Jump to content
filbertway

Coronavirus Thread

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

And the expectation was wrong.  Any roadmap that had that factored in, can now factor it out.  Stage 1 started on 8th March.  That's more than 8 days ago.

 

The return to education was indeed the 8th and this was indeed significant, but we have discussed that - This was accompanied by negligible changes to social contact in that people were allowed to leave home for recreation and exercise outdoors with their household or support bubble, if they are eligible for one, or with one person from outside their household. Care home residents were also to be allowed one regular visitor. So aside from the reopening of schools, very minor changes. From last week we saw the end of screening, outdoor gatherings involving the rule of six and the resumption of organised outdoor sports. My point is, it is still very early days. 

 

12 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

 

As for the poll, no I don't think that swearing makes you sound big or clever.

Eh? What swearing? I am simply quoting an earlier post on this thread which you either missed or had no objection to - hence the quotation marks. To reiterate, because you are still avoiding the question; appreciating that the data will evolve as we progress, do you think it is currently possible and responsible to conclude that the current roadmap to recovery is...

 

On 03/04/2021 at 23:34, Dan LCFC said:

shit, far too slow, 

 

A simple yes/no will suffice. Thanks.

 

3 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Duplicate.

No worries - easily done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

However (and I've seen this before with other science matters), with all due respect, discussions have been happening for a rather long time on this very thread (usually led by some good posting from @Line-X) and yet there are still a plethora of people either disagreeing or flat-out ignoring it and sticking with their own stance in spite of the science, for whatever reason. Where exactly can such discussion go from there in order to be more convincing without veering into being authoritarian?

 

I really don't know.

@leicsmacSpot on. 
 

@Leicester_Loyal I’m not calling you thick and would never intend to. I’m aware it may not be you and I that need to have this discussion because I am more frustrated by the slew of comments I am seeing about dystopia and how people are out to be controlled; more so the extremists who are more interested in conspiracy than actually garnering facts. You seem less erratic and want to form a view rather than some of the idiots online who, let’s face it, we need to stop spreading their lies and influencing others to believe radical theories. Every time that guff is posted and others read it we go two steps back.
 

Again, we need everyone to be on board with the science and technology that gets us out of this mess. Anyone has a right to be concerned about anything, that should never ever be taken away, but there is also detail out there about these things, trials, tests, science that I personally have found reassuring.

 

Not aimed at you, but people’s trip to fvcking tesco is not worthy of a Microsoft chip in the arm from a vaccine and ‘government control’. I really wish I was that important. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Line-X said:

The return to education was indeed the 8th and this was indeed significant, but we have discussed that - This was accompanied by negligible changes to social contact in that people were allowed to leave home for recreation and exercise outdoors with their household or support bubble, if they are eligible for one, or with one person from outside their household. Care home residents were also to be allowed one regular visitor. So aside from the reopening of schools, very minor changes. From last week we saw the end of screening, outdoor gatherings involving the rule of six and the resumption of organised outdoor sports. My point is, it is still very early days. 

And my point is, the forecast you quoted was based on schools returning but few other rules being lifted would make the R number go to 1.7.  Schools have returned, and as you said little else changed, and the R number has not gone to 1.7 - it has stayed at 0.8.  Hence that report is wrong and its conclusions should be disregarded.  They need to make a new report that does not assume a high R rate in March.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

And my point is, the forecast you quoted was based on schools returning but few other rules being lifted would make the R number go to 1.7.  Schools have returned, and as you said little else changed, and the R number has not gone to 1.7 - it has stayed at 0.8.  Hence that report is wrong and its conclusions should be disregarded.  They need to make a new report that does not assume a high R rate in March.

To reiterate, the forecast that I quoted was based upon a series of modelled scenarios. Responses are based upon findings. Schools have been back for three weeks, (due to the Easter break). This is still very early days. Moreover, The University of Warwick that contributed to the SP-M-O modelling have also released a draft paper (not yet peer-reviewed) which concludes “there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that outbreaks in schools are driving an increase in community cases” (i.e. infections in the wider population). By their model, there is some evidence that the opposite might be true: “that an increase in incidence in the community leads to more cases in school”. They identify a “lag” between cases in the general public which then appear to trickle into schools, rather than the other way around. Conversely, modellers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) have published their own draft study which suggests reopening schools could drive the R number well above 1, causing the epidemic to grow (rather than shrink, as it is at the moment). To reiterate, we are three weeks in. We simply don't know - whilst some others on here assume to know better. Modelling is based on the ongoing CoMix survey, in which a representative sample of population are reporting their contacts, which provides insights about interactions between people in different age groups and different settings.

