Coronavirus Thread

[yorkie1999]

2 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

Hancock needs a strong drink after this.  As expected he has quoted Spain and tells us the enforcement in Oldham needs to improve!

I wonder if anyone’s told him that people in the north of England catch colds and flu’s a lot, mainly due to it being a cold and wet place.

[Col city fan]

13 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

The whole point of the original lockdown was to buy us some time for the nhs to cope with a possible second wave latter in the year, I.e. now, and give some support so our frailing economy stood a chance of recovering. we built  the nightingale hospitals around the country, bought all those ventilators and trained all those staff , the army included, as well as stocked up on medical supplies. That to me seemed a very good idea but did I dream all that, did it really happen, because now we are approaching that second wave, allegedly, we’re talking about another lockdown and fining people 10 grand if they don’t obey the wishes of Karen ringing you up to say a pupil in little Johnny’s class has been tested positive and because you visited the same McDonald’s as his little sister, you have to sit at home in your Jim jams , eat hob nobs all day and worry about going back to a workplace that won’t be there because everyone else has been contacted by Karen and they should also stay at home. Who thought that Fvckin plan up??

I get what you are saying but I think the govt are having to take draconian measures because elements of the British public are generally so bloody stupid

I’m on holiday at the moment and seeing tons of people sat inside in pubs, not socially distancing, not wearing face masks and (honestly) just socialising as though Covid has ever happened 

HOWEVER... two points

1. Yes, you could say that pub landlords should be imposing strict rules but if they did, and something kicked off, where are the police to attend to back this up? And would the landlord be supported by other punters in the pub at the time?

I don’t think so......

2. The real problem has been lack of enforcement of ‘the rules’. Even with more strict measures, we don’t have the police to enforce them, or strong local government to prosecute people 

 

The rules have been confusing and often unenforceable. And elements of the British public know this and exploit it

 

As I posted earlier, there are STILL some Neanderthals who refuse to accept there even is a problem 

The govt have done things to try to tackle Covid, some right and some wrong

But there are parts of British society that are just plain dumb, which has not helped anyone

Thus notion of ‘we are all in it together’ is bollox. 
We should be.... the reality is we aren’t 

Edited 20 September 2020 by Col city fan

[yorkie1999]

2 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

That's something I have only heard anecdotal evidence about.  Have you got figures for the risk of long-term covid effects?  Where did you see that their risk is not low?

There ain’t any figures yet because we haven’t got to the long term bit yet.

[Legend_in_blue]

Pity Marr didn't question Hancock over the reliability of the tests.  There's plenty of scientific belief out there that they are not all that accurate.  Under strain and full to bursting surely the accuracy of the testing has to come under question.

[yorkie1999]

4 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

Pity Marr didn't question Hancock over the reliability of the tests.  There's plenty of scientific belief out there that they are not all that accurate.  Under strain and full to bursting surely the accuracy of the testing has to come under question.

No one who’s part of the same gravy train is going to question the science. Science follows the funding.

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

No one who’s part of the same gravy train is going to question the science. Science follows the funding.

I must have missed the legion of filthy rich scientists that would be a corroboration for this.

[joachim1965]

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

It's not even known if it does "run its course", immunity might not even last. 

 

Let's say it does last and herd immunity is going to work, you can't just throw the shackles off. It will devastate a percentage of the population and health services. What you suggest is exactly what we're doing with an attempt to keep control. 

It's not an unknown though is it.  Sweden haven't done too badly with the herd immunity plan. 

If immunity doesn't last we are not going to get rid of it, do you suggest we hide forever.

[Bellend Sebastian]

Here's a fun story, apologies if you've heard similar elsewhere.

 

Wife's colleague (senior healthcare professional) attempts to book COVID-19 test in Leicester. Website says no availability in Leicester. There are appointments, however, in Aberdeen.

 

Just out of interest, then checks availability pretending to live in Aberdeen postcode.  No availability there, but there are spaces in - wait for it - Leicester

[SpacedX]

3 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

No one who’s part of the same gravy train is going to question the science. Science follows the funding.

