Coronavirus Thread

[RowlattsFox]

It certainly makes a case for smaller specialist hospitals rather than having one huge hospital with everything there. There are probably many logistical reasons why that's not possible and I guess certain departments will need to be together for complications and deterioration of illness. Cancer treatment centres, maternity centres etc. There are probably areas that has this already but makes it easier for treatment and services to continue. 

 

The no visit to care homes is very sad, surely something can be done to isolate visits for a short period of the day, without touching if they have to but better than nothing. They'll be no statistics for it probably but many in care homes and within their own homes will lose the will to live due to loneliness, lack of activity and routine. There are a couple of hours who spend a couple of hours every afternoon in my local and it keeps them sane. 

[joachim1965]

19 minutes ago, Lionator said:

So what do you do in Liverpool now? NHS covid beds are 95% full and the local epidemic is still rising so they're going to be overwhelmed, and are going to have to cancel non covid related medical routines anyway to create extra capacity. 

 

It's not an either/or issue. It's to protect the NHS and ultimately, the quicker you lockdown, the quicker you come out, which means less of a hit to the economy. 

How long do we continue with this cycle, it's been eight months now , so to say the quicker you lockdown the quicker you come out is absolute crap, and with less hit to the economy? The economy is literally on it's arse.

[joachim1965]

8 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Oh nah we definitely still need restrictions, I’m just saying people keep saying we’re doing all this so the NHS can function properly, but it hasn’t been for months anyway. Even pre covid it was a mess. 

Flatten the curve, that was the aim, the curve is pretty flat at the moment but still the madness continues.

It is cases that is driving everything, people really should realise that a positive pcr test does not mean positive for covid 19, the test cannot tell you this.

[SpacedX]

3 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

How long do we continue with this cycle, it's been eight months now , so to say the quicker you lockdown the quicker you come out is absolute crap, and with less hit to the economy? The economy is literally on it's arse.

Yeah, you probably need to comprehend, along with some others on this thread, that a global pandemic is neither obliged nor duty bound to conform to the arbitrary time limits, insistence and expectations of some belligerent members of a provincial football forum.

[UniFox21]

17 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

Herd immunity is not a fallacy as a strategy, it is natures way of keeping us alive and has been since time immemorial and would have done so this time, Boris and the government were going to go with herd immunity until professor Ferguson's wild claim that we would have half a million deaths.

The Strategy itself is fine, but it isnt effective in this example. If it was, we'd have seen many more countries using it rather than locking down. The minute we have an effective vaccine, the strategy will be able to be used to good effect. 

 

 

15 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Oh nah we definitely still need restrictions, I’m just saying people keep saying we’re doing all this so the NHS can function properly, but it hasn’t been for months anyway. Even pre covid it was a mess. 

In which case I fully agree with you,  the NHS has suffered for years through cuts. It needs all the help it can get.

[Zear0]

17 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

Herd immunity is not a fallacy as a strategy, it is natures way of keeping us alive and has been since time immemorial and would have done so this time, Boris and the government were going to go with herd immunity until professor Ferguson's wild claim that we would have half a million deaths.

I try to avoid posting here with anything serious as this is like listening to Trump supporters having a tea party, but I'll bite.  I think infecting the nation with COVID is quite the opposite of nature's way of keeping us alive.

[joachim1965]

25 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Yeah, you probably need to comprehend, along with some others on this thread, that a global pandemic is neither obliged nor duty bound to conform to the arbitrary time limits, insistence and expectations of some belligerent members of a provincial football forum.

correct, but it would help if we had people in charge who actually had half a clue what they were doing and not making it up as they go along.

[joachim1965]

27 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

I try to avoid posting here with anything serious as this is like listening to Trump supporters having a tea party, but I'll bite.  I think infecting the nation with COVID is quite the opposite of nature's way of keeping us alive.

our immune system is natures way of keeping us alive, without viruses we would have no immune system. We cannot hide from everything.

