Coronavirus Thread

[StanSP]

3 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

That's incredibly unlikely given that it's not actually a symptom...

Sniffles in a loose sense...!

[FoxesDeb]

3 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Sniffles in a loose sense...!

So not sniffles then 

[StanSP]

3 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

So not sniffles then 

Using Col's words. I doubt the school's in question have shut because of 'sniffles'. I'd like to think it's a bit more serious than that.

[stix]

9 minutes ago, StanSP said:

I understand that, don't get me wrong. But with everything so unclear, you can't blame the headteachers for wanting to do what's right by their school/establishment.

 

To play devil's advocate, what if they just kept everyone there when people complaint of sniffles, and it turned out to that kid(s) had COVID and it passed to teachers, other kids, parents etc... That school will be criticised for not shutting down early to stop a potential spread

For me mate, if there’s a kid in a classroom that is coughing, A LOT, then that child needs to get themselves off home ASAP and be prioritised for a test. Even the track and trace could potentially be never ending. I’m self isolating now until Saturday through track and trace. But how far do you go with it, because I’ve had texts from work colleagues since asking whether they should also self isolate because I’ve been in contact with them. How far do you go?? 
 

Headteachers especially, need to have some common sense. 
 

The fact that a positive coronavirus test will be recorded as the cause of death before 28 days even if I had a heart attack after 27 days makes a mockery of this whole situation. 

[Heathrow fox]

If we are to have another fake lockdown,i’d be very surprised if work places were to shut this time round.Technically factories building sites and offices should be Covid safe.So a new lockdown would be even faker than the last one.The media seem desperate to make this our WW2 moment.It really isn’t.I despair.

[UniFox21]

1 hour ago, Col city fan said:

It’s already started

Headmasters shitting themselves and kids being sent home with the snuffles

Parents then having to socially isolate and completely overwhelming the test availability

It’s gonna be a long winter this one...

For what it's worth, a fair few academics at the institution I work at don't believe we'll get far into the term before lock downs occur

[The Syrup]

15 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

For what it's worth, a fair few academics at the institution I work at don't believe we'll get far into the term before lock downs occur

I can understand a local lockdown in hotspot areas, targeting specific things, but a 2nd national lockdown like we had in March will do far more damage than cv19 will ever do.

[Nod.E]

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

Yep, deaths within 28 days of a positive test are counted.

 

I've mentioned this already on here but there are massive parallels between the idiocy behind this crisis and the idiocy I see day to day in my job.

 

You know ads you see on Facebook and on sites like this? Well advertisers count on site actions or sales post-exposure to an ad. That can be post click or post view. The default Facebook attribution model is 28 day click, 1 day view. That is to say, if a sale happens up to 28 days after a click or up to 24 hours after a view, it will be counted as a sale that happened 'because of' the Facebook advertising. 

 

Issue is, you can change the attribution settings to include up to 28 day view. So if anybody who 'saw' - whether or not they actually saw the ad at all - an ad on Facebook and they happen to purchase something from the advertiser's site, it will count as a conversion. And this is what many media agencies do, and marketing managers are either not switched on enough to challenge this, or are happy to turn a blind eye because it makes them look good. (Just as those in the health profession are happy to turn a blind eye because it benefits them financially.)

 

The same happens in other platforms which serve ads on the likes of this site, and it's why you get followed around with the same ads over and over and over again. It makes no logical sense but there is this blind faith in flawed numbers which exactly matches the theme of the pandemic. Does my skull in.

 

Just because a prospective customer logged in to their Instagram/Facebook account for the 15th time on a particular day and happened to be exposed to an ad (based on the fact they had already expressed an interest) and happened to (shock horror) go on to purchase, does not necessarily mean there was any influence at all between event X (ad/positive test) and event Y (purchase/death).

 

Understanding causality is nuanced and humans don't deal well with nuance. It's too complex. We can just about do correlation and that's as good as we can expect, it seems.

 

You'd think we could find a way of elevating a national response beyond what you'd expect from the average human response to complexity, but apparently that's hoping for too much. Shame.

 

[Leicester_Loyal]

'Approximately 16,000 people may have died as a direct result of the coronavirus lockdown, new government figures show.