Oh Jesus wept - must we really go through this again and again? The entire basis of the scientific method is to falsify, that's how science works. I might need to bump my original reply to you, because I can't be bothered to type it over and over and over again, Science is axiomatic - and has a voice of its own.  No doubt funding can have a vested interest and industry can set an agenda, and the science may as you said "follow" this  because the funding is far more substantial than QR sources - but the best science and the breakthroughs chase the funding, they don't follow it. Also, have you any idea how complex the nature of contemporary funding is even for for a Post Graduate Researcher not to mention a Post Doctoral Fellow/Early Career Researcher, an established academic and even a Research lead institution? Do understand the many sources beyond UKRI or industry? Of course you don't. 

 

For every researcher, every scientist, every academic institution, research is measured by impact and that is not simply in terms of its financial worth or tangible ability to attract funding. Scientific research must demonstrate that it is not only complimenting and adding to the existing corpus of knowledge and publications, but progressing and moving the subject area forward, that there is utilitarian value, that it is ethical in its execution and also its aims of objectives and that there are beneficiaries. 

 

The suggestion that entire branches of science the world over are collectively co opted and coerced by corporate interest is not only absurd but borderline online conspiracy nut job rhetoric. As I attempted to explain to you last time you parroted this nonsense, the greatest acclaim in science has always gone to those that refute a claim or see far beyond it. That's a countervailing motive far stronger than the pressure to conform or remain in the thrall of corporate interest. 

 

 

[Kopfkino]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I honestly aspire to have the same level of certainty about topics that are wholly uncertain as a fair few of the contributors to this thread.

 

I'm not sure why but it really seems to just work better that way for them.

 

Aye, the absence of doubt is really something and I just feel their points would have more gravitas if they conceded some doubt. People can take any number of coherent positions about the extent of the actions we take but their arguments are instantly weakened by the absence of doubt and could be strengthened by embracing ambiguity.

 

Of course, the plan of campaign would be different if you knew everything about the long-term effects, how long immunity lasts, if a vaccine is 2 months or 5 years away etc.

 

Even if in future times it is shown that a different approach would have yielded 'better' results, it doesn't mean the approach opted for at the time was wrong either. We're dealing with an unprecedented event and little scientific certainty on a number of key variables so being cautious and treading carefully is reasonable. 

[Guest Harrydc]

I for one will never report my neighbours for having a few family members round. 

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Oh Jesus wept - must we really go through this again and again? The entire basis of the scientific method is to falsify, that's how science works. I might need to bump my original reply to you, because I can't be bothered to type it over and over and over again, Science is axiomatic - and has a voice of its own.  No doubt funding can have a vested interest and industry can set an agenda, and the science may as you said "follow" this  because the funding is far more substantial than QR sources - but the best science and the breakthroughs chase the funding, they don't follow it. Also, have you any idea how complex the nature of contemporary funding is even for for a Post Graduate Researcher not to mention a Post Doctoral Fellow/Early Career Researcher, an established academic and even a Research lead institution? Do understand the many sources beyond UKRI or industry? Of course you don't. 

 

For every researcher, every scientist, every academic institution, research is measured by impact and that is not simply in terms of its financial worth or tangible ability to attract funding. Scientific research must demonstrate that it is not only complimenting and adding to the existing corpus of knowledge and publications, but progressing and moving the subject area forward, that there is utilitarian value, that it is ethical in its execution and also its aims of objectives and that there are beneficiaries. 

 

The suggestion that entire branches of science the world over are collectively co opted and coerced by corporate interest is not only absurd but borderline online conspiracy nut job rhetoric. As I attempted to explain to you last time you parroted this nonsense, the greatest acclaim in science has always gone to those that refute a claim or see far beyond it. That's a countervailing motive far stronger than the pressure to conform or remain in the thrall of corporate interest. 

 

 

Can we "pin" a post so that everyone who reads this thread must read that post first?

 

Because if we can, this one should be right there.

 

11 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Aye, the absence of doubt is really something and I just feel their points would have more gravitas if they conceded some doubt. People can take any number of coherent positions about the extent of the actions we take but their arguments are instantly weakened by the absence of doubt and could be strengthened by embracing ambiguity.

 

Of course, the plan of campaign would be different if you knew everything about the long-term effects, how long immunity lasts, if a vaccine is 2 months or 5 years away etc.

 

Even if in future times it is shown that a different approach would have yielded 'better' results, it doesn't mean the approach opted for at the time was wrong either. We're dealing with an unprecedented event and little scientific certainty on a number of key variables so being cautious and treading carefully is reasonable. 

Unfortunately there seems to be a rather large school of thought right now that stipulates that any sign of doubt is a weakness and weakness is bad, so it can't be shown. Even on issues where doubt is clearly self-evident.

