Corona Virus

[UniFox21]

3 hours 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?

So for my understanding you could probably still be a carrier. Antibodies don't stop you being infected, they just allow your body to deal with the virus significantly quicker and reduce the symptoms you show.

 

Obviously don't take my word as gold but thats how i understand it.

[Trumpet]

10 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Looks like the rubbish tips might reopen in the county on Monday.

They’re lifting the lockdown in Coventry?!

[Sampson]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52616071

 

Will be interesting to see what they try this guy for if they catch him (a woman working at a train station died of covid after a man who claimed to have it spat at her).

 

It's impossible to prove in court whether she actually died from him spitting at her or not, but I still think there should be a strong case for attempted murder.

[Alf Bentley]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

I think any cabinet minister would look pretty good if they only had to announce they were paying people thousands of pounds to stay at home.

 

I just hope those people remember this in a few years time when the tax rises are implemented to pay for it.

 

Fair comment. The need to fund all this extra debt over the long-term certainly needs to be borne in mind - by us punters, I mean; I'm sure the politicians are factoring it into calculations.

 

But it does seem as if Sunak's handling it the right way - gradually removing the govt support but leaving it in place for a few more months where needed, and allowing for more flexibility via P/T working etc.

 

We just need to look at what's happening to the US economy to see what could happen here if the support is withdrawn too abruptly: is it 33m unemployed in the USA now (equivalent to 6-7m in UK)?

A lot of businesses that might otherwise remain viable or recover over time could go bust unnecessarily without such support. The resulting problems could affect other businesses, tax revenues, the welfare bill, housing market, crime & social stability as well as employment.

 

There's also the risk that stopping it too early could cause businesses to open before it's safe or employees to feel pressured to go back unsafely......generating a second wave and much worse economic problems.

 

There's clearly going to be a major downturn anyway. Some businesses and some jobs are going to go. Some sectors might still be in serious trouble in October meaning that more firms cannot survive (e.g. hospitality, aviation).

There's also been nothing said about the self-employed yet, has there? But, all in all, Sunak's response is probably as good as could be hoped for, better than I'd hoped for and certainly a lot better than most of his colleagues....while accepting the point that paying folk money is always popular, but needs to be funded.

 

[filbertway]

5 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

So for my understanding you could probably still be a carrier. Antibodies don't stop you being infected, they just allow your body to deal with the virus significantly quicker and reduce the symptoms you show.

 

Obviously don't take my word as gold but thats how i understand it.

Youd carry it on your skin, but you wouldnt spread the disease by exhaling air or moisture is my understanding. 

[UniFox21]

2 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Youd carry it on your skin, but you wouldnt spread the disease by exhaling air or moisture is my understanding. 

You probably wouldn't be actively secreting the virus however

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Sampson said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52616071

 

Will be interesting to see what they try this guy for if they catch him (a woman working at a train station died of covid after a man who claimed to have it spat at her).

 

It's impossible to prove in court whether she actually died from him spitting at her or not, but I still think there should be a strong case for attempted murder.

I'm no legal eagle but it does seem that this falls pretty squarely in the sphere of manslaughter. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though.

[Dahnsouff]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52623141

 

Now I is clearly a thick, but this quote stung a bit

Quote

The measure preferred by statisticians, counting all deaths above what would be expected, was even higher: more than 50,000.

Surely that is just replacing one blunt measure with another? What does the bit in bold even mean? Surely not compared to this time last year??

[Sampson]

5 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52623141

 

Now I is clearly a thick, but this quote stung a bit

Surely that is just replacing one blunt measure with another? What does the bit in bold even mean? Surely not compared to this time last year??

Yeah.

 

Excess deaths means more than this time over an average of the past 5 years.

 

The reason excess deaths is more useful because it shows there's also been about 14,000 indirect deaths from the virus/lockdown on top of the 36,000 or so directly from the virus.

 

It's only a rough estimate but it shows how many extra than you'd expect are dying on top of those who've died from the virus for other reasons such as not getting treatment for illnesses, people too scared to go to hospital, related to the rise in suicide and domestic violence etc.

 

So it means exactly what it says - 50,000 people more than you're typically expected to die have died within about the 6-8 weeks up to the end of April, which is pretty horrific.

Edited 12 May 2020 by Sampson

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, Sampson said:

Yeah.

 

Excess deaths means more than this time over an average of the past 5 years.

 

It's more useful because it shows there's also been about 20,000 indirect deaths from the virus/lockdown.

See, I was right

I was being thick. 

 

But seriously, how can that be anything other than unreliable and indicative at best?

It takes no account of differing normal seasonal flu numbers or any other non seasonal variations?