 

Opening any sector of society will increase transmission to some degree, and even if relatively little transmission happens in schools they are a large sector of society. I suspect that the R number will rise, but not immediately (as you bizarrely think that it should) and not to 1.7 or as a result of schools reopening alone. Since the the latest data shows children themselves remain at very low risk of serious disease and death from coronavirus whilst school staff do not appear to be at greater risk from severe illness compared to others in comparable positions, so schools will remain open whatever.

 

However, at least try to understand that we don’t want to again enter a race between the R number greater than 1 and vaccinating, which is very dangerous balance to try and make. The point is, the uncertainty of the complex dynamics and variables surrounding an infectious virus means that policy makers and scientists face a tough set of choices as they weigh the dynamic of the virus against other important societal factors.

 

My own point throughout and that of the OP that you quoted was, that we need to exercise caution and ensure that the proposed roadmap is agile and adaptive as the data emerges. Rich data extraction may as you suggest expedite our return to normality - absolutely in agreement with that - however, depending upon what it reveals, it may delay it. It is impossible to predict with certainty and the modelling that I based my observations upon is not set in stone and does not attempt to. And yes, as these models are proved inaccurate, they should indeed be revised.  

 

You have still failed to answer the question. Given the uncertainties and the multiple variables/unknowns governing infection, reinfection and transmission - do you think it's safe and possible to conclude at this stage that the proposed roadmap to recovery is "s**t, far too slow"? (censored due to your earlier claimed sensitivities). A simple yes or no will suffice. 

Edited by Line-X
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You lot up there are amazing - well done 

 

Among the top 25 local areas identified by Public Health England as showing a concerning upward trend in case rates per 100,000 people, 16 areas are in the north of England with eight in the Midlands and only one area from the south.

The latest seven-day rolling data to 27 March shows 19 local authorities with a rolling case rate above 100 per 100,000 people, and all of them are in the north of England except Leicester, in the East Midlands. The worst affected areas are Rotherham, with a rate of 170 Covid infections, followed by Barnsley, Doncaster, North Lincolnshire, Wakefield, Bradford and Hull.

Edited by st albans fox
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

You lot up there are amazing - well done 

 

Among the top 25 local areas identified by Public Health England as showing a concerning upward trend in case rates per 100,000 people, 16 areas are in the north of England with eight in the Midlands and only one area from the south.

The latest seven-day rolling data to 27 March shows 19 local authorities with a rolling case rate above 100 per 100,000 people, and all of them are in the north of England except Leicester, in the East Midlands. The worst affected areas are Rotherham, with a rate of 170 Covid infections, followed by Barnsley, Doncaster, North Lincolnshire, Wakefield, Bradford and Hull.

I don’t think it helps when you have 4 generations of family’s living under the same roof, it’s an utter embarrassment how Leicester have constantly been around the worse effective areas, Jesus Christ it was the first to go into lockdown! Bloody shit hole 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been some great posts on here since yesterday, not bad for football forum! Reference was made recently to B-cells and T-cells. So I've tried to make sense of how they work. B-cells have receptors which bind onto viral antigens. T-cells detect the infected B-cells and convert them into larger plasma cells. These develop antibodies similar to the original B-cells' receptors and are released. The new antibodies bind with more viral antigens, neutralising them, before being eaten up by macrophages. Copies of the B-cells and T-cells are kept and lay dormant until a new input of the virus is detected. Apparently, most people already have B-cells and T-cells to fight off Covid-19 as a result of dormant cells resulting from having had similar coronaviruses previously.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Kingleicester said:

I don’t think it helps when you have 4 generations of family’s living under the same roof, it’s an utter embarrassment how Leicester have constantly been around