health services getting overrun. The same applies around the world, and only a few governments seem for the moment at least, to have managed to do so.

 

For what it's worth, I think that after a slow start the UK government are now trying to do the right thing, though when it comes to testing and PPE, their best might still not be good enough. They are not alone, most other western governments have trodden a similar path. Australia was also slow to respond but had the luxury of a few more weeks, so got away with it (so far) by applying restrictions earlier in the cycle.

The 50,000 number was a direct response to another poster. 

 

While there would have been some impact to the economy if nothing was imposed, but sections of society abstaining, it's a sliding scale and it obviously wouldn't be as catastrophic as what months of lockdown is going to do to the long term futures of millions of people.

 

I'm just trying to be a realist here.

 

Even if lockdown measures were kept in place for months on end, I don't trust British people enough to comply to the required level. 

 

Realistically what are our chances of completely isolating and getting rid of the virus? It blew up out of nowhere and it will only take a handful of new cases for it to blow up again.

 

Just feels like we're delaying the inevitable. 

If we lockdown for say, two more months, is that going to stop it flaring up again? Probably not, and all that hardship and impact on the economy will have been for nothing. The idea of being able to test and trace all cases and those that have come into contact with carriers seems absurd to me. There are just too many asymptomatic cases and it is just too contagious for that to work, surely.

 

Are we really going to delay and lockdown until we have a vaccine or drug in 12-18 months? 

 

I doubt it.

 

Flattening the curve and spreading the impact may well reduce the total number of deaths but my god what a price we're paying. Especially when you consider the vast majority of those saved lives are highly likely to die within a few years anyway. Cynical? Maybe.

 

The world has quite literally stopped. What sort of a life are the additional survivors going to have with their extra 5 years when this is all done? Is it worth it?

 

I just can't shake the idea that the secondary impact to the world as we know it is going to be more destructive and that to me is what it feels like we should be fighting against right now.

 

Just sick of this. As you said we only have shitty options but at some point we may have to address the reality of the situation and admit defeat. We don't want to cut our nose to spite our face.

[Toddybad]

59 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

The 50,000 number was a direct response to another poster. 

 

While there would have been some impact to the economy if nothing was imposed, but sections of society abstaining, it's a sliding scale and it obviously wouldn't be as catastrophic as what months of lockdown is going to do to the long term futures of millions of people.

 

I'm just trying to be a realist here.

 

Even if lockdown measures were kept in place for months on end, I don't trust British people enough to comply to the required level. 

 

Realistically what are our chances of completely isolating and getting rid of the virus? It blew up out of nowhere and it will only take a handful of new cases for it to blow up again.

 

Just feels like we're delaying the inevitable. 

If we lockdown for say, two more months, is that going to stop it flaring up again? Probably not, and all that hardship and impact on the economy will have been for nothing. The idea of being able to test and trace all cases and those that have come into contact with carriers seems absurd to me. There are just too many asymptomatic cases and it is just too contagious for that to work, surely.

 

Are we really going to delay and lockdown until we have a vaccine or drug in 12-18 months? 

 

I doubt it.

 

Flattening the curve and spreading the impact may well reduce the total number of deaths but my god what a price we're paying. Especially when you consider the vast majority of those saved lives are highly likely to die within a few years anyway. Cynical? Maybe.

 

The world has quite literally stopped. What sort of a life are the additional survivors going to have with their extra 5 years when this is all done? Is it worth it?

 

I just can't shake the idea that the secondary impact to the world as we know it is going to be more destructive and that to me is what it feels like we should be fighting against right now.

 

Just sick of this. As you said we only have shitty options but at some point we may have to address the reality of the situation and admit defeat. We don't want to cut our nose to spite our face.

I can't see people wanting to go back to normal if we relax the rules and they see friends and family falling victim. 

 

I don't understand the rush. We're being asked to stay at home unless we need to go to the shop or to do some exercise. We're hardly under house arrest.

 

The economic fall out can wait. It's not worth risking tens of thousands of lives because of some future unspecified economic concern. We were prepared to print hundreds of billions to bail out the bankers, this time we bail out ordinary families.

[Nalis]

11 hours ago, bovril said:

Everything is political though, there's no escaping it. If you can't politicise governments' responses to public health crises then you can't politicise anything.

I think its more of the red vs blue aspect of the thread which is annoying rather than either praising the govt when get it right or criticising them when they get it wrong.

[Crinklyfox]

1 hour ago, Nod.E said:

The 50,000 number was a direct response to another poster. 

 

While there would have been some impact to the economy if nothing was imposed, but sections of society abstaining, it's a sliding scale and it obviously wouldn't be as catastrophic as what months of lockdown is going to do to the long term futures of millions of people.

