Coronavirus Thread

[Stadt]

2 hours ago, egg_fried_rice said:

Sounds rough mate, hope you feel better soon.

 

Do you have any idea where you might have picked it up? IIRC, you're a student in Sheffield - I've heard the cases in uni accommodation round here are rising sharply?

I’m not in Sheffield anymore but visited over the weekend. Went to multiple pubs and Hallam FC where it was pretty busy and there wasn’t much social distancing in the terrace there. 

[Nod.E]

18 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

42,515 deaths (taking the lower, official figure, not excess deaths) 

---------

66.65m population

 

= 638 deaths per million so far

 

Yes, most people are still alive and people die of all sorts of things......but the thing is to avoid people dying needlessly, if possible - or suffering long-term debilitation (higher figure).

With a strong, though not certain chance of a vaccine within 6 months, why take unnecessary risks?

 

That's not to support any particular govt measure, just the "we've just got to get on and live/die with it" attitude.....though my response to your post was simply a desire to avoid dishonest stats......

"Leicester City had a 100% record in the 2019-20 season (if you only count the match at Southampton)".....bit similar to you quoting a stat per day to make it sound insignificant.

42515 or higher and rising is not insignificant. 638 deaths per million is still a small minority, but nowhere near as small as 1 per million!

Why are you, and posters like you, taking the 42.5k number as gospel? Perhaps because it's convenient?

 

Any case of a person dying with any Covid in their system is reported as a Covid death. This much has been proven.

 

Looking at excess deaths is flawed as well because much of that is as, if not more, likely down to cancer cases not being caught early enough because of lockdown measures and general fear.

 

In all actuality, a much smaller figure that nobody knows, is the true number of Covid deaths.

 

42.5k wouldn't be enough for me to justify shutting down society for let alone the miniscule number it actually will be.

 

In the grand scheme of things it is not many people. People die all the time from all sorts of causes. You can call me a horrible b*stard until you're blue in the face, but the reality is you could pick any one of the top 10 causes of death in the UK and ideate measures to reduce those figures by tens of thousands EACH YEAR. So my question is, why does Covid get the no-death-at-all costs treatment, and other diseases don't?

 

Trying and failing to manage the number of Covid deaths is only causing more pain and more deaths. It's impossibly invisible and the data collection is impossibly shoddy.

 

And don't even talk to me about this 'long covid' b*llocks. Just because a handful of people have experienced complications, doesn't mean we should treat Covid any differently to any other virus or illness. With anything like this, it's a numbers game. It's why vaccines with side effects in a small percentage are passed. It's a numbers game.

 

There is an increasing surge of public and expert opinion that I'm hopeful finally wins out through the utter tripe coming from the mainstream and being repeated by sanctimonious tools that cry blue murder at any suggestion that Covid isn't the end of the world it's built up to be.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54442386

 

Here's to common sense, eh?

[StanSP]

Get well soon @Stadt

[leicsmac]

28 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

Why are you, and posters like you, taking the 42.5k number as gospel? Perhaps because it's convenient?

 

Because that's the only kind of solid information the layman has to go on.

 

28 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

 

Any case of a person dying with any Covid in their system is reported as a Covid death. This much has been proven.

 

Peer-reviewed citation needed.

 

29 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

Looking at excess deaths is flawed as well because much of that is as, if not more, likely down to cancer cases not being caught early enough because of lockdown measures and general fear.

 

In all actuality, a much smaller figure that nobody knows, is the true number of Covid deaths.

 

Citation forthcoming or just a hunch?

 

29 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

42.5k wouldn't be enough for me to justify shutting down society for let alone the miniscule number it actually will be.

 

In the grand scheme of things it is not many people. People die all the time from all sorts of causes. You can call me a horrible b*stard until you're blue in the face, but the reality is you could pick any one of the top 10 causes of death in the UK and ideate measures to reduce those figures by tens of thousands EACH YEAR. So my question is, why does Covid get the no-death-at-all costs treatment, and other diseases don't?

 

You aren't a horrible bastard, nor is anyone else. Just driven by self-interest, just like most others with the same viewpoint.

 

"Just because this thing kills a lot of people this other thing killing a lot of people is acceptable" isn't a superb argument tbh. And yes, that is what that sentence boils down to.

 

32 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

 

Trying and failing to manage the number of Covid deaths is only causing more pain and more deaths. It's impossibly invisible and the data collection is impossibly shoddy.

