Coronavirus Thread

[Leicester_Loyal]

10pm curfew for pubs to be announced tomorrow.

 

https://metro.co.uk/2020/09/21/boris-johnson-to-announce-10pm-curfew-on-pubs-across-england-13304497/

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

1 minute ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

10pm curfew for pubs to be announced tomorrow.

 

https://metro.co.uk/2020/09/21/boris-johnson-to-announce-10pm-curfew-on-pubs-across-england-13304497/

That dastardly covid bogey man only comes out after 10pm 

[Legend_in_blue]

7 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Is it? Fascinating. Source? 

You will find plenty of data here:

 

https://www.cebm.net/oxford-covid-19-evidence-service/

 

One of the latest pieces of data...

 

 

Two key questions:  1 - how many of the infections pre March, of which there are many, could be attributed to COVID bearing in mind testing hadn't begun on this before March?  Considering current levels of infection, although 2 weeks prior, is moving back to level 4 alert the right thing to do?  Looks more like a move to level 2 when considering the latter third of the graph.

 

I'm just about to listen back to Whitty from this morning so will see what his take is on it.  

 

 

Edited 21 September 2020 by Legend_in_blue

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

I went out in a city centre the other weekend, it was so dead nearly everywhere was closing at 10 anyway, the clubs aren't open and haven't been open since this all began. This will change literally nothing as far as I can tell. 

[tom27111]

10 minutes ago, Nalis said:

You are right, lets blame the young people for spreading the virus, in those dastardly retail and hospitality jobs while living in studio flats with no outside space because they cant afford to buy....

Sorry? No, the one's that still participate in mass gatherings are the one's 

[RowlattsFox]

Anyone been into town past 10pm since they reopened? Not sure how busy they are and how places are trying to have social distancing. Only been in my local at that time and a curfew will make no difference, the same people are in there before and after 10. 

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

5 minutes ago, tom27111 said:

Sorry? No, the one's that still participate in mass gatherings are the one's 

Sorry? So not the young student who was hoping to go back to his bar job to help pay his rent and living expenses,  they’ll be pleased you’ve let him/her off the hook. 

[String fellow]

Earlier this year, we were told that Italy was suffering badly, due to its high proportion of older people and because of extended families living together. However, fast forward six months, and Italy is showing few signs of a second wave, whilst in Spain, France and the UK, cases are rocketing back up. What's Italy doing right that the other three are doing wrong?  

[tom27111]

1 minute ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

Sorry? So not the young student who was hoping to go back to his bar job to help pay his rent and living expenses,  they’ll be pleased you’ve let him/her off the hook. 

 

You are aware that everyone has bills to pay? Put food in their mouths? Keep a roof over their heads?

 

If this was a virus that exclusively killed under 30's, we'd be getting comments like "the boomers can't keep to lockdown"

 

But no, people were asked to stick to guidelines and advice, but a lot haven't, then get upset when there could be a second lockdown.

 

It's not rocket science.

[Legend_in_blue]

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/epidemic-curves-organised-by-reporting-date-and-specimen-date/

 

This is absolutely brilliant analysis.  Take a step back, ignore the mass hysteria in the media and work with the facts are they are presented here.  

 

It's amazing what a little tinkering with the data can achieve and how it can drive agendas.

[Leicester_Loyal]

Just now, tom27111 said:

 

You are aware that everyone has bills to pay? Put food in their mouths? Keep a roof over their heads?

 

If this was a virus that exclusively killed under 30's, we'd be getting comments like "the boomers can't keep to lockdown"

 

But no, people were asked to stick to guidelines and advice, but a lot haven't, then get upset when there could be a second lockdown.

 

It's not rocket science.

Cases rising has nothing to do with the fact schools have opened then? Nor universities have gone back.

 

I posted some stats a few pages ago, the majority of the spreading was in care homes, schools, hospitals and universities. I can't think of one person I know who's caught it at a mass gathering, the ones I know have all caught it at work, because they shared the same space as others .

[tom27111]

1 minute ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Cases rising has nothing to do with the fact schools have opened then? Nor universities have gone back.

 

I posted some stats a few pages ago, the majority of the spreading was in care homes, schools, hospitals and universities. I can't think of one person I know who's caught it at a mass gathering, the ones I know have all caught it at work, because they shared the same space as others .

Ever thought how it got in to workplaces to start with?

