Corona Virus

[Poznan34]

3 minutes ago, whoareyaaa said:

the whole covid thing is just a control event by the global powers that be

who are?

[st albans fox]

24 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Had a patient on my ward who had previously been tested for this virus twice in the past ten days - both were negative, despite the nurses being adamant that he's got it.

He had a third one and the results today showed that he was indeed positive..

 

Perhaps the testing for this isn't entirely accurate for all? 

Have read quite a lot of anecdotal stories to this effect ........

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, Father Ted said:

 

A virus that has killed 33 people under the age of 40 and just over 300 if you include all under the age of 60 with no underlying health conditions has stopped the whole country?

Link ?

 

and what exactly is an underlying health condition ?????    A bit of asthma ??  Obesity ?  high BP ?  Low BP ??

[Father Ted]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

Link ?

 

and what exactly is an underlying health condition ?????    A bit of asthma ??  Obesity ?  high BP ?  Low BP ??

[Paninistickers]

1 hour ago, Father Ted said:

Why are we not looking at some genuine statistics here? 

 

A virus that has killed 33 people under the age of 40 and just over 300 if you include all under the age of 60 with no underlying health conditions has stopped the whole country? Now consider the future deaths that will be incurred on those under 60s with no underlying health conditions (ie the large majority of our work force), because of this lockdown, which, judging by those statistics really shouldn't have applied to them? The impacts of a crashing economy, unemployment and knock on health effects due to a lack of diagnosis and treatment during lockdown. 

 

Furthermore, it was widely reported the other day that London has an r value of 0.4 and reporting only 24 new cases a day, halving every 3.5 days. Could it be that London is close to herd immunity without us knowing? When you consider how susceptible the working age population  (again those under 60) would have been prior to lockdown - on the crammed tubes, in the busy pubs and tight pavements, it's more than plausible that many have had it asymptomatically.  Now look at it from this perspective, you infect as many of the working population (with no health conditions), gain herd immunity amongst these least likely to die and you largely reduce the risk and capacity for it to spread to those who are vulnerable, and it's quite plausible that this is what has happened in London. 

 

Furthermore, a total of 15 deaths in Qatar to 32000+ confirmed cases. Now, that either tells me that the death rate is approx 0.05% of this virus or their tests are faulty. Could it be that we are actually rearing a head here now with a virus that has a death rate of 0.05% or so and our huge gap in testing until say 2 weeks ago, and arguably even now as not everyone is valid for a test has far undervalued our total number of cases? Especially as you see estimates of up to 85% having covid asymptomatically. 

 

It's all certainly interesting and I think that clowns like Piers Morgan will be eating their words in months and years to come as we pick up the pieces from this.

Great post. 

 

I do sometimes wonder if in, say, 20 years we look back and think we made a right old fuss about very little. 

 

I also wonder that this virus may not be THE virus  and that there's worse that really does offer an existential threat. Or when antibiotics stop working. 

[st albans fox]

9 minutes ago, Father Ted said:

I make it 75 

 

i would be quite comfortable to let this take its course, with special arrangements in place for those who are vulnerable and need to be shielded. HOWEVER, the number of people who would become very ill and require hospital (and possibly ITU) would overwhelm the NHS - and then that puts the frontline NHS staff in danger as they face many patients with heavy viral loads and the possibility that they become ill and infect their families ......

 

it’s not straightforward - you aren’t seeing on those graphs the number of people under the age of 40 (why 40?) who have been admitted to ITU and recovered. and that’s under a lockdown. 

 

Do you really believe that the vast majority of global democracies would put their economies in grave danger when they really don’t need to ?? 

[z-layrex]

5 ECMO centres in the UK, I work as a specialist at one of them in London. Interesting video by Ch4 here at the other hospital I used to work at. The ECMO network is still very busy (but getting quieter):

 

 

Edited 18 May 2020 by z-layrex

[Costock_Fox]

35 minutes ago, Poznan34 said:

who are?

5g mate.

[Paninistickers]

Just as an aside, how comes famous people have stopped getting it?

[SystonFox]

5 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Just as an aside, how comes famous people have stopped getting it?

Herd immunity. You move in those circles you’re bound to stop at some point.

 

in all seriousness though I think the majority of them have been very good at doing the whole “lock down” thing due to the nature of them being in the public eye..... those that have broken it are generally few and far between let’s be honest

[Leicester_Loyal]

4 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

Still don’t get the facts behind testing. The government reckon they’re testing 100000  people per day and today announced anyone over the age of 5 and showing symptoms can have a test. No way in a million years do we have a minimum of 100000 people a day showing symptoms. 

 

1 hour ago, Wymsey said:

Had a patient on my ward who had previously been tested for this virus twice in the past ten days - both were negative, despite the nurses being adamant that he's got it.

He had a third one and the results today showed that he was indeed positive..

 

Perhaps the testing for this isn't entirely accurate for all? 

I reckon this is why we're testing so many people, because people are getting multiple tests every few days. Add in the fact that key workers with a sore throat or  a cough will be getting a test too every so often, and it means we're testing a lot of people often.

