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

23 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

I prefer the Govt to give us bits of hope.

If they said: "We're ****ed for another six months" it wouldn't go down well but saying: "We hope things will be in good shape by Easter" is a more positive message.

They've cocked up aplenty but being in charge of something like this must be a nightmare to administer on every level.

Well you've just put the two messages in different ways that's why they would be taken differently.

 

How about "We hope to be in good shape by July"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

I prefer the Govt to give us bits of hope.

If they said: "We're ****ed for another six months" it wouldn't go down well but saying: "We hope things will be in good shape by Easter" is a more positive message.

They've cocked up aplenty but being in charge of something like this must be a nightmare to administer on every level.

But we're not saying that they're saying 'we're fvcked for another six months'. No one here wants them to say that or claims that they do. There can be a middle point. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Parafox said:

I get what you're saying but, I've been looking back at the so called "Spanish Flu" (never originated in Spain BTW). In 1918 science had no real knowledge of viruses and how they spread. 50 million died across the world but eventually it ran it's course, mainly through herd immunity and a weakening of the virus itself. It took 2 years. 

There IS an end in sight. We have so much more science, knowledge, experts and technology available to us now than there ever was in 1918.

 

With Spanish Flu, they didn’t have the knowledge of social distancing, so it spread like wild fire, killing more people as they didn’t have the science to combat it. It is estimated that that between 3 - 5 % of the worlds population died.
 

Along with everyone gaining immunity through exposure and it mutating itself into something less deadly, it burnt itself out like you say. This is a different virus though and we don’t know how it will mutate for good or bad, moving forwards. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

It's all completely hopeless isn't it? We may as well just write off 2021 now, there's genuinely no point in life at the minute, it's shocking.

 

They're 100% gonna mess some form of this vaccine program up :cry::frusty:

Absolute ****ing bollocks, isn't it? Forever telling us decisions are from "following the science" and now they aren't at a critical stage.

 

The public definitely cannot be blamed for this possible shitshow.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

This is precisely why people like Tony sodding Blaire shouldn't still be getting free air time on the BBC spouting his "surely giving out single doses is better" crap. Why we can't just stick to the voices of the people making this stuff is beyond me. Politicians (and EX polticians!) have their fingers in enough pies to leave the ****ing science to the scientists.

Many doctors and professors have also been calling for the same as Tony Blair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sly said:

With Spanish Flu, they didn’t have the knowledge of social distancing, so it spread like wild fire, killing more people as they didn’t have the science to combat it. It is estimated that that between 3 - 5 % of the worlds population died.
 

Along with everyone gaining immunity through exposure and it mutating itself into something less deadly, it burnt itself out like you say. This is a different virus though and we don’t know how it will mutate for good or bad, moving forwards. 

I'm sure they had knowledge of social dstancing.  They didn't have the practical ability to do it.  In those days, if you didn't work, you didn't eat.  (Or at least, you struggled.  There is no way the country could have afforded social distancing.)

 

They knew about social distancing during the Great Plague of 1665 and thereabouts, apparently.  Lock the infected in their houses was the policy; and get into the countryside if you're rich enough.  Eyam was all about social distancing.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Shit just got real.

 

"Scrambling to convert operating theatres, surgical recovery areas and stroke wards into intensive care units for the very sick".

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/31/london-hospital-uclh-warns-on-track-become-covid-only

 

 

It’s been real for weeks Buce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Col city fan said:

Wonder whether we find out that many of these fireworks tonight are ‘group displays’

Wouldnt surprise me in the least 

Hopefully not, we were all told to leave our cameras at home. So I don’t think anyone will grass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

Shit just got real.

 

"Scrambling to convert operating theatres, surgical recovery areas and stroke wards into intensive care units for the very sick".

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/31/london-hospital-uclh-warns-on-track-become-covid-only

 

 

Don't worry, the usual crazies on here will be along soon with another YouTube video from a reliable doctor to tell us it's all a hoax and made up. 

 

Most reassuring content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sly said:

With Spanish Flu, they didn’t have the knowledge of social distancing, so it spread like wild fire, killing more people as they didn’t have the science to combat it. It is estimated that that between 3 - 5 % of the worlds population died.
 

Along with everyone gaining immunity through exposure and it mutating itself into something less deadly, it burnt itself out like you say. This is a different virus though and we don’t know how it will mutate for good or bad, moving forwards. 

They did actually try to practice social distancing, especially they tried it in America. Indeed the approach and mistakes made 100 years ago have uncanny similarities to the approach to the covid outbreak. In fact I would say given the advance in medical knowledge and the overall improvement in standards of living for most people in the so-called developed world this has generally been handled pretty badly. But what both outbreaks show is that when faced with this sort of disaster the world is largely powerless in the face of nature, especially to begin with. Only complete isolation worked then and pretty much, as New Zealand has shown, the same applies today. Back then they thought the disease was caised by bacteria rather than by a virus.