 

Citation needed. The UK isn't the world and some other countries are actually doing rather well with that management and data collection.

 

33 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

And don't even talk to me about this 'long covid' b*llocks. Just because a handful of people have experienced complications, doesn't mean we should treat Covid any differently to any other virus or illness. With anything like this, it's a numbers game. It's why vaccines with side effects in a small percentage are passed. It's a numbers game.

 

Handful now, prove that it won't be a jugful later if things open up at the wrong time.

 

34 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

There is an increasing surge of public and expert opinion that I'm hopeful finally wins out through the utter tripe coming from the mainstream and being repeated by sanctimonious tools that cry blue murder at any suggestion that Covid isn't the end of the world it's built up to be.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54442386

 

Here's to common sense, eh?

Covid sure as hell isn't the end of the world - in fact our time fighting Covid is making us neglect a much bigger threat that could affect a lot more people rather soon. Better management of restrictions driven by the necessity of them in the UK is certainly needed. But let's not downplay what effect larger death and complication rate would have on global healthcare infrastructures and society in general, and other places - like where I am now, with a similar population to the UK - have utilised those restrictions well and maintained a semblance of normality while keeping case and death numbers low.

 

Addressing a problem in a half-arsed and ineffective manner and having little success against it doesn't mean the problem no longer exists and can and should be ignored as "just another hazard".

 

 

[Nalis]

1600 students in Newcastle have tested positive for covid. Could it be a unintended litmus test for herd immunity theory in a few weeks?

Edited 8 October 2020 by Nalis

[Kopfkino]

48 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

Looking at excess deaths is flawed as well because much of that is as, if not more, likely down to cancer cases not being caught early enough because of lockdown measures and general fear.

 

Did you deliberately set out to debase your argument with this pure, unadulterated drivel?

 

Even untreated, all but the most agressive (also tend to be the most rare) or undiagnosed very latest stage cancers, will take much longer to kill you than the time between lockdown and the spike in excess deaths.

 

Maybe excess deaths will be higher in the future due to untreated cancer as a result of Vivid, but to apportion the excess deaths we saw to cancer as much as Covid only really serves as evidence that you'll say whatever pops into your head to explain away Covid, regardless whether it makes any sense or not.

 

Really you'd be better served going with the argument that the burden of those deaths is lower than the burden to the rest of society rather than pretending they don't exist. A perfectly valid position.

[The People's Hero]

3 hours ago, Manini said:

Any sector in particular or across the board? My firm seems to have guarded against a 2nd lockdown down, used the first one to stick a few people on furlough but everyone is back now and we seem like we’d be in a good place to continue BAU if there was another hard wave of restrictions. We’re a consultancy though so everything we do is governed by what work our clients give to us, so if they all get cold feet we’d be ****ed I guess. 

Varies by brokers; the very obvious are the hospitality sector, including hotels, nightclubs, pubs and bars (in fact some insurance brokers to those specific industries are understandably lobbying Govt).

 

But then there are the small companies who might be involved in the trades... which are again reliant on being 'onsite' whether on site or in people's homes. To an extent this trade is booming but in reality its only sections of it.

 

But overall just think about any commercial venture which has overheads and staffing costs and is independent (read: not a chain with a big credit line or cash reserves) and therefore is answerable not to shareholders or fund managers or whatever but answerable to the simple law of living within their own means.

 

Those Government words about 'not being able to save every company and every job' serve to point out a fairly obvious point. Companies always fail and should in most instances be allowed to fail, since its the survival of the fittest and new energy and new companies emerge in their place, but this is entirely systemic and vast swathes of independent companies are going to face major difficulties. Some might just battle through, making no money because they feel they owe it to the staff, but you suspect a great deal who have taken advantage and some who have 'taken advantage' of furlough (and or the loans) might think 'stuff it'.

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

@Nod.E  If I'd wanted to use a high figure because it was convenient to my argument, I'd have used the excess deaths figure as that's higher.

Meanwhile, without a hint of irony, you dismiss both figures and declare that the real figure is actually "miniscule" - conveniently for your argument - without presenting any figure whatsoever. 

 

Yes, a small number of those "Covid deaths" will be people who died or would have died of other causes anyway.

There will also be an unknown number of people whose deaths were put down to other causes but Covid actually killed them or played a part.

But I've no interest in fixating on precise figures. It's clear that a lot of people have died or are suffering health damage from Covid.....and the risk is that number could greatly increase if we're not careful.

