Corona Virus

[Nick]

16 minutes ago, Webbo said:

But if we're not all affected equally then the transmission rate isn't really important and it's different in different parts of the country anyway.

It’s that measurement surely that’s the issue?

 

Do you mean regionally or in age ethnicity demographics?

 

The transmission rate and The ability in measuring it is massively important to have a handle on to prevent a second spike.

[st albans fox]

43 minutes ago, SystonFox said:

Sorry for my ignorance, and I’ve seen this constantly mentioned, but why are weekends lower? Does anybody know? Is it just luck? Coincidence? I see it said but I don’t understand why.

 

TIA

 

41 minutes ago, SystonFox said:

Do they just decide to ignore a chunk then? Anyone cops it on a satdeh and it’s down as something else? 
 

the whole thing is wrong imho but that’s something else

 

35 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

It’s how it is reported and hospital and care homes at weekends don’t get the confirmation of death diagnosis/certification and that’s why they go quiet at a weekend and are added Mon/Tues.

Put simply, some of the people that are responsible for recording the information dont work at weekends. 
 

[Strokes]

12 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

It’s that measurement surely that’s the issue?

 

Do you mean regionally or in age ethnicity demographics?

 

The transmission rate and The ability in measuring it is massively important to have a handle on to prevent a second spike.

We aren’t going to prevent a second spike, just delay it imo.

A second spike is inevitable.

[Webbo]

7 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

It’s that measurement surely that’s the issue?

 

Do you mean regionally or in age ethnicity demographics?

 

The transmission rate and The ability in measuring it is massively important to have a handle on to prevent a second spike.

Even with beefed up testing the measurements not going to be much more than an educated guess. We can't possibly know how many people have actually had it.

 

I read somewhere last week that the R rate in London was 0.4 now, if that's true why is London in lockdown? If people under 40 are unlikely to be seriously affected why are they in lockdown.

 

My opinion, for what it's worth is that the lockdown has achieved all it can now and we need to wind it down, sooner rather than later.

[Nick]

30 minutes ago, Strokes said:

We aren’t going to prevent a second spike, just delay it imo.

A second spike is inevitable.

It perhaps is now. I’m not so sure it wouldn’t have been with greater easing preparations.

[Strokes]

15 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

It perhaps is now. I’m not so sure it wouldn’t have been with greater easing preparations.

Unless you wait until the r is 0, surely it’s always going to come back. 

[Guest Markyblue]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

Unless you wait until the r is 0, surely it’s always going to come back. 

If r is less than 1 then it has to die out. ie if r is 0.75 then one person is statistically infecting less than one person and so on until in theory its gone.

[String fellow]

The Cell Press has various academic papers on CV-19.

https://www.cell.com/COVID-19

[Strokes]

9 minutes ago, Markyblue said:

If r is less than 1 then it has to die out. ie if r is 0.75 then one person is statistically infecting less than one person and so on until in theory its gone.

Well yes if everything remains the same, but add people in contact into the equation at 0.75 and the r can rise.

Which is my point. It won’t die unless we wait until it is zero (if not it will inevitably increase) or have a comprehensive test trace and isolate system in place.

Edited 17 May 2020 by Strokes

[Guest Markyblue]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Well yes if everything remains the same, but add people in contact into the equation at 0.75 and the r can rise.

Which is my point. It won’t die unless we wait until it is zero (and will inevitably increase) or have a comprehensive test trace and isolate system in place.

Quite possibly but like most aspects of this new virus we are learning as we go along.  Some scientists think other waves will come some think it will fade away completely,  only time will tell.

[The Quick Brown Fox]

10 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Well yes if everything remains the same, but add people in contact into the equation at 0.75 and the r can rise.

Which is my point. It won’t die unless we wait until it is zero (if not it will inevitably increase) or have a comprehensive test trace and isolate system in place.

For this to work the whole world has to be at R0 or are we not allowing travel until it's gone? That could take years. 

[chinna]

We are in the exact same situation as America

 

 

 

[bovril]

3 minutes ago, chinna said:

We are in the exact same situation as America

 

 

 

Surely a Briton is statistically much more likely to catch it than an American. 

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, browniefox said:

For this to work the whole world has to be at R0 or are we not allowing travel until it's gone? That could take years. 

