Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
filbertway

Coronavirus Thread

Recommended Posts

I completely recognise that Boris and his team have got the hardest job at the moment - there are no perfect answers and will always be compromises. But at the same time we really need someone right now who can step up and lead rather than just react. It was obvious we were heading this way - why didn’t he make the decision quicker so this could have coincided with half term? 
 

ps do you think they will stop the football as well :nono:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, rachhere said:

I completely recognise that Boris and his team have got the hardest job at the moment - there are no perfect answers and will always be compromises. But at the same time we really need someone right now who can step up and lead rather than just react. It was obvious we were heading this way - why didn’t he make the decision quicker so this could have coincided with half term? 
 

ps do you think they will stop the football as well :nono:

I can't remember in the past year or so he's been in charge he's shown any kind of leadership :dunno:. Even got his minions doing his press conferences for him any given day.

 

A failure of epic proportions really. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Pathetic from the government releasing this news to the rags on a Friday evening. 

 

 

They just continue to either be too late in reacting or just making bad decisions. Constantly. They have no control. In power but have no power. They are shite. 

They're just an absolute shambles. 

 

The infection data must be horrendous as politically, making this decision now should be a disaster given how they've been positioning themselves (ignoring scientists, denigrating Starmer for suggesting a lockdown and having ministers defending the local lockdowns only this morning). 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a reminder that they've had over 7 months now to sort out a working test & trace system, increase hospital capacity and try to show some leadership. They've got the hardest job in the world, but even as a Conservative voter, they have been a shambles. Essentially we're now going to go back into lockdown until near Christmas I'd imagine, as cases will only rise until after we've locked down for 2/3 weeks.

 

I think it'll eventually get to a point where we'll see some fighting on the streets and people actively resisting the lockdown, like they have started to in other parts of the world in the past few days.

Edited by Leicester_Loyal
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Fully expecting to be back in Lockdown very shortly, although I didn't expect it to be this early.

 

Best get booked in for a haircut before everything gets closed down again.

Wait barbers have been open this whole time?!

 

My beard is now long enough that I could weave it into my hair and use it as a mask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, StanSP said:

 

 

 

Seriously... I mean I have voted for the tories in the past. There have been and are still some decent people in there. But he HAS to go - anyone else failing like this in such a senior role would be asked to submit their resignation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Finnegan said:

Any Londoners in here? 

 

I've got an appointment in London on Monday. It's usually fifteen minutes down the Piccadilly line from St Pancras. 

 

What adjustments should I make regards covid? How much has the tube been affected? 

 

TFL website just seems to quote all the generic health and safety advice regards masks and social distancing but doesn't really paint a clear picture of the current level of service. 

If the appointment is after 8 pm you'll be OK - get a carriage to yourself.  Possibly a train to yourself.  My brother is a tube driver and he drove a late train from Aldgate to Uxbridge a couple of days back - a 90 minute journey - and had 4 passengers, total.  Maximum 3 on board at any one time.

 

As long as it's not a medical appointment, you could walk it.  Only 2 miles.  And think of all the London "fresh" air.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only just booked my wedding ceremony for 5 December for 15 people. We are absolutely desperate to do it with close family members.


Last year we had booked the 5 December but then her dad got diagnosed with metastatic melanoma in May this year so we brought it forward as early as we possibly could to 19 September. He passed away in late August so we’ve gone back to our old date.

 

We just want one positive thing this year, it’s so thoroughly depressing. 

  • Sad 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fox in the North said:

Only just booked my wedding ceremony for 5 December for 15 people. We are absolutely desperate to do it with close family members.


Last year we had booked the 5 December but then her dad got diagnosed with metastatic melanoma in May this year so we brought it forward as early as we possibly could to 19 September. He passed away in late August so we’ve gone back to our old date.

 

We just want one positive thing this year, it’s so thoroughly depressing. 

Hope that happens for you buddy.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Fox in the North said:

Only just booked my wedding ceremony for 5 December for 15 people. We are absolutely desperate to do it with close family members.


Last year we had booked the 5 December but then her dad got diagnosed with metastatic melanoma in May this year so we brought it forward as early as we possibly could to 19 September. He passed away in late August so we’ve gone back to our old date.

 

We just want one positive thing this year, it’s so thoroughly depressing. 

I hope the day goes as best as possible mate if it does go ahead. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

One thing they need to be careful of is attributing cause and effect.  If I stand on a beach and sea a wave coming towards me, I can say "get back" and it will.  It doesn't mean I have power over the water.

