Coronavirus Thread

[Nod.E]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

Got to say, I was pro-first lockdown and have generally been for the measures that have come in, but I'm not convinced by the firebreak lockdown either.

 

To me, local lockdowns right now in places like Liverpool where NHS capacity is genuinely on the verge of being breached, with the potential for a nationwide lockdown if the NHS looks like it will definitely breach capacity over the winter makes the most sense. But to me, a firebreak lockdown is just kicking the can down the road a month or so while putting people's livelihoods at risk. I don't  see the logic in how it will save many lives from the NHS  capacity being breached as the numbers will just grow back to that level in a month's time, but you're risking lives from the economic impact of the lockdown.

 

I understand the logic if you do the firebreak lockdown early on when cases start to rise to get them down to a point where it can't rise rapidly again, but when we're at this point, I can't see how we can suppress the virus enough in only 2-3 weeks to stop it not just exploding again once we open up? If there is to be a lockdown with the cases rising like they are, surely it needs to be longer than 2-3 weeks to suppress the virus? It just feels like a bit of an arbitrary time frame which does nothing but just kick the can down the road.

 

Happy to be proven wrong on this though.

Just another half measure. No leadership, no clue, no hope.

[Sampson]

18 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

Just another half measure. No leadership, no clue, no hope.

I think the government has got so, so much wrong in this pandemic but I actually think the government is doing broadly the right thing right now (though I'd have more school kids and university students working from home) in England over what is being done in Wales.

 

I wouldn't have been against the early firebreak lockdown when it was first suggested a few weeks ago, but to my possibly ignorant knowledge it seems like that short window to be effective has passed now. 

 

If the NHS genuinely is at the position it was back in March in a few week's time then I'd definitely be for a national lockdown (if it's a proper one, not just a 2 week one), but right now when we have much more regional data it makes a lot more sense to me to stick to the localised tier system, although maybe places like Liverpool where the NHS is struggling need a harsher lockdown than tier 3.

 

But it definitely doesn't feel right shutting down people's livelihoods in a place like Cornwall where cases are relatively low and aren't rising at a particularly high rate either, because a virus is pushing hospitals to the brink in Liverpool and Manchester.

Edited 24 October 2020 by Sampson

[st albans fox]

33 minutes ago, Sampson said:

 

 

But it definitely doesn't feel right shutting down people's livelihoods in a place like Cornwall where cases are relatively low and aren't rising at a particularly high rate either, because a virus is pushing hospitals to the brink in Liverpool and Manchester.

 

Edited 24 October 2020 by st albans fox

[Nod.E]

48 minutes ago, Sampson said:

I think the government has got so, so much wrong in this pandemic but I actually think the government is doing broadly the right thing right now (though I'd have more school kids and university students working from home) in England over what is being done in Wales.

 

I wouldn't have been against the early firebreak lockdown when it was first suggested a few weeks ago, but to my possibly ignorant knowledge it seems like that short window to be effective has passed now. 

 

If the NHS genuinely is at the position it was back in March in a few week's time then I'd definitely be for a national lockdown (if it's a proper one, not just a 2 week one), but right now when we have much more regional data it makes a lot more sense to me to stick to the localised tier system, although maybe places like Liverpool where the NHS is struggling need a harsher lockdown than tier 3.

 

But it definitely doesn't feel right shutting down people's livelihoods in a place like Cornwall where cases are relatively low and aren't rising at a particularly high rate either, because a virus is pushing hospitals to the brink in Liverpool and Manchester.

With all the money at stake, would it not be feasible to pay doctors and nurses from places like Cornwall well above the odds to help out in Nightingale hospitals in areas with more cases such as Manchester and Liverpool right now?

 

Any lockdown, local or not, should be regarded last resort.

[Ian Nacho]

Shower thought of the day: Covid-19 sounds like a pair of football boots. 

 

“Yeah mate just got myself a pair of Adidas Covid-19s”. 

