Coronavirus Thread

[Costock_Fox]

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

Apart from the potential side effects, does it actually kill the virus?

What we can say is that the person won’t die from Covid so it’s a roaring success.

[WigstonWanderer]

6 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

Apart from the potential side effects, does it actually kill the virus?

I’m not qualified to say. Presumably, as a bleach/disinfectant it works on surfaces, and I believe it is used at very low concentration in water treatment, but that doesn’t mean it will work internally in the body or that it’s a good idea to drink it.

 

Edit: I think this might be the stuff that is used to disinfect meat, so you lot might be getting a dose with the chlorinated chicken you buy from the Yanks post Brexit 

Edited 17 August 2020 by WigstonWanderer

[Nod.E]

10 hours ago, Stivo said:

You can find it in the healthcare section of the new UK dashboard.

 

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

 

 

 

 

Cases increasing but hospitalisations and ventilator usage flat lining. 

 

Good news.

[WigstonWanderer]

Victoria (Australia) infections are down to 282 today, having peaked at over 700. The trend is now clearly down, and with a test hit rate of 1% to 2% I think we can be fairly confident that they are catching a reasonable proportion of cases.

 

With a total of less than 17,000 cases and a population of around 5 million in Melbourne alone, I think we can be quite confident that this downtrend is nothing to do with herd immunity, so offers some proof, if proof were needed that lockdowns do work.

 

If they’d have done this 6 weeks earlier they could have snuffed out the outbreak quickly and saved the economy a fortune.

 

 

Edited 17 August 2020 by WigstonWanderer

[BKLFox]

On 16/08/2020 at 08:49, StanSP said:

 

 

 

Hey Stan, got no beef with this if it’s off the back of a lessons learnt exercise.

 The new Org will be modelled on the Robert Koch Institute which has been lorded as doing an excellent job in Germany and providing expertise for other nations throughout the pandemic, can only benefit the UK.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53803011

 

As they did in Daegu in March, cults doing their best to undo all the hard work Korea has done so far.

[simFox]

4 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Victoria (Australia) infections are down to 282 today, having peaked at over 700. The trend is now clearly down, and with a test hit rate of 1% to 2% I think we can be fairly confident that they are catching a reasonable proportion of cases.

 

With a total of less than 17,000 cases and a population of around 5 million in Melbourne alone, I think we can be quite confident that this downtrend is nothing to do with herd immunity, so offers some proof, if proof were needed that lockdowns do work.

 

If they’d have done this 6 weeks earlier they could have snuffed out the outbreak quickly and saved the economy a fortune.

 

 

When they get to zero they can open up. Then when they find another case, they can lockdown for another 6 weeks. Repeat until vaccine is found, it's only 6-12 months away. 

 

Then once the vaccine is shown to not be 100% effective, all the covid susceptible people will die anyway.

 

*Slow clap

[leicsmac]

35 minutes ago, simFox said:

When they get to zero they can open up. Then when they find another case, they can lockdown for another 6 weeks. Repeat until vaccine is found, it's only 6-12 months away. 

 

Then once the vaccine is shown to not be 100% effective, all the covid susceptible people will die anyway.

 

*Slow clap

....or they can reverse the lockdown and open everything up now.

 

Then the number of cases spike, hospitals are inundated and eventually have to triage resulting in the death and suffering of a great many people (many of which don't even have Covid but have other conditions not caught until too late). The human cost and lost working hours as a result mean that the economic damage is also devastating.

 

*Slow clap.

 

I mean, if we're hypothesising scenarios and all.

[simFox]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

....or they can reverse the lockdown and open everything up now.

 

Then the number of cases spike, hospitals are inundated and eventually have to triage resulting in the death and suffering of a great many people (many of which don't even have Covid but have other conditions not caught until too late). The human cost and lost working hours as a result mean that the economic damage is also devastating.

 

*Slow clap.

 

I mean, if we're hypothesising scenarios and all.

A sensible alternative would be to social distance, put sensible and reasonable measures in place, shield and protect the susceptible, use what's been shown to work best with the least economic shock, saving millions of people's livelihoods.

 

 

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, simFox said:

A sensible alternative would be to social distance, put sensible and reasonable measures in place, shield and protect the susceptible, use what's been shown to work best with the least economic shock, saving millions of people's livelihoods.

 

 

I mean, meeting in the middle like that has indeed worked pretty well over here (for the most part, anyway) - but that's a country that was both prepared and has bleeding-edge methods to contain outbreaks as they happen in place. And there aren't that many of those.

 

The problem is that it's really difficult (and variable by region) to decide just how heavy-handed responses need to be in order to balance the minimisation of both economic damage and hospital beds filling up, and there is no unified idea that works everywhere - and even if there was, some places would not have the resources to apply it effectively.

[Guest Fktf]

1 hour ago, simFox said:

When they get to zero they can open up. Then when they find another case, they can lockdown for another 6 weeks. Repeat until vaccine is found, it's only 6-12 months away. 

 

Then once the vaccine is shown to not be 100% effective, all the covid susceptible people will die anyway.

