Coronavirus Thread

[Costock_Fox]

1 hour ago, Super_horns said:

I think the lockdown will be eased at some point 

 

I mean, you would hope so wouldn’t you.

[Leicester_Loyal]

1 hour ago, Super_horns said:

I think the lockdown will be eased at some point but restrictions will be in place until the top 4 groups have had their first jab at least. 

 

Boris hoped to have that done by Easter...

 

That will be at some point in mid Feb (that the top 4 groups will have had their first jab), I can't see any easing then except maybe schools going back.

 

Got a horrible feeling we'll end up changing strategy and saying we need millions of people to have both doses before we can start easing restrictions or we can't lift them because of a mutant strain.

 

I'm aiming for May personally for hospitality, anything before that is a bonus. Anything after that and I don't know what will happen, it'll have been 14 months and I really won't see an end to it all. After May I think I'll just be done with it all, I can't personally have another year like 2020.

[Leicester_Loyal]

https://www.sharecast.com/news/news-and-announcements--/pandemic-forces-9m-britons-borrow-money-2020--7786965.html

 

'Around nine million Britons were forced to borrow more money as of December of 2020 due to the hit to their personal finances from the pandemic, a study by the Office of National Statistics showed.

 

At the end of June 2020, 10.8% of adults reported borrowing money, rising to 17.4% in December 2020. The proportion borrowing £1,000 or more also increased, from 35% to 45% since June 2020. The study, which covers the period from March to December 2020, looked into which groups of the British population had been more affected by the impact of the coronavirus crisis.

The labour market shocks associated with the coronavirus pandemic have been felt more by young people and the lowest paid, found the ONS.

 

People aged under 30 years and those with household incomes under £10,000 were around 35% and 60%, respectively, more likely to be furloughed than the general population.

Between 11 and 15 November 2020, when restrictions were tightened in some areas of the country, 17% of people with a household income less than £10,000 reported that they had been furloughed. In comparison, only 2.7% of people with a household income of more than £40,000 reported this.

 

Also, higher incomes have been usually associated with the option of working from home with 55.1% of people with income over £20,000 able to stay in their home compared with 19.1% of people with income less than £20,000.

 

Of those without work during those trying months (either because of being on furlough or other reasons), 52% in the top income quintile were paid in full. Only 28% of those in the lowest income quintile were paid their full wages during that period.

Self-employed people were more likely to report reduced working hours and reduced income, even if they had received support from the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme (SEISS). They were also more likely to borrow over £1,000 than employees in early December 2020 (60.9% versus 49.4% of those who borrowed)

Impacts to household spending have been felt differently across groups, with parents less able to afford either a holiday or an unexpected but necessary expense, they were also roughly 50% more likely to have difficulty meeting their usual expenses.

 

According to AJ Bell financial analyst, Laith Khalaf: “It’s clear that the young, the self-employed, and those on lower incomes have borne the brunt of the financial damage inflicted by the pandemic. But more affluent households with steady, undisturbed income streams have found themselves awash with cash, as spending options have been severely curtailed by ongoing lockdowns.

“It’s particularly telling that those on higher incomes who were furloughed were much more likely to be paid in full than those at the bottom end of the spectrum. Again, this paints of a picture of financial pressure falling on those least able to afford it.

“At the end of the pandemic then, we will be left with a wider divide between the have and have-nots.”'

 

Shocking man

[simFox]

8 hours ago, DennisNedry said:

According to WHO data, the death rate is approximately 0.27%.

 

Source: https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

From the link, 

 

Results I included 61 studies (74 estimates) and eight preliminary national estimates. Seroprevalence estimates ranged from 0.02% to 53.40%. Infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 1.63%, corrected values from 0.00% to 1.54%. Across 51 locations, the median COVID-19 infection fatality rate was 0.27% (corrected 0.23%): the rate was 0.09% in locations with COVID-19 population mortality rates less than the global average (< 118 deaths/million), 0.20% in locations with 118–500 COVID-19 deaths/million people and 0.57% in locations with > 500 COVID-19 deaths/million people. In people < 70 years, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.31% with crude and corrected medians of 0.05%.