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, Father Ted said:

Why are we not looking at some genuine statistics here? 

 

A virus that has killed 33 people under the age of 40 and just over 300 if you include all under the age of 60 with no underlying health conditions has stopped the whole country?

 

Based on your figures, I make it:

- 215 people under 40 (column 19: add totals for age <1 to 35-39)

- 712 people aged under 60 with no health conditions (2401 - 1689): 2401 (column 19, ages <1 to 55-59) - 1689 (8 + 127 + 1554 from "with serious health condition" column)

 

That's only up to 1st May, too.

 

Won't change your mind, I'm sure, but might as well "look at some genuine statistics".... I've not got my sums wrong, have I?

 

41 minutes ago, Father Ted said:

 

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, Wymsey said:

Had a patient on my ward who had previously been tested for this virus twice in the past ten days - both were negative, despite the nurses being adamant that he's got it.

He had a third one and the results today showed that he was indeed positive..

 

Perhaps the testing for this isn't entirely accurate for all? 

Aren’t false positives much more likely than false negatives? 

Pretty much no test is 100% perfect however if you can get it right 99% of the time then that’s helpful. 

 

Either way I guess you have to treat everyone as if they have it in that situation. 

[Guest Fktf]

3 hours ago, Father Ted said:

Why are we not looking at some genuine statistics here? 

 

A virus that has killed 33 people under the age of 40 and just over 300 if you include all under the age of 60 with no underlying health conditions has stopped the whole country? Now consider the future deaths that will be incurred on those under 60s with no underlying health conditions (ie the large majority of our work force), because of this lockdown, which, judging by those statistics really shouldn't have applied to them? The impacts of a crashing economy, unemployment and knock on health effects due to a lack of diagnosis and treatment during lockdown. 

 

The reason people like Boris Johnson are still alive is because when they got ill, they could get into intensive care. The lockdown ensured we kept that spare capacity in the nhs. So really your stats show just how important the lockdown has been in keeping young and fit people alive.  

Edited 18 May 2020 by Fktf

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

I'll be honest this weekend I've 'broken lockdown', I went to Knighton Park to meet my mate, 1 on 1,which is okay, and really I felt so uncomfortable with it, people were everywhere and I came to within 2 metres of people so many times and it just made me think sod this, so I've sat in my sisters garden, my mums garden and my dad's garden this weekend, I didn't go near them at any point and at no point did I feel uncomfortable or like I was putting anyone in danger but now mentally I feel so much better, I'm so glad I did it, the only point I felt uncomfortable was at Knighton Park meeting my mate for a walk. If that makes me a terrible person who puts people at risk then I'm sorry, but it just isn't the case, at no point did I go within 2 metres of my family members, they all have access to the back garden without me going through the house or being at any point socially distanced unacceptable. I would encourage other people who are struggling to do the same. 

Edited 18 May 2020 by Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot
Added more

[st albans fox]

7 hours ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

I'll be honest this weekend I've 'broken lockdown', I went to Knighton Park to meet my mate, 1 on 1,which is okay, and really I felt so uncomfortable with it, people were everywhere and I came to within 2 metres of people so many times and it just made me think sod this, so I've sat in my sisters garden, my mums garden and my dad's garden this weekend, I didn't go near them at any point and at no point did I feel uncomfortable or like I was putting anyone in danger but now mentally I feel so much better, I'm so glad I did it, the only point I felt uncomfortable was at Knighton Park meeting my mate for a walk. If that makes me a terrible person who puts people at risk then I'm sorry, but it just isn't the case, at no point did I go within 2 metres of my family members, they all have access to the back garden without me going through the house or being at any point socially distanced unacceptable. I would encourage other people who are struggling to do the same. 

Don’t feel bad mate .... the rules are made knowing that they won’t be 100% adhered to for numerous reasons and this is taken into account by the modelling.  
 

If the rules said that you could visit your parents and family in their back gardens then plenty would be having family dinners and BBQ’s because that taking it one step further.  A chunk people will always take it one step further - that’s the way they’re made and they don’t have the mental needs that you did last weekend. 

 

I suspect that the family garden setting will be allowed next month at some point and then you will see a general breakdown of the separation of households which has been the bedrock of the lockdown strategy. hopefully we will have a low R by then and effective testing and tracing to pick up hotspots that arise.

[yorkie1999]

10 hours ago, Poznan34 said:

who are?

The Bilderberg group

[whoareyaaa]

10 hours ago, Poznan34 said:

who are?

The Rothchilds 

[worth_the_wait]

When (if) this all gets sorted, it will be interesting to see what experts think about lockdown.

 

Most of Europe went into a fairly "hard" sort of lockdown.

We were told by some that we should've gone into lockdown sooner, or later, or not at all.

The Scottish and Welsh devolved administrations are still trying to stay in lockdown.

 

But the example of Sweden will make very interesting, or potentially uncomfortable, reading.

 

They have had a pretty "soft" lockdown - some restrictions, but still with most of the economic activity still functioning.

