Coronavirus Thread

[Nalis]

5 hours 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? 

 

As always, its all about money.

 

Force kids onto campuses and they have to pay for halls, student housing,  etc. But the real money spinner are international students of course and if you force remote learning and tell them to stay in their home country then they either start asking for part refunds or dont see the point in studying in the UK and study elsewhere.

Edited 9 October 2020 by Nalis

[Steven]

7 hours 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' 

I hear your prayer brother! I have to come in even though the numbers of people infected is higher than when I was working full time from home.  Either I should have come to work when the numbers were lower or I should not be coming into work when the numbers are higher. My employers are nineteenth century control freaks.  

[CosbehFox]

7 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

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.

Similar case in Exeter where the rate has rocketed from very low numbers to 380 in every 100,000. Student population the cause. 
 

Ironically a city such as Wolves which is in local restrictions is slowly but surely edging the rate down.....university wise, it has a small Uni but it’s spread across four small campuses 

[Babylon]

15 hours 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.

If they caught the cancer, I'm afraid if it's going to be deadly within a few months or weeks, there is little they could have done about it with treatment anyway. So that can't possibly be the short term bump in excess deaths. Longer term, yes there would be impact. 

 

15 hours 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.

But it wouldn't be 42,000 would it, it would be far far higher now if we hadn't shut things down and tried to control it. We're already seeing hospital admissions rise and deaths rise again the more it spreads. Without any controls it's going to be 1000+ a day again dying. 

 

15 hours 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.

Not sure how you can say "failing", deaths dropped once restrictions came in, from 1000+ to 1 or 2. It's clear restrictions work. 

 

15 hours 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?

I said on here a month ago, the government should explain why that can't happen. I proposed that it was likely that you can't actually isolate hundreds of thousands or millions of vulnerable. Was the reason it's now sweeping through care homes still because of the extra precautions, or because in general the virus was reduced to such small numbers the chances of a carrier taking it in were so vastly reduced. I'd suggest the latter, as without precautions that are pretty much unimplementable, you couldn't keep it out once it's sweeping through the general population. All the carers and doctors and nurses will be out  and about or mingling and are going to spread it. 

 

They have now said that's the case, you can't protect them like that.

Edited 9 October 2020 by Babylon

[yorkie1999]

The track and trace app is doing very well. So far its picked up a case at one venue, but because of the data protection act, nobody knows which venue and who was there.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-contact-tracing-app-has-only-sent-one-alert-about-an-outbreak-in-a-venue-12099651

[st albans fox]

Just now, yorkie1999 said:

The track and trace app is doing very well. So far its picked up a case at one venue, but because of the data protection act, nobody knows which venue and who was there.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-contact-tracing-app-has-only-sent-one-alert-about-an-outbreak-in-a-venue-12099651

It’s a national disgrace - there’s no other phrase that sums up how little we’ve managed to do on this in six months !!

 

there are working systems all over the world - why couldn’t we just buy one of those 

[yorkie1999]

12 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

It’s a national disgrace - there’s no other phrase that sums up how little we’ve managed to do on this in six months !!

 

there are working systems all over the world - why couldn’t we just buy one of those 

Because Mathew Gould isn't the ceo of them.

[StanSP]

'world-beating' 

[Nod.E]

43 minutes ago, Babylon said:

If they caught the cancer, I'm afraid if it's going to be deadly within a few months or weeks, there is little they could have done about it with treatment anyway. So that can't possibly be the short term bump in excess deaths. Longer term, yes there would be impact. 

Sorry yes, you're right with this. Of course there is still the long term cancer deaths to consider. But cancer is but one disease. There will be others. Not to mention the impact of elders becoming vegetative.

 

43 minutes ago, Babylon said:

 

But it wouldn't be 42,000 would it, it would be far far higher now if we hadn't shut things down and tried to control it. We're already seeing hospital admissions rise and deaths rise again the more it spreads. Without any controls it's going to be 1000+ a day again dying. 

Would it though? We had limited restrictions in May, June, July, August and cases were flat-lining. The virus is now following the viral peaks and troughs you'd expect from any respiratory illness.

 

Hate to use Sweden again, not least because it isn't the best comparison to the UK in terms of culture and population density. But it's the only real comparison we can make. They had no lockdown and while there were excess deaths (just as there were here), it didn't get off the charts bad. Appreciate this is very unscientific but realistically when you think about it, lockdowns may have saved a handful of lives. Is it worth it? Why don't we pull out all the stops to save lives for other causes of death? Here are a few ideas:

 

- Skin tone checks for sunbathing to prevent skin cancer

 

- Blood pressure tests at checkouts for those buying red meat

 

- Mandatory monthly 10km runs up to the age of 65 to improve respiratory

 

I'm not advocating any of these ideas. They're ridiculous. Point is, so is locking down society to save an insignificant number of lives, ruining many, many more livelihoods for lifetimes in the process. Does the end justify the means?

