Coronavirus Thread

[Leicester_Loyal]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-54331421

 

You can't even go for a meal or have a beer with a mate or two? Bonkers.

 

58 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

Clearly not a second wave.

 

The outcome will be the govt pinning this decrease on the restrictions put into place however.  Having just witnessed crowds in York after 10pm acting like a bunch of numpties it is difficult to see the positives from shutting down early at 10pm.  On the face of it, the bad outweighs the good here.

Yeah plenty of people I were speaking to on Saturday were going back to someones kitchen at 10pm, they were all getting into taxis in groups. We had to wait 30 minutes for a cab to become available.

[Kopfkino]

12 hours ago, UniFox21 said:

Leicester uni is testing all staff and students to make sure everyone is with a positive case is identified. Great plan and at least makes students/staff/parents more at ease and confident about going to work/study. Think this should be standard amongst Univeristies now, ensures safety of both staff and students. 

 

 

A one off or regularly?

[DennisNedry]

There's long been the argument of Covid deaths vs deaths/ill health as a result of lockdown & wrecked economy - surely now the death rate is so low (be it that steroid helping patients in intensive care, the virus mutating to a less deadly form etc), the scales have been tipped. I can't see how further lockdown is beneficial on the whole.

[Leicester_Loyal]

10 deaths today, 4044 new cases.

[Sampson]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p08ssngh

Not usually a fan of salacious gossip or click bait, but this is pretty sad. A girl who is high risk in the locked down Manchester uni halls saying it was a big party and people were knocking on all the doors telling people they have corona and want to give it to them. I hope the people who did it get kicked out of the uni,

[Rob1742]

Time to turn this on it’s head. So of 67m population we have deaths Of 42,000. Let’s say this gets to 67,000, then we are saying it has taken 0.1% of the population.

 

So 99.9% of the population are facing restrictions, the economy is on its ass and implications with regards to people’s future is increasingly worrying. We are in a devastating situation, yet we are trying to protect maybe 20,000 people.

 

We need to turn this on its head. We need to isolate those at risk, put money in the pot to help them, and let the rest get on with their lives. With social distancing where possible to keep these 99.9% of people’s lives going forward.

 

The government have got this drastically wrong. It should be the old 80/20 rule, but this is 99.9 / 0.1 yet we are causing issues for the majority.

 

At 53 I am not a youngster who would walk through the virus without trouble, but I fully understand the implication this is having on millions of people and we have to keep the country going and livelihoods protected.

 

People are missing operations, mental health is suffering, education is being affected for millions and millions and we are accepting what the government say and just watching people’s futures diminish. 
 

I supported the government initially as it was something they couldn’t ever predict, but they are watching futures go down the toilet rather than have a plan to protect the most vulnerable.

 

 

[Sampson]

Peru seems like quite an interesting country in all this.

 

Apart from the small city states, it's the country with the highest % of its population which have been confirmed to have it and the highest % of its population of deaths.

 

Cases are slowly starting to die down their now from their initial wave, it will be interesting to see if they get a 2nd wave as they seem like the country most likely to have the highest amount of herd immunity.

[Guest Fktf]

Has anyone ever heard of a workable idea to effectively shield the vulnerable, that doesnt involve keeping the case rate in the rest of the population down too? I see the idea mentioned a lot, but never much detail on how it would actually be done in practice 

[Rob1742]

20 minutes ago, Fktf said:

Has anyone ever heard of a workable idea to effectively shield the vulnerable, that doesnt involve keeping the case rate in the rest of the population down too? I see the idea mentioned a lot, but never much detail on how it would actually be done in practice 

Keep them at home where possible, visitors to their homes to wear shields, benefits to keep them away from the work place. 
 

Isolate them as much as possible. 

[Rob1742]

29 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Peru seems like quite an interesting country in all this.

 

Apart from the small city states, it's the country with the highest % of its population which have been confirmed to have it and the highest % of its population of deaths.

 

Cases are slowly starting to die down their now from their initial wave, it will be interesting to see if they get a 2nd wave as they seem like the country most likely to have the highest amount of herd immunity.

If you take Sweden a lot of the initial deaths were in care homes where they have larger amounts of elderly in these places compared to other countries. So it swept through the care homes taking many lives. Now you see not many deaths as the vulnerable have been taken.

 

I would imagine Peru is similar as in the vulnerable have passed on, leaving the healthier ones to catch it who have a better survival chance.

 

You can’t die twice, so I would think in Sweden and Peru the death figures will be minimal going forward. 
 

I did read that there was a lower than normal flu season last year, so there was a large amount of vulnerable ready to pass on, but now they have gone figures won’t be as bad going forward. Lots of cases, but nowhere near as many deaths.

[Sampson]

11 minutes ago, Rob1742 said:

If you take Sweden a lot of the initial deaths were in care homes where they have larger amounts of elderly in these places compared to other countries. So it swept through the care homes taking many lives. Now you see not many deaths as the vulnerable have been taken.