[Footballwipe]

Came to check if Joachim was still covering his hands over his eyes hoping the pandemic had gone away, or was twisting statistics to try and conform to his point of view.

 

Not disappointed.

[SpacedX]

7 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

correct, but it would help if we had people in charge who actually had half a clue what they were doing and not making it up as they go along.

Agree - the government's knee-jerk responses throughout have been indecisive and at times, the tone non-committal, whilst the contradictory communication of guidelines, restrictions and regulations has left the general populace largely bewildered. 

 

 

 

[Zear0]

6 hours ago, joachim1965 said:

our immune system is natures way of keeping us alive, without viruses we would have no immune system. We cannot hide from everything.

Correct we can't hide from everything.  https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-08664-w, shall we let Ebola run through the population next as we'd develop a herd immunity then?  I'm being silly with that example, but it's key as we're entering an ALARP space where judgements on what is considered acceptable level of risks are being made.  Lockdown for Varicella, Flu, Yellow Fever or Ebola, where do we draw the line?  With risk management, whether it's nuclear safety, road safety or in this case epidemiological once people have set a baseline for what is tolerable (ie March's lockdown), moving away from that is rarely considered to be ALARP hence why we're in today's position where, even with more understanding and better treatments, we're still having to lockdown.  I used road safety as an example; 70mph was set as the tolerable speed back in 1965, cars are safer now but nobody will move what is considered to be the acceptable level of risk, same for the principles of lockdown.

 

All tolerability to risk is judgement based (some people fly in wingsuits others won't cross a clear road until the green name appears) and the levels of tolerability were set in March.  Every government process on risk levels to all threats is based on this principle and they won't budge as you need a damn good reason to do so.  Whether the baseline set in March was right or wrong is where we need to aim criticism if you don't agree with what's happening now.  This is an engineers perspective on lockdown (NERD ALERT!) 

Edited 15 October 2020 by Zear0
Typo

[joachim1965]

13 minutes ago, Footballwipe said:

Came to check if Joachim was still covering his hands over his eyes hoping the pandemic had gone away, or was twisting statistics to try and conform to his point of view.

 

Not disappointed.

made me chuckle that one. 🤣

[Mapperleyfox]

1 hour ago, joachim1965 said:

Flatten the curve, that was the aim, the curve is pretty flat at the moment but still the madness continues.

It is cases that is driving everything, people really should realise that a positive pcr test does not mean positive for covid 19, the test cannot tell you this.

If the false positives scenario is a thing, why hasn't there been rigorous analysis undertaken to determine the 'real' numbers associated so that we can get on with testing that's accurate and gives the public confidence.

 

I've heard different perspectives on the numbers from 90%, to 1% or 2%, to 'we don't know'.

[Jon the Hat]

19 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Agree - the government's knee-jerk responses throughout have been indecisive and at times, the tone non-committal, whilst the contradictory communication of guidelines, restrictions and regulations has left the general populace largely bewildered. 

 

 

 

If you must bake in a tent, bake in a tent.  But please, don't bake in a tent.

[Col city fan]

On a completely different note, I wonder how the virus has impacted on ‘casual sex’, one-nighters etc

For me, alas even the thought of casual sex is but a distant memory but I wonder if the young uns are still ‘at it’, so to speak?

😀

[Guest Fktf]

2 hours ago, simFox said:

Likewise, so should lockdown lovers. Own all the misery, job losses, social and economic destruction, non Covid deaths, mental health issues, suicides and our children's lack of education. 

 

We'll own the covid deaths, which will be a blip in comparison. And here's the rub, as well as owning all that stuff, you'll still OWN the covid deaths. That's the bit that you just don't understand. You already own the 40k.

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-medic-s-case-against-another-lockdown

 

This has now been done for lockdowns. In August, the Lancet published an analysis of data from 50 countries. The researchers found that full lockdowns were 'not associated' with decreased mortality from Covid-19. These are hard outcome data; reality cannot be waved away with theories or projections. 

Mate, you need to leave the science to the people that understand it. Or stop twisting it to suit your argument if you do understand it.