 

Is it the same thing with lockdowns?  Are they, presumably by accident not by design, waiting until the wave is at or near its peak before ordering lockdown, so that lockdown gets the credit for the wave receding when it would have done that anyway?  After all, the spring wave still receded in countries that didn't have lockdown.

 

6 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

We don't know that.  The one thing that is absolutely certain is that if we had done nothing at all, the Spring wave would have receded and the Autumn wave would recede.  For one thing, it's what waves do, and for another thing, it would have to because if it didn't it would have to start infecting people several times a day once it reached a higher figure than the total population.

 

Obviously the last line is reducing it to the absurd.  But the point is there - this was is certain to reduce one way or the other, and when it does drop it will be hard to be sure whether it dropped because of the actions we took or because it was going to drop anyway.  Or, of course, a combination of both, which is the most likely answer - but in what proportion?  

 

5 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Exactly the point.  We don't know.  Probably, based on Sweden and Brazil, not a lot different to what actually did happen.  

 

Perhaps we should go back to those early days and use lockdowns to protect the NHS.  Keeping it running for 7 months in hopes that it would go away completely has lost a lot of goodwill. 

Make your mind up...

 

Broadly speaking, as you've mentioned, two things slow an infection wave. An intervention(s), or the virus burning out because it can't find a new host without some form of immunity. But I can't see how you've come to the conclusion it wasn't the interventions that slowed thr the first wave.

 

We're in a situation where we have data for either lockdown, or the weather, or both, slowing the first wave, because it sure as hell wasn't that the virus couldn't find a new host - we wouldn't have the current infection rates if that was the case. But you have dismissed that, in favour of an interpretation that waves, apparently by their definition, just come and go without any underlying reason - despite the fact we have absolutely no data to back that up.

 

And lockdowns are still, and always have been, to protect the NHS. For all the hate on here, there is absolutely no getting away from basing decisions on modelling of this disease. It isn't Ebola, where people get seriously ill in a few days. It takes weeks to require hospitalization from covid19, so you have to take a look at current infections, estimations of future infections based on r, and then predict what the nhs will look like in 2-4 weeks. With current infection and r rates, its no use waiting to bring in lockdown when, say, 90% of icu beds are full, because by that point you're locked in to a trajectory to breaching icu capacity. In fact, in cities like liverpool, we are already decidedly close to reacting too late.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Stevosevic said:

Hope that happens for you buddy.

 

18 minutes ago, StanSP said:

I hope the day goes as best as possible mate if it does go ahead. 

Thanks guys it’s just really disheartening that it seems it’s going to be snatched away at the 11th hour again. My partner and I have been through a lot the past couple of years with fostering my nephew and all that jazz; I just rather selfishly wanted to at least have something to look back on in this shitshow of a year. I still have a full set of grandparents (all with a variety of wonderful health issues!) and who knows what will happen to them this year. 

 

I’m quiet sceptical now (aren’t we all!) but can only hope this gives the NHS a chance to look after the poor people who have the worst of this disease and that it’s a short lockdown :fc:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Fktf said:

 

 

Make your mind up...

 

Broadly speaking, as you've mentioned, two things slow an infection wave. An intervention(s), or the virus burning out because it can't find a new host without some form of immunity. But I can't see how you've come to the conclusion it wasn't the interventions that slowed thr the first wave.

 

We're in a situation where we have data for either lockdown, or the weather, or both, slowing the first wave, because it sure as hell wasn't that the virus couldn't find a new host - we wouldn't have the current infection rates if that was the case. But you have dismissed that, in favour of an interpretation that waves, apparently by their definition, just come and go without any underlying reason - despite the fact we have absolutely no data to back that up.

 

And lockdowns are still, and always have been, to protect the NHS. For all the hate on here, there is absolutely no getting away from basing decisions on modelling of this disease. It isn't Ebola, where people get seriously ill in a few days. It takes weeks to require hospitalization from covid19, so you have to take a look at current infections, estimations of future infections based on r, and then predict what the nhs will look like in 2-4 weeks. With current infection and r rates, its no use waiting to bring in lockdown when, say, 90% of icu beds are full, because by that point you're locked in to a trajectory to breaching icu capacity. In fact, in cities like liverpool, we are already decidedly close to reacting too late.

 

 

Of course we have data to show that virus waves slow down and disappear for no reason.  you must have heard of Spanish Flu - it's been mentioned often enough.  There was a bad first wave, it faded away for reasons unkonwn, it came back as a second wave.  