 

It's ego-driven and given how it lends itself to often flawed decision making, it has the potential to be hugely counterproductive both now and for the future - and yet, such attitudes remain very much prevalent.

[Babylon]

15 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

It's not an unknown though is it.  Sweden haven't done too badly with the herd immunity plan. 

If immunity doesn't last we are not going to get rid of it, do you suggest we 

Yes it is unknown, it’s not known how long immunity lasts. There are reinfection cases.

 

Sweden has a high death rate per capita. And it’s still early days.

 

I suggest we let the scientist study it, understand it and inform the decisions we make.

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

51 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

I get what you are saying but I think the govt are having to take draconian measures because elements of the British public are generally so bloody stupid

I’m on holiday at the moment and seeing tons of people sat inside in pubs, not socially distancing, not wearing face masks and (honestly) just socialising as though Covid has ever happened 

HOWEVER... two points

1. Yes, you could say that pub landlords should be imposing strict rules but if they did, and something kicked off, where are the police to attend to back this up? And would the landlord be supported by other punters in the pub at the time?

I don’t think so......

2. The real problem has been lack of enforcement of ‘the rules’. Even with more strict measures, we don’t have the police to enforce them, or strong local government to prosecute people 

 

The rules have been confusing and often unenforceable. And elements of the British public know this and exploit it

 

As I posted earlier, there are STILL some Neanderthals who refuse to accept there even is a problem 

The govt have done things to try to tackle Covid, some right and some wrong

But there are parts of British society that are just plain dumb, which has not helped anyone

Thus notion of ‘we are all in it together’ is bollox. 
We should be.... the reality is we aren’t 

Your last sentence is the crux of the matter, which even on here reflects the widening gap in opinions.

As I mentioned earlier generally the older retired generation will want lockdown and added precautions as they have no mortgage to pay or job to hang on to, their health and avoiding the virus being first and foremost in their thoughts.

Whereas younger people have mortgages,  are worried about their employment etc and those things are driving their need to get the country back to some kind of normality.

This is a generalisation I know but most people will always think what is best for themselves hence the split in opinions.

 

And yes there are plenty of dumb people around not helping anyone.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

That's something I have only heard anecdotal evidence about.  Have you got figures for the risk of long-term covid effects?  Where did you see that their risk is not low?

 

The evidence is often imprecise. By definition, I suppose it's hard to have good hard data about the long-term impact of something that's only been around for 6 months.

Especially if many long-Covid patients are staying at home & consulting their GP & others presenting at hospital with apparently unrelated conditions (heart issues etc.).

 

This one, written by a GP, caught my attention:  https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/health/2020/09/why-low-risk-population-could-be-care-homes-scandal-new-covid-outbreak

"We now know that for anywhere between 5 and 10 per cent of patients, Covid-19 becomes a chronic disease, relapsing and remitting for months on end. There are ongoing respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms, and profound fatigue, heart rhythm disturbances, life-threatening blood clot formation, and debilitating abnormalities of the nervous system. While some “long Covid” patients do recover, many have not as yet. Most are frightened about the future, and enervated by being a “medical mystery” for whom no one can give definitive explanations, advice or prognosis. The demographics of “long Covid” are very different from those for hospitalisation and mortality; if anything, younger people appear disproportionately affected. And instances of relapsing-remitting disease are independent of severity – the majority of sufferers were never unwell enough to be admitted to hospital at any stage".

 

Also....

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-long-term-health-effects/covid-19-long-term-health-effects

"Around 10% of mild coronavirus (COVID-19) cases who were not admitted to hospital have reported symptoms lasting more than 4 weeks. A number of hospitalised cases reported continuing symptoms for 8 or more weeks following discharge".

[Followed by long list of long-Covid issues, many of them serious: e.g. heart failure, liver & kidney dysfunction, clotting disorders]

 

https://post.parliament.uk/short-and-long-term-health-effects-of-covid-19/

"It is still unclear how many people are affected by long COVID symptoms, or how long they last. Importantly, long-term consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection can be experienced by the entire range of COVID-19 patients, from those who show no common symptoms of COVID-19 to severe cases. Given that some of these symptoms emerge late, sometimes people experiencing them no longer test positive for the virus. An Italian study of 143 hospitalised patients who had recovered from COVID-19 reported that 87.4% of them experienced at least one COVID-19-related symptom 2 months after symptom onset. A US-based study on 292 mild COVID-19 cases reported that 35% of them didn’t fully recover after 2 weeks following symptom onset. Data collected by the COVID Symptom Study indicate that 10% of people (often classified as ‘mild’ COVID-19 cases) experience prolonged symptoms after 3 weeks or more. Anecdotal reports suggest that long COVID symptoms can last more than 4 months".