 

I would imagine Peru is similar as in the vulnerable have passed on, leaving the healthier ones to catch it who have a better survival chance.

 

You can’t die twice, so I would think in Sweden and Peru the death figures will be minimal going forward. 
 

I did read that there was a lower than normal flu season last year, so there was a large amount of vulnerable ready to pass on, but now they have gone figures won’t be as bad going forward. Lots of cases, but nowhere near as many deaths.

You're making a lot of assumptions there though. We don't know what it will look like going forward through the winter.

 

Peru is in the southern hemisphere but it's near enough to the equator that its seasons aren't huge but even so they're coming out of their winter.

 

As someone who spent a lot of time in Sweden for an old job I know how long and harsh the winters are there and that hasn't even begun yet - though their winters start earlier and you can often start seeing snow in the big 3 Southern cities in mid-late October - it's way too early to say they've escaped any kind of 2nd wave there. Make that point in April once they start hitting their spring.

 

I'm just interested to see what happens going forward eirher way and Peru seems like one of the most interesting countries to look at (as well as Sweden).

[dsr-burnley]

57 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Peru seems like quite an interesting country in all this.

 

Apart from the small city states, it's the country with the highest % of its population which have been confirmed to have it and the highest % of its population of deaths.

 

Cases are slowly starting to die down their now from their initial wave, it will be interesting to see if they get a 2nd wave as they seem like the country most likely to have the highest amount of herd immunity.

Peru had the strictest lockdown of all which lasted until June when everyone was running out of money and so they had to ease it.  That was when their cases really took off.

 

It's ironic that Brazil next door, with a loon President who decreed that coronavirus doesn't exist and there was no need for restrictions at all, has a much lower death rate than Peru.  (All countries have a much lower death rate than Peru)

[dsr-burnley]

16 hours ago, UniFox21 said:

Leicester uni is testing all staff and students to make sure everyone is with a positive case is identified. Great plan and at least makes students/staff/parents more at ease and confident about going to work/study. Think this should be standard amongst Univeristies now, ensures safety of both staff and students. 

 

They would do more to ensure the safety of students by banning alcohol.  So far this year there have been 34 people aged between 15 and 24 who have died with coronavirus, and I doubt that many of those dies of coronavirus alone.  There are no doubt valid reasons for testing everybody, but safety of students isn't the reason.

[Guest Fktf]

47 minutes ago, Rob1742 said:

Keep them at home where possible, visitors to their homes to wear shields, benefits to keep them away from the work place. 
 

Isolate them as much as possible. 

Sounds simple, but I bet it isn't so easy to protect them. What about their family members? Are they going out to work still 

[Rob1742]

7 hours ago, Fktf said:

Sounds simple, but I bet it isn't so easy to protect them. What about their family members? Are they going out to work still 

Every situation is hard, but at the moment virtually every person is having restrictions put on them. So I suppose the caveat isolate “where possible” could be mentioned.

 

An example to help could be you give financial support to help those near retirement so they can retire early and stay at home.

 

This sort of thing is hard to monitor, but you have a better chance of getting the funds to the right people, rather than now where ALL businesses could just ask for £50,000 and get it the next day.

 

This highlights my point really. We are having to give help to the whole population whereas we really should just look at those most at risk. It’s a much smaller number so much easier to get a handle on, much easier to monitor. 
 

It wouldn’t be easy, but the amount of people bragging about getting £50k free from the government that they won’t pay back shows how scattergun our approach is. We are trying to do something for 67m people all with different situations going on, rather than looking at who is at risk. That number will be tiny in comparison and can be targeted much easier and with much less cost.

 

How much has been spent on these business “loans” and furlough. Pretty sure you could have just put in social distancing and helped the vulnerable financially to stay at home and we would be better off. 
 

Yes mixed households are an issue, but maybe then help out the households even to stay at home? Everything comes with an issue but if 95% of the population can carry on and keep the economy and lives moving forward until a vaccine is found, it’s better than ruining huge amounts of people’s lives for a very very long time

[ealingfox]

 

Spot on. The way young people are treated in this country is a bloody disgrace.

[UniFox21]

11 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

A one off or regularly?

Think a one off mate, but don't know the details for sure.

This article from the uni website explains it a bit better. Feel this is a way of testing a new system as well as caring for the health of staff/students and good PR. Tests aren't mandatory but encouraged as well.

Edited 29 September 2020 by UniFox21

[Innovindil]

51 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

Spot on. The way young people are treated in this country is a bloody disgrace.

Tbf there's sections of young folk not exactly helping the cause with raves and fresher parties. Not exactly innocent are they. When people are criticising young people these are who they mean. Just like we've had cricisisms on here directed at middle aged folk who can't resist going to the pub or old folk too stupid to use home deliveries, hell, there's even been the whole it's dem ethnic minorities not wearing masks bit. 

 

Seems to me there's plenty of blame to go around, no need to take any of it personally. 