I think this lik has been posted before but if anyone is interested this is  film about the 1918 flu outbreak in Leicester and the county. Worth a watch if you cans spare the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsixXeSwTp4&feature=youtu.be

 

 

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

9 hours ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Not good 

I'd really like someone with a good understanding of the medical science to explain how we have come to the conclusion that this is the best way forwards when the manufacturers of the Pfizer vaccine say themselves that they do not know how efficient the vaccine will be without the second jab taking place after three weeks. As far as I understand it no clinical trials have been run to explore this particular use of this vaccine or indeed the Oxford vaccine. I see the latter has only been approved for two full doses rather than the lower dose followed by the higher dose as there were not enough samples in the trial to ensure efficacy for older people or indeed not enough numbers of people undergoing the trial in this way. Yet all of a sudden we seem to be saying that people really only need one vaccination and that a second jab can be delayed three months.

I think there needs to be a clear statement a to how this has come to be the new approach when no clinical trials to explore this methodology have been undertaken. If the Oxford vaccine offers only 60% protection (still decent I know) how much less does it offer with just one dose and does that decline over the three months?

I'm not saying there is any conspiracy here at all or that the vaccine isn't any good but clarity  is required.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, filbertway said:

If you couldn't work out by September/October that the only way out of this was a Vaccine or herd immunity then more fool you I think.

If that was the case, then why was Boris on national TV in September telling us he's hopeful we'll have some aspects of our lives back to normal by Christmas, if a vaccine or herd immunity was the only way out of this? We know a vaccine is going to take 3 months to get rolled out (absolute minimum), so again, he was lying? Minutes before that Whitty said Spring was when the difficult period would last until.

Edited by Leicester_Loyal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

If that was the case, then why was Boris on national TV in September telling us he's hopeful we'll have some aspects of our lives back to normal by Christmas, if a vaccine or herd immunity was the only way out of this? We know a vaccine is going to take 3 months to get rolled out (absolute minimum), so again, he was lying? Minutes before that Whitty said Spring was when the difficult period would last until.

The bloke has been a disaster from minute one. Despite the media’s constant nibbling you should never answer a question like “when do you think we will be back to normal”, because no one knows, the doctors don’t the medical experts don’t and he certainly doesn’t. And if you do say something then the majority will hang on it as a gospel truth. 
 

Facts are the virus is still very much live and active, so until it has dwindled down to a manageable level or disappeared all together, life will not be normal. 
 

To simply things in my opinion, I won’t see the inside of the KP until 2022 in my opinion. I think we’ve got another year of this to come yet, even with a vaccine. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my view politicians have been very careful not to talk about specifics regarding when the worst may be over.  I fully expect that the next three months will be worse than anything we experienced in 2020.

 

The reason for this is the infection rate of the new variant and the current figures.  For the last couple of days infection rates have been in excess of 50,000.  These figures are likely to be lower than the true infection rate as the approximately 30% of infected people who are asymptomatic are unlikely to present themselves for testing.  Even if that figure does not rise but remains constant over the next month that would equate to 1.5 million new infections in January.  The current R number indicates that infection rates should double every six days.  Were that to be the case through January there would be around 7 million new infections in the month.  The new Tier 4 measures are likely to reduce the R number, so the January infections will probably lie between those values.  

 

I don't believe that the NHS has the capacity to cope with that many new infections, even if only 2% of those infected are seriously ill enough to need hospital treatment; so without further intervention to reduce the R number, the question will be when rather than if the NHS becomes overwhelmed.  The vaccination program will help but it's at too early a stage to have a significant effect in early Winter.  So I'm expecting further restrictions.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Crinklyfox said:

In my view politicians have been very careful not to talk about specifics regarding when the worst may be over.  I fully expect that the next three months will be worse than anything we experienced in 2020.

 

The reason for this is the infection rate of the new variant and the current figures.  For the last couple of days infection rates have been in excess of 50,000.  These figures are likely to be lower than the true infection rate as the approximately 30% of infected people who are asymptomatic are unlikely to present themselves for testing.  Even if that figure does not rise but remains constant over the next month that would equate to 1.5 million new infections in January.  The current R number indicates that infection rates should double every six days.  Were that to be the case through January there would be around 7 million new infections in the month.  The new Tier 4 measures are likely to reduce the R number, so the January infections will probably lie between those values.  