 

I'm just trying to be a realist here.

 

Even if lockdown measures were kept in place for months on end, I don't trust British people enough to comply to the required level. 

 

Realistically what are our chances of completely isolating and getting rid of the virus? It blew up out of nowhere and it will only take a handful of new cases for it to blow up again.

 

Just feels like we're delaying the inevitable. 

If we lockdown for say, two more months, is that going to stop it flaring up again? Probably not, and all that hardship and impact on the economy will have been for nothing. The idea of being able to test and trace all cases and those that have come into contact with carriers seems absurd to me. There are just too many asymptomatic cases and it is just too contagious for that to work, surely.

 

Are we really going to delay and lockdown until we have a vaccine or drug in 12-18 months? 

 

I doubt it.

 

Flattening the curve and spreading the impact may well reduce the total number of deaths but my god what a price we're paying. Especially when you consider the vast majority of those saved lives are highly likely to die within a few years anyway. Cynical? Maybe.

 

The world has quite literally stopped. What sort of a life are the additional survivors going to have with their extra 5 years when this is all done? Is it worth it?

 

I just can't shake the idea that the secondary impact to the world as we know it is going to be more destructive and that to me is what it feels like we should be fighting against right now.

 

Just sick of this. As you said we only have shitty options but at some point we may have to address the reality of the situation and admit defeat. We don't want to cut our nose to spite our face.

It's unlikely that we will get rid of the virus.  Just like common influenza, it will mutate into different strains which will continue to prove a threat.  However, in order to reduce deaths amongst the most vulnerable, we regularly produce vaccines to combat these strains, and it is probably only a matter of time before we do the same for Covid-19.

 

The strategy at present is to buy time.  That will damage the economy but save lives.  Those most at risk (and that includes myself, I've been designated as extremely vulnerable due to a medical condition) are the ones who are likely to benefit most.  I'm in no hurry for the lockdown to end and would prefer economic difficulties for a few years to pushing up daises.  I suspect that there are many who are not so vulnerable would be in agreement with the lockdown for the sake of elderly loved ones, or just out of common humanity.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Toddybad said:

I can't see people wanting to go back to normal if we relax the rules and they see friends and family falling victim. 

 

I don't understand the rush. We're being asked to stay at home unless we need to go to the shop or to do some exercise. We're hardly under house arrest.

 

The economic fall out can wait. It's not worth risking tens of thousands of lives because of some future unspecified economic concern. We were prepared to print hundreds of billions to bail out the bankers, this time we bail out ordinary families.

For how long is the question. 

 

We are already heading for a drop in GDP that's going to be bigger than the 2008 crash - https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2020/04/03/imf-warns-coronavirus-will-hurt-global-economy-way-worse-than-2008-financial-crisis/

 

That can't go on for nine months, just not going to work.

[murphy]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

For how long is the question. 

 

We are already heading for a drop in GDP that's going to be bigger than the 2008 crash - https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2020/04/03/imf-warns-coronavirus-will-hurt-global-economy-way-worse-than-2008-financial-crisis/

 

That can't go on for nine months, just not going to work.

 

I think that the brakes will go on and off for the forseeable, to ensure that the NHS doesn't breach capacity and that everyone can receive the care that they need. That is all we can do.

 

I don't think that lock down is a solution and I think that when people question the timing, they are showing that they don't understand that.  

[The Fox Covert]

On 11/04/2020 at 18:32, MattP said:

When Priti Patel walks the streets on election day with two left shoes from different pairs on her feet we will compare her to Diane Abbott. 

 

Until then I hope she actually implements laws that properly punish criminals and keeps her sexy grin.

 

A plastic smirk which barely conceals a heart of evil. Quoted from the Guardian yesterday.

 

Priti Patel has refused pleas to accept more unaccompanied children from the notoriously overcrowded refugee camps on the Greek islands amid dire warnings of an impending humanitarian catastrophe.

The charity Médecins Sans Frontières wrote to the home secretary on 13 March asking her to “significantly increase” the number of child refugees transferred to the UK as well as “facilitate the urgent evacuation” of those with chronic and complex health conditions.

Patel did not respond. Instead the Foreign Office replied on 31 March, saying the UK would continue to support the implementation of the EU-Turkey deal, which for the past four years has aimed to prevent asylum seekers from travelling to Europe.

 

We are talking about children here, who are not economic migrants and did not choose to be in the terrible situation that they are in now.

Many of them have no documents to prove their identity, are thousands of miles away from their parents - if their parents are even still alive, and are entirely dependent on the camp administration for their care.

