Coronavirus Thread

[SpacedX]

41 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

You’re going to let people come into work sneezing all over the place? At the moment?

Actually, it seems that it very much depends on the employer, but that wasn't your original point.

 

42 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

I know the rules mate, let’s see if they are implemented 

Probably not. 

[Chrysalis]

On 10/09/2020 at 22:58, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

I'm sorry to hear that but it is clear that you were really unfortunate that you went through that, I might have had it, my gran and mum both tested positive for it back in April and I was living with them at the time so it's a fair chance I had it but showed no symptoms, either that or I was incredibly lucky not to get it. Either way I think a healthy person in their 30s isn't what the vaccine should be aimed at, vaccinate the vulnerable and the at risk and let everyone else get on with their lives is my thinking, but maybe I'm just fatigued with it all. 

The plans will be to prioritise anyway, I cannot see them vaccinating everyone.

 

But we need to be careful with categorising people, a lot of people have conditions that havent been diagnosed, there is people with out of date medical records in terms of weight etc. so it would be a very flawed approach to just do what they did with the food delivery system and categorise people solely based on their medical file.  There needs to be a more dynamic system, not one that has black lines defining in and out.  I am just over 40, and I think most people would categorise someone of my age as fairly low risk.  The NHS for a long time relies on "assumptions" a lot, and they get it wrong some times.  So one shouldnt be assumed to be at low risk and then not have the option to be vaccinated, the option needs to be there for people.

[Nalis]

1 minute ago, Chrysalis said:

The plans will be to prioritise anyway, I cannot see them vaccinating everyone.

 

But we need to be careful with categorising people, a lot of people have conditions that havent been diagnosed, there is people with out of date medical records in terms of weight etc. so it would be a very flawed approach to just do what they did with the food delivery system and categorise people solely based on their medical file.  There needs to be a more dynamic system, not one that has black lines defining in and out.  I am just over 40, and I think most people would categorise someone of my age as fairly low risk.  The NHS for a long time relies on "assumptions" a lot, and they get it wrong some times.  So one shouldnt be assumed to be at low risk and then not have the option to be vaccinated, the option needs to be there for people.

I guess they have to put some sort of thresholds in place though so its wont be perfect, bit like the flu jab.

[Chrysalis]

On 11/09/2020 at 16:07, String fellow said:

With the national R number now back above one, I've a sneaking suspicion that the government has looked at the latest data and is bracing itself for the possibility of the country returning to something akin to the dire state that it was in back in late March and April, despite the mitigation measures which have been introduced since then. If we do need to return to a nationwide lock-down, I hope that it'll be better policed this time, with no repeats of the Cummings nonsense, and with all four home nations having the same rules. Imo, local lock-downs are so porous that they're almost completely useless.      

I dont think its needed, the problem is though I think the actions needed are to shut down pubs/restaurants and to restrict schooling.  However these two are the hardest sell to the people, no one likes been told they cant go out for a drink, and parents have got to the point of desperation for their kids going back to school, I try to compromise and see it from the other side so my view is schooling can go on but more restricted, I think sending every kid at once was too much too soon, but instead we could have part time attendance, and the rest as homework or video conference teaching.

 

Pubs and restaurants are tougher, I think they need to be closed, but I do get that anyone who works in that industry for a living is going to be having a torrid time financially.  I think they could be opened but with more restrictions, the problem is though hospitality owners have told the government they would need to liquidate with those restrictions hence the 2m going down to a 1m rule to accommodate them.  What has particularly grinded me though is that many of these owners had no respect for the situation and have allowed their premises to be packed out with no concerns for social distancing.  Clearly there was too much trust put into the owners and needs to be heavy handed auditing going on.  I expect that is what this Marshall idea is about, but it would appear they not going to be given much respect, I think instead it should be council officials.  If they catch the place packed out, then suspend license for a month, as a strong deterrent.

Edited 12 September 2020 by Chrysalis

[Trav Le Bleu]

19 hours ago, SystonFox said:

Genuinely I’m not. I work in healthcare so take great pride in infection control that’s all.

 

i don’t think it would be a bad thing for it to become normal behaviour to wear a mask in public or at mass gathered events. I understand and appreciate it’s a major ball ache but the last thing I want at a gig is someone’s spittle over my watered down pint of carling in a plastic cup

Nobody does. 

