Coronavirus Thread

[WigstonWanderer]

3 hours ago, UniFox21 said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker.amp.html

 

This link should give you a decent idea of what will potentially happen. You'll be screened for any potential conditions, then likely infected with an inactivated or mild strain of Covid. You'll be tested with either the vaccine or a placebo and monitored to see how you develop. 

I doubt that they would deliberately infect @martynwith even a mild strain of the live virus, or an inactivated version either for that matter. I think they just compare the number of cases naturally acquired amongst the vaccine group with those in the placebo group.

 

PHASE 3 EFFICACY TRIALS: Scientists give the vaccine to thousands of people and wait to see how many become infected, compared with volunteers who received a placebo. These trials can determine if the vaccine protects against the coronavirus. In June, the F.D.A. advised vaccine makers that they would want to see evidence that vaccines can  protect at least 50 percent of those who receive it. In addition, Phase 3 trials are large enough to reveal evidence of relatively rare side effects that might be missed in earlier studies.

Edited 12 October 2020 by WigstonWanderer

[dsr-burnley]

4 hours ago, Parafox said:

The Gov are recording all deaths as Covid where there was a previous positive Covid test, whatever the actual cause of death. That, to me doesn't make sense. Someone could die in a car crash or suicide but if they had tested positive for Covid, it's recorded as a Covid related death. Nonsense. How can we possibly believe the figures when this is the case?

That is a triviality.  The numbers of people being killed in road accidents is not enough to skew the figures.  Ignore that point.

 

What is relevant is how many people are dying because of coronavirus as an immediate cause but would have died soon anyway.  People with cancer, or heart failure, for example.  People who were really really old and whatever they caught next was going to kill them.  With flu and pneumonia, as I have mentioned before, about two thirds of the deaths with flu and/or pneumonia on the death certificate were primarily due to something else.  Where are the authoritative stats on that position with coronavirus..

 

This is serious enough, and for that matter the "cure" is serious enough, that officials could go through case by case and get a more or less exact number of people who were certainly dying anyway, likely to die anyway, or not in apparent danger of death.  The chances are (based on the excess deaths figure which isnot wildly different from the official coronavirus deaths figure) that there is a fairly high proportion of coronavirus deaths that would not have happened.  But it would be nice to know.

[Guest Fktf]

Its clearly about the hospitalization at this point, not the death rate linked to covid. So the whole debate is a bit moot.

[WigstonWanderer]

5 minutes ago, Fktf said:

Its clearly about the hospitalization at this point, not the death rate linked to covid. So the whole debate is a bit moot.

Yes, I think those who wanted to let rip are effectively getting their way. Even so, any responsible government would have to avoid overwhelming health services, so some local lockdowns and restrictions are still likely.

Edited 12 October 2020 by WigstonWanderer

[Guest Fktf]

14 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Yes, I think those who wanted to let rip are effectively getting their way. Even so, any responsible government would have to avoid overwhelming health services, so some local lockdowns and restrictions are still likely.

We could have a drug that - say - was 100% effective as long as it was given as soon as someone went onto a ventilator. No more deaths from covid19. And we would still be facing some restrictions to slow the spread, because we simply cannot get the volume of people through hospitals if this spreads unchecked. 

 

The focus on case rate (and the baggage of false positives) and death rate (and the baggage of how it is recorded) is misleading. We're debating statistical curiosities about the accuracy of irrelevant metrics, instead of the problem at hand.

 

Partly blame govt comms and news reports for this. After all, the information they feed us is mostly case and death rate.

[Sly]

At this point it’s about giving the NHS breathing room, rather than the number of people dying. If we don’t have the capacity to look after people, the death rate will unfortunately go up.

 

I fully understand the statement of people in a more fragile condition being pushed over the edge by this. That they would have passed away to the next virus etc. Unfortunately if it’s preventable they need to avoid it. Reading between the lines, this virus has the potential to take more than the most at risk as well, so if not controlled, we’d see soaring death figures. 
 

Due to the social distancing measures we now have in place and the wearing of masks, you’d anticipate that viruses like the common cold and flu would also be at reduced numbers this year. 
 