 

I don't believe that the NHS has the capacity to cope with that many new infections, even if only 2% of those infected are seriously ill enough to need hospital treatment; so without further intervention to reduce the R number, the question will be when rather than if the NHS becomes overwhelmed.  The vaccination program will help but it's at too early a stage to have a significant effect in early Winter.  So I'm expecting further restrictions.

I agree wholly with this. 2021 isn’t going to be much different for the most part, I can see us being in tier 4 until April at the very least and maybe even beyond that. There’s rougher storms ahead yet, we just need to hope this vaccine does what we all want it to and drives the R number right down to a point where normality can resume somewhat safely. The restriction on life as we know it will last into 2022 I’m sure of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, reynard said:

I'd really like someone with a good understanding of the medical science to explain how we have come to the conclusion that this is the best way forwards when the manufacturers of the Pfizer vaccine say themselves that they do not know how efficient the vaccine will be without the second jab taking place after three weeks. As far as I understand it no clinical trials have been run to explore this particular use of this vaccine or indeed the Oxford vaccine. I see the latter has only been approved for two full doses rather than the lower dose followed by the higher dose as there were not enough samples in the trial to ensure efficacy for older people or indeed not enough numbers of people undergoing the trial in this way. Yet all of a sudden we seem to be saying that people really only need one vaccination and that a second jab can be delayed three months.

I think there needs to be a clear statement a to how this has come to be the new approach when no clinical trials to explore this methodology have been undertaken. If the Oxford vaccine offers only 60% protection (still decent I know) how much less does it offer with just one dose and does that decline over the three months?

I'm not saying there is any conspiracy here at all or that the vaccine isn't any good but clarity  is required.

They are trialling it now.  We are living the trial.  There have been no tests at all to say how long apart is the ideal time, they used 3 weeks as a theoretical span and got 85% efficiency on 1 dose and 95% on two doses 3 weeks apart.  In real life, they could do preliminary trials with different periods to see if it makes any difference and to test the robustness of the sample.  There was no time to do this.

 

But what they have got is a vast array of data now, which I have little doubt they are analysing fully.  At present, about 1 in 1,000 of the adult population is being tested each day.  They are presumably, as part of the test, asking (1) have you been vaccinated, and (2) when.

 

By 27th December, nearly a million people had received their first jab.  By 17th January, therefore, nearly a million people will have had at least three weeks since their first jab.  They will know how many of those people are positively tested on 17th January - based purely on averages, on the current figures, it should be 1 in 1,000 which is 1,000 people.

 

So (with adjustments, no doubt, for age-specific positive tests) they know how many people would be expected to get the virus if the jab does nothing, how many have actually got the virus, and what the percentage success is.  If they expect 1,000 and get 150, there's the 85% success rate.

 

And this data is coming in every day, and increasing all the time.  By the end of January, there will be two or three million people to look at.  They will know if the longer delay isn't working and will be able to change plans on the hoof.  This decision has not been set in stone till March - it is being reviewed daily.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pliskin said:

I agree wholly with this. 2021 isn’t going to be much different for the most part, I can see us being in tier 4 until April at the very least and maybe even beyond that. There’s rougher storms ahead yet, we just need to hope this vaccine does what we all want it to and drives the R number right down to a point where normality can resume somewhat safely. The restriction on life as we know it will last into 2022 I’m sure of it.

If restrictions within the UK last until 2022 it means the vaccine does not work.  There's a cheery thought for the new year!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no doubt the vaccine has 90 % minimum efficacy with the original viral strain of Corona it’s just whether it can deal with this new strain , vaccines can be attenuated but these take time! And need to be trialled again before being approved. So it could delay the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

They are trialling it now.  We are living the trial.  There have been no tests at all to say how long apart is the ideal time, they used 3 weeks as a theoretical span and got 85% efficiency on 1 dose and 95% on two doses 3 weeks apart.  In real life, they could do preliminary trials with different periods to see if it makes any difference and to test the robustness of the sample.  There was no time to do this.

 

But what they have got is a vast array of data now, which I have little doubt they are analysing fully.  At present, about 1 in 1,000 of the adult population is being tested each day.  They are presumably, as part of the test, asking (1) have you been vaccinated, and (2) when.

 

By 27th December, nearly a million people had received their first jab.  By 17th January, therefore, nearly a million people will have had at least three weeks since their first jab.  They will know how many of those people are positively tested on 17th January - based purely on averages, on the current figures, it should be 1 in 1,000 which is 1,000 people.

 

So (with adjustments, no doubt, for age-specific positive tests) they know how many people would be expected to get the virus if the jab does nothing, how many have actually got the virus, and what the percentage success is.  If they expect 1,000 and get 150, there's the 85% success rate.

 

.

Worrying thing is those being ‘clinically tested’ are the most vulnerable. 

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...