 

But seriously, mask wearing any time you go outside the house, once we have (possibly) a return to normal levels of normal diseases? I.e. Covid19 either under control via medicine/vaccination or mutates to become less severe or general public gains a resilient level of immunity.

 

Genuinely, I like to see people's faces and I know so many people who say that communication is more difficult, not because a mask muffles speech, but because you can't read facial expressions.

 

For deaf people it's an absolute nightmare.

 

To think of all the furore amongst much of the public over Muslim women wearing face coverings and now some of the same people (I'm not saying you btw) want to make it permanent.

 

 

[String fellow]

I'm still struggling to work out why cheap face masks only protect other people from the wearer, not the wearer from other people. Surely the pressure of a sneeze or even the exhaled breath of the wearer is going to be much greater than anything coming towards him/her from the opposite direction. Therefore, isn't the virus more likely to pass outwards through or round the edges of the mask than it is to come inwards? So the wearer should be protected from other people, not the other way round!

[yorkie1999]

You shouldn’t really be sneezing into a face mask. A sneeze is part of the bodies immune system and the point of it is to help remove bacteria and virus’s from the nasal and upper respiratory system. Sticking a mask in the way is only going to make you breath the little critters back in.

[simFox]

5 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

I dont think its needed, the problem is though I think the actions needed are to shut down pubs/restaurants and to restrict schooling.  However these two are the hardest sell to the people, no one likes been told they cant go out for a drink, and parents have got to the point of desperation for their kids going back to school, I try to compromise and see it from the other side so my view is schooling can go on but more restricted, I think sending every kid at once was too much too soon, but instead we could have part time attendance, and the rest as homework or video conference teaching.

 

Pubs and restaurants are tougher, I think they need to be closed, but I do get that anyone who works in that industry for a living is going to be having a torrid time financially.  I think they could be opened but with more restrictions, the problem is though hospitality owners have told the government they would need to liquidate with those restrictions hence the 2m going down to a 1m rule to accommodate them.  What has particularly grinded me though is that many of these owners had no respect for the situation and have allowed their premises to be packed out with no concerns for social distancing.  Clearly there was too much trust put into the owners and needs to be heavy handed auditing going on.  I expect that is what this Marshall idea is about, but it would appear they not going to be given much respect, I think instead it should be council officials.  If they catch the place packed out, then suspend license for a month, as a strong deterrent.

Do you have kids? You seem very nonchalant with your comments, almost as if it's a non issue. It's a massive issue, they need looking after and if they are at home, people can't work, the knock on affects are huge. Your solutions appear so simplistic and ill thought out, you just seen to neglect a huge amount of issues people face daily. Do you even realise how much child care costs!

 

Same with pubs opening, the guidelines required to stay open probably won't even break even, a business that doesn't make money doesn't last. You might think it's a moral obligation to put money before lives, but money puts food on the table and humans need food to survive. Where you see negligence and selfishness regarding flouting the guidelines, I see people trying to make ends meet and survive.

 

You seem to be putting covid above all else as some kind of moral crusade, but life is way more complicated. Please, take a step back and spare a thought. When your have a family to feed and a business on the brink of failure, or faced with a virus you have 99.997 chance of surviving, seriously, it's not a difficult decision to make.

 

Please, show some empathy and compassion, people are on the brink and it won't be covid that kills them.

[WigstonWanderer]

If these pages are in any way representative of feeling over there, it’s clear that authorities will get little compliance for restrictions in future months from at least a significant section of the population.

 

It is certainly very encouraging that these second waves in Europe seem to be nowhere near as potent as the first. A huge increase in testing, coupled with much better treatment optIons has no doubt contributed to what seems to be a lower infection fatality rate, and there seems to be evidence that effective (if not full) herd immunity cuts in at a lower level than once thought.

 

But is this really the time to go full gung ho when winter is just round the corner and much of the above is still highly speculative? I don’t live there so I don’t get a vote, but I’d still be cautious and at least try to maintain social distancing, wear a mask, wash hands regularly, and comply as best as possible with rolling lockdowns, at least until winter has passed and more is known about the possibility of an effective vaccine.

 

People who refuse to do so, (some just out of sheer bloody mindedness), are risking not only other people’s health, but also other people’s livelihoods, by undermining efforts to control the virus. Whether you like it or not, a large demographic will not participate fully in the economy if virus is raging. In addition, authorities are likely to respond with tougher lockdowns if healthcare capacity is threatened, and there could be a great deal of collateral damage as people with (non Covid) life threatening conditions avoid hospitals.