 

43 minutes ago, Babylon said:

 

Not sure how you can say "failing", deaths dropped once restrictions came in, from 1000+ to 1 or 2. It's clear restrictions work. 

So local lockdowns have worked then? Nope.

 

The deaths figure was a natural progression of the virus becoming less deadly, treatments improving and seasonality.

 

43 minutes ago, Babylon said:

I said on here a month ago, the government should explain why that can't happen. I proposed that it was likely that you can't actually isolate hundreds of thousands or millions of vulnerable. Was the reason it's now sweeping through care homes still because of the extra precautions, or because in general the virus was reduced to such small numbers the chances of a carrier taking it in were so vastly reduced. I'd suggest the latter, as without precautions that are pretty much unimplementable, you couldn't keep it out once it's sweeping through the general population. All the carers and doctors and nurses will be out  and about or mingling and are going to spread it. 

 

They have now said that's the case, you can't protect them like that.

Well I'm sure they will now be taking extra precautions in care homes.

[Nod.E]

9 hours 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' 

Jesus Christ. Sounds just like my last employer.

[Nod.E]

39 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

The track and trace app is doing very well. So far its picked up a case at one venue, but because of the data protection act, nobody knows which venue and who was there.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-contact-tracing-app-has-only-sent-one-alert-about-an-outbreak-in-a-venue-12099651

It's almost as though they don't know what they're doing

[yorkie1999]

Just now, Nod.E said:

It's almost as though they don't know what they're doing

Almost. Or maybe they do know what they're doing. If you don't want to do something, do it badly and you won't get asked to do it again.

[Nod.E]

1 minute ago, yorkie1999 said:

Almost. Or maybe they do know what they're doing. If you don't want to do something, do it badly and you won't get asked to do it again.

I'm genuinely torn!

 

They're as capable in my eyes as being utterly useless as they are totally mischievous.

 

They can't be both. Can they?

[Nalis]

9 hours 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' 

Bummer man.

 

My old place was like that, people directly above and below me were fine but the two at the very top were absolute dinosaurs and treated staff like children. Saying that, one was a massive hypochondriac so fvck knows what sort of shit show that combination created.

[Babylon]

8 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

Sorry yes, you're right with this. Of course there is still the long term cancer deaths to consider. But cancer is but one disease. There will be others. Not to mention the impact of elders becoming vegetative.

 

Would it though? We had limited restrictions in May, June, July, August and cases were flat-lining. The virus is now following the viral peaks and troughs you'd expect from any respiratory illness.

 

Yes I think it would, Schools and Unis were empty and they are clearly one of the biggest spreaders. Hardly a shock things are going south quickly now they are back open.
 

Hate to use Sweden again, not least because it isn't the best comparison to the UK in terms of culture and population density. But it's the only real comparison we can make. They had no lockdown and while there were excess deaths (just as there were here), it didn't get off the charts bad. Appreciate this is very unscientific but realistically when you think about it, lockdowns may have saved a handful of lives. Is it worth it? Why don't we pull out all the stops to save lives for other causes of death? Here are a few ideas:

 

- Skin tone checks for sunbathing to prevent skin cancer

 

- Blood pressure tests at checkouts for those buying red meat

 

- Mandatory monthly 10km runs up to the age of 65 to improve respiratory

 

I'm not advocating any of these ideas. They're ridiculous. Point is, so is locking down society to save an insignificant number of lives, ruining many, many more livelihoods for lifetimes in the process. Does the end justify the means?
 

 

 

8 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

 

So local lockdowns have worked then? Nope.

To a point they do yes. Didn’t the Leicester rate drop when first implemented? Problem is they are half hearted, confusing and we’ve reached the point A large portion of the general public have given up following rules.

 

The deaths figure was a natural progression of the virus becoming less deadly, treatments improving and seasonality.
 

And it being given nowhere to spread to. 

 

8 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

Well I'm sure they will now be taking extra precautions in care homes.

 

The point is, are they only successful at the moment because the virus has been rained in a bit. I don’t see how any precaution that’s implementable can stop it fully, it’s just a matter of time.

I’m trying to reply but I’m on my phone and it’s doing weird things!

[CosbehFox]

29 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

 

 

Hate to use Sweden again, not least because it isn't the best comparison to the UK in terms of culture and population density. But it's the only real comparison we can make. They had no lockdown and while there were excess deaths (just as there were here), it didn't get off the charts bad. Appreciate this is very unscientific but realistically when you think about it, lockdowns may have saved a handful of lives. Is it worth it? Why don't we pull out all the stops to save lives for other causes of death?

