Corona Virus

[Guest Markyblue]

11 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

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

Not trendy anymore, so yesterday. 

[Alf Bentley]

16 minutes ago, MattP said:

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.

 

Completely agree with your Bergamo/NHS point.

 

I also agree that it's a good idea to be prepared for a second wave. But some seem to be fatalistically accepting that a second wave is inevitable. There's a difference between being prepared (while doing the max to avoid a 2nd wave) and accepting thousands of avoidable deaths. Even your formulation - "we've now got to prepare for a second wave at some point" - suggests inevitability. Spikes are inevitable, even from a low infection base as in Germany and S. Korea....but not a second wave that kills thousands.

 

Scotland is running a 2-week Covid-tracing pilot project that starts today. England has reportedly recruited 21,000+ tracers. There have been elements of chaos in both countries and it may take a few weeks before those systems are fully functional. But what will be the point of bothering with them if we're going to accept the inevitability of a second wave, encourage people to mingle and allow the infection rate to rise to a level where there are too many contacts to trace and isolate?

 

I remember you saying that your fiancée was a nurse and that you had asthma. So, in a second wave you could both be at heightened risk. If you're one of the victims of a needless second wave, like me you could be categorised as having "underlying health problems". There seems to be a growing mood on here that people like you and me are expendable - or, at the very least, that life should quickly return to normal and it's up to us either to accept a heightened risk of death or to self-isolate for an indefinite period.....who knows or cares how long?

 

There's some dangerous thinking in this thread recently with other posters highlighting how only a minority of the dead have been young or free of health issues. But that (sizeable) minority still represent personal tragedies for the lives they could have lived and those they leave behind. I'm thinking of the 14-year-old daughter of the woman who died after the spitting incident. Hell, I'm even thinking of Boris' new kid. If he'd died, would he have been deemed to have an "underlying health issue", I wonder, as he's said that he's medically obese? Then there are all the older people whose lives can apparently be treated so casually. I know I'm older than the average on here, but does nobody have parents anymore? Or are they just happy for their folks to run a needlessly high risk of death or to have to self-isolate indefinitely? All to avoid a bit of extra cost and disruption to lives..... that matters and should be minimised, I know, but lives matter more.

[Rain King]

Spoke the my Mum last night. She was a bit annoyed, several neighbours have been having their whole family round and some had even got the kids and grandkids around for a hot-tub party.  Not sure why you'd want a hot-tub party with your parents in any case.

[StanSP]

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

26 minutes ago, StanSP said:

 

 

 

Well, yes, that's good news. It's good to see some good news - and the deaths figure "will continue to decline", at least in the short-term, as it heavily depends - with a time lag - on the infections figure, which is falling.

 

But whether it "will continue to decline" in the medium-term will depend on the effectiveness of the response at every level (govts, public, employers etc.). If the infections figure starts to rise again, the deaths graph will also rise 2-3 weeks later.

 

I'm all in favour of optimism - but we need to avoid complacency.

 

Here's the graph for the Spanish flu 1918-19. I suppose we're now approaching the "7/27" stage......and don't want to follow the subsequent trajectory of 1918-19.

 

[Nod.E]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Completely agree with your Bergamo/NHS point.

 

I also agree that it's a good idea to be prepared for a second wave. But some seem to be fatalistically accepting that a second wave is inevitable. There's a difference between being prepared (while doing the max to avoid a 2nd wave) and accepting thousands of avoidable deaths. Even your formulation - "we've now got to prepare for a second wave at some point" - suggests inevitability. Spikes are inevitable, even from a low infection base as in Germany and S. Korea....but not a second wave that kills thousands.

 

Scotland is running a 2-week Covid-tracing pilot project that starts today. England has reportedly recruited 21,000+ tracers. There have been elements of chaos in both countries and it may take a few weeks before those systems are fully functional. But what will be the point of bothering with them if we're going to accept the inevitability of a second wave, encourage people to mingle and allow the infection rate to rise to a level where there are too many contacts to trace and isolate?

