Coronavirus Thread

[Trav Le Bleu]

If these two statements are in fact true (I've seen them frequently mentioned in the media)...

 

A) 100,000 people per day are catching covid19

 

B) cases are doubling every 9 days

 

And it remains constant, then by Christmas over 6 million people will have it (not have had it, but actually have it) and by the end of January, everyone will have it or have had it.

 

Not saying that will happen, but it seems possible.

[st albans fox]

6 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Liverpool went in earlier than Manchester, you're not comparing like with like.

But Manchester spent a week arguing that they shouldn’t .....that’s my point. Liverpool argued for a day or two and went in. 

[st albans fox]

4 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

If these two statements are in fact true (I've seen them frequently mentioned in the media)...

 

A) 100,000 people per day are catching covid19

 

B) cases are doubling every 9 days

 

And it remains constant, then by Christmas over 6 million people will have it (not have had it, but actually have it) and by the end of January, everyone will have it or have had it.

 

Not saying that will happen, but it seems possible.

That can’t happen because it will have to be stopped by a lockdown before the NHS is overwhelmed - if it wasn’t for the NHS issue then the argument that you let it run through the population and those that aren’t bothered about catching it are left to do so could have traction 

[casablancas]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

If we’re generally socially distancing then the flu season should theoretically be reduced 

I’d argue we are not mate. Well not enough of us and not stringently enough. 

[Facecloth]

18 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

But Manchester spent a week arguing that they shouldn’t .....that’s my point. Liverpool argued for a day or two and went in. 

But. Liverpool. Went. In. A. While. Before. So. You. Are. Not. Comparing. Like. For. Like.

 

Understand? Manchester didn't even start discussing until Liverpool had already been in for about a week. Let Manchester catch up.

[st albans fox]

7 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

But. Liverpool. Went. In. A. While. Before. So. You. Are. Not. Comparing. Like. For. Like.

 

Understand? Manchester didn't even start discussing until Liverpool had already been in for about a week. Let Manchester catch up.

you’re missing my point - Manchester should have been in for a week longer than they have been - how much unnecessary transmission occurred during that period ..... if they had gone in when govt wanted them to then their cases would be dropping by now ....

[Heathrow fox]

5 minutes ago, casablancas said:

I’d argue we are not mate. Well not enough of us and not stringently enough. 

Social distancing all but gone out the window.I would argue even more so since mask wearing has been more prevalent.

[Trav Le Bleu]

4 minutes ago, Heathrow fox said:

Social distancing all but gone out the window.I would argue even more so since mask wearing has been more prevalent.

I think a lot of people have become very complacent after the relative "safety" that summer offered and haven't woken up to the possible realities if we're not careful.

[Strokes]

2 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Hmmmm.__

 

The expert in this discussion says that the vaccines currently being trialled should provide protection against the disease, but not against infection. This means that they will not stop a vaccinated person being infected, but should prevent them from developing symptoms. or at least should ensure they only get a mild form. Unfortunately this means that they will likely still be infectious, so the herd immunity effect will be absent or at least diminished.
 

https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/coronacast/why-the-next-big-vaccine-milestone-might-be-only-4-6-weeks-away/12828484

In which case refusing the vaccine is neither here nor there and has zero implications on others.

Edited 29 October 2020 by Strokes

[Nod.E]

2 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Hmmmm.__

 

The expert in this discussion says that the vaccines currently being trialled should provide protection against the disease, but not against infection. This means that they will not stop a vaccinated person being infected, but should prevent them from developing symptoms. or at least should ensure they only get a mild form. Unfortunately this means that they will likely still be infectious, so the herd immunity effect will be absent or at least diminished.
 

https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/coronacast/why-the-next-big-vaccine-milestone-might-be-only-4-6-weeks-away/12828484

But if barely anyone requires hospitalisation as a result, who cares?

[Nod.E]

1 hour ago, Facecloth said:

Social bubbles for single people are still allowed.

Take no notice.

 

I'm in tier 3 (Manchester) and live in flats. Bars have closed and house parties have started if the noise in our corridor is anything to go by.

 

Impossible to police. Do what you want.

[WigstonWanderer]

39 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

But if barely anyone requires hospitalisation as a result, who cares?

Vaccines will be passed on efficacy grounds if as little as 50% effective. The herd immunity effect would have helped protect beyond that by also slowing the spread.

Edited 29 October 2020 by WigstonWanderer

[Legend_in_blue]

The media is running out of control with this nonsensical data.  The voice of reason has called once again however...

 

 

 

[zorro en españa]

Well with days left until the US elections all kind of records being slashed.  
 

91,000 cases yesterday with a record 33 States reporting in excess of 1,000.  By the election 72% of the States will have incurred at least 1,000 deaths.

 

Be interesting to see what the people decide.

[Lionator]

9 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Interesting to see Liverpool’s rate dropping whilst Manchester is still rising ......who will get the blame ?  Boris or burnham, ???

It's a bit more complex. Liverpool have had a 'cleaner' second wave where cases were low, suddenly accelerated to a high level then are starting to decline again (they'd actually turned a corner before tier 3 came in). Manchester and surrounding areas actually had much higher levels throughout the summer and have been in some sort of restriction for a lot longer, so it's not had the sudden upsurges and won't have a sudden decline.

