Coronavirus Thread

[dsr-burnley]

3 hours ago, Line-X said:

Indeed. It's a very strong possibility that we won't. Pinpointing the site of a spillover is tricky and becomes increasingly challenging with time. Also, matching the genetics of those initially infected by Alpha with sequences derived from animals to isolate the host is a very difficult task. In terms of the lab leak possibility, as relationships between China and the West continue to deteriorate, the situation continues to be so politicised, and whilst Beijing refuses to cooperate the necessary transparency to allow an independent forensic investigation into research activities at WIV, we have nothing more than circumstantial supposition.  

 

Exactly.  It's rather like an American court case where a witness says "I refuse to answer because I might incriminate myself" - it's human nature to believe the person who won't answer the question, has something to hide.

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, Legend_in_blue said:

As yet the so called modelling experts have got away scot-free.  The damage was caused by them in part and the government reacted in the worst possible way.  Hope this inquiry doesn't just pull the govt to pieces but also those pulling the strings in the background.

I'm curious as to how less restrictive measures would have resulted in a highly transmissible virus not running amok and causing even more death and suffering than it did. As it did in quite a few places that advocated a "hands-off" approach.

 

There are many aspects of the UK response to this outbreak that need criticism. Being too restrictive in the face of a force of nature isn't one of them. They don't go away just because you want them to or you ask nicely.

[yorkie1999]

 

Big choices, which one, which one. 

 

[RobHawk]

[dsr-burnley]

23 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I'm curious as to how less restrictive measures would have resulted in a highly transmissible virus not running amok and causing even more death and suffering than it did. As it did in quite a few places that advocated a "hands-off" approach.

 

There are many aspects of the UK response to this outbreak that need criticism. Being too restrictive in the face of a force of nature isn't one of them. They don't go away just because you want them to or you ask nicely.

The question isn't simply whether more people would have died of covid if government policy had been different. Other factors must be included too, such as how many deaths from other causes could have been saved- for example, there were 50,000 fewer cancer diagnoses during the covid years that will result in extra deaths. This is why we need a full investigation, and soon. 

 

But the whole basis of government policy was that only covid mattered and all else was irrelevant. They should have been considering other factors too. 

[leicsmac]

Just now, dsr-burnley said:

The question isn't simply whether more people would have died of covid if government policy had been different. Other factors must be included too, such as how many deaths from other causes could have been saved- for example, there were 50,000 fewer cancer diagnoses during the covid years that will result in extra deaths. This is why we need a full investigation, and soon. 

 

But the whole basis of government policy was that only covid mattered and all else was irrelevant. They should have been considering other factors too. 

If I might offer a counterpoint, allowing Covid to proliferate more would likely have resulted in more of those cancer deaths anyway, because the NHS resources would have been so consumed with dealing with the immediate problem (as indeed for a while it was anyway) that there would have been even less of those necessary cancer screenings and diagnoses.

 

Certainly other things than Covid at that time mattered, but limiting the excesses of that would help them too.

[dsr-burnley]

31 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If I might offer a counterpoint, allowing Covid to proliferate more would likely have resulted in more of those cancer deaths anyway, because the NHS resources would have been so consumed with dealing with the immediate problem (as indeed for a while it was anyway) that there would have been even less of those necessary cancer screenings and diagnoses.

 

Certainly other things than Covid at that time mattered, but limiting the excesses of that would help them too.

I agree. It might. Hence the need for the full enquiry. 

 

Another counterpoint. What value do we place on the elderly lonely and those with dementia, who may have outlived the virus but who lost two of the few remaining years of their life in misery, confusion, and loneliness? I made the decision about a year in that it was better for my mother to take the small risk of death rather than the certainty of confusion and possible dementia. Which obviously biases me in favour of more relaxed policies. 

 

It was about that time that I realised that a person over 80 had a 90% chance of seeing another year if she stopped indoors for the year, but an 89% chance if she socialised in a careful manner as they did in Sweden. At least, that was my estimate and I hold by it. And when put that way round, it was really not worth the "lost" years for the sake of improving survival chances by 1%.