 

I remember you saying that your fiancée was a nurse and that you had asthma. So, in a second wave you could both be at heightened risk. If you're one of the victims of a needless second wave, like me you could be categorised as having "underlying health problems". There seems to be a growing mood on here that people like you and me are expendable - or, at the very least, that life should quickly return to normal and it's up to us either to accept a heightened risk of death or to self-isolate for an indefinite period.....who knows or cares how long?

 

There's some dangerous thinking in this thread recently with other posters highlighting how only a minority of the dead have been young or free of health issues. But that (sizeable) minority still represent personal tragedies for the lives they could have lived and those they leave behind. I'm thinking of the 14-year-old daughter of the woman who died after the spitting incident. Hell, I'm even thinking of Boris' new kid. If he'd died, would he have been deemed to have an "underlying health issue", I wonder, as he's said that he's medically obese? Then there are all the older people whose lives can apparently be treated so casually. I know I'm older than the average on here, but does nobody have parents anymore? Or are they just happy for their folks to run a needlessly high risk of death or to have to self-isolate indefinitely? All to avoid a bit of extra cost and disruption to lives..... that matters and should be minimised, I know, but lives matter more.

There is a tolerance level.

 

People die all the time from all sorts of causes. For the younger and otherwise healthy majority that you mention here, the numbers within that group fall well within what most consider tolerable. Or in other words, only as common or less common than other causes of death.

 

As disastrous as the individual circumstances, it isn't pragmatic to continue a life worth living for anybody while saving every single preventable death.

[los dedos]

32 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Well, yes, that's good news. It's good to see some good news - and the deaths figure "will continue to decline", at least in the short-term, as it heavily depends - with a time lag - on the infections figure, which is falling.

 

But whether it "will continue to decline" in the medium-term will depend on the effectiveness of the response at every level (govts, public, employers etc.). If the infections figure starts to rise again, the deaths graph will also rise 2-3 weeks later.

 

I'm all in favour of optimism - but we need to avoid complacency.

 

Here's the graph for the Spanish flu 1918-19. I suppose we're now approaching the "7/27" stage......and don't want to follow the subsequent trajectory of 1918-19.

 

I think the big difference with the Spanish Flu was it affected a lot of young people.  The fitter you were ( with no underlying health issues) the worse it was . It would put your immune system into overdrive and kill alot that way .

So maybe as long as we shield the vulnerable we can be ok .

[murphy]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Well, yes, that's good news. It's good to see some good news - and the deaths figure "will continue to decline", at least in the short-term, as it heavily depends - with a time lag - on the infections figure, which is falling.

 

But whether it "will continue to decline" in the medium-term will depend on the effectiveness of the response at every level (govts, public, employers etc.). If the infections figure starts to rise again, the deaths graph will also rise 2-3 weeks later.

 

I'm all in favour of optimism - but we need to avoid complacency.

 

Here's the graph for the Spanish flu 1918-19. I suppose we're now approaching the "7/27" stage......and don't want to follow the subsequent trajectory of 1918-19.

 

Apparently the second wave of Spanish flu was more deadly because the virus had mutated:

 

Reported cases of Spanish flu dropped off over the summer of 1918, and there was hope at the beginning of August that the virus had run its course. In retrospect, it was only the calm before the storm. Somewhere in Europe, a mutated strain of the Spanish flu virus had emerged that had the power to kill a perfectly healthy young man or woman within 24 hours of showing the first signs of infection.

 

https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-second-wave-resurgence

 

 

Interestingly, it was only called Spanish flu because during the war, the European and US press was restricted from reporting anything that could harm the war effort.  Neutral Spain had no such restrictions so began reporting first.

[Alf Bentley]

24 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

There is a tolerance level.

 

People die all the time from all sorts of causes. For the younger and otherwise healthy majority that you mention here, the numbers within that group fall well within what most consider tolerable. Or in other words, only as common or less common than other causes of death.