 

This second wave is not winter based, it's a true epidemic based wave and it could quite easily be on the way down nationally around Christmas time.

[joachim1965]

5 hours ago, Legend_in_blue said:

The media is running out of control with this nonsensical data.  The voice of reason has called once again however...

 

 

 

Absolute madness, hysterical fear mongering by main stream media.

[joachim1965]

latest PHE covid surveillance report still states up to 21 Oct no significant excess deaths, Northwest has seen a slight excess but overall nothing really happening that doesn't usually happen this time of year.

[SpacedX]

15 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

latest PHE covid surveillance report still states up to 21 Oct no significant excess deaths, Northwest has seen a slight excess but overall nothing really happening that doesn't usually happen this time of year.

Fewer people who test positive for Covid-19 are becoming seriously ill and even fewer are dying from the disease predominately due to changes in the ages of those infected and improved treatment/readiness for the sickest patients. Infections however have soared and continue to do so:

 

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/cases

[yorkie1999]

10 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

If these two statements are in fact true (I've seen them frequently mentioned in the media)...

 

A) 100,000 people per day are catching covid19

 

B) cases are doubling every 9 days

 

And it remains constant, then by Christmas over 6 million people will have it (not have had it, but actually have it) and by the end of January, everyone will have it or have had it.

 

Not saying that will happen, but it seems possible.

Sooner the better. Unless they want to live like  hermits for the next 5 years, people need to come to the realization that the longer it goes on,  they're going to end up catching it anyway. If we'd gone with my early suggestion of getting a person with rona to stand there breathing out and everyone else  walking past them to give them all a mild dose, it would be all over now. 

Edited 30 October 2020 by yorkie1999

[String fellow]

Maybe the virus should be renamed COVID-19-DAYS. 19 days seems to be the average time that you spend with symptoms before either recovering or meeting the grim reaper.

[UniFox21]

10 hours ago, casablancas said:

I’d argue we are not mate. Well not enough of us and not stringently enough. 

Simply as life as we know it hasn't been 'designed' to allow for social distancing in this country.

Work places, bars, transport, gyms, Univeristies, shops etc etc have all been designed to cram as many people in as possible. Some places have managed to effectively transition and work with it, but lets face it so many places haven't. 

 

Many seem to think a mask fixes everything and they can do what they like with it on.

[Ollie93]

15 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Charnwood going into Tier 2 from midnight on Saturday, bollocks.

 

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/tighter-coronavirus-restrictions-charnwood-confirmed-4651475

Does these Tiers actually make a difference? People are still doing what they want. Stay away from the vulnerable, respect those who want space, and live your life.

[joachim1965]

1 hour ago, Line-X said:

Fewer people who test positive for Covid-19 are becoming seriously ill and even fewer are dying from the disease predominately due to changes in the ages of those infected and improved treatment/readiness for the sickest patients. Infections however have soared and continue to do so:

 

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/cases

If fewer people are becoming ill and fewer people are dying then cases are irrelevant. 

If we stopped testing healthy people with a test not fit for purpose and concentrated on sick people, this pandemic would be effectively over.

[SpacedX]

1 minute ago, joachim1965 said:

If fewer people are becoming ill and fewer people are dying then cases are irrelevant. 

Sigh. I said fewer people are becoming seriously ill which is predominately due to a shift in the age range and clinical response measures. The exponential increase in cases is entirely relevant. 

 

7 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

If we stopped testing healthy people with a test not fit for purpose and concentrated on sick people, this pandemic would be effectively over.

That settles it then.

 

After all, who the **** needs those clowns at SAGE anyway when we have the overnight 'expertise' of a provincial football forum?

 

Just a hunch, but I'm pretty confident that you'll find that in respect of the rising infection rate and the number of "sick people" - there may well be some causality as outrageous as that may sound.  

 

Have you thought of airing your ground breaking realisations to the global community of bio-security experts, or better still the entire field of epidemiology? Only in their relentless pursuit of scientific, systematic and data-driven empirical evidence relating to the distribution, frequency, pattern and determinants of "this pandemic", they regrettably haven't found the time to post complete bollocks on a local football forum or watch the same You Tube videos as yourself. 

[joachim1965]

1 minute ago, Line-X said:

Sigh. I said fewer people are becoming seriously ill which is predominately due to a shift in the age range and clinical response measures. The exponential increase in cases is entirely relevant. 

 

That settles it then.

 

After all, who the **** needs those clowns at SAGE anyway when we have the overnight 'expertise' of a provincial football forum?

 

Just a hunch, but I'm pretty confident that you'll find that in respect of the rising infection rate and the number of "sick people" - there may well be some causality as outrageous as that may sound.  

 

Have you thought of airing your ground breaking realisations to the global community of bio-security experts, or better still the entire field of epidemiology? Only in their relentless pursuit of scientific, systematic and data-driven empirical evidence relating to the distribution, frequency, pattern and determinants of "this pandemic", they regrettably haven't found the time to post complete bollocks on a local football forum or watch the same You Tube videos as yourself. 

you hit the nail right on the head , sage are indeed a bunch of clowns.

There are plenty of eminent epidemiologists out there that are questioning the government experts, maybe you should go look yourself rather than Bury your head in BBC news.

Edited 30 October 2020 by joachim1965