[whoareyaaa]

Anyone that is in the 1% category should do everything they can to protect there self and the other 99% of which it has little effect on should get on with there lives imo.

 

this is getting ridiculous.

 

way to much scaremongering going on from the gov and media when the stats show it effect hardly 1% of the population

Edited 20 September 2020 by whoareyaaa

[Crinklyfox]

I'm of the older generation referred to in this thread.

 

For the record, I don't want a lockdown of the type we suffered previously.  I'm classified as extremely clinically vulnerable as I have a couple of existing medical conditions, one of which is a heart condition caused by contracting a virus when I was 40 (same one as Alf).  I hated being locked down but did so as I was not only concerned for my own health if I contracted Covid-19, but was also very concerned for my wife, who has her own vulnerabilities which could have been problematic if she caught Covid-19 from me.

 

Since lockdown ended I've happily resumed leaving the house, shopping and occasionally meeting friends.  I want to keep doing that and I think that I can provided that we all follow the simple rules for social distancing and mask wearing.  I despair occasionally when I see the actions of those who ignore those minimal interruptions to the lifestyles we had before Covid-19.

 

There are some who profess that Covid-19 will always be with us, but that's not certain yet.  The common cold coronavirus is with us and as it is a rapidly mutating virus we have little chance of ever developing an effective vaccine.  The influenza virus also mutates, but it appears at a slower rate, so whilst we cannot get rid of it we can develop vaccines to counter new strains, and millions get the annual flu jab to protect them.  The SARS outbreak of 2002 was over by 2004, the virus is no longer around.  The MERS virus of 2012 is still around but case numbers are low (which is just as well as it has an Infection Fatality Rate of over 30%).

 

I still believe that a vaccine is our way out of this.  There are several vaccines in Stage 3 trials and if just one of them is successful then mass inoculation will confer the herd immunity that will halt the spread of Covid-19.  The Stage 2 trial of the Oxford Group vaccine was so successful that it is virtually assured that it will work, but the Stage 3 trial has to be carried out to ensure it will do no harm.  And all the drug manufacturers will want cast iron evidence that this is the case before the vaccine is approved as there is likely to be an army of lawyers waiting to sue them the first time someone gets an adverse reaction.  So I can see an end to all this, we just need to suppress the spread until the vaccine arrives.

 

[StanSP]

1 hour ago, Harrydc said:

I for one will never report my neighbours for having a few family members round. 

Same. 

 

It's like they want to break the communities apart and ditch the blame on people even more than they already have.

 

 

I agree people have to take responsibility and I'd like to think the majority are compliant, abide by the rules and it's just a few that ruin it for the others.

 

But as @Mark 'expert' Lawrenson's post, we were told to go out, socialise, go to the pub, go to work, get back out to go back towards 'normality'. Surely the government have to take up some responsibility too?

 

They don't really help themselves either and just goes more towards thinking it's one rule for them while they shit on others who have to follow other rules.

[Corky]

"The public are to blame". The public is roughly 60 million people. The public are also to be praised for being vigilant, patient, caring, understanding, thoughtful and responsible, too, which has no doubt helped millions.

 

Hancock is such a patronising twerp.

[Leicester_Loyal]

Following the rule of 6 and not having parties won't make a difference in the grand scheme of things, with schools and universities open, this virus will spread, you can't halt it. Passing the blame back onto the public is a ridiculous thing to do, even if everyone followed all the rules 24/7, it would still spread.

[RowlattsFox]

As expected Blackpool is heaving this weekend. lots of people coming just to take a picture of how busy it is so they can show social media how noone is taking it seriously. Illuminations are busy of course and very little mask wearing because majority are outside, personally glad to see a bit of normality this time of year. 

The problem with all the threat of lockdown is that it encourages people to think we might as well go now before we don't get the chance. If you're going to lockdown, just ****ing do it rather than keep saying it might happen. 