[Guest Fktf]

58 minutes ago, Rob1742 said:

Every situation is hard, but at the moment virtually every person is having restrictions put on them. So I suppose the caveat isolate “where possible” could be mentioned.

 

An example to help could be you give financial support to help those near retirement so they can retire early and stay at home.

 

This sort of thing is hard to monitor, but you have a better chance of getting the funds to the right people, rather than now where ALL businesses could just ask for £50,000 and get it the next day.

 

This highlights my point really. We are having to give help to the whole population whereas we really should just look at those most at risk. It’s a much smaller number so much easier to get a handle on, much easier to monitor. 
 

It wouldn’t be easy, but the amount of people bragging about getting £50k free from the government that they won’t pay back shows how scattergun our approach is. We are trying to do something for 67m people all with different situations going on, rather than looking at who is at risk. That number will be tiny in comparison and can be targeted much easier and with much less cost.

 

How much has been spent on these business “loans” and furlough. Pretty sure you could have just put in social distancing and helped the vulnerable financially to stay at home and we would be better off. 
 

Yes mixed households are an issue, but maybe then help out the households even to stay at home? Everything comes with an issue but if 95% of the population can carry on and keep the economy and lives moving forward until a vaccine is found, it’s better than ruining huge amounts of people’s lives for a very very long time

I'm with you all the way, I just don't think there's a workable solution once you start to get into the details.

[Guest Fktf]

41 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

Think a one off mate, but don't know the details for sure.

This article from the uni website explains it a bit better. Feel this is a way of testing a new system as well as caring for the health of staff/students and good PR. Tests aren't mandatory but encouraged as well.

PR indeed. Unless they're going to take samples late night, run them, and get results out by morning so that anyone that has it asymptomatically can isolate, the tests are going to do little to protect from the virus.

 

Good way of testing the new technology they're developing though, I guess.

[Manini]

In the office today for the first time since mid March (my own accord, nobody held a gun to my head). We have 500 staff in Leeds, there’s currently me and 3 other people in the whole office who are here and speaking to the girls on reception there’s been no more than 5 people in at any one time since we reopened it 2 weeks ago. This can’t be sustainable, surely, the company must be losing money on this place hand over fist and it wouldn’t surprise me if we got rid of it all together. The commercial property market must be on its arse if this is anything to go by. 

[Carl the Llama]

3 hours ago, Innovindil said:

Tbf there's sections of young folk not exactly helping the cause with raves and fresher parties. Not exactly innocent are they. When people are criticising young people these are who they mean. Just like we've had cricisisms on here directed at middle aged folk who can't resist going to the pub or old folk too stupid to use home deliveries, hell, there's even been the whole it's dem ethnic minorities not wearing masks bit. 

 

Seems to me there's plenty of blame to go around, no need to take any of it personally. 

I mean they're looking at a future where the planet's on fire because previous generations didn't want to be inconvenienced by climate change measures, they've experienced multiple 'once in a lifetime' economic crashes within their first couple decades of life, most will be lucky to get on the housing ladder at all as getting out of the rent trap becomes increasingly unlikely, especially now their jobs market is being dried up by measures put in place to protect the generations who engineered this situation, many of whom are being openly contemptuous of the measures themselves.  I don't blame young people at all for being apathetic, it's not their fault they were birthed to a narcissistic species bent on its own destruction.

[Leicester_Loyal]

https://newsthump.com/2020/09/28/pub-hires-all-regulars-on-zero-hours-contracts-so-it-can-provide-them-with-our-of-hours-canteen-services/

 

If only

[Babylon]

13 hours ago, Rob1742 said:

Time to turn this on it’s head. So of 67m population we have deaths Of 42,000. Let’s say this gets to 67,000, then we are saying it has taken 0.1% of the population.

 

So 99.9% of the population are facing restrictions, the economy is on its ass and implications with regards to people’s future is increasingly worrying. We are in a devastating situation, yet we are trying to protect maybe 20,000 people.

 

We need to turn this on its head. We need to isolate those at risk, put money in the pot to help them, and let the rest get on with their lives. With social distancing where possible to keep these 99.9% of people’s lives going forward.

 

The government have got this drastically wrong. It should be the old 80/20 rule, but this is 99.9 / 0.1 yet we are causing issues for the majority.

 

At 53 I am not a youngster who would walk through the virus without trouble, but I fully understand the implication this is having on millions of people and we have to keep the country going and livelihoods protected.

 

People are missing operations, mental health is suffering, education is being affected for millions and millions and we are accepting what the government say and just watching people’s futures diminish. 
 

I supported the government initially as it was something they couldn’t ever predict, but they are watching futures go down the toilet rather than have a plan to protect the most vulnerable.

 

 

That's a very big maybe when 11.8m people were over 65 in 2016

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

Deaths involving COVID-19 have increased for the second consecutive week in England and Wales.

There were 139 fatalities which mentioned coronavirus on the death certificate - up from 99 the previous week, according to the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
 

 

COVID-19 deaths still only accounted for 1.5% of all deaths