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, fuchsntf said:

We are fukked, 

 

We are dead.....Close thread..!!

Theres more life & intelligence in the Darien gap, and the space in between...!!!

 

 

There's more intelligence in the Boötes void.

[fuchsntf]

8 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

There's more intelligence in the Boötes void.

A constellation,   giving a better constitution

[Legend_in_blue]

Another great watch.  

 

 

[CosbehFox]

1 hour ago, Legend_in_blue said:

Another great watch.  

 

 

Just looked up this fella, he’s not even a qualified doctor 

[Legend_in_blue]

30 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Just looked up this fella, he’s not even a qualified doctor 

He doesn't need to be.  He evaluates the data that's already out there.

 

The mastermind behind the ICL figures Ferguson is well qualified, on paper, but that hasn't translated in any way shape or form to an accurate set of projections.  The whole UK strategy in dealing with this is based on these projections and there's no sign of abandoning this approach despite all the data to the contrary.

 

I see the BBC is again pushing his agenda having wheeled him out once more with his focus now being on keeping 14 to 16 year olds at home.  

 

Repeating the conclusions made in the earlier video posted, where is the exit strategy here?

Edited 24 October 2020 by Legend_in_blue

[dsr-burnley]

The problem with lockdown is that there is very little evidence that it works.  Let's leave aside the countries that squeezed the life out of the virus before it started, and just look at those where it took hold.

 

In Italy, Spain, UK, we had lockdowns and the virus took off like wildfire in Spring before dropping quite fast for the summer and is now rising again.  

 

In Sweden they had no lockdown but asked people to use common sense and the virus took off like wildfire in the Spring before dropping quite fast for the summer and is now rising again.

 

In Brazil there was no lockdown at all and the virus took off like wildfire in Spring before dropping rather more slowly and hasn't yet started rising again.  Their data may be a bit skewed because the vastness of the country means that different areas started their waves at different times.

 

In Peru they had a very thorough lockdown which delayed the start of the serious numbers until May, whereupon they took off pretty fast (but not like wildfire) before dropping in late summer.  They haven't started rising again yet.

 

In Poland they held it down successfully with lockdown in spring and it stayed low through summer but now has taken off and is far worse than it was first time round (but still not as high as ours).

 

The point I am making is that most of these countries, however they run the lockdowns, are ending up in about the same place.  Lockdown, no lockdown, degree of lockdown, it seems to make very little difference.  Can we have a scientifc basis to show that lockdown actually works?

[Legend_in_blue]

26 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

The problem with lockdown is that there is very little evidence that it works.  Let's leave aside the countries that squeezed the life out of the virus before it started, and just look at those where it took hold.

 

In Italy, Spain, UK, we had lockdowns and the virus took off like wildfire in Spring before dropping quite fast for the summer and is now rising again.  

 

In Sweden they had no lockdown but asked people to use common sense and the virus took off like wildfire in the Spring before dropping quite fast for the summer and is now rising again.

 

In Brazil there was no lockdown at all and the virus took off like wildfire in Spring before dropping rather more slowly and hasn't yet started rising again.  Their data may be a bit skewed because the vastness of the country means that different areas started their waves at different times.

 

In Peru they had a very thorough lockdown which delayed the start of the serious numbers until May, whereupon they took off pretty fast (but not like wildfire) before dropping in late summer.  They haven't started rising again yet.

 

In Poland they held it down successfully with lockdown in spring and it stayed low through summer but now has taken off and is far worse than it was first time round (but still not as high as ours).

 

The point I am making is that most of these countries, however they run the lockdowns, are ending up in about the same place.  Lockdown, no lockdown, degree of lockdown, it seems to make very little difference.  Can we have a scientifc basis to show that lockdown actually works?

According to Ivor Cummins, there isn't one.  There's plenty to suggest the opposite however.