 

 

[yorkie1999]

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44275043/ns/health-cold_and_flu/t/why-some-people-dont-get-flu/

 

In the event of no vaccine being available for a couple of years, I think that this study from 2011 on why some people get flu and some don't could be a way out of lockdowns. What they found was they could spot if someone, after becoming infected with the flu virus, was going to get flu symptoms 36 hours beforehand, this would buy time so they could isolate earlier therefore reducing the chances of passing it on, or in other words reducing the R value.

[Leicester_Loyal]

1 minute ago, tom27111 said:

Ever thought how it got in to workplaces to start with?

 

 

Probably through some bloke who went out to eat to help the economy out like Boris asked him to. Who knows.

 

You can follow all the rules in the world and you can still catch this virus.

[RowlattsFox]

Where are all these mass gatherings happening? 

[Milky]

14 minutes ago, RowlattsFox said:

Where are all these mass gatherings happening? 

Dr Singh's bum hole 

[SpacedX]

14 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

You will find plenty of data here:

 

https://www.cebm.net/oxford-covid-19-evidence-service/

 

 

 

Indeed, it's the CEBM, however, none of it confirming or supporting the following:

 

25 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

Unfortunately the govt appear to correlate not going out with a decrease in cases but the scientific evidence is mounting substantially against this and people are wising up to it.

Actually worldwide overwhelming evidence suggests that lockdowns help contain coronavirus outbreaks and prevent additional deaths. Data shows that where lockdown measures have been observed to prevent the COVID-19 pandemic, that the spread of the virus can be significantly reduced and suppressed by this preventive restriction. However, that alone will not actually stop the virus, China had to undertake rapid testing of any suspect case, immediate isolation of anyone who was a confirmed or suspected case, and then quarantine the close contacts for 14 days so that they could then figure out if any were infected. Those were the measures that stopped transmission in China, as opposed to simply major travel restrictions and lockdowns. 

 

Nonetheless, in Wuhan, China, it has been found that the city's lockdown on January 23 prevented tens of thousands of infections throughout the Hubei province. Without the lockdown, cases in Hubei would have been 65% higher. International researchers also recently determined that overall social distancing in China reduced the number of daily interactions by at least sevenfold, thereby lowering transmission. I'll try to find the study.

 

In America, there's no consistent definition of a lockdown across all 50 states. Some states allowed restaurants to stay open, while others issued only partial stay-at-home orders. New York is also an outlier, since it represents more than a third of the nation's coronavirus deaths, far more than any other individual state. That means it can skew the results. And actually, is the universal concept of 'lockdown' even meaningful? Areas with higher density may require stricter lockdowns than most since they create more opportunities for people to interact. Places with a higher proportion of elderly residents who are especially vulnerable to the virus might also benefit from more stringent shutdowns, too. Optimal lockdown policy appears to involve a severe lockdown two weeks after an outbreak is detected, which is then gradually withdrawn after three months - although as winter approaches even this observation may not be valid.

 

This is an incredibly complex set of variables that we are confronted with. The populist notion that 'the poeple are getting wise to it' is complete horseshit and that is precisely the foolhardy rhetoric and misconception that causes guidelines and restrictions to be flagrantly flouted, will inflict further damage to the economy long term and ultimately costs lives.

 

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

25 minutes ago, tom27111 said:

 

You are aware that everyone has bills to pay? Put food in their mouths? Keep a roof over their heads?

 

If this was a virus that exclusively killed under 30's, we'd be getting comments like "the boomers can't keep to lockdown"

 

But no, people were asked to stick to guidelines and advice, but a lot haven't, then get upset when there could be a second lockdown.

 

It's not rocket science.

Once again not everyone has rent to pay or a mortgage, you must be aware of that? That’s not “rocket science” Plenty of people own their own house and have not got the worry of not being able to pay the rent or mortgage.

 

Dont pick on someone who wants to go to work to pay their bills and rent.

[tom27111]

1 minute ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

Once again not everyone has rent to pay or a mortgage, you must be aware of that? That’s not “rocket science” Plenty of people own their own house and have not got the worry of not being able to pay the rent or mortgage.

 

Dont pick on someone who wants to go to work to pay their bills and rent.

 

Yeah, OK.

 

I can see why you picked your username. 

 

Clueless.