 

It's a fair point that some of the excess deaths will be cancers that might have been treated if caught earlier - and messaging needs to ensure that people aren't scared into not going for tests if they experience symptoms of cancer or heart etc.

But a lot of people will have missed such diagnoses because of hospitals being over-run with Covid patients in the spring - either because doctors/facilities were swamped or because patients were scared of infection at hospital.

If we adopt a lax approach and allow that to happen again, even with improved treatment we risk a repeat of that, which in turn risks more excess deaths from cancer, stroke, heart or whatever.

 

I'm not some hawk advocating a strict lockdown and am well aware of the damage that can be caused through untreated cancer, mental health problems, unemployment etc. 

A balance is needed. I just think this virus is clearly very dangerous, lives are valuable and it is irresponsible to downplay its seriousness or to be reckless about just living with it or whatever.

 

The politest way I can reply to your comments about Long Covid is to suggest that anyone with an open mind who wants to find out about it should Google it - plenty of different online sources to compare and judge.

But it's an aspect of this crisis that has been seriously under-reported by the media - and many of those affected are young people and those who had a mild Covid infection, not just those who were elderly or ended up in ICU.

 

Enough! Most of this has been argued through multiple times so I'm not wasting any more time on it, unless new issues are raised.

 

p.s. I've not caused you a "horrible bastard" once. Neither have I suggested that your views are "bollocks" or make you a "sanctimonious tool". 

 

[CosbehFox]

10 minutes ago, Nalis said:

1600 students in Newcastle have tested positive for covid. Could it be a unintended litmus test for herd immunity theory in a few weeks?

Similar thought occurred to me last week - these outbreaks in the universities within the UK should be used to collect important data in the same way some villages and same towns were in Italy during the first wave. 

[The People's Hero]

2 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Similar thought occurred to me last week - these outbreaks in the universities within the UK should be used to collect important data in the same way some villages and same towns were in Italy during the first wave. 

Furthermore, that data should be catalogued in excel... ah.

[yorkie1999]

17 minutes ago, Nalis said:

1600 students in Newcastle have tested positive for covid. Could it be a unintended litmus test for herd immunity theory in a few weeks?

How many have also tested positive for chlamydia?

[RowlattsFox]

I'd be interested to know what measures certain people in this thread will be happy with currently? I don't want to call people pro-lockdown because I don't think anyone is, but some obviously want stricter restrictions? And also would anyone who has these views be affected by a stricter measures? It's easy to be pro something if you're job is safe regardless and can work from home easily. 

 

Hospitality was always going to be first to be traded off, it was said in the summer that if cases rose when education returned that pubs could close. It's pretty obvious that university students are playing a pretty big part currently, either in their living conditions or the fact they go out partying. I'd be interested to know how strict student bars have been? 

 

If they're is evidence about hospitality venues being a concern then they're right to close them, rather than that an half hearted attempt like the curfew. It's a shame for the many hospitality industries where the risk is low because of their location or the fact they are following the rules.

 

Personally, allowing households to mix together with a limit of 10 or maybe a couple less would help a lot of people. Especially if other businesses are closed. I'd like my parents to be able to stay over at ours and see their grandson. My boy has his 4th birthday coming up but under current rules noone can come and see him. it's up to individual families to decide if they want to risk certain family members in this situation. 

 

Unless everything is locked down, you're always going to get "why can't I do this, if im allowed to do that" arguments. 

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

I’m currently in the Canary Islands and it’s really sad to see the impact the virus has had on the local economy. There are very few tourists about, lots of restaurants are now closed and people’s livelihoods are being destroyed. Chatting to a waiter in a restaurant he cannot understand why our government has put the Canarias on the unsafe to travel list when the infection rate is far higher in the UK than on the islands, his thoughts were that the UK government wanted to keep people at home and their money within the UK.

Its all really sad and the impact this is having on people’s livelihoods will be felt for many years to come.

[twoleftfeet]

Lockdown for some = no change

Lockdown for some = new way of working

Lockdown for some = 3 months relaxing with the family safe at home venturing out to cheer for those that found that lockdown = no change.

Will the next lockdown be any different for those people that just had to carry on as normal.

[FoxesDeb]

56 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

p.s. I've not caused you a "horrible bastard" once. Neither have I suggested that your views are "bollocks" or make you a "sanctimonious tool". 

 

I would, but I'd get another ban 

[Otis]

13 hours ago, Pliskin said:

Correct, however, the government sloppy initial reaction will forever mean they will essentially jump from one knee jerk reaction to the next. I won’t be at all surprised if they force the pubs, restaurants and indoor sports facilities to close once again. 