Their circumstances are not that different to the Jewish children sent away from Nazi Germany in the Kindertransports immediately before the last war.

In a fairer world than we have today, the wealthier countries in Europe and the Americas would agree to take children in proportion to the population and resources of each country. 

Instead we have Priti Patel, whose attitude is shameful and embarrassing.

 

The camps are dreadful and the flood of migrants needs to be stopped but shutting the door on innocent children is just inhuman.

 

[z-layrex]

4 hours ago, Nod.E said:

The 50,000 number was a direct response to another poster. 

 

While there would have been some impact to the economy if nothing was imposed, but sections of society abstaining, it's a sliding scale and it obviously wouldn't be as catastrophic as what months of lockdown is going to do to the long term futures of millions of people.

 

I'm just trying to be a realist here.

 

Even if lockdown measures were kept in place for months on end, I don't trust British people enough to comply to the required level. 

 

Realistically what are our chances of completely isolating and getting rid of the virus? It blew up out of nowhere and it will only take a handful of new cases for it to blow up again.

 

Just feels like we're delaying the inevitable. 

If we lockdown for say, two more months, is that going to stop it flaring up again? Probably not, and all that hardship and impact on the economy will have been for nothing. The idea of being able to test and trace all cases and those that have come into contact with carriers seems absurd to me. There are just too many asymptomatic cases and it is just too contagious for that to work, surely.

 

Are we really going to delay and lockdown until we have a vaccine or drug in 12-18 months? 

 

I doubt it.

 

Flattening the curve and spreading the impact may well reduce the total number of deaths but my god what a price we're paying. Especially when you consider the vast majority of those saved lives are highly likely to die within a few years anyway. Cynical? Maybe.

 

The world has quite literally stopped. What sort of a life are the additional survivors going to have with their extra 5 years when this is all done? Is it worth it?

 

I just can't shake the idea that the secondary impact to the world as we know it is going to be more destructive and that to me is what it feels like we should be fighting against right now.

 

Just sick of this. As you said we only have shitty options but at some point we may have to address the reality of the situation and admit defeat. We don't want to cut our nose to spite our face.

The country made literally thousands of ICU beds, those ICU beds are filled to overflowing with people in age ranges from 20 to 60's, the majority being men in their 40s and 50s. Many had no medical history. These are not people who were going to die anyway.

 

The people who "would have died anyway" don't even get an icu bed.

[simFox]

11 minutes ago, The Fox Covert said:

A plastic smirk which barely conceals a heart of evil. Quoted from the Guardian yesterday.

 

Priti Patel has refused pleas to accept more unaccompanied children from the notoriously overcrowded refugee camps on the Greek islands amid dire warnings of an impending humanitarian catastrophe.

The charity Médecins Sans Frontières wrote to the home secretary on 13 March asking her to “significantly increase” the number of child refugees transferred to the UK as well as “facilitate the urgent evacuation” of those with chronic and complex health conditions.

Patel did not respond. Instead the Foreign Office replied on 31 March, saying the UK would continue to support the implementation of the EU-Turkey deal, which for the past four years has aimed to prevent asylum seekers from travelling to Europe.

 

We are talking about children here, who are not economic migrants and did not choose to be in the terrible situation that they are in now.

Many of them have no documents to prove their identity, are thousands of miles away from their parents - if their parents are even still alive, and are entirely dependent on the camp administration for their care.

Their circumstances are not that different to the Jewish children sent away from Nazi Germany in the Kindertransports immediately before the last war.

In a fairer world than we have today, the wealthier countries in Europe and the Americas would agree to take children in proportion to the population and resources of each country. 

Instead we have Priti Patel, whose attitude is shameful and embarrassing.

 

The camps are dreadful and the flood of migrants needs to be stopped but shutting the door on innocent children is just inhuman.

 

You don't know the full story. If you had the same intel Priti has access too, your decision might not be so different.

 

By all means query it, but let's not simplify what is clearly a very complex situation.

[Guest Bilo]

What out of interest has Priti Patel actually achieved?

[st albans fox]

Just now, Bilo said:

What out of interest has Patel Patel actually achieved?

She made it to the cabinet of the govt twice ......,,, 

[SpacedX]

1 minute ago, Bilo said:

What out of interest has Patel Patel actually achieved?

Being named twice? 

[simFox]

1 minute ago, Bilo said:

What out of interest has Patel Patel actually achieved?

She's the home secretary. What would you need to achieve in life to get to that position?

[Izzy]

Enough of this Priti Patel and Dianne Abbott stuff.
Let’s all just accept the fact that women are generally shit with numbers (apart from Carole Voredeman) 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

Didn't realise I'd fallen into the cesspit that was the politics thread. 