 

First, that published analysis in Lancet used data up to may 1st, when a lot of countries in the analysis were still riding up the peak, or were at the top of it. It was conducted too early to evaluate how the measures impacted death rate. You want to make this point, find an up to date analysis that includes data from the whole rise and fall of the peak in these countries - then we'll see.

 

Second, the point of lockdown is to preserve nhs capacity so people can be treated, and avoid more deaths from breaching health care capacity. And oh look, that article finds that even in the early days of the pandemic, lockdowns were associated with increased recovery rates.

 

"The government policy of full lockdowns (vs. partial or curfews only) was strongly associated with recovery rates (RR=2.47; 95%CI: 1.08–5.64). Similarly, the number of days to any border closure was associated with the number of cases per million (RR=1.04; 95%CI: 1.01–1.08). This suggests that full lockdowns and early border closures may lessen the peak of transmission, and thus prevent health system overcapacity, which would facilitate increased recovery rates."

 

"In our study, an increasing number of days to border closures was associated with a higher caseload, and more restrictive public health measures (such as a full lockdown compared to partial or curfew only measures) were associated with an increase in the number of recovered cases per million population. These findings suggest that more restrictive public health practices may indeed be associated with less transmission and better outcomes."

 

Third, and here's where the spectator article is wrong, there is no available death or recovery data for if we did breach nhs capacity - because by the skin of our teeth we never did breach it. The whole field of disease modelling is to try and estimate what would happen in various circumstances, so you can try your best to plot a best course of action. The article seems to suggest only hard data are to be believed. How the hell are supposed to get hard data on what would happen if we breach nhs capacity unless we let it happen? 

 

The only point of any value you've made is trying to balance the clearly positive effects of a lockdown against the negative consequences it has - but I think everyone understands that by now.

[Leicester_Loyal]

21 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

On a completely different note, I wonder how the virus has impacted on ‘casual sex’, one-nighters etc

For me, alas even the thought of casual sex is but a distant memory but I wonder if the young uns are still ‘at it’, so to speak?

😀

I'd take Covid if it meant I got my end away, not gonna lie.

[yorkie1999]

Another couple of years of this and we'll all be fine. The 3 month vaccine should help a lot.

[joachim1965]

29 minutes ago, Mapperleyfox said:

If the false positives scenario is a thing, why hasn't there been rigorous analysis undertaken to determine the 'real' numbers associated so that we can get on with testing that's accurate and gives the public confidence.

 

I've heard different perspectives on the numbers from 90%, to 1% or 2%, to 'we don't know'.

You tell me, I have no idea, there is no firm data for the rate of false positives, but the accepted figure I believe is between 0.8% and 3.5%.

You can't accurately test for covid with a pcr test.

Edited 15 October 2020 by joachim1965

[Leicester_Loyal]

London to move into Tier 2, now the fun begins!

[SpacedX]

12 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I'd take Covid if it meant I got my end away, not gonna lie.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7326390/

 

Put simply, you might even struggle to raise a semi. 

[SpacedX]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54540544

[StriderHiryu]

 

Sadly, sums up the response to the pandemic perfectly.

[Mapperleyfox]

22 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

You tell me, I have no idea, there is no firm data for the rate of false positives, but the accepted figure I believe is between 0.8% and 3.5%.

You can't accurately test for covid with a pcr test.

It's bonkers though because if the false positives are measured against the number of tests taken (which feels like the right way to do it) then it's a game changer.

 

It's hard to know who to believe to be honest. Some definitive and objective answers would be nice.

[joachim1965]

26 minutes ago, Mapperleyfox said:

It's bonkers though because if the false positives are measured against the number of tests taken (which feels like the right way to do it) then it's a game changer.

 

It's hard to know who to believe to be honest. Some definitive and objective answers would be nice.

That is how you measure false positives, for instance if you take a figure of 2.5% , for every 100 tests, 2.5 will be false positives, multiply this by the amount of tests taken, therein lies the problem.