 

And again, an enquiry assisted by good statistical analysis could go a long way towards proving whether that is right. 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, dsr-burnley said:

I agree. It might. Hence the need for the full enquiry. 

 

Another counterpoint. What value do we place on the elderly lonely and those with dementia, who may have outlived the virus but who lost two of the few remaining years of their life in misery, confusion, and loneliness? I made the decision about a year in that it was better for my mother to take the small risk of death rather than the certainty of confusion and possible dementia. Which obviously biases me in favour of more relaxed policies. 

 

It was about that time that I realised that a person over 80 had a 90% chance of seeing another year if she stopped indoors for the year, but an 89% chance if she socialised in a careful manner as they did in Sweden. At least, that was my estimate and I hold by it. And when put that way round, it was really not worth the "lost" years for the sake of improving survival chances by 1%.

 

And again, an enquiry assisted by good statistical analysis could go a long way towards proving whether that is right. 

A careful study would give us more answers and hard numbers, which is all to the good, I agree.

 

As for the second point, this is purely subjective and based on my own personal experience, but death is by definition the worst case scenario for any human being (given regretful anecdotes from people who have attempted to end their lives and my own personal philosophy) and as such ensuring a person lives (as long as they definitively wish to, I actually have no problem with people exercising their freedom of choice to end things) is the top priority. Other conditions can at least be managed - death cannot.

 

I understand however that I've never been in a situation where it's "see what life means when everything else is taken away", so I do have my own bias on the matter. So you could be right with what you say here. I just don't like seeing people (not you) tossing around such casual disregard for life (usually not their own, other people dying is an abstract thing to them) and the future, and that goes for topics other than Covid too.

[Lionator]

Anyone else out there got it at the moment? I’ve had a mild cold all week and have been testing daily as I work in healthcare. Feeling nearly 100% again today but thought I’d do one more test and it’s bloody positive.

[Dunge]

29 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Anyone else out there got it at the moment? I’ve had a mild cold all week and have been testing daily as I work in healthcare. Feeling nearly 100% again today but thought I’d do one more test and it’s bloody positive.

Had a rotten cold recently but didn’t test positive for Covid. I expect it’ll largely come and go now as long as there isn’t a crazy new variant appear.

 

Are there any restrictions on you working in healthcare still with a positive test?

[Houdini Logic]

31 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Anyone else out there got it at the moment? I’ve had a mild cold all week and have been testing daily as I work in healthcare. Feeling nearly 100% again today but thought I’d do one more test and it’s bloody positive.

Yep, felt a bit throaty yesterday so I tested and it was negative. 

Today I had the chills and was much more achey, so I tested again and it was positive. Strangely I'm not feeling too bad - I can still work. (those words may not age well!)

[MPH]

I always wonder when the virus mutates if the testing kits we have also need to be updated.

 

 

 

If you set a bear trap, you might not catch a rabbit

 

 

[marbles]

11 hours ago, Houdini Logic said:

Yep, felt a bit throaty yesterday so I tested and it was negative. 

Today I had the chills and was much more achey, so I tested again and it was positive. Strangely I'm not feeling too bad - I can still work. (those words may not age well!)

Sounds like something that’s been going around here in N Texas for the last couple weeks.

It will last a couple days at most.

[Houdini Logic]

4 hours ago, marbles said:

Sounds like something that’s been going around here in N Texas for the last couple weeks.

It will last a couple days at most.

You seem to be right... feeling better already 
And I now also have an excuse to have a relaxed weekend avoiding people, so win-win

[SpacedX]

22 hours ago, Lionator said:

Anyone else out there got it at the moment? I’ve had a mild cold all week and have been testing daily as I work in healthcare. Feeling nearly 100% again today but thought I’d do one more test and it’s bloody positive.

I've felt dodgy all week. Out of concern for those around me I purchased a testing kit from Boots for £10 (the result was negative), came home that night and one had come in the post from the NHS. 

[Unabomber]

Don’t think it’s still around now 

[Lionator]

On 23/03/2023 at 17:52, Houdini Logic said:

Yep, felt a bit throaty yesterday so I tested and it was negative. 