 

Hmmm - it was their worst death toll within half of a year in 150 years. 

 

They have the 13th highest death when based on per capita/population. Higher than France, Netherlands, Iran*. 

 

To give that figure context, if you compare to their neighbours

Sweden - 578.6 deaths per million 

Denmark - 114.71 

Finland - 62.7

Norway - 51.75 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

 

Hmmm - it was their worst death toll within half of a year in 150 years. 

 

They have the 13th highest death when based on per capita/population. Higher than France, Netherlands, Iran*. 

 

To give that figure context, if you compare to their neighbours

Sweden - 578.6 deaths per million 

Denmark - 114.71 

Finland - 62.7

Norway - 51.75 

And (yes, I'm banging this drum again):

 

Korea (similar to the UK in terms of population number and development/health and economic resources available) - 8.29 deaths per million

[Nod.E]

10 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

 

Hmmm - it was their worst death toll within half of a year in 150 years. 

 

They have the 13th highest death when based on per capita/population. Higher than France, Netherlands, Iran*. 

 

To give that figure context, if you compare to their neighbours

Sweden - 578.6 deaths per million 

Denmark - 114.71 

Finland - 62.7

Norway - 51.75 

I suppose it comes down to what you prioritise.

 

The quality of life of 10 million. (Sweden)

 

Or saving the life of 40/50k already vulnerable people. 

 

In 10 years when the vast majority of those would be dead anyway, we'll be kicking ourselves we didn't choose the former.

 

Call me cynical, brutal or heartless. It's just the better thing for the human race, long term and short.

Edited 9 October 2020 by Nod.E

[Nod.E]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And (yes, I'm banging this drum again):

 

Korea (similar to the UK in terms of population number and development/health and economic resources available) - 8.29 deaths per million

Let's all be like Korea.

[Crinklyfox]

1 minute ago, Nod.E said:

Let's all be like Korea.

That's a good idea.  If we had a track and trace system as efficient as theirs that would be a good start.

[The People's Hero]

10 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

I suppose it comes down to what you prioritise.

 

The quality of life of 10 million. (Sweden)

 

Or saving the life of 40/50k already vulnerable people. 

 

In 10 years when the vast majority of those would be dead anyway, we'll be kicking ourselves we didn't choose the former.

 

Call me cynical, brutal or heartless. It's just the better thing for the human race, long term and short.

 

You're cynical, brutal, heartless and correct.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

Let's all be like Korea.

Only one month off work and furloughed for me despite interacting with the public heavily and that was back in March (and not too many hours lost for jobs across the board compared to other places)?

Keeping the numbers low through targetted measures that ensure really efficient knowledge of outbreaks while keeping businesses open as much as they can be?

An economic downturn as a result of this that, while nasty, doesn't really compare to other similar places?

 

I'll be honest, perhaps the UK could learn a thing or two.

 

Of course, the Koreans had a couple of advantages in that they had a plan already in place for something like this and so it wasn't so difficult to execute, and because of that the numbers never really spiralled out of control in the same way as other similar countries and that allowed for track and trace to be very effective (because you're dealing with less people to track and trace in the first place).

[Alf Bentley]

6 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

I suppose it comes down to what you prioritise.

 

The quality of life of 10 million. (Sweden)

 

Or saving the life of 40/50k already vulnerable people. 

 

In 10 years when the vast majority of those would be dead anyway, we'll be kicking ourselves we didn't choose the former.

 

Call me cynical, brutal or heartless. It's just the better thing for the human race, long term and short.

 

It's only a short jump from that thinking to compulsory euthanasia of the elderly and incurably sick.

 

If the elderly and incurably sick were put to death (humanely, of course), it would undoubtedly free up a lot of resources that could be used to improve the quality of life of the younger, healthier majority of the population.

The vast majority of the elderly and incurably sick would be dead in 10 years, anyway, so where's the problem with that? 

[Nod.E]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

It's only a short jump from that thinking to compulsory euthanasia of the elderly and incurably sick.

 

If the elderly and incurably sick were put to death (humanely, of course), it would undoubtedly free up a lot of resources that could be used to improve the quality of life of the younger, healthier majority of the population.

The vast majority of the elderly and incurably sick would be dead in 10 years, anyway, so where's the problem with that? 

The difference is that in the case of Covid, it's a matter of needs must.

[Nod.E]

12 minutes ago, Crinklyfox said:

That's a good idea.  If we had a track and trace system as efficient as theirs that would be a good start.

Would only have been possible if implemented from the start.

 

Would only have been implementable from the start with a population with a history of dictatorship.

 

It's pie in the sky, I'm afraid.