 

As disastrous as the individual circumstances, it isn't pragmatic to continue a life worth living for anybody while saving every single preventable death.

 

I absolutely agree that there's no such thing as a zero-risk life - and that the risk calculation varies according to your age and circumstances.

 

Indeed, I was already thinking along those lines. After this wretched lockdown, I'd like to be able to get out a bit more - to make trips away or visit extended family by August/September.

I wouldn't expect that to be zero-risk as I assume the virus will still be out there. But if the infection rate is low and being properly controlled, I'd happily take the small risk of putting on a mask, jumping on a train and getting away.

 

If the infection rate surges because we unlock prematurely and we've not got a proper contact tracing system in place to isolate most of those who get infected, it becomes a very different risk calculation.

Maybe not for you (I don't know your age/circumstances) but I'm in my 50s with a heart condition and a teenage daughter. If Covid19 is rampant again, there's no way I could sensibly go anywhere.....a miserable & unnecessary outcome.

 

There's then the issue of my daughter returning to college in September. The risk to her would be very low, but would her mother and I have to try isolate from her due to the risk to us?  

 

10 minutes ago, los dedos said:

I think the big difference with the Spanish Flu was it affected a lot of young people.  The fitter you were ( with no underlying health issues) the worse it was . It would put your immune system into overdrive and kill alot that way .

So maybe as long as we shield the vulnerable we can be ok .

 

But avoiding a second wave is even better than shielding the vulnerable. In a second Covid wave with effective shielding, only a small minority might die or get seriously ill - though that would still be more than with no wave.

 

But accepting a second wave while shielding the vulnerable also implies a major and unnecessary impact on the quality of life and mental health of "the vulnerable".

 

I don't know what your age or circumstances are, but I'm guessing that you're younger than me (apologies if I'm wrong about that).

 

If so, how would you feel if the Spanish Flu returned?

Imagine if all the old gits were saying: "We can't wait a few weeks for infection rates to fall. We're not vulnerable, only the young are vulnerable. So, the young can all put their lives on hold and stay at home for an indefinite period. We'll shield them (while they stew in isolation and fritter their lives away). We want to get on with our lives". 

[UniFox21]

http://www.oxfordimmunotec.com/international/news/oxford-immunotec-releases-t-spot-discoverytm-sars-cov-2-kit-research-measuring-t-cell-immune-response-sars-cov-2-may-offer-new-insights-immunity-covid-19/

 

If anyone wants a read, this is really interesting.

Basically this company works with TB and has taken its tests with that disease and is using them to identify how our immune system, in particular T cells, respond to the virus. This should help them understand how we fight the virus and how/if we develop immunity. Something which can't always be analysed from patients who've recovered given they may be lacking antibodies.

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

I remember you saying that your fiancée was a nurse and that you had asthma. So, in a second wave you could both be at heightened risk. If you're one of the victims of a needless second wave, like me you could be categorised as having "underlying health problems". There seems to be a growing mood on here that people like you and me are expendable - or, at the very least, that life should quickly return to normal and it's up to us either to accept a heightened risk of death or to self-isolate for an indefinite period.....who knows or cares how long?

 

There's some dangerous thinking in this thread recently with other posters highlighting how only a minority of the dead have been young or free of health issues. But that (sizeable) minority still represent personal tragedies for the lives they could have lived and those they leave behind. I'm thinking of the 14-year-old daughter of the woman who died after the spitting incident. Hell, I'm even thinking of Boris' new kid. If he'd died, would he have been deemed to have an "underlying health issue", I wonder, as he's said that he's medically obese? Then there are all the older people whose lives can apparently be treated so casually. I know I'm older than the average on here, but does nobody have parents anymore? Or are they just happy for their folks to run a needlessly high risk of death or to have to self-isolate indefinitely? All to avoid a bit of extra cost and disruption to lives..... that matters and should be minimised, I know, but lives matter more.