The 2 weeks after they reopen, we'll be encouraged to go out & offered vouchers.

[fuchsntf]

On 07/10/2020 at 22:17, Alf Bentley said:

 

It's HERD immunity, as in "herd of cattle" (or "flock of sheeple", if you prefer), nothing to do with hearing things.

 

Undermines your credibility if you promote a concept that you can't even spell.

 

 

Sorted!

 

 

You should tell all those thousands of scientists worldwide who are wasting their money working on a vaccine - and are optimistic (with no guarantees) that one might be available by the spring.

 

They'll be pleased to be put right by a better-informed chap like yourself. Could save them a lot of money when they halt all their pointless research.

 

 

1 per 1,000,000? 

 

The UK population is about 65m, isn't it? So, you're saying that only 65 people have died........not the 42,500+ they keep announcing or the higher figure for excess deaths?

 

Again, you really should use your expert knowledge to put the statisticians right about this.

Oh Alf..These. Young uns..eh.!!!

[Shram]

4 hours ago, RowlattsFox said:

I'd be interested to know what measures certain people in this thread will be happy with currently? I don't want to call people pro-lockdown because I don't think anyone is, but some obviously want stricter restrictions? And also would anyone who has these views be affected by a stricter measures? It's easy to be pro something if you're job is safe regardless and can work from home easily. 

 

Hospitality was always going to be first to be traded off, it was said in the summer that if cases rose when education returned that pubs could close. It's pretty obvious that university students are playing a pretty big part currently, either in their living conditions or the fact they go out partying. I'd be interested to know how strict student bars have been? 

 

If they're is evidence about hospitality venues being a concern then they're right to close them, rather than that an half hearted attempt like the curfew. It's a shame for the many hospitality industries where the risk is low because of their location or the fact they are following the rules.

 

Personally, allowing households to mix together with a limit of 10 or maybe a couple less would help a lot of people. Especially if other businesses are closed. I'd like my parents to be able to stay over at ours and see their grandson. My boy has his 4th birthday coming up but under current rules noone can come and see him. it's up to individual families to decide if they want to risk certain family members in this situation. 

 

Unless everything is locked down, you're always going to get "why can't I do this, if im allowed to do that" arguments. 

When you say 10, does that include 10 random households together or groups so 4 from 1 household and 6 from another? 
 

when you live on your own and far away from family this makes a massive difference. Today we had to swap and change people to meet the rule of 6 even though every one of us well under the age of significant impact (at least 2 people have had mild symptoms and tested positive for it).. i completely understand the risk but the people I see and those around them are not in the at risk category.. should we have to limit how we see each other purely because most of us live on our own? 
 

 

[Md9]

All the talk about another lockdown closing pubs etc isn’t it just because the school holidays are coming up and they don’t want to many people mixing? I thought I seen something like that somewhere that they wanted to shut stuff for 2 weeks when the kids are off. Could be a mistake so sorry if it’s wrong 🙈

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

I definitely read a long time ago they were considering a full scale lockdown, not just the pubs, when half term came in, which to me doesn't really make much sense. But it's clear now regardless of how sceptical you are about everything (I'm personally becoming more and more sceptical everyday, not of the virus itself but of the government and their quite frankly baffling levels of incompetence) but this is a second wave . I'm in Nottingham and I work in a pub. Nottinghams infections rate is out of control and almost certainly the pubs are going to have to close. I know this because of what the press says, it's bad enough I have to find this stuff out second hand from gutter rag publications, but the fact members of Parliament are finding out this way is astonishing. How is this info being leaked to the press before the mps are being informed? And why is it always that the press say something along the lines of 'no decision has been made yet but its likely that...' and they are always spot on. I'm rambling a bit but I'm stressed by the whole thing, furlough is ending and I've got bills to pay, and there's nothing currently in place to help me, as I've said before my missus is a singer and her income is non existent now, we're in the absolute mess here and it's all 'chin up your sub 400 quid universal credit will cover you!'. Will it ****. Is my pub going to close next week? Am I going to get furloughed? Am I going to have a roof over my head by Christmas? If the infection rate in Nottingham is as bad as they say then why the **** are they delaying, taking the absolute piss out of the public giving vague non answers. Just make a bloody decision and let me know where I stand, restrictions are one thing, lockdown is one thing, living in limbo bloody petrified my income is just going to be shut off without any help, after they've already crippled my partners life, basically, and gave her absolutely no help, she should retrain apparently, that **** sunak had better make sure I don't go without as well or were out on our arse. 