 

It has always been pretty obvious that the UK and the rest of Europe would be unable to eliminate the virus short of a vaccine, but in my opinion, it’s still best to keep the virus suppressed, at least for now.

Edit: Spelling

 

Edited 13 September 2020 by WigstonWanderer

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-54034810

 

A look into how Korea manages to contain Covid as well as it does, and is still able to keep economic activity going as best as is possible.

[Crinklyfox]

10 hours ago, String fellow said:

I'm still struggling to work out why cheap face masks only protect other people from the wearer, not the wearer from other people. Surely the pressure of a sneeze or even the exhaled breath of the wearer is going to be much greater than anything coming towards him/her from the opposite direction. Therefore, isn't the virus more likely to pass outwards through or round the edges of the mask than it is to come inwards? So the wearer should be protected from other people, not the other way round!

My understanding of this is that the main cause of transmission is infected droplets in the air caused by an infected person exhaling.  A mask reduces the amount of droplets and the distance they travel.  A sneeze, shouting or singing all result in exhalation of more droplets than regular breathing.

 

The chance of becoming ill with the virus reduces as the amount of infected droplets inhaled reduces so masks are a very useful tool in controlling the spread of infection.

 

 

[James.]

Thinking back fondly to the days when you could drive 100 miles for a covid test.

 

As of this morning:

 

No drive through tests available

No walk through tests available

No home testing kits available

 

Shambles.

[st albans fox]

3 minutes ago, James. said:

Thinking back fondly to the days when you could drive 100 miles for a covid test.

 

As of this morning:

 

No drive through tests available

No walk through tests available

No home testing kits available

 

Shambles.

That’s what happens when you put a pop star in charge .......I quite liked her songs ......

Edited 13 September 2020 by st albans fox

[StanSP]

24 minutes ago, James. said:

Thinking back fondly to the days when you could drive 100 miles for a covid test.

 

As of this morning:

 

No drive through tests available

No walk through tests available

No home testing kits available

 

Shambles.

It's good to know, however, should lockdown be reinforced like in April/May, you can drive however far you want for an eye test

 

[Trav Le Bleu]

30 minutes ago, James. said:

Thinking back fondly to the days when you could drive 100 miles for a covid test.

 

As of this morning:

 

No drive through tests available

No walk through tests available

No home testing kits available

 

Shambles.

Don't worry, by the end of the year 10 million tests a day!

 

 

Oh, wait... This isn't the joke thread?

Edited 13 September 2020 by Trav Le Bleu

[MonmoreStef]

Can’t help thinking all this money being spent on testing is a monumental waste of resources and the money would be far better spent on improving our health services.  Eye watering when you see the costs of this testing and then think just what it could be spent on elsewhere.

[yorkie1999]

They have got to start facing facts, 9 people died from it yesterday, and probably 6 of them were added in from a few weeks back. Okay 3000 people a day are catching it and that’s been probably going on for quite a while but it’s the testing that’s putting those figures up. Let’s see in 10 days time if there are any changes in the death rate. 
 Another thing, How exactly do you suspend vaccine trials? What do the bods do, take the vaccine out of people or something. It doesn’t make sense. I personally think the virus has just about run its course and the government don’t know what to do about it. 

[StanSP]

With case numbers increasing/deaths not doing so in line with that, is it sensible to think the virus has mutated and isn't nowhere near as strong as it was about 6 months ago?

 

 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, StanSP said:

With case numbers increasing/deaths not doing so in line with that, is it sensible to think the virus has mutated and isn't nowhere near as strong as it was about 6 months ago?

 

 

There's any one of a number of possible causes for it (including deaths just being a bit further behind the curve right now), that's is one of them.

 

I'm not sure enough is known and can be proven about this topic to take a gamble to the degree that some people are suggesting.

[MonmoreStef]

6 minutes ago, StanSP said:

With case numbers increasing/deaths not doing so in line with that, is it sensible to think the virus has mutated and isn't nowhere near as strong as it was about 6 months ago?

 

 

Plenty of so called experts saying this. Problem is at the other end of the scale there’s still so called experts predicting chaos in a few months. Truth is they are all guessing and someone will be right but just as many will be miles out with their predictions. 