I know, managing the economy is massively important too. We need to get everyone back to work, and yes that means schools reopening. 
Such a difficult job managing this situation. We probably won’t know what was right until it’s all over and even then it will be open to opinion.

[Webbo]

Even if we get the R rate to zero in this country, somebody(probably a few people) could come in from abroad, with no symptoms at the time, and reinfect us. Lets not forget this virus started with a handful of people in China and has spread across the world in less than 6 months.

 

Immunity, whether natural or through a vaccine is the only way we stop this.

[bovril]

I'm surprised some people are being so fatalistic. Other countries have shown there are ways of keeping fatalities seriously low, and people in the UK are being all inshallah about it.

[Alf Bentley]

54 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Well yes if everything remains the same, but add people in contact into the equation at 0.75 and the r can rise.

Which is my point. It won’t die unless we wait until it is zero (if not it will inevitably increase) or have a comprehensive test trace and isolate system in place.

 

My understanding is that it's not going to die out unless (a) we get a vaccine or (b) it mutates and becomes harmless or (c) reproduction is brought to zero by an extraordinarily long lockdown & severe travel restrictions.

We'd have to be very lucky for (a) or (b) to happen any time soon and (c) is impossible economically, socially & to public opinion.

 

I think we have to assume that the virus will be around certainly for months, probably for a year or two, possibly endemically......but at what level?

 

Surely if we take just long enough to get the number of infections down to a traceable figure, then "comprehensive test, trace and isolate" becomes a good medium/long-term solution, even assuming the virus is still present?

 

Even countries like Germany and S. Korea, which are much better placed than us re. infections are still seeing new infections....but in a number small enough not to cause mass casualties and small enough to trace and isolate most contacts, keeping the infection rate low. This allows a relatively normal life to continue medium/long-term with very few casualties. Not a completely normal life, not zero risk and not zero casualties but tolerable.

 

There's a big difference between accepting the sort of small, controllable spike from a low base that Germany and Korea have seen recently and accepting the sort of spike that we might see by opening up prematurely from a base of 3000+ new infections per day before we have the ability to trace and isolate the increased number of infections that could result.

 

Although I'm not among the 1.5m most vulnerable, catching this virus could easily be fatal for me as my last two bog-standard chest infections have triggered abnormal heart rhythms. My chances would be worse than Boris Johnson's, put it that way.

My ex-wife also has health issues - and our daughter is a vulnerable 16-year-old. I've no problem living with a small risk of getting unlucky with the virus out there. Life has all sorts of other small risks already. But the idea of unnecessarily facing a much bigger risk of getting the virus.....that alternately makes me feel quite upset and very, very angry (sorry, bad day today).

 

[Strokes]

9 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

My understanding is that it's not going to die out unless (a) we get a vaccine or (b) it mutates and becomes harmless or (c) reproduction is brought to zero by an extraordinarily long lockdown & severe travel restrictions.

We'd have to be very lucky for (a) or (b) to happen any time soon and (c) is impossible economically, socially & to public opinion.

 

I think we have to assume that the virus will be around certainly for months, probably for a year or two, possibly endemically......but at what level?

 

Surely if we take just long enough to get the number of infections down to a traceable figure, then "comprehensive test, trace and isolate" becomes a good medium/long-term solution, even assuming the virus is still present?

 

Even countries like Germany and S. Korea, which are much better placed than us re. infections are still seeing new infections....but in a number small enough not to cause mass casualties and small enough to trace and isolate most contacts, keeping the infection rate low. This allows a relatively normal life to continue medium/long-term with very few casualties. Not a completely normal life, not zero risk and not zero casualties but tolerable.

 

There's a big difference between accepting the sort of small, controllable spike from a low base that Germany and Korea have seen recently and accepting the sort of spike that we might see by opening up prematurely from a base of 3000+ new infections per day before we have the ability to trace and isolate the increased number of infections that could result.

 

Although I'm not among the 1.5m most vulnerable, catching this virus could easily be fatal for me as my last two bog-standard chest infections have triggered abnormal heart rhythms. My chances would be worse than Boris Johnson's, put it that way.

My ex-wife also has health issues - and our daughter is a vulnerable 16-year-old. I've no problem living with a small risk of getting unlucky with the virus out there. Life has all sorts of other small risks already. But the idea of unnecessarily facing a much bigger risk of getting the virus.....that alternately makes me feel quite upset and very, very angry (sorry, bad day today).