If its just for reason of being indicative I understand, but I also don`t think providing further levels of concern are really useful.

[bmt]

9 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

See, I was right

I was being thick. 

 

But seriously, how can that be anything other than unreliable and indicative at best?

It takes no account of differing normal seasonal flu numbers or any other non seasonal variations?

If its just for reason of being indicative I understand, but I also don`t think providing further levels of concern are really useful.

I also don't like that measure. Just in the fact you are comparing it to a five year average shows that there is year on year variation, so using one year can only give an indicative answer.

 

It's good for a general rough look at the total deaths from covid, lockdown, and reduction of other health conditions but it hides a lot.

 

I really dislike the article saying "measure preferred by statisticians" too - it's a decent number for modelling but it has so many reasons it is inaccurate. One example is that the lockdown would have reduced some deaths occurring eg road accidents, which is ignored.

 

It reminds me of when I did a study into the Great Famine in China. Statisticians suggested a death count based on taking away the actual number of people in China at the end of the famine from the expected number of people in China after extrapolating population increases. It seems sensible at first, then you realise included in those deaths will be people that were never actually born (who in a normal year would be born but weren't due to the famine). All the methods seem to be faulted.

Edited 12 May 2020 by bmt

[Sampson]

15 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

See, I was right

I was being thick. 

 

But seriously, how can that be anything other than unreliable and indicative at best?

It takes no account of differing normal seasonal flu numbers or any other non seasonal variations?

If its just for reason of being indicative I understand, but I also don`t think providing further levels of concern are really useful.

Well that's they the use the 5 year averages and not just last years.

 

Flu outbreaks never really affect this time of year that much. Differing easter dates and bank holidays seem to make the biggest difference this time of year but it's never really out by more than 1,000.

 

The ONS website has all every year's comparisons and it's generally about 10,000 deaths a week for March-September and then 15,000 a week during the winter months (obviously this can fluctuate quite a bit during different flu seasobs).

 

It is not perfect but definitely useful though and adding further levels of concern in those case is very useful. We need to monitor the excess deaths and this is the best measure of it. They'll come a point where excess deaths exceeds those being killed directly by the virus at which points you have to weigh up whether relaxing lock down is now the better of the 2 horrendous options.

 

If you ignore that as another piece of concern then you could easily end up killing more people than you save through lockdown. So it's likely more important a number for the government and science advisors to look at than the straight death rate.

Edited 12 May 2020 by Sampson

[bmt]

2 minutes ago, Sampson said:

It is useful definitely useful though and adding further levels of concern in those case is very useful. We need to monitor the excess deaths and this is the best measure of it. They'll come a point where excess deaths exceeds those being killer directly by the virus at which points you have to weigh up whether relaxing lock down is now the better of the 2 horrendous options.

I think this is fair enough despite my critiques above.

 

It's ridiculously difficult to do the maths though as there are so many unknowns and variables as to the counterfactual, so I'd imagine they'd want to be conservative. People would also see deaths from Covid more directly as being caused by government than the excess deaths measure.

[StanSP]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52616071

 

Will be interesting to see what they try this guy for if they catch him (a woman working at a train station died of covid after a man who claimed to have it spat at her).

 

It's impossible to prove in court whether she actually died from him spitting at her or not, but I still think there should be a strong case for attempted murder.

 

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I'm no legal eagle but it does seem that this falls pretty squarely in the sphere of manslaughter. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though.

I was thinking manslaughter at the very least?! 

 

 

She doesn't have coronavirus. 

She gets spat at. 

She contracts coronavirus. 

She dies 

 

Obviously we don't know any other finer details but if she has died form Covid-19 surely it's that guys fault who spat at her, knowing full well he had the virus?! 

 

So sad though regardless

[rachhere]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

 

 

if you are in someone’s garden, what happens if it starts to piss it down unexpectedly.......   or if the guest needs a wee ...... the temptation to ‘pop’ into the house is a problem. 
 

and the likelihood that the partner pops into the garden or the kids ..... I guess they’re trying to avoid the unpredictable consequences 

 

Will your garden guest want to sit down?  presumably you will have a wipe to apply to the chair and also the handles to the side gate .....

 

I also think that having to go to a public place makes these meetings less likely (which is fundamentally what they want)  

True. Although in situations where people pop to visit someone in their local park, what happens then if they need the loo and their friends house is just around the corner? I do accept though that the temptation would be a lot less than if they are already in someones garden, but I am pretty sure it will happen. 

[The Syrup]

2 hours ago, Sampson said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52616071

 

Will be interesting to see what they try this guy for if they catch him (a woman working at a train station died of covid after a man who claimed to have it spat at her).

 

It's impossible to prove in court whether she actually died from him spitting at her or not, but I still think there should be a strong case for attempted murder.