I still can’t believe that I’m seeing people claiming this isn’t as deadly as the flu, calling people sheep, anti maskers ......

[Pliskin]

1 hour ago, Sly said:

At this point it’s about giving the NHS breathing room, rather than the number of people dying. If we don’t have the capacity to look after people, the death rate will unfortunately go up.

 

I fully understand the statement of people in a more fragile condition being pushed over the edge by this. That they would have passed away to the next virus etc. Unfortunately if it’s preventable they need to avoid it. Reading between the lines, this virus has the potential to take more than the most at risk as well, so if not controlled, we’d see soaring death figures. 
 

Due to the social distancing measures we now have in place and the wearing of masks, you’d anticipate that viruses like the common cold and flu would also be at reduced numbers this year. 
 

I still can’t believe that I’m seeing people claiming this isn’t as deadly as the flu, calling people sheep, anti maskers ......

This is an excellent post, and one I completely agree with. You're absolutely right, this is about not overwhelming the NHS again, trying keep things at a manageable level. It is absolutely impossible to protect everyone, and whilst the virus is in its infancy it will spread like wildfire when given the opportunity to do so. Not every life will be saved, and it is impossible to protect all of those people, and those who feel most vulnerable should take some ownership where they can to keep themselves safe. 

 

The virus will take more lives, it will take more jobs and more businesses. You would not wan't to be a politician during this period, juggling the health of the nation with a fragile economy is not something I would want to do that's for sure.   

 

And you're so right about these tits thinking it is a "cold". I have known a few people who have had it, two hospitalised with one being in quite a serious way. It is serious, and whilst it doesn't have the same impact on all, it can be someones terminal condition. 

[Izzy]

I can't help but think what would have happened if the Government had spent all the Covid 19 bail out money on new hospitals and staff beforehand instead.

 

Just hypothetical of course, but the pandemic has already cost the UK something like £200 billion and you can probably double that if this carries on until next spring.

 

With the average hospital costing £100m, you could have had a brand spanking new hospital for every town which would all have had the capacity to handle admissions, and deal with the operations/cancer treatment/waiting list backlog.

 

Hindsight I and over simplistic I know, but makes you wonder...

[joachim1965]

2 hours ago, Sly said:

At this point it’s about giving the NHS breathing room, rather than the number of people dying. If we don’t have the capacity to look after people, the death rate will unfortunately go up.

 

I fully understand the statement of people in a more fragile condition being pushed over the edge by this. That they would have passed away to the next virus etc. Unfortunately if it’s preventable they need to avoid it. Reading between the lines, this virus has the potential to take more than the most at risk as well, so if not controlled, we’d see soaring death figures. 
 

Due to the social distancing measures we now have in place and the wearing of masks, you’d anticipate that viruses like the common cold and flu would also be at reduced numbers this year. 
 

I still can’t believe that I’m seeing people claiming this isn’t as deadly as the flu, calling people sheep, anti maskers ......

Influenza is killing far more people than covid , so by definition is more deadly.

[StanSP]

11 minutes ago, Izzy said:

I can't help but think what would have happened if the Government had spent all the Covid 19 bail out money on new hospitals and staff beforehand instead.

 

Just hypothetical of course, but the pandemic has already cost the UK something like £200 billion and you can probably double that if this carries on until next spring.

 

With the average hospital costing £100m, you could have had a brand spanking new hospital for every town which would all have had the capacity to handle admissions, and deal with the operations/cancer treatment/waiting list backlog.

 

Hindsight I and over simplistic I know, but makes you wonder...

It would have just been good if the gov spent money sensibly on the right things. Not just contracts with their mates worth billions. Corrupt cvnts. 

[FoxesDeb]

10 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

Influenza is killing far more people than covid , so by definition is more deadly.