[Paninistickers]

My workplace is so typical of the average UK employer. 

 

They hated work from.home, seeing it as a loss of control. Over time we were gently encouraged back in (in reality, notes were being made as to who came in and black  marks noted  against those who didn't) 

 

After getting about 50 of the 200 in regularly these last few weeks, one has now tested positive meaning about 20 staff are now self isolating. 

 

Cue a thinly veiled slagging off of patient zero employee today on our daily zoom for being 'careless' and 'selfish' 

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

And another thing. Nottingham has 3 universities. Cases have got out of control since students came back. I absolutely understand primary and secondary school being a priority to open and keep open. But why are universities? Remote learn for now. Is there any good, valid reason universities should be having all the students on campus? 

 

[StanSP]

8 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

My workplace is so typical of the average UK employer. 

 

They hated work from.home, seeing it as a loss of control. Over time we were gently encouraged back in (in reality, notes were being made as to who came in and black  marks noted  against those who didn't) 

 

After getting about 50 of the 200 in regularly these last few weeks, one has now tested positive meaning about 20 staff are now self isolating. 

 

Cue a thinly veiled slagging off of patient zero employee today on our daily zoom for being 'careless' and 'selfish' 

This sounds very immature from your company... 

[Pliskin]

17 minutes ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

I definitely read a long time ago they were considering a full scale lockdown, not just the pubs, when half term came in, which to me doesn't really make much sense. But it's clear now regardless of how sceptical you are about everything (I'm personally becoming more and more sceptical everyday, not of the virus itself but of the government and their quite frankly baffling levels of incompetence) but this is a second wave . I'm in Nottingham and I work in a pub. Nottinghams infections rate is out of control and almost certainly the pubs are going to have to close. I know this because of what the press says, it's bad enough I have to find this stuff out second hand from gutter rag publications, but the fact members of Parliament are finding out this way is astonishing. How is this info being leaked to the press before the mps are being informed? And why is it always that the press say something along the lines of 'no decision has been made yet but its likely that...' and they are always spot on. I'm rambling a bit but I'm stressed by the whole thing, furlough is ending and I've got bills to pay, and there's nothing currently in place to help me, as I've said before my missus is a singer and her income is non existent now, we're in the absolute mess here and it's all 'chin up your sub 400 quid universal credit will cover you!'. Will it ****. Is my pub going to close next week? Am I going to get furloughed? Am I going to have a roof over my head by Christmas? If the infection rate in Nottingham is as bad as they say then why the **** are they delaying, taking the absolute piss out of the public giving vague non answers. Just make a bloody decision and let me know where I stand, restrictions are one thing, lockdown is one thing, living in limbo bloody petrified my income is just going to be shut off without any help, after they've already crippled my partners life, basically, and gave her absolutely no help, she should retrain apparently, that **** sunak had better make sure I don't go without as well or were out on our arse. 

This is a great post, and hits every nail on the head.

 

Its almost scripted, and you can second guess most things that are going to happen, which just proves Boris and his band of ****wits just haven’t got a clue. The really, really annoying thing is that when Boris stands there stuttering his was thought his sentence I can’t help but think there’s a bit of finger pointing going on in between the frankly shoddy attempt to rally like a war time Churchill. This whole fiasco could be a lot less disastrous if he pulled his finger out (and cock out of wife number 27) and was proactive about the virus rather that boasting about shaking hands with covid patients. 
 

He is starting to encroach on Trumps levels of insanity. In short, their incompetence is what is consistently allowing things to regress. 

[Kopfkino]

34 minutes ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

And another thing. Nottingham has 3 universities. Cases have got out of control since students came back. I absolutely understand primary and secondary school being a priority to open and keep open. But why are universities? Remote learn for now. Is there any good, valid reason universities should be having all the students on campus? 

 

Not really, no. Maybe some students doing more practical degrees but not the masses. Universities make a shit ton out of their accommodation and with the government unwilling to bail them out, the universities beckoned their students back to get their cash. Given that every year 'freshers flu' is a thing, we knew this situation is ripe for spreading pathogens but we've just let it happen.

 

I think the other day I saw that half of Manchester's cases are in students. Probably similar for Nottingham. If it' constrained the student population then it's a decent result but I'm not sure how feasible that is, better chance of that in Nottingham than Manchester where things are more advanced.