Agree on second wave - I'm a natural pessimist when it comes to things like this unfortunately.

 

I'd like to read more on the underlying conditions but its hard to find anything concrete with statistics, its become a far too vast definition if an 85 year with cancer is being lumped in with a 36 year old with asthma or who is just a bit tubby.

 

On a personal note it's been a bit farcical, I contacted the doctors as I was classified as having severe asthma and now they are saying I don't have it, it's on my record but has been removed by "doctor unknown" - which really helps me out. So I still don't know for certain what position I'm in.

 

I have no idea how we get out of this vaccine side but I'm still protecting the vulnerable at any cost whilst trying to get as many fit and healthy people back to work as possible - although I do also think those who want to take the chance should be able to do so assuming the NHS isn't in danger of being overwhelmed at that point.

[yorkie1999]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Well, yes, that's good news. It's good to see some good news - and the deaths figure "will continue to decline", at least in the short-term, as it heavily depends - with a time lag - on the infections figure, which is falling.

 

But whether it "will continue to decline" in the medium-term will depend on the effectiveness of the response at every level (govts, public, employers etc.). If the infections figure starts to rise again, the deaths graph will also rise 2-3 weeks later.

 

I'm all in favour of optimism - but we need to avoid complacency.

 

Here's the graph for the Spanish flu 1918-19. I suppose we're now approaching the "7/27" stage......and don't want to follow the subsequent trajectory of 1918-19.

 

When this virus landed here, obviously we we're aware of it but no one took any notice of it, probably thinking it's not as bad as being made out, the 32000 that went to the villa game certainly didn't as they wouldn't have been there. If, and when, we come out of lock down properly, as we've got to do, i think everyone in the country will be on their guard for a long time. I think the government should subsidize firms to pay their employees a decent amount of sick pay as i bet most people can't survive on the 97 quid a week they currently get and would rather take the risk of going to work with a contagious illness. But i suspect the government will eventually say, If you get the virus, then it's your fault for not protecting yourself against it.   

[worthosoriginals]

15 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

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

Cos theys stopped using 5g innit 

[The Quick Brown Fox]

23 hours ago, BKLFox said:

but NOT stay over night in any place other than your NORMAL living home, its quite simple.

But fisheries are now open overnight, I can't see how this is different? 

[Countryfox]

2 hours ago, StanSP said:

 

  I perfectly understand what he means but it still seems a bit weird saying  “This excellent graph shows fatalities” ...
 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

35 minutes ago, MattP said:

Agree on second wave - I'm a natural pessimist when it comes to things like this unfortunately.

 

I'd like to read more on the underlying conditions but its hard to find anything concrete with statistics, its become a far too vast definition if an 85 year with cancer is being lumped in with a 36 year old with asthma or who is just a bit tubby.

 

On a personal note it's been a bit farcical, I contacted the doctors as I was classified as having severe asthma and now they are saying I don't have it, it's on my record but has been removed by "doctor unknown" - which really helps me out. So I still don't know for certain what position I'm in.

 

I have no idea how we get out of this vaccine side but I'm still protecting the vulnerable at any cost whilst trying to get as many fit and healthy people back to work as possible - although I do also think those who want to take the chance should be able to do so assuming the NHS isn't in danger of being overwhelmed at that point.

 

I agree the definition of "underlying health conditions" is wide and unclear.

 

That sounds dodgy at your GPs. I'd be wanting them to look into that - and wanting a new assessment if they can't explain the change in your asthma status. Must be unsettling if it might affect decision-making.

 

Seems to me that, unless and until a permanent solution appears, comprehensive testing, contact tracing and isolating is the way forward if feasible. If effective, it could keep infection rates low - allowing most people to resume some sort of life (work, travel, social life) with only a low risk. I fear that unlocking too early, particularly before test/trace/isolate system is workable, could cause a second upsurge - jeopardising not only lives but also jobs and the freedom to get on with life without excessive risk.