Today I had the chills and was much more achey, so I tested again and it was positive. Strangely I'm not feeling too bad - I can still work. (those words may not age well!)

Yep I didn’t feel unable to work at all. Much more mild than the first time I had it when it wiped me out for a week. 
 

On 23/03/2023 at 17:49, Dunge said:

Had a rotten cold recently but didn’t test positive for Covid. I expect it’ll largely come and go now as long as there isn’t a crazy new variant appear.

 

Are there any restrictions on you working in healthcare still with a positive test?

yeah you’re supposed to call in sick until day 7 or a negative test. Problem is I only got a positive test on day 5 once I’d started feeling better. 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65067264

 

"We now have "the best evidence" we are ever likely to find of how the virus that causes Covid-19 was first transmitted to a human, a team of scientists has claimed."

 

Interesting and lengthy read about the (definitely more likely now) animal origin and the lab leak theory, and what we know about both.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65204169

 

A research team in China has published analysis of samples taken more than three years ago from the market linked to the outbreak of Covid-19.

 

The research reveals swabs that tested positive for the virus also contained genetic material from wild animals.

Some scientists say this is further evidence that the disease was initially transmitted from an infected animal to a human.

 

But the Chinese researchers have pointed out that their discoveries fall short of definitive proof of how the outbreak started.

"These environmental samples cannot prove that the animals were infected," the paper explains.

The possibility remains, it adds, that the virus was brought into the market by an infected person, rather than an animal. 

 

Another piece or two of the puzzle.

[Innovindil]

17 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65204169

 

A research team in China has published analysis of samples taken more than three years ago from the market linked to the outbreak of Covid-19.

 

The research reveals swabs that tested positive for the virus also contained genetic material from wild animals.

Some scientists say this is further evidence that the disease was initially transmitted from an infected animal to a human.

 

But the Chinese researchers have pointed out that their discoveries fall short of definitive proof of how the outbreak started.

"These environmental samples cannot prove that the animals were infected," the paper explains.

The possibility remains, it adds, that the virus was brought into the market by an infected person, rather than an animal. 

 

Another piece or two of the puzzle.

Just a quick question on this bolded bit, why does it? We know covid can infect animals, some cats were testing positive at the start of the pandemic, there was that big mink cull too because of it. Surely the animals at the market could have just caught it like they did, or not? 

[leicsmac]

20 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Just a quick question on this bolded bit, why does it? We know covid can infect animals, some cats were testing positive at the start of the pandemic, there was that big mink cull too because of it. Surely the animals at the market could have just caught it like they did, or not? 

Given the amount of genetic data from the market and that it was found in so many animals pushes the balance of probability towards zoonotic transmission.

 

However, as the article also says, that isn't definitive and human to animal transmission as an initial act is still a possibility.

[Col city fan]

Suffering with ‘the vid’ at the moment.

Only the second time I’ve had it and just returned from Lanzarote last week. Probably caught it on the plane and detected via LFT.

This time it’s not nice. Elevated temp, energy less,  cough etc. Just woke up from sleeping 13 hours straight. 

Anyone who has ever denied this is real is clearly insane, needs to be sectioned and admitted to hospital.

Edited 22 April 2023 by Col city fan

[Col city fan]

Day 12 of Corona and STILL testing positive and feeling like shite!

Really got the fookin thing this time! 
Be careful FT chums. It’s still active and still nasty 

[MPH]

30 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

Day 12 of Corona and STILL testing positive and feeling like shite!

Really got the fookin thing this time! 
Be careful FT chums. It’s still active and still nasty 

 

Hope you feel better soon, chap. When you get it bad, it’s awful.  I know for the most part it has to run it’s course but get as many vitamins in you as you can chap!

[WigstonWanderer]

1 hour ago, Col city fan said:

Day 12 of Corona and STILL testing positive and feeling like shite!

Really got the fookin thing this time! 
Be careful FT chums. It’s still active and still nasty 

Have you asked for the anti virals? I was told that they seem to be quite effective. Perhaps too late now.