[Alf Bentley]

4 minutes ago, StanSP said:

With case numbers increasing/deaths not doing so in line with that, is it sensible to think the virus has mutated and isn't nowhere near as strong as it was about 6 months ago?

 

 

 

Probably not.

 

Until now, the rise in case numbers has been predominantly among younger people, who are much less likely to be badly affected.

 

However, in the last few days there have been reports that the virus is starting to spread more widely and some older people are getting infected again - and cases have now been reported in a number of care homes.

In tandem with that, there's been a slight increase in hospitalisations - though nothing like the scale of what happened in the spring.

 

If infections continue to spread among people of all ages in coming weeks and there's little increase in hospitalisations, ICU cases or deaths, it might be sensible to wonder about mutation (though experts seem to discount this for now).

Unless and until that happens, it seems more sensible to be aware that there's a 2-3 time week time lag between infections and deaths and to assume the disparity is down to most being young (and perhaps to better-informed treatment).

[WigstonWanderer]

45 minutes ago, StanSP said:

With case numbers increasing/deaths not doing so in line with that, is it sensible to think the virus has mutated and isn't nowhere near as strong as it was about 6 months ago?

 

 

All sorts of possibilities.
 

- Probably younger people getting infected and older, more vulnerable people making sure they keep well away.

 

- Hugely more testing making the number of cases look much larger than back in April.

 

- Much better treatments available, from cocktails of drugs to use of ventilators.

 

- Use of masks and other measures such as social distancing, etc probably mean that the initial viral load is much reduced.

 

The virologists I’ve heard addressing the possibility of mutation seem to dismiss the likelihood that it has become less virulent.

Edited 13 September 2020 by WigstonWanderer

[Crinklyfox]

44 minutes ago, StanSP said:

With case numbers increasing/deaths not doing so in line with that, is it sensible to think the virus has mutated and isn't nowhere near as strong as it was about 6 months ago?

 

 

There is only one known mutation of the virus - the 614D variant which was common in China at the start of the year has largely been replaced by the 614G variant.

 

We are fortunate that Covid-19 appears to be a slow mutating virus.  This increases the possibility of development of an effective vaccine.  Had the virus been a fast mutating variety, like the common cold, there would be very little chance of developing a vaccine as the coronavirus would have mutated before vaccine trials (which as you doubtless appreciate take many months) would have concluded.

Edited 13 September 2020 by Crinklyfox

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

With case numbers increasing/deaths not doing so in line with that, is it sensible to think the virus has mutated and isn't nowhere near as strong as it was about 6 months ago?

 

 

 

51 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

All sorts of possibilities.
 

- Probably younger people getting infected and older, more vulnerable people making sure they keep well away.

 

- Hugely more testing making the number of cases look much larger than back in April.

 

- Much better treatments available, from cocktails of drugs to use of ventilators.

 

- Use of masks and other measures such as social distancing, etc probably mean that the initial viral load is much reduced.

 

The virologists I’ve heard addressing the possibility of mutation seem to dismiss the likelihood that it has become less virulent.

There are some recent studies article which are beginning to muse this theory .......... it could possibly be the answer whilst we don’t have a vaccine and allow more responsible social interaction than the new restrictions coming in do. if science can actually show viral load is reduced to allow cases to be less severe then presumably those who are unconvinced about face coverings may become more involved. The extreme wing will never come over to the ‘dark side’.  

[simFox]

2 hours ago, Crinklyfox said:

There is only one known mutation of the virus - the 614D variant which was common in China at the start of the year has largely been replaced by the 614G variant.

 

We are fortunate that Covid-19 appears to be a slow mutating virus.  This increases the possibility of development of an effective vaccine.  Had the virus been a fast mutating variety, like the common cold, there would be very little chance of developing a vaccine as the coronavirus would have mutated before vaccine trials (which as you doubtless appreciate take many months) would have concluded.

Currently, there are six strains of coronavirus. The original one is the L strain, that appeared in Wuhan in December 2019. Its first mutation -- the S strain -- appeared at the beginning of 2020, while, since mid-January 2020, we have had strains V and G. To date strain G is the most widespread: it mutated into strains GR and GH at the end of February 2020.

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200803105246.htm

 

That's from August, so could be more. I've seen some genetic sequencing maps, but LeicsMac would probably be able to baffle tell us about those.

 

From my own observation and training (dot to dot colouring books) I don't think there are much differences, certainly not in relation to virulence. 

Edited 13 September 2020 by simFox