Absolute nonsense, yet again

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsduetocoronaviruscovid19comparedwithdeathsfrominfluenzaandpneumoniaenglandandwales/deathsoccurringbetween1januaryand31august2020

 

• Of all death occurrences between January and August 2020, there were 48,168 deaths due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) compared with 13,619 deaths due to pneumonia and 394 deaths due to influenza.
• Influenza and pneumonia was mentioned on more death certificates than COVID-19, however COVID-19 was the underlying cause of death in over three times as many deaths between January and August 2020.
• The highest number of deaths due to influenza and pneumonia occurred in January 2020, however influenza and pneumonia deaths were below the five-year average (2015 to 2019) in every month.
• Deaths due to COVID-19 were higher than deaths due to influenza and pneumonia between March and June.
• Age-standardised and age-specific mortality rates for deaths due to COVID-19 were statistically significantly higher than mortality rates due to influenza and pneumonia when compared with the five-year average and 2020 rates.
• The proportion of deaths occurring in care homes due to COVID-19 was almost double the proportion of deaths due to influenza and pneumonia (30.0% and 15.2% respectively).
• In comparison with the deaths due to influenza and pneumonia occurring in the year to 31 August 2020, deaths due to COVID-19 have been higher than every year monthly data are available (1959 to 2020).

Statistician's comment

“More than three times as many deaths were recorded between January and August this year where COVID-19 was the underlying cause compared to influenza and pneumonia."

“The mortality rate for COVID-19 is also significantly higher than influenza and pneumonia rates for both 2020 and the five-year average."

“Since 1959, which is when ONS monthly death records began, the number of deaths due to influenza and pneumonia in the first eight months of every year have been lower than the number of COVID-19 deaths seen, so far, in 2020.”

[ealingfox]

10 minutes ago, Izzy said:

I can't help but think what would have happened if the Government had spent all the Covid 19 bail out money on new hospitals and staff beforehand instead.

 

Just hypothetical of course, but the pandemic has already cost the UK something like £200 billion and you can probably double that if this carries on until next spring.

 

With the average hospital costing £100m, you could have had a brand spanking new hospital for every town which would all have had the capacity to handle admissions, and deal with the operations/cancer treatment/waiting list backlog.

 

Hindsight I and over simplistic I know, but makes you wonder...

 

You must have known that successive Conservative governments were not going to do this when you voted for them surely?

[Izzy]

6 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

You must have known that successive Conservative governments were not going to do this when you voted for them surely?

I'm sure this government and governments the world over had no idea this was coming.

 

I just find it interesting that the money is available for furlough/grants etc. and wondered what would have happened if it had been spent beforehand on hospitals, infrastructure and staff that would have had the capacity to cope with the pandemic.

 

It's a shit ton of money currently being given out and at the end we'll have nothing to show for it.

[ealingfox]

Just now, Izzy said:

I'm sure this government and governments the world over had no idea this was coming.

 

I just find it interesting that the money is available for furlough/grants etc. and wondered what would have happened if it had been spent beforehand on hospitals, infrastructure and staff that would have had the capacity to cope with the pandemic.

 

It's a shit ton of money currently being given out and at the end we'll have nothing to show for it.

 

You don't need to see a pandemic coming for investment in healthcare to be worthwhile. 

[Innovindil]

28 minutes ago, Izzy said:

I can't help but think what would have happened if the Government had spent all the Covid 19 bail out money on new hospitals and staff beforehand instead.

 

Just hypothetical of course, but the pandemic has already cost the UK something like £200 billion and you can probably double that if this carries on until next spring.

 

With the average hospital costing £100m, you could have had a brand spanking new hospital for every town which would all have had the capacity to handle admissions, and deal with the operations/cancer treatment/waiting list backlog.

 

Hindsight I and over simplistic I know, but makes you wonder...

NHS already "short" of staff and we'll build a new hospital in every town? Eh? 

[SpacedX]

29 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

Influenza is killing far more people than covid , so by definition is more deadly.

I swear to God that these posts getting exponentially more ridiculous and desperate by the day. Some of these comments make the match threads seem informed, measured and rational. 

[Izzy]

13 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

NHS already "short" of staff and we'll build a new hospital in every town? Eh? 