 

What time can we expect announcement of the extension of the current guidance?

[yorkie1999]

1 minute ago, simFox said:

She's the home secretary. What would you need to achieve in life to get to that position?

Have the ability to operate all the appliances in the home correctly.

[urban.spaceman]

Just now, Izzy said:

Enough of this Priti Patel and Dianne Abbott stuff.
Let’s all just accept the fact that women are generally shit with numbers (apart from Carole Voredeman) 

[Alf Bentley]

14 minutes ago, z-layrex said:

The country made literally thousands of ICU beds, those ICU beds are filled to overflowing with people in age ranges from 20 to 60's, the majority being men in their 40s and 50s. Many had no medical history. These are not people who were going to die anyway.

 

The people who "would have died anyway" don't even get an icu bed.

 

Thanks to you and others, like @Parafox, for these updates about the Covid-19 reality in hospitals and the community.

It's much appreciated as it can all seem very distant, almost unreal when you're stuck at home.

 

In this regard, I think our media might be doing us a major disservice (I'm mainly talking about the BBC, which I generally defend).

When the Covid crisis started peaking in Italy, they gave a pretty vivid idea of how disastrous it was in hospitals and the community in Italy. Yet the same doesn't seem to be true now the UK has hit similar levels.

 

Maybe that's partly because the outbreak was heavily concentrated in Lombardy. But I wonder if it's also partly a conscious media decision not to scare or upset viewers with too much info about the real, horrible impacts?

The media coverage seems to be more remote, compared to when Italy was the focus. The BBC has serious factual reports & analysis, stats are quoted & are serious....but it seems remote.

Broadsheet coverage seems similar, while the tabloids concentrate on "heroes" and "villains" of the outbreak, celebrity impacts etc.

 

I think there's a real risk in that. If it feels too distant and unreal to a lot of people at home, there could be growing breaches of the lockdown, pressure to "return to normality" too soon etc.

I mean, we and the economy cannot stay locked down forever and there will be difficult decisions to take as to when and how to relax the lockdown. But my concern now is that this "remote unreality" of the crisis could cause us to relax restrictions too soon, causing more problems and more personal tragedies. People like you and Parafox are performing yet another valuable service by posting stuff like this. Thanks.

[FoxesDeb]

12 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Didn't realise I'd fallen into the cesspit that was the politics thread. 

 

What time can we expect announcement of the extension of the current guidance?

The daily update is at around the same time as usual later this afternoon so I imagine we will hear then

[Nick]

 

 

I think that one of the areas of discontent right now amongst the globally locked down population is one of confusion / misinterpretation. Whilst the message has been pretty clear from governments, culturally, people have found themselves feeling safe and protected in their homes. It doesn't feel essentially too safe out - especially for those with pre-existing health conditions of all ages.

 

It's fairly apparent that the measures put in place by nations are there to 'flatten a curve'; create bed space and the like... but the things/outcomes that make people feel 'actually safer,' currently revolve around feeling protected - being tested for immunity/antibodies; vaccination development information; disease control and erradication; knowledge that there is a strategy that puts their health first rather than a nations economy.

 

Whilst stringent lockdown measures have 'seemingly' seen Wuhan re-open after 93 days with few or no new cases being recorded and the whole thing a distant manageable memory - other countries lifting of measures fall in to the human lottery/guinea pig release approach, which seems to be of the 'we're all gonna get it anyway' school of thought... Since people have been at home they have felt safer and the world outside seems scary. I hope governments find a way to address this in their explanations and understand that the demand for exit strategies isn't solely from pressure for lock downs to end - moreover because many are scared and would rather their remained or measures increased if meant an alternative to the COVID-19 lottery run.

 

 

[StanSP]

28 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Enough of this Priti Patel and Dianne Abbott stuff.
Let’s all just accept the fact that women are generally shit with numbers (apart from Carole Voredeman) 

How have you forgotten Rachel Riley?

 

That's worse than anything mentioned in this thread.

[st albans fox]

27 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Didn't realise I'd fallen into the cesspit that was the politics thread. 

 

What time can we expect announcement of the extension of the current guidance?

I read that we wouldn’t get any firm information until Thursday.......  fri may 8th is a bank holiday and three weeks on from this Thursday. I wouldn’t have thought they wouldnt be in a hurry to lift restrictions until after that date as the thought of good weather and mass gatherings at parks and beaches would be something they want to avoid .........

[Bellend Sebastian]

Being a pavement cyclist and passing within millimeters of pedestrians is poor form at the best of times but during a time of self distancing due to an air borne virus when there's literally no traffic on the road next to you is next level inexplicable