 

Fair enough Alf, I certainly don’t mean to blasé with other people’s health. I’m probably just a bit fed up and frustrated.

On a brighter note, I may be getting some financial support, I’m waiting for confirmation but it looks promising that I could get rehired and furloughed by an umbrella company I used, when I did some agency work in March. I don’t know how much or if it’s backdated or not yet but anything helps. 

[fuchsntf]

12 hours ago, Markyblue said:

We cannot shut down for ever ,we are suppressing the virus not eliminating it, the nhs is at 20% capacity for critical care beds, we have to live with the virus and hard decisions have to be faced.  Otherwise lets lockdown for 18 months and everything we know as normal will be destroyed.  The country has to start getting back to a new normal until a vaccine is found,  we are beginning to do more long term damage to people's health by destroying our economy,  mental health and serious health conditions are being ignored at the moment and a health care time bomb is ticking away.

I wouldnt hold your Breath waiting for a Vaccine....!!!

[bovril]

1 minute ago, fuchsntf said:

I wouldnt hold your Breath waiting for a Vaccine....!!!

Suffocating would rather negate the positive effects of a vaccine. 

[fuchsntf]

Just now, bovril said:

Suffocating would rather negate the positive effects of a vaccine. 

Touche....

[Webbo]

24 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

My understanding is that it's not going to die out unless (a) we get a vaccine or (b) it mutates and becomes harmless or (c) reproduction is brought to zero by an extraordinarily long lockdown & severe travel restrictions.

We'd have to be very lucky for (a) or (b) to happen any time soon and (c) is impossible economically, socially & to public opinion.

 

I think we have to assume that the virus will be around certainly for months, probably for a year or two, possibly endemically......but at what level?

 

Surely if we take just long enough to get the number of infections down to a traceable figure, then "comprehensive test, trace and isolate" becomes a good medium/long-term solution, even assuming the virus is still present?

 

Even countries like Germany and S. Korea, which are much better placed than us re. infections are still seeing new infections....but in a number small enough not to cause mass casualties and small enough to trace and isolate most contacts, keeping the infection rate low. This allows a relatively normal life to continue medium/long-term with very few casualties. Not a completely normal life, not zero risk and not zero casualties but tolerable.

 

There's a big difference between accepting the sort of small, controllable spike from a low base that Germany and Korea have seen recently and accepting the sort of spike that we might see by opening up prematurely from a base of 3000+ new infections per day before we have the ability to trace and isolate the increased number of infections that could result.

 

Although I'm not among the 1.5m most vulnerable, catching this virus could easily be fatal for me as my last two bog-standard chest infections have triggered abnormal heart rhythms. My chances would be worse than Boris Johnson's, put it that way.

My ex-wife also has health issues - and our daughter is a vulnerable 16-year-old. I've no problem living with a small risk of getting unlucky with the virus out there. Life has all sorts of other small risks already. But the idea of unnecessarily facing a much bigger risk of getting the virus.....that alternately makes me feel quite upset and very, very angry (sorry, bad day today).

 

Nobody is saying that people at risk shouldn't isolate.

[Webbo]

9 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Fair enough Alf, I certainly don’t mean to blasé with other people’s health. I’m probably just a bit fed up and frustrated.

On a brighter note, I may be getting some financial support, I’m waiting for confirmation but it looks promising that I could get rehired and furloughed by an umbrella company I used, when I did some agency work in March. I don’t know how much or if it’s backdated or not yet but anything helps. 

I'm getting a bit of work trickling in now, I think one of the merchants , Brewers, are opening tomorrow. Hopefully things are picking up.

[ScouseFox]

40 minutes ago, bovril said:

I'm surprised some people are being so fatalistic. Other countries have shown there are ways of keeping fatalities seriously low, and people in the UK are being all inshallah about it.

us and america are the stupidest countries in terms of complete morons per 100 people, it's no real surprise we have the most deaths and both countries don't even seem arsed. 

[Strokes]

Just now, Webbo said:

I'm getting a bit of work trickling in now, I think one of the merchants , Brewers, are opening tomorrow. Hopefully things are picking up.

Yeah I’ve 2 days subbing next week and a couple of external sockets to install on Saturday.

its picking up for sure.