 

Why did the first wave in Sweden and in Brazil slow down?  Obviously not lockdown.

 

Lockdown to protect the NHS is a good idea.  That )officially at least) was why they did the first one - though obviously, keeping it running for 7 months even when there were hardly any cases proves that they had another, unspoken, agenda.  Probably no more than just fear of death and hopes that by continued lockdown, no-one else would die.  Optimism indeed.

 

It may be that lockdown made all the difference to the first wave.  It may be that it made very little difference.  I have seen little scientific evidence either way, certainly nothing conclusive.  We can't go down the "lockdown is good because it seems like a good idea" route - the evidence of last time is there and it should be analysed in minute detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Of course we have data to show that virus waves slow down and disappear for no reason.  you must have heard of Spanish Flu - it's been mentioned often enough.  There was a bad first wave, it faded away for reasons unkonwn, it came back as a second wave.  

 

Why did the first wave in Sweden and in Brazil slow down?  Obviously not lockdown.

 

Lockdown to protect the NHS is a good idea.  That )officially at least) was why they did the first one - though obviously, keeping it running for 7 months even when there were hardly any cases proves that they had another, unspoken, agenda.  Probably no more than just fear of death and hopes that by continued lockdown, no-one else would die.  Optimism indeed.

 

It may be that lockdown made all the difference to the first wave.  It may be that it made very little difference.  I have seen little scientific evidence either way, certainly nothing conclusive.  We can't go down the "lockdown is good because it seems like a good idea" route - the evidence of last time is there and it should be analysed in minute detail.

You speak in broad brush strokes about Spanish flu. Plenty of places controlled a first wave, released restrictions, then had a massive second wave. Almost like the restrictions had an effect.

 

You'll have to tell me about Sweden and Brazil, I look at comparable countries to us in terms of the strategy we and they have taken. It's too late to argue we should have done something different now (as was the case in late Feb /early March when we'd already passed the point of suppressing spread)

 

Based on mass grave sites, I'd wager Brazil has had untold (and largely unreported) deaths in cities in one massive wave, and now the virus has no hosts, but it is a guess. I think Sweden has had steady restrictions throughout, rather than relax then lockdown, and managed the spread in one long wave. We could also ask why the USA isn't named in the same group of countries that got it right, because they followed a similarly relaxed approach, but without the same success. 

 

I see you're still ignoring the data from March, April, May. The spread slowed because of the intervention of lockdown or weather, not because of some magic unknown about viruses. 

Edited by Fktf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Of course we have data to show that virus waves slow down and disappear for no reason.  you must have heard of Spanish Flu - it's been mentioned often enough.  There was a bad first wave, it faded away for reasons unkonwn, it came back as a second wave.  

 

Why did the first wave in Sweden and in Brazil slow down?  Obviously not lockdown.

 

Lockdown to protect the NHS is a good idea.  That )officially at least) was why they did the first one - though obviously, keeping it running for 7 months even when there were hardly any cases proves that they had another, unspoken, agenda.  Probably no more than just fear of death and hopes that by continued lockdown, no-one else would die.  Optimism indeed.

 

It may be that lockdown made all the difference to the first wave.  It may be that it made very little difference.  I have seen little scientific evidence either way, certainly nothing conclusive.  We can't go down the "lockdown is good because it seems like a good idea" route - the evidence of last time is there and it should be analysed in minute detail.

 

if sweden didn't do lockdown then how did you work out that the uk keep it running for 7 months?. the difference over summer was they had gatherings of 50 they banned travel outside of eu and banned care home visiting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Of course we have data to show that virus waves slow down and disappear for no reason.  you must have heard of Spanish Flu - it's been mentioned often enough.  There was a bad first wave, it faded away for reasons unkonwn, it came back as a second wave.  

 

Why did the first wave in Sweden and in Brazil slow down?  Obviously not lockdown.

 

Lockdown to protect the NHS is a good idea.  That )officially at least) was why they did the first one - though obviously, keeping it running for 7 months even when there were hardly any cases proves that they had another, unspoken, agenda.  Probably no more than just fear of death and hopes that by continued lockdown, no-one else would die.  Optimism indeed.

 

It may be that lockdown made all the difference to the first wave.  It may be that it made very little difference.  I have seen little scientific evidence either way, certainly nothing conclusive.  We can't go down the "lockdown is good because it seems like a good idea" route - the evidence of last time is there and it should be analysed in minute detail.

We haven't been locked down for 7 months though have we, we have had varying restrictions, similar to Sweden have had, but not a lockdown. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...