Edited 22 January 2021 by simFox

[Super_horns]

2 hours ago, Costock_Fox said:

I mean, you would hope so wouldn’t you.

Ha - of course!

 

I just think it might be a few more weeks/months yet.

 

Can tell elsewhere people are getting itchy feet so to speak.

 

Or if its hands make sure you wash them!

 

Is this basically bribing people to stay at home if they test positive? 

 

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-anyone-who-tests-positive-may-get-500-amid-fears-just-one-in-four-britons-fully-self-isolate-12195040

Edited 22 January 2021 by Super_horns

[st albans fox]

6 hours ago, simFox said:

From the link, 

 

Results I included 61 studies (74 estimates) and eight preliminary national estimates. Seroprevalence estimates ranged from 0.02% to 53.40%. Infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 1.63%, corrected values from 0.00% to 1.54%. Across 51 locations, the median COVID-19 infection fatality rate was 0.27% (corrected 0.23%): the rate was 0.09% in locations with COVID-19 population mortality rates less than the global average (< 118 deaths/million), 0.20% in locations with 118–500 COVID-19 deaths/million people and 0.57% in locations with > 500 COVID-19 deaths/million people. In people < 70 years, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.31% with crude and corrected medians of 0.05%.

i suspect different countries will have a different death rate based on things like obesity and older populations 
 

On 21/01/2021 at 06:50, simFox said:

Her immune system seemed to work the first time she had it?

 

It is my undertanding you can still catch it and spread it on, vaccine just stops you from dieing. Seeing as Covid only kills 0.05% of the people it infects and the vaccine is only 90% effective. Lets hope she's not in the 10%

 

 

is it 0.27 or 0.05 ??
 

On 20/01/2021 at 20:28, AS78UK said:

Speaking to a colleague at work today, there grandma had Covid in October, survived and was one of the first patients to get covid Pfizer vaccine in December, she had the second dose earlier this month.   Scarily she has now tested positive for Covid again. They believe a different strain....but what does that say about the vaccine.....

Doesn’t make sense to me. If she was positive in October it’s highly unlikely she would contract it less than three months later.  And after having a vaccination.  we know there are different strains but we had secondary exposure in our house and only one member was re infected (9 months later). So immunity from the initial strain was likely effective against the newer one ...

[yorkie1999]

About time,

     Government may give £500 for workers that don't get paid for time off if they need to self isolate as they believe this is one of the main reasons for the high spread of the virus.  Government also considering full UK border closure as well., So that's two things that should have happened on day one. 

Edited 22 January 2021 by yorkie1999

[Facecloth]

7 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

About time,

     Government may give £500 for workers that don't get paid for time off if they need to self isolate as they believe this is one of the main reasons for the high spread of the virus.  Government also considering full UK border closure as well., So that's two things that should have happened on day one. 

I said this months ago, this government are incredibly slow on the uptake.

 

I reckon if you'd told people they'd get full.pay for a month if they stayed at home if they felt slightly unwell we'd have been done with this virus by the summer because everyone would have stayed home even if they just had a headache

[yorkie1999]

23 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

I said this months ago, this government are incredibly slow on the uptake.

 

I reckon if you'd told people they'd get full.pay for a month if they stayed at home if they felt slightly unwell we'd have been done with this virus by the summer because everyone would have stayed home even if they just had a headache

Problem is, if these measures work, the government will not make them policy for possible future pandemics.

[Stivo]

7 hours ago, simFox said:

0.57% in locations with > 500 COVID-19 deaths/million people. 

Hmm, so all the values lower than 0.57% came from countries with small outbreaks... 

 

here is another meta review which comes out at 0.69%. It weights the inputs, considers biases etc..

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.03.20089854v4.full.pdf

 

The U.K. modelling has used 0.7%-0.8% throughout.