The shock number includes an estimated 6,000 people who did not go to A&E because they feared catching the coronavirus, and another 10,000 who died in care homes following early hospital discharges designed to free up capacity.'

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-death-toll-lockdown-uk-covid-19-update-a9660836.html

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, joachim1965 said:

That's  why the death figures are a load of bollocks,  show us the death rate of people who actually died as a direct result of covid, of course not , as zero deaths doesn't sell papers or have the general public shitting themselves.

You think that there are many people who die within four weeks of a positive covid test whose death wasn’t covid related ???
 

 

[Corky]

The problem occurs because cold symptoms are not a sign of the virus but sneezing can spread it.

[joachim1965]

2 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

You think that there are many people who die within four weeks of a positive covid test whose death wasn’t covid related ???
 

 

yes , cancer, heart attack, stroke, car accident, etc etc etc..........

[st albans fox]

2 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

yes , cancer, heart attack, stroke, car accident, etc etc etc..........

You’re just listing causes of death ....the likelihood of them occurring within a few weeks of the patient being covid positive are v slim - everyone tells me that almost no one has covid .....its all youngsters that won’t be poorly .....

[Leicester_Loyal]

8 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

You think that there are many people who die within four weeks of a positive covid test whose death wasn’t covid related ???
 

 

People can also catch it whilst ill in hospital or a care home due to an already weak immune system. Won't be huge numbers though.

[Nod.E]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

You’re just listing causes of death ....the likelihood of them occurring within a few weeks of the patient being covid positive are v slim - everyone tells me that almost no one has covid .....its all youngsters that won’t be poorly .....

Your argument relies on tests being very accurate. We know they aren't. Old people in 'being likely to die' shocker.

[joachim1965]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

You’re just listing causes of death ....the likelihood of them occurring within a few weeks of the patient being covid positive are v slim - everyone tells me that almost no one has covid .....its all youngsters that won’t be poorly .....

why don't they list deaths of people who actually died of covid related conditions, things that are directly attributed to covid and caused a person to die, they are the only deaths that should matter, not any cause providing a positive test was had in the previous 28 days.

 

[st albans fox]

8 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

why don't they list deaths of people who actually died of covid related conditions, things that are directly attributed to covid and caused a person to die, they are the only deaths that should matter, not any cause providing a positive test was had in the previous 28 days.

 

I agree 

[Sampson]

16 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

why don't they list deaths of people who actually died of covid related conditions, things that are directly attributed to covid and caused a person to die, they are the only deaths that should matter, not any cause providing a positive test was had in the previous 28 days.

 

I get that, but you're also massively overreaching based on what will be a small proportion of deaths based on a highly improbable coincidence.

 

Doctors and nurses who worked in hospitals back in March and April for decades will tell you it was the worst they ever experienced and that is even with the extra staff due to suspension of annual leave and all non-essential covid patients and many nurses from other wards had to be dragged onto intensive care and pre-intensive care units and nurses had 3 or 4 times as many patients each than they should do in normal times.

 

That doesn't happen in a typical seasonal flu epidemic. These people weren't all having heart attacks or strokes

 

I'm not doubting that there are a tiny proportion who have coincidentally had covid and that was put on their death certificate where really it was a heart attack or stroke that killed them. But that's a big coincidence and it's going to be a tiny proportion of the covid deaths. And you're massively over reaching trying to make it more than it is 

Edited 17 September 2020 by Sampson

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

6 minutes ago, Sampson said:

I get that, but you're also massively overreaching based on what will be a small proportion of deaths based on a highly improbable coincidence.

 

Doctors and nurses who worked in hospitals back in March and April for decades will tell you it was the worst they ever experienced and that is even with the extra staff due to suspension of annual leave and all non-essential covid patients and many nurses from other wards had to be dragged onto intensive care and pre-intensive care units and nurses had 3 or 4 times as many patients each than they should do in normal times.

