Corona Virus

[davieG]

7 minutes ago, Nalis said:

I know the immunity question is one being looked at but I wonder if its stops you being a 'surface' for carrying it?

 

For an extreme example, if you have had it (and recovered) and you shake someones hand who has it then you may not get it if immunity is a thing. However if you shake some elses hand straight away afterwards, I wonder if you could pass it to them? I was possibly think yes?

I know you only used it as an example but I can't see hand-shaking coming back for a very long time if indeed it comes back at all. I've always hated the handshake greeting.

 

I used to have to meet and greet a lot of visitors when I was working and the large number of those that had just used the toilet before I welcomed then was really off putting.

[StanSP]

6 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Yes, I mentioned this earlier in the thread with regards to antibody tests. If you have antibodies, does that prevent you being a carrier?

I doubt it? It's like when you have a cold/flu - you can take your medicine but at some point between taking the medicine and getting 100% better, you can still pass it on. I know that's very simplistic but I guess it's the same for transmission of a virus like COVID? 

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, StanSP said:

I doubt it? It's like when you have a cold/flu - you can take your medicine but at some point between taking the medicine and getting 100% better, you can still pass it on. I know that's very simplistic but I guess it's the same for transmission of a virus like COVID? 

Just do not know Stan, but would like confirmation 

There is a never an epidemiologist around when you need one 

[StanSP]

Always loved Chelsea Peretti. Bang on the money here!

 

 

 

[fuchsntf]

1 hour ago, Ollie93 said:

Did think this, but then, how often, does say a nurse have to get tested? If they are 'exposed' to the virus every day?

This for me is the big question on testing.

Medical-staff,Care-staff at least,then other Direct public-Service staff ( Police,etc) should have available regular Testing facilities,Readily available..

I found it Strange that These Groups should be expected to Drive long awkward distances to Test sites,surely Hospital/care staff have highest priority,and

Setting up and Organising  2-3 Tests plans within an agreed period of time should be obvious....

[stripeyfox]

1 hour ago, Ollie93 said:

Did think this, but then, how often, does say a nurse have to get tested? If they are 'exposed' to the virus every day?

My wife is working in full Covid PPE at the Royal since the start of this and hasn't had any test of any description yet

 

[Legend_in_blue]

The level of consistency in the message being put out is still a cause for concern.

 

Boris mentions being outdoors yesterday is ok, Hancock today restricts that to public spaces (not including gardens) as parks are safer than peoples gardens as in most homes you walk through the house to get to the garden.  That's the logic behind it.

 

Of course then we had the Bridgen and Piers Morgan debacle yesterday in which he said there was no risk in being outdoors as long as you are socially distant.

 

Too many inconsistencies from the get go.  

 

The most important thing to be absolutely clear on, social interaction, meeting family, etc. and they've made a mess of it.

[Nalis]

The government message isnt crystal clear fair enough but I feel the media is fuelling the confusion.

[bmt]

1 hour ago, filbertway said:

I think my issue is I don't believe in the document haha. I've not seen anywhere the link between infection rate and what level we're at. I may have missed it in the document.

 

The only thing I've seen is that graph from his speech, which suggests that we only go down levels once we hit certain infections/infection rates? 

 

What I can't wrap my little walnut around is... How will they decrease if we're letting more people see each other - I don't see how they can. So surely for each level we open up, there has to be an expectation that the infections will increase. If that is part of the logic then I'm on board, everything makes sense to me. If that isn't the case, then we're gonna be stuck in this cycle till one of 3 things happens

 

1) we find a vaccine/treatment

2) we hit herd immunity

3) the government/public decide that we have no option but to open up and get things going again

 

 

I am very open to being corrected and someone putting me out of my misery here haha

 

 

I think you're right. Ultimately, I think that graph was a bit naïve, or worse disingenuous. 

 

The suggestion I think would be that some strong measures to control reinfections are here to stay until we hit option 1 or 2, and we can get sufficiently good at stopping outbreaks to continue gradually reducing r given a long time period even if there are slight increases in r following each stage of the plan.

[WigstonWanderer]

4 hours ago, st albans fox said:

The majority of situations would be automated via your phone (if your phone can take the app and you’re willing to download it) 

Hopefully the app, if it works, will help, but I’d expect it is likely to only ever be a supplement to human tracers unless the vast majority install it.

[rachhere]

Just now, Legend_in_blue said:

The level of consistency in the message being put out is still a cause for concern.

 

Boris mentions being outdoors yesterday is ok, Hancock today restricts that to public spaces (not including gardens) as parks are safer than peoples gardens as in most homes you walk through the house to get to the garden.  That's the logic behind it.

 

Of course then we had the Bridgen and Piers Morgan debacle yesterday in which he said there was no risk in being outdoors as long as you are socially distant.

 

Too many inconsistencies from the get go.  