[Christoph]

Mrs doesn't want to have her vaccine because some of her work colleagues aren't having it as they're scared it will make them infertile (all late 20s early 30s women). 

[Trumpet]

11 hours ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

I think that's daily, but it's still so bad. I saw that 60% stat in France as well. I joked about it earlier in the thread but at what point would we actually think about closing the borders to countries that aren't vaccinated in big numbers? 

Probably a year after we should.

[z-layrex]

5 minutes ago, Christoph said:

Mrs doesn't want to have her vaccine because some of her work colleagues aren't having it as they're scared it will make them infertile (all late 20s early 30s women). 

Absolutely ridiculous.

[Christoph]

2 minutes ago, z-layrex said:

Absolutely ridiculous.

 

She works for the council with families so has been offered the vaccine early. Was fine for having it but we are expecting to try for a baby in the next year so when all of her colleagues and friends started saying this now she is worried about taking the vaccine.

 

From my research this all started from some rumour about the phizer vaccine attacking a certain protein found in the placenta. This has been proven to be false however the doubt has now crept in. 

[yorkie1999]

4 minutes ago, Christoph said:

 

She works for the council with families so has been offered the vaccine early. Was fine for having it but we are expecting to try for a baby in the next year so when all of her colleagues and friends started saying this now she is worried about taking the vaccine.

 

From my research this all started from some rumour about the phizer vaccine attacking a certain protein found in the placenta. This has been proven to be false however the doubt has now crept in. 

Are they working from home?

[Christoph]

Just now, yorkie1999 said:

Are they working from home?

Mixture. Work from home but you can go into the office. Think everyone goes in a once or twice a week. They have to go out on visits to meet families though so they do come into contact with people from the public. 

 

The commotion all started from whatsapp group chats lol. 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55760467

 

Lost the plot. Totally. Desperate people will go out of their way to get infected to get some much needed cash, numbers rise and the case for extended lockdown is made, pushing those in need even further into desperation.

[Mickyblueeyes]

I always find it weird when the google brigade decide something is true even when qualified professionals dispense with their irrational thought. 

[DennisNedry]

17 hours ago, martyn said:

Can you provide your data to show that Covid kills 0.05% of people it infects?

As I understand it, 0.05% is the rate for people aged under 70. Obviously the overall rate is higher as fatality rates rise exponentially in the over 80s particularly.

 

"In people < 70 years, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.31% with crude and corrected medians of 0.05%"

 

https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

[Nalis]

12 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55760467

 

Lost the plot. Totally. Desperate people will go out of their way to get infected to get some much needed cash, numbers rise and the case for extended lockdown is made, pushing those in need even further into desperation.

Dont think its as extreme as you say but the system is very open to abuse.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

You'll like the graph on here @Leicester_Loyal

 

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

[yorkie1999]

28 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55760467

 

Lost the plot. Totally. Desperate people will go out of their way to get infected to get some much needed cash, numbers rise and the case for extended lockdown is made, pushing those in need even further into desperation.

Bit of a tory are you. It will be for people that work who would have temporarily lost their income, or at best received the generous £12.50 a day sick pay, so in effect its £50 a day sick pay. The whole problem is that people are tied to their firms because they can't afford time off.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

Just now, yorkie1999 said:

Bit of a tory are you.

How have you come to that conclusion? Absolutely laughable. My post clearly pointed out how extended numbers of infections damage the most venerable for longer.

 

Popping you on ignore chief. 

[DennisNedry]

Wedding of 400 broken up in East London yesterday - ffs. How did they even manage to arrange it? 

[Innovindil]

25 minutes ago, Nalis said:

Dont think its as extreme as you say but the system is very open to abuse.

As most of them have been unfortunately. Pretty standard that when there's free money up for grabs they'll be a portion of wrong uns pocketing some too. Trouble is if you put a layer of protection in place you'll have the standard but the people can't wait for their money, they're starving etc etc. 

 

Hopefully people won't start licking door handles because of £500, but stranger things have happened I guess.