[Nalis]

8 minutes ago, RowlattsFox said:

As expected Blackpool is heaving this weekend. lots of people coming just to take a picture of how busy it is so they can show social media how noone is taking it seriously. Illuminations are busy of course and very little mask wearing because majority are outside, personally glad to see a bit of normality this time of year. 

The problem with all the threat of lockdown is that it encourages people to think we might as well go now before we don't get the chance. If you're going to lockdown, just ****ing do it rather than keep saying it might happen. 

Fvcking hate this shit,  no doubt any pics are taken with the long len shots too just to make it look worse again.

 

Reminds of the guy who has a tweet going viral back in April when he took pictures and complained about how busy his flight was from London to Belfast, was interviewed by the BBC and it made numerous national media ouets. The ironically was off the scale.

[CosbehFox]

15 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

The alternative is to get on with it...a bit like how we get along with cancer. We just carry on. 

 

Allow 'at risk' groups to take indefinite sick leave. Set strategies for those who wish or need to shield. Provide guidance and advice to the rest of us.... who'll then get on doing whatever we want to do, go where we want to go and everything else.

I know your point but can we catch cancer ? 

[Lionator]

3 hours ago, Crinklyfox said:

I still believe that a vaccine is our way out of this.  There are several vaccines in Stage 3 trials and if just one of them is successful then mass inoculation will confer the herd immunity that will halt the spread of Covid-19.  The Stage 2 trial of the Oxford Group vaccine was so successful that it is virtually assured that it will work, but the Stage 3 trial has to be carried out to ensure it will do no harm.  And all the drug manufacturers will want cast iron evidence that this is the case before the vaccine is approved as there is likely to be an army of lawyers waiting to sue them the first time someone gets an adverse reaction.  So I can see an end to all this, we just need to suppress the spread until the vaccine arrives.

 

Correct. Covid will always exist because the vaccine won't be 100% successful (no vaccine is) and a portion of the population wont take the vaccine but if 70-80% do then it'll be epidemic over in the UK.

 

There's the Oxford/Astra vaccine which now has a built a bit of a tinfoil hat following given the pause in progression, though this is our best bet for mass vaccination.

 

Then we have the Moderna vaccine which the UK hasn't got a deal for but looks promising.

 

However all good bets are on the Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine from US/Germany. We've got a 30M dose deal and they're predicted to have enough data to seek approval at the end of October.

 

I think what we'll see is that healthcare workers and the most vulnerable will be vaccinated with the BioNtech vaccine around Christmas before the Oxford vaccine or perhaps another will be available for the general population from around March/April next year.

 

So we just have to get through for a few more months. If there was no hope of a vaccine then I don't think we'd be considering locking down again.

[SpacedX]

6 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Correct. Covid will always exist because the vaccine won't be 100% successful (no vaccine is) and a portion of the population wont take the vaccine but if 70-80% do then it'll be epidemic over in the UK.

 

There's the Oxford/Astra vaccine which now has a built a bit of a tinfoil hat following given the pause in progression, though this is our best bet for mass vaccination.

 

Then we have the Moderna vaccine which the UK hasn't got a deal for but looks promising.

 

However all good bets are on the Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine from US/Germany. We've got a 30M dose deal and they're predicted to have enough data to seek approval at the end of October.

 

I think what we'll see is that healthcare workers and the most vulnerable will be vaccinated with the BioNtech vaccine around Christmas before the Oxford vaccine or perhaps another will be available for the general population from around March/April next year.

 

So we just have to get through for a few more months. If there was no hope of a vaccine then I don't think we'd be considering locking down again.

If we are forced to opt for a vaccine that gives only one year of protection, then obviously we are doomed to have Covid become endemic, and the infection will always with us. The world has changed and people need to learn to adapt to this. We need to be prepared for programmes of extensive monitoring for infections backed up by swift outbreak containment. People must play their part too, by maintaining handwashing, physical distancing and avoiding gatherings, particularly in enclosed spaces - unfortunately, we know that many are flagrantly flouting regulations and guidelines hence the Hancock's clumsily worded punitive rhetoric.

 

Repurposed drugs are faster to test than vaccines, so that raises the possibility of antiviral or an antibody treatment that works before the latter becomes available. Immediate treatment when symptoms come on could at least reduce the death rate. Although equal access, full transparency and cost are a concern - I am reminded of the Tamiflu farce. 

 

Fascinatingly, there is t speculation amongst leading epidemiologists and virologists that common cold coronaviruses crossed into humans in the distant past and caused similar illness before settling down.