 

I'm aware that this is partly an emotional response on my part (though partly rational, too). I've found the last week much tougher to handle than earlier weeks. So the idea of an unnecessary second wave preventing me visiting people and going places in Aug/Sept and making my daughter's college restart problematic is a tough prospect....really hope it doesn't happen. Anyway, daughter's moving back in tonight after a few weeks at her Mum's so that will be a good diversion.

 

 

30 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

When this virus landed here, obviously we we're aware of it but no one took any notice of it, probably thinking it's not as bad as being made out, the 32000 that went to the villa game certainly didn't as they wouldn't have been there. If, and when, we come out of lock down properly, as we've got to do, i think everyone in the country will be on their guard for a long time. I think the government should subsidize firms to pay their employees a decent amount of sick pay as i bet most people can't survive on the 97 quid a week they currently get and would rather take the risk of going to work with a contagious illness. But i suspect the government will eventually say, If you get the virus, then it's your fault for not protecting yourself against it.   

 

I went to the Villa match but did feel a bit concerned beforehand. At that stage, there had been very few infections in the UK and even fewer in Leicester, but Covid was rife in Italy and Spain, as I recall, so the writing was on the wall.

 

If I'd been due to go on my own as usual, I probably would have given it a miss. But my Villa-supporting mate had come up from Devon to join me in the LCFC end so I didn't want to let him down.

Thankfully, not only did I not get Covid19 but I got to see him joining in the "Going down! Going down!" chant at his own team.....well worth it! 

 

For me, the impossibility of the Govt funding lots of people and firms long-term is another reason to really bear down on this pandemic now and try to avoid the risk of a second wave or continued high level of infection.

I know it's tough on lots of people and businesses, but at least the financial help is still there for now (funded furlough, help for self-employed etc.). There's going to be a big economic hit regardless, but it will be a lot bigger if Covid19 is still running rife in a few months - that could be an awful scenario with people scared to go to work yet feeling they have to go in or join millions on the dole, businesses going bust due to lack of demand, the govt having to choose between racking up even more debt and allowing genuinely unprecedented levels of bankruptcies and unemployment..... Worth sticking with lockdown for a few weeks to avoid that scenario, for me.

[StanSP]

Extra bank holiday in October? 

[Leicester_Loyal]

Why are these people not being fined?

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, StanSP said:

Extra bank holiday in October? 

Yeah, I certainly need more time off.

[Tuna]

2 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Why are these people not being fined?

I have no idea who she is.

[StanSP]

1 minute ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Why are these people not being fined?

Absolute car crash of a celebrity. One of those Z listers that somehow still gets attention. This will only fuel her desire to be seen in those shite papers. 

 

No idea how they don't get fined. 

 

To do it once is stupid. 

To do it twice is moronic. 

To do it and have your picture taken and shared on social media is ****ing retarded. 

[Dahnsouff]

3 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Extra bank holiday in October? 

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Why are these people not being fined?

 

 

[Lionator]

Was tested at Birstall this morning after having felt rough on Sunday and Monday, booked it last night and straight in today. I must say for all of the criticism's I and many others have given, it's an incredibly slick operation there. Having it stuck up your nose bloody hurts though. 

 

Seeing stuff like this is reassuring against the threat of a second wave. We're so much more prepared than last time around that surely have now seen the worst of this.

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, Lionator said:

Was tested at Birstall this morning after having felt rough on Sunday and Monday, booked it last night and straight in today. I must say for all of the criticism's I and many others have given, it's an incredibly slick operation there. Having it stuck up your nose bloody hurts though. 

 

Seeing stuff like this is reassuring against the threat of a second wave. We're so much more prepared than last time around that surely have now seen the worst of this.

Yeah, my old man had a test recently and stated how straightforward it was, but concurs about the ouchy nose thing.

 

Hope you get the right result