[Leicester_Loyal]

https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1308069545274376194?s=20https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1308069545274376194?s=20

 

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

2 minutes ago, tom27111 said:

 

Yeah, OK.

 

I can see why you picked your username. 

 

Clueless.

 Please explain why I’m clueless? I’m intrigued..... what have I said that’s incorrect?

As for usernames it must of took you a very very long time to think of yours 😊

Edited 21 September 2020 by Mark 'expert' Lawrenson

[reynard]

29 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Probably through some bloke who went out to eat to help the economy out like Boris asked him to. Who knows.

 

You can follow all the rules in the world and you can still catch this virus.

You certainly can but those not following the rules, of which there are many of all ages, are not helping. Everyone needs to be just a little bit more considerate and we could control this more easily.

[simFox]

10 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Indeed, it's the CEBM, however, none of it confirming or supporting the following:

 

Actually worldwide overwhelming evidence suggests that lockdowns help contain coronavirus outbreaks and prevent additional deaths. Data shows that where lockdown measures have been observed to prevent the COVID-19 pandemic, that the spread of the virus can be significantly reduced and suppressed by this preventive restriction. However, that alone will not actually stop the virus, China had to undertake rapid testing of any suspect case, immediate isolation of anyone who was a confirmed or suspected case, and then quarantine the close contacts for 14 days so that they could then figure out if any were infected. Those were the measures that stopped transmission in China, as opposed to simply major travel restrictions and lockdowns. 

 

Nonetheless, in Wuhan, China, it has been found that the city's lockdown on January 23 prevented tens of thousands of infections throughout the Hubei province. Without the lockdown, cases in Hubei would have been 65% higher. International researchers also recently determined that overall social distancing in China reduced the number of daily interactions by at least sevenfold, thereby lowering transmission. I'll try to find the study.

 

In America, there's no consistent definition of a lockdown across all 50 states. Some states allowed restaurants to stay open, while others issued only partial stay-at-home orders. New York is also an outlier, since it represents more than a third of the nation's coronavirus deaths, far more than any other individual state. That means it can skew the results. And actually, is the universal concept of 'lockdown' even meaningful? Areas with higher density may require stricter lockdowns than most since they create more opportunities for people to interact. Places with a higher proportion of elderly residents who are especially vulnerable to the virus might also benefit from more stringent shutdowns, too. Optimal lockdown policy appears to involve a severe lockdown two weeks after an outbreak is detected, which is then gradually withdrawn after three months - although as winter approaches even this observation may not be valid.

 

This is an incredibly complex set of variables that we are confronted with. The populist notion that 'the poeple are getting wise to it' is complete horseshit and that is precisely the foolhardy rhetoric and misconception that causes guidelines and restrictions to be flagrantly flouted, will inflict further damage to the economy long term and ultimately costs lives.

 

Yet Peru with the harshest of all lockdowns has had one of the worst deathrates.

 

The only thing a lockdown does is delay the inevitable.

 

People in Brazil are getting through it with next to no restrictions whatsoever, it's them that will be back to normal soonest while the rest of us are still locking-down and self destructing in multiple ways.

[Nalis]

43 minutes ago, String fellow said:

Earlier this year, we were told that Italy was suffering badly, due to its high proportion of older people and because of extended families living together. However, fast forward six months, and Italy is showing few signs of a second wave, whilst in Spain, France and the UK, cases are rocketing back up. What's Italy doing right that the other three are doing wrong?  

Interesting question

[SpacedX]

Just now, simFox said:

Yet Peru with the harshest of all lockdowns has had one of the worst deathrates.

 

The only thing a lockdown does is delay the inevitable.

 

People in Brazil are getting through it with next to no restrictions whatsoever, it's them that will be back to normal soonest while the rest of us are still locking-down and self destructing in multiple ways.

As I explained this picture is not a simple one. There are a huge amount of variables involved. One of the reasons that Peru was his so hard was in spite of the lockdown was a woefully underprepared and under sourced healthcare system exacerbated by poor standards of living, higher levels of income vulnerability a weak social contract, causing many to flout government restrictions and poor social infrastructure to protect the vulnerable. 

 

What on earth are you talking about???? Up to now, Brazil has had 4.4 million covid cases and 135,000 deaths - only the USA has reported higher figures - and they are likely to actually be much. much higher due to insufficient testing/reporting. 

 

This forum utterly astonishes me. Is this really a microcosm of public awareness?