 

Their death rate (per 1M) is currently 366.

 

This is a lot worse than their neighbours Denmark (95) and Norway (43) - which is not good - although there is the usual caveat of all countries are different, and potentially record deaths differently.

 

But just as significant is the fact that Sweden's (366) is much less than other main Western Europe countries such: Belgium (784), Spain (593), Italy (529), UK (513) and France (433).

 

If anything but a hard lockdown was disastrous, then surely Sweden's would have been in the 1000's by now.

 

Have all the other European countries "over-reacted" a bit?  

 

I have no idea what the answer is btw, I just thought I'd raise the question.

[st albans fox]

8 minutes ago, worth_the_wait said:

When (if) this all gets sorted, it will be interesting to see what experts think about lockdown.

 

Most of Europe went into a fairly "hard" sort of lockdown.

We were told by some that we should've gone into lockdown sooner, or later, or not at all.

The Scottish and Welsh devolved administrations are still trying to stay in lockdown.

 

But the example of Sweden will make very interesting, or potentially uncomfortable, reading.

 

They have had a pretty "soft" lockdown - some restrictions, but still with most of the economic activity still functioning.

 

Their death rate (per 1M) is currently 366.

 

This is a lot worse than their neighbours Denmark (95) and Norway (43) - which is not good - although there is the usual caveat of all countries are different, and potentially record deaths differently.

 

But just as significant is the fact that Sweden's (366) is much less than other main Western Europe countries such: Belgium (784), Spain (593), Italy (529), UK (513) and France (433).

 

If anything but a hard lockdown was disastrous, then surely Sweden's would have been in the 1000's by now.

 

Have all the other European countries "over-reacted" a bit?  

 

I have no idea what the answer is btw, I just thought I'd raise the question.

Big densely populated cities with v busy transport systems needed a lockdown (btw, ours wasn’t hard - not like the other w European countries listed) 

 

sweden clearly didn’t need a lockdown to avoid a catastrophe ....

 

and each region has its own social ‘handwriting ‘ that has an effect on transmission 

 

 

[CosbehFox]

9 hours ago, Fktf said:

 

The reason people like Boris Johnson are still alive is because when they got ill, they could get into intensive care. The lockdown ensured we kept that spare capacity in the nhs. So really your stats show just how important the lockdown has been in keeping young and fit people alive.  

Exactly and that’s a NHS which is not fully running other services. The lockdown is just as much about protecting that service as it is about death. 
 

Equally those statistics presented need further examination. Some poor folk were being treated for that underlying health condition when they contracted Covid 19. Which is very sad. 

[CosbehFox]

33 minutes ago, worth_the_wait said:

When (if) this all gets sorted, it will be interesting to see what experts think about lockdown.

 

Most of Europe went into a fairly "hard" sort of lockdown.

We were told by some that we should've gone into lockdown sooner, or later, or not at all.

The Scottish and Welsh devolved administrations are still trying to stay in lockdown.

 

But the example of Sweden will make very interesting, or potentially uncomfortable, reading.

 

They have had a pretty "soft" lockdown - some restrictions, but still with most of the economic activity still functioning.

 

Their death rate (per 1M) is currently 366.

 

This is a lot worse than their neighbours Denmark (95) and Norway (43) - which is not good - although there is the usual caveat of all countries are different, and potentially record deaths differently.

 

But just as significant is the fact that Sweden's (366) is much less than other main Western Europe countries such: Belgium (784), Spain (593), Italy (529), UK (513) and France (433).

 

If anything but a hard lockdown was disastrous, then surely Sweden's would have been in the 1000's by now.

 

Have all the other European countries "over-reacted" a bit?  

 

I have no idea what the answer is btw, I just thought I'd raise the question.

Sweden may not have enforced a hard lockdown but its residents certainly in the large cities respected social distancing.
 

Higher age Schools were closed, work from home was encouraged, public transport reduced, major events cancelled. Restaurant and pubs were at reduced capacity. 
 

If to be believed, Sweden have a care home time bomb as well 

Edited 19 May 2020 by Cardiff_Fox

[Tommy G]

13 hours ago, Parafox said:

I meant you can't move in with others which what was being suggested in the original comment that z-layrex was responding to. Just a typo, mate, sorry.

 

Its been proven you can if you scroll further back!

[Guest MattP]

21 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Exactly and that’s a NHS which is not fully running other services. The lockdown is just as much about protecting that service as it is about death. 
 

Equally those statistics presented need further examination. Some poor folk were being treated for that underlying health condition when they contracted Covid 19. Which is very sad. 

Yes. It's amazing how many people still don't understand this. 

 

We had to do anything to avoid a Bergamo situation where nurses and doctors had such a overflow they had to choose which patients died by moving ventilators from them.

 

For all the criticism the NHS gets, in its biggest challenge for decades it stood up extremely well to it. We've now got to prepare for a second wave at some point but we've got extra capacity if needed and hopefully we'll have better treatment when that comes.

[StanSP]