[WigstonWanderer]

21 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

According to Ivor Cummins, there isn't one.  There's plenty to suggest the opposite however.

So if I’ve understood, @dsr-burnleyis saying that lockdowns don’t work in the long term because shutting down to achieve lower infection in the short term just means that infection rates rise later on when they’ve been lifted? I actually agree with that.

 

This is exactly what the original Imperial College paper suggested if I recall, and that’s why the government started off with a herd immunity strategy. The objective was to let it run through the population as quickly as possible, but when hospitals were threatened with being overwhelmed they imposed a lockdown.

 

A lockdown isn’t a long term policy, it’s a relatively short term strategy to reduce infection rates. Either it can be used as described above as a last resort to protect health services, or with a view to driving rates down until they are manageable by contact tracing, testing and isolation measures such as in Australia, South Korea and elsewhere.

 

It is certainly true to say that most western style countries have failed to lock in low infection rates when they perhaps had the chance.

Edited 24 October 2020 by WigstonWanderer

[dsr-burnley]

46 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

So if I’ve understood, @dsr-burnleyis saying that lockdowns don’t work in the long term because shutting down to achieve lower infection in the short term just means that infection rates rise later on when they’ve been lifted? I actually agree with that.

 

This is exactly what the original Imperial College paper suggested if I recall, and that’s why the government started off with a herd immunity strategy. The objective was to let it run through the population as quickly as possible, but when hospitals were threatened with being overwhelmed they imposed a lockdown.

 

A lockdown isn’t a long term policy, it’s a relatively short term strategy to reduce infection rates. Either it can be used as described above as a last resort to protect health services, or with a view to driving rates down until they are manageable by contact tracing, testing and isolation measures such as in Australia, South Korea and elsewhere.

 

It is certainly true to say that most western style countries have failed to lock in low infection rates when they perhaps had the chance.

This is the problem.  Lockdown should be a short term strategy.  The initial lockdown regulations were for three weeks.  But now lockdown is being used as a long term strategy.  It has already taken 7 months and is more than likely going to be over a year before it is stopped.  If we don't get the promised vaccine, it could be two or three years before they finally let us out.

 

For one of the groups it is most supposed to protect - the over 80's - one year is about 20% of their remaining life, on average.  (Life expectancy for people over 80, as a bloc, is about 5 years, based on about 10% of over 80's die each year.)  And if you are going to lose 20% of your life to lockdown, and it's the best and healthiest 20%, then that's not short term.

 

Even for me, it feels like a heck of a long time.

[yorkie1999]

It is a fvcked up situation and I think that we may go into a no return situation, like lemmings. Another 6 months and lockdowns will be the new norm. The population is not building up an immunity to the virus during a lockdown so consequently when things do get a little relaxed, the virus can attack more people and so the cycle starts again. In the long run we may be increasing the likelyhood of it spreading to more people because of lockdowns and mask wearing, it’s not going to just disappear but the more people who develop some sort of immunity from catching it means the virus has a smaller amount of targets and consequently reducing the r value. 

[Leicester_Loyal]

2 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

This is the problem.  Lockdown should be a short term strategy.  The initial lockdown regulations were for three weeks.  But now lockdown is being used as a long term strategy.  It has already taken 7 months and is more than likely going to be over a year before it is stopped.  If we don't get the promised vaccine, it could be two or three years before they finally let us out.

Mental when you think about it really, I thought the original lockdown was going to be a few weeks and then we'd be back to normal. I don't think we'll ever go back to normal now, we'll always be using masks, more hand washing etc. Some of the changes will definitely be better for us in the long run though.

[st albans fox]

The first lockdown reduced  transmission effectively and has allowed a few treatments to become established in time for the second wave. 
 

I don’t see any point in more full lockdowns ...... more education is needed ...