 

*Slow clap

This isn't how hard immunity via vaccines works. It doesn't need to 100% effective.

[simFox]

Duplicate

Edited 17 August 2020 by simFox

[simFox]

58 minutes ago, Fktf said:

This isn't how hard immunity via vaccines works. It doesn't need to 100% effective.

I could release a vaccine tomorrow, it would be 99.7% effective.

[Guest Fktf]

5 minutes ago, simFox said:

I could release a vaccine tomorrow, it would be 99.7% effective.

I very much doubt it would be that effective. But I also have no doubt that you'll ever be convinced otherwise. 

[The People's Hero]

9 minutes ago, simFox said:

I could release a vaccine tomorrow, it would be 99.7% effective.

 

Just now, Fktf said:

I very much doubt it would be that effective. But I also have no doubt that you'll ever be convinced otherwise. 

 

Keep watching kids as I think these two are just about to work out that you don't always have to agree!

[simFox]

12 minutes ago, Fktf said:

I very much doubt it would be that effective. But I also have no doubt that you'll ever be convinced otherwise. 

I'm going to call it "nowt". Costs nothing to produce either.

[WigstonWanderer]

2 hours ago, simFox said:

When they get to zero they can open up. Then when they find another case, they can lockdown for another 6 weeks. Repeat until vaccine is found, it's only 6-12 months away. 

 

Then once the vaccine is shown to not be 100% effective, all the covid susceptible people will die anyway.

 

*Slow clap

So far that hasn’t happened in WA where the virus has at least for the moment been eliminated. There hasn’t been a community infection for over 4 months here, though of course there is always that risk, and having opened up almost entirely it might be difficult to contain.

 

It is quite clear that there are many ways to try to manage this pandemic, all of them have risks and flaws, so it’s a matter of which one seems to be most successful, and it is true that we probably won’t know this for some time. Personally I favour the one which reduces the short term risk in the hope that available treatments get better and that vaccines are indeed developed.

 

I also believe that where an elimination strategy is possible it reduces the impact on the economy, which in the longer term is probably the biggest risk of all.

 

Nevertheless I appreciate that this isn’t possible everywhere, in which case an aggressive test and trace strategy coupled with local lockdowns when things get out of hand is probably the next best thing. I was sceptical about NSW ability to pull this strategy off, but they do seem to be managing it, and hopefully Victoria will be able to do similar once they have the immediate problem under control. I doubt whether either state will be able to achieve elimination.

 

The US has probably the most laissez fairer attitude of all, and has not only suffered a huge death tally but also doesn’t seem to be doing too well economically.

[simFox]

 

Sweden dropped 8.6%

Australia release theirs in September, but predictions are -7 to -8%. Again time will tell, i think the UK following the current eradication policy is the worst of both worlds.

Edited 17 August 2020 by simFox

[Leicester_Loyal]

Someone at my old mans work tested positive at the weekend, so my dad went for a test Sunday morning just in case and his result has just come back positive. Self isolation for me for 2 weeks, please God let some transfer news happen in the next few days to keep me going.

[WigstonWanderer]

17 minutes ago, simFox said:

 

Sweden dropped 8.6%

Australia release theirs in September, but predictions are -7 to -8%. Again time will tell, i think the UK following the current eradication policy is the worst of both worlds.

The UK economy was hit by the the government’s failure to act early and decisively. This has drawn out the whole crisis and traumatised a good proportion of the population which has lead to the economy cratering. All in my opinion of course.

[yorkie1999]

4 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

The UK economy was hit by the the government’s failure to act early and decisively. This has drawn out the whole crisis and traumatised a good proportion of the population which has lead to the economy cratering. All in my opinion of course.

But, initially, people were saying that the country shouldn't go into lockdown because it would destroy the economy.

[Guest Fktf]

1 hour ago, simFox said:

I'm going to call it "nowt". Costs nothing to produce either.

Yeah... just lives, eh? But as long as the rest of us can go to the pub...

[Guest Fktf]

12 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

But, initially, people were saying that the country shouldn't go into lockdown because it would destroy the economy.

Not everybody. A few hundred scientists wrote a letter to govt and parliament arguing that locking down early was the correct choice for health and economy, and that there was no scientific basis for delaying lockdown based on behavioural fatigue - something that has later come out in the media.

 

Hindsight is a marvellous thing I guess, no one could be certain at the time. Bittersweet for those scientists to have been correct, but to have been ignored when the political decisions were made.

[simFox]

1 hour ago, WigstonWanderer said:

The UK economy was hit by the the government’s failure to act early and decisively. This has drawn out the whole crisis and traumatised a good proportion of the population which has lead to the economy cratering. All in my opinion of course.

You just said USA was worse because they were laissez faire. Proof shows you they weren't. Now it's someone's fault for not locking down earlier!

 

 

[WigstonWanderer]

15 minutes ago, simFox said:

You just said USA was worse because they were laissez faire. Proof shows you they weren't. Now it's someone's fault for not locking down earlier!

 

 

The US situation is still evolving. They still have a long way to go before they are out of the mess they’ve created.