Which is why I also mentioned recruiting new staff as well. You wouldn't open a new hospital with no staff would you 

 

 

Edited 13 October 2020 by Izzy

[Facecloth]

3 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Which is why I also mentioned recruiting new staff as well. You wouldn't open a new hospital with no staff would you 

 

 

This government probably would, let's be honest.

 

They gave a billion pound ferry contract to a company with no boats.

Edited 13 October 2020 by Facecloth

[The whole world smiles]

17 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

NHS already "short" of staff and we'll build a new hospital in every town? Eh? 

Forget hospitals the governments (not this one the one before but same party) ridiculous decision to scrap the nursing bursary has cost a lot of life's. 

 

We didn't even need new investment just investment in line with inflation. Unfortunately the NHS has been facing real time cuts (when you factor in pop growth and inflation) for over a decade. 

[Innovindil]

1 minute ago, Izzy said:

Which is why I also mentioned recruiting new staff as well. You wouldn't open a new hospital with no staff would you 

 

 

No you wouldn't. But to staff a hospital in every town you'd have had to start training them decades ago. Not as easy as ordering a box of masks. 

 

Tbh I think when we do get a full backwards looking investigation into how we've handled this the amount of money given to the NHS in preparing for an event like this will be a pretty hefty talking point. Although I think it needs saying that when this all first started we had people of all shapes and sizes losing their crap over how our NHS would cope with this pandemic, losing their crap over how many ventilators we had, how much PPE we had stored away but imo besides a few teething problems at the beginning I think they've handled it terrifically. 

[Izzy]

8 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

No you wouldn't. But to staff a hospital in every town you'd have had to start training them decades ago. Not as easy as ordering a box of masks. 

 

Tbh I think when we do get a full backwards looking investigation into how we've handled this the amount of money given to the NHS in preparing for an event like this will be a pretty hefty talking point. Although I think it needs saying that when this all first started we had people of all shapes and sizes losing their crap over how our NHS would cope with this pandemic, losing their crap over how many ventilators we had, how much PPE we had stored away but imo besides a few teething problems at the beginning I think they've handled it terrifically. 

I agree they've handled it well in the circumstances.

 

My point being that all the measure put in place are designed to prevent NHS over capacity. My hypothesis just wondered what would have happened if we already did have the capacity to let the virus run it's course without the need for restrictions, furlough, grants, handouts, redundancies etc. at the cost of hundreds of billions.

 

Just seems sad that we'll have spent all this money and have nothing to show for it at the end.

 

Anyway, ignore me. I'm spouting shit as always 

 

[Innovindil]

6 minutes ago, Izzy said:

I agree they've handled it well in the circumstances.

 

My point being that all the measure put in place are designed to prevent NHS over capacity. My hypothesis just wondered what would have happened if we already did have the capacity to let the virus run it's course without the need for restrictions, furlough, grants, handouts, redundancies etc. at the cost of hundreds of billions.

 

Just seems sad that we'll have spent all this money and have nothing to show for it at the end.

 

Anyway, ignore me. I'm spouting shit as always 

 

Nah it's a good point. And I reckon I'd have been all for it. But we'd still have the problem of thousands dying from it since it's not just lack of access to treatment causing it. Just don't think people would accept it. 

 

The cost of it all is staggering no matter where you look at it. Thousands of families pissed off at losing loved ones and millions of tax payers pissed off knowing tax rises will be coming and hundreds of thousands of people pissed off because they no longer have jobs. 

 

What a shit year it has been. 

[ealingfox]

Let's not forget the previous Conservatve government ran a 3-day exercise on pandemic preparedness in 2016. They didn't like the results so they ignored the recommendations and buried the report, and are still refusing to release the findings.

 

Fed up of the lies and excuses.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/28/exercise-cygnus-uncovered-pandemic-warnings-buried-government/

Edited 13 October 2020 by ealingfox

[ealingfox]

.

Edited 13 October 2020 by ealingfox

[WigstonWanderer]

4 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

.

Haha, did you get caught trying to edit your post and accidentally pressed the quote button? Done it myself many times. Just can’t get used to the new format where the edit button is buried.