 

somehow you need to carry the population with you 

 

if you worked on the basis that everyone you come across has covid and that you don’t want to contract it then I suspect we can get through to a vaccine or next summer) without the hospitals becoming overwhelmed.  The issue at the moment is that too many people see the rules as a challenge and won’t adhere to them.  

 

and allowing fans back into stadiums would be a good way of taking the public with you .... it’s feasible to do it safely 

Edited 25 October 2020 by st albans fox

[0690]

15 hours ago, fuchsntf said:

We are fukked, 

 

We are dead.....Close thread..!!

Theres more life & intelligence in the Darien gap, and the space in between...!!!

 

 

I'm feeling your pain mate.

[st albans fox]

I think the welsh govt will have to reverse their ‘essential’ items edict in supermarkets ...... how do people in such positions of authority make such inept  decisions ......

 

just ask the public to only buy non essential items if they absolutely have to in order to reduce the chances of transmission by being in shops longer than is necessary............ that’s grown up and I suspect would carry support 

Edited 25 October 2020 by st albans fox

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

Probably get loads of Welsh people spitefully walking incredibly slowly down the pots and pans aisle at Asda. 

[Costock_Fox]

😂😂😂

[Guest Fktf]

16 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

So if I’ve understood, @dsr-burnleyis saying that lockdowns don’t work in the long term because shutting down to achieve lower infection in the short term just means that infection rates rise later on when they’ve been lifted? I actually agree with that.

 

This is exactly what the original Imperial College paper suggested if I recall, and that’s why the government started off with a herd immunity strategy. The objective was to let it run through the population as quickly as possible, but when hospitals were threatened with being overwhelmed they imposed a lockdown.

 

A lockdown isn’t a long term policy, it’s a relatively short term strategy to reduce infection rates. Either it can be used as described above as a last resort to protect health services, or with a view to driving rates down until they are manageable by contact tracing, testing and isolation measures such as in Australia, South Korea and elsewhere.

 

It is certainly true to say that most western style countries have failed to lock in low infection rates when they perhaps had the chance.

This is what people seem to forget with the uk (and most of Europe) strategy with lockdowns. They're to keep health services functioning so they can treat people who will recover with a bit of help, not keep 80yr olds alive for a few more years.

 

The fact that lockdowns drive infection down, and when restrictions are released we end up back where we started in a few months time, is exactly the evidence we need to show that lockdowns do what they are intended to do - manage the peak of each successive wave. 

 

No one is saying this is the long term way of life now. It's quite clear the long term strategy is a decent enough vaccine.

[Wymsey]

NHS staff to receive the Covid jab first?

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/nhs-staff-could-given-covid-4639255

Edited 25 October 2020 by Wymsey

[Dan LCFC]

On 25/10/2020 at 03:19, Leicester_Loyal said:

Mental when you think about it really, I thought the original lockdown was going to be a few weeks and then we'd be back to normal. I don't think we'll ever go back to normal now, we'll always be using masks, more hand washing etc. Some of the changes will definitely be better for us in the long run though.

Do think anything that promotes a general improvement in hygiene is welcome. Can't fathom how people don't wash their hands after going to the toilet. No issue with hand sanitiser either.

[WigstonWanderer]

Finally Melbourne is opening up after about 4 months I believe in lockdown. Mistakes were made to trigger the outbreak due to the hotel quarantine balls up, and by not clamping down earlier to snuff it out quickly, but I greatly admire premier Dan Andrews’ staying power in managing this through to an excellent conclusion.

 

He has fronted up every day to the press, answering all the questions, and suffered political sniping from our shitbag Prime Minister & his cronies, and Murdoch media. Fortunately for Victoria he’s had the strength to resist the bullying and not reopen prematurely, risking the same fate as the UK and others. I have no doubt that had he done so infection would inevitably have spread to the rest of Australia and would have torpedoed the economy.

 

Hopefully reopening will now not see an increase in infections, and the Australian economy can get back to something like normal.

Edited 26 October 2020 by WigstonWanderer