 

That doesn't happen in a typical seasonal flu epidemic. These people weren't all having heart attacks or strokes

 

I'm not doubting that there are a tiny proportion who have coincidentally had covid and that was put on their death certificate where really it was a heart attack or stroke that killed them. But that's a big coincidence and it's going to be a tiny proportion of the covid deaths. And you're massively over reaching trying to make it more than it is 

So we are to completely ignore the underlying health issues which seem to be attached to most COVID deaths? 

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, FoxesDeb said:

So not sniffles then 

I think @StanSP means snoffles.

 

Much worse.

 

 

[fuchsntf]

On 16/09/2020 at 23:35, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Eight months on from it really kicking off, I think we can safely say that governments, scientists and the general public - right across the world - have no clear idea what's going on or how to deal with it.

At last...someone starts to understand....that takes "One UpTheLeague"

Been trying to drop hints these last five months....

 

Every Fly by Night wants a piece of the action/ Plus express an opinion...Stats after Stats After Stats ;  informatplus in every country....dodgy,unclear,Non really substantiated,Interviews & Reports Non seem  delivered on a honest sound-base.

Public/countries-populace being Short Schrifted in up front Information.Then downright poor incompetent ,babbling,contradictive intercourse ,plus Information platforms/organisation from the various countries Forefront leaders & politicians..

Edited 17 September 2020 by fuchsntf

[FoxesDeb]

12 minutes ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

So we are to completely ignore the underlying health issues which seem to be attached to most COVID deaths? 

The underlying health conditions were not necessarily going to cause any of those people to die at the time they did had they not contracted covid though. Millions of people live with underlying health conditions, you can live a perfectly normal life, and have a pretty good life expectancy, with many underlying health conditions. It's not these conditions that killed these people at the time they died.

[Sampson]

26 minutes ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

So we are to completely ignore the underlying health issues which seem to be attached to most COVID deaths? 

No. But as we've discussed on here many times before "underlying conditions" takes into account about half the population of the UK. It doesn't mean people who were already on their death beds.

 

Listen, all I know is back in March/April time for about 6 weeks or so there were people coughing and struggling to breath in hospitals to an extent that probably any experienced doctor or nurse who had been working in hospitals for 30 or 40 years had never seen before. And that over 50,000 extra people died in those few weeks than usually do.

 

Does that mean it will ever get that bad again and it hasn't already gone through a large percentage of the population? No it doesn't.

 

Does that mean it's the end of the pandemic? Also no.

 

Does that mean we should be incredibly cautious as we turn into the autumn months approaching the typical seasonal flu seasons of November-February given that everything points to a virus of covid's make-up being much worse in those months and we will have the typical flu season on top of that which the nhs capacity is built around? I'd say so, yes.

 

That doesn't mean it will happen. Maybe the same people who get flu will get covid. Maybe the same people who would have died from covid already have died back in the spring. Maybe the virus won't be affected by the winter... All absolutely plausable. But there is a very good chance that the winter could be just as bad or worse as it was back in March/April with the double attack of covid and flu. And the truth is no one knows - scientists or politicians don't even, let alone anyone here. Anyone saying the pandemic is over is just speculating based on guesswork. So far, it's an unusually warm mid-September, temperatures are as high as 30C in some parts of the country.  It's the below freezing temperatures in December, January and February that is of concern much more so than now.

 

All I know is we absolutely should be planning for that very realistic scenario as a society.

Edited 17 September 2020 by Sampson

[WigstonWanderer]

2 hours ago, FoxesDeb said:

That's incredibly unlikely given that it's not actually a symptom...

Opinion is divided

 

https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2020/03/coronavirus-covid-19-identifying-the-symptoms.pdf
 

See runny nose

Edited 17 September 2020 by WigstonWanderer

[Finnaldo]

People dying within a month of Covid could fairly be considered a Covid death, no? I understand that shouldn’t be the case if they clearly die of something else (an accident or other physical trauma death) but if I otherwise it’s fair assume it greatly weakened them. 
 

Anecdotally, almost a decade ago my grandad got cancer, and beat it. But he was a shell of the man he was afterwards and within a few months he was in end of life care in LOROS. I don’t think he would have deteriorated anywhere near as quick without the cancer, ultimately it did kill him. Personally I could see that applied to some post-Covid deaths too.