Most stations have 'spit kits' available so they can take a sample for analysis / DNA checks. Not sure if that happened in this case. I work in the rail industry and dickheads spitting at staff is very common.

[Leicester_Loyal]

2 hours ago, Sampson said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52616071

 

Will be interesting to see what they try this guy for if they catch him (a woman working at a train station died of covid after a man who claimed to have it spat at her).

 

It's impossible to prove in court whether she actually died from him spitting at her or not, but I still think there should be a strong case for attempted murder.

Send him down for manslaughter, horrible ****.

[Webbo]

47 minutes ago, StanSP said:

 

I was thinking manslaughter at the very least?! 

 

 

She doesn't have coronavirus. 

She gets spat at. 

She contracts coronavirus. 

She dies 

 

Obviously we don't know any other finer details but if she has died form Covid-19 surely it's that guys fault who spat at her, knowing full well he had the virus?! 

 

So sad though regardless

You would have to prove that she didn't come into contact with anybody else with corona in the 3 weeks previous, which would be impossible. It was a cvnty thing to do and the guy deserves some sort of punishment but I don't see how anyone can prove it was murder.

[Ollie93]

5 hours ago, stripeyfox said:

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

 

I read that you have to make an appointment, I'm assuming that would be up to the employer though.

[Innovindil]

Everyone in my nans care home has now been tested after the 2 suspected cases, they've been given the all clear. 

[WigstonWanderer]

1 hour ago, bmt said:

I think this is fair enough despite my critiques above.

 

It's ridiculously difficult to do the maths though as there are so many unknowns and variables as to the counterfactual, so I'd imagine they'd want to be conservative. People would also see deaths from Covid more directly as being caused by government than the excess deaths measure.

Very unlikely IMO that the number of deaths directly caused by the lockdown (additional suicides, domestic violence related, etc) as appalling as they are, would be anywhere near sufficient to account for the missing excess deaths.

 

Also some (perhaps most) additional suicides would be as likely to be caused by economic stress as by the stress of being cooped up indoors, missing human contact, etc. The economy would be hit with or without the lockdown as confidence by consumers plummeted, and jobs would be lost anyway. Arguably, if there had been no lockdown and a consequently much greater epidemic, hospitals overrun, etc, the economy would have been hit harder.

 

Collateral damage due to people not getting treatment for serious health problems is most likely caused by them being too scared to go to hospital. Again, this would be even more pronounced had there been a worse epidemic due to no lockdown.
 

Finally, there are many deaths that are not occurring with the lockdown in place, due to street crime, traffic and other outdoors accidents, etc. Deaths due to flu are likely to be have been reduced by the distancing measures.

 

If anything, the excess deaths downplays the overall Covid 19 impact. It is far more significant than yearly variations as you can see from the charts in the link below. IMO it’s the best guide we have, though no doubt in the future statisticians will be able to pick through the figures to refine what information is available.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/40fc8904-febf-4a66-8d1c-ea3e48bbc034      Link not working

 

https://www.ft.com/content/a26fbf7e-48f8-11ea-aeb3-955839e06441

 

The excess deaths are due to Covid 19, not the lockdown IMO.

 

Edited 12 May 2020 by WigstonWanderer

[String fellow]

According to a psychotherapist I know, the NHS isn't currently taking on any new cases for CBT and other forms of treatment for mental health issues. To me, that suggests that the NHS is taking the threat of CV-19 far more seriously than the threat posed by the psychological impact that the virus may be having on some people. As regards the current trend in daily fatalities, today's figure of 627 is a stark reminder that its downward path is disturbingly slow, and doesn't bode well for a quick return to anything like normality in everyday life.  

[Izzy]

6 minutes ago, String fellow said:

According to a psychotherapist I know, the NHS isn't currently taking on any new cases for CBT and other forms of treatment for mental health issues. To me, that suggests that the NHS is taking the threat of CV-19 far more seriously than the threat posed by the psychological impact that the virus may be having on some people. As regards the current trend in daily fatalities, today's figure of 627 is a stark reminder that its downward path is disturbingly slow, and doesn't bode well for a quick return to anything like normality in everyday life.  

Sounds about right. My daughter has been on the waiting list for CBT for over 2 months now.

 

Although we were initially told she could still be treated remotely via Video Conferencing, it's all gone quiet again.

 

I can't blame the NHS if they've got bigger priorities atm so we've had to go private instead. 

[fuchsntf]

6 hours ago, StanSP said:

Always loved Chelsea Peretti. Bang on the money here!

 

 

 

The credence clearwater revival

[murphy]

Deaths total over 32,600 now.  More than a full house at the KP