 

The most important thing to be absolutely clear on, social interaction, meeting family, etc. and they've made a mess of it.

It's frustrating. We are being asked to use our common sense - so can't I use my common sense to conclude it will be easier to keep 2m apart in my spacious back garden which can be accessed without going through the house, rather than meeting someone in a park where there's no benches long enough to sit down and stay that far apart, and there will be countless other people walking around trying to do the same thing. 

[davieG]

[String fellow]

That bookshelf makes a pleasant change from all the political comments, which btw I thought had been banned from this thread.

Edited 12 May 2020 by String fellow

[Sampson]

39 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

The level of consistency in the message being put out is still a cause for concern.

 

Boris mentions being outdoors yesterday is ok, Hancock today restricts that to public spaces (not including gardens) as parks are safer than peoples gardens as in most homes you walk through the house to get to the garden.  That's the logic behind it.

 

Of course then we had the Bridgen and Piers Morgan debacle yesterday in which he said there was no risk in being outdoors as long as you are socially distant.

 

Too many inconsistencies from the get go.  

 

The most important thing to be absolutely clear on, social interaction, meeting family, etc. and they've made a mess of it.

There's nothing confusing about that, they've said pubic spaces all along. If you don't agree with it that's fine, but it's pretty straight forward advise. No idea why people are fuelling that that makes the advice confusing other than fo rpolitical point scoring reasons.

Personally, I can see whyt they're not including back gardens and most people's houses you will have to go through the house and people will just do it anyway with the reason "others can don't have to go through the house, it's unfair" (not to mention it punishes poorer people who are more likely to live in terraced hosuing etc.).- and it will be a week or two until people say "**** it, just come and visit inside the house now you've walked through it - we've seen already how impatient the public are.

I have no idea why so many are struggling with the new message. It's pretty straight forward as far as I can see. I think people are deliberately looking for things to be confused about.

Edited 12 May 2020 by Sampson

[StanSP]

27 minutes ago, String fellow said:

That bookshelf makes a pleasant change from all the political comments, which btw I thought had been banned from this thread.

Not enough right wing content for me!

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, MattP said:

It's moronic, but where is the casual racism and sexism? 

Will reply in the dedicated US thread to avoid more politics in this thread.

[bmt]

6 hours ago, MattP said:

It's moronic, but where is the casual racism and sexism? 

The reporter tried to make out it was racist, but he literally has said that China comment to everyone for the past 2 months. 

[Dahnsouff]

9 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Not enough right wing content for me!

Did not realise it went left that far right

[Trumpet]

In terms of herd immunity - surely the more we know of the number of people with antibodies the better? If we were to know 30% of the population have antibodies, this could be plugged into the modelling to understand what effect it’d have on the rate of infection. The more we know, the better.

 

I read earlier in here that the government are concerned of a “us and them” scenario where people with antibodies may expect more relaxation of lockdown and those without may want to catch the virus. Maybe the scientists / government shouldn’t disclose whether the individual has antibodies but try to attain the data if only to better understand where we’re at?

Edited 12 May 2020 by Wet Trump

[CosbehFox]

A rare moment of praise from me 

 

Good to see the workplace advice placed online - will leaf through after lunch as it could be a source of work for myself and my employer. Starmer pointed this out on PMQs and its been acted upon (being ready for Wednesday) An example of how parliamentary democracy should function. 

 

I see the furlough scheme is due an announcement - rumours of 60% which I think is fair but it would be harsh on employers in hospitality or businesses where the government has said they can't not work. 

 

EDIT: ****ing hell Furlough scheme extended until October

Edited 12 May 2020 by Cardiff_Fox

[Sampson]

4 minutes ago, Wet Trump said:

In terms of herd immunity - surely the more we know of the number of people with antibodies the better? If we were to know 30% of the population have antibodies, this could be plugged into the modelling to understand what effect it’d have on the rate of infection. The more we know, the better.

 

I read earlier in here that the government are concerned of a “us and them” scenario where people with antibodies may expect more relaxation of lockdown and those without may want to catch the virus. Maybe the scientists / government shouldn’t disclose whether the individual has antibodies but try to attain the data if only to better understand where we’re at?

My understanding though is there is a big divide between certain areas of the country and while places like London, Birmingham and Hampshire might have quite a high proportion of people infected - other parts of the country are likely to have maybe 2 or 3% infected if that. Many towns and villages won't have had a single infection.

I think the worry would be that people would flock to the country. 

I believe there was initial consideration to lock down London before the rest of the country bur after seeing people drive from Northern Italy a day or two before it was obvious it was about to be lockdowned to other parts of Italy meaning it spread further the UK government decided against it.

[StanSP]

Furlough scheme extended to October. 

[Lionator]

An indication of how long they expect this to go on for, and that's before the 'winter wave/flu season' begins.

[Dahnsouff]

Hopefully just worst case planning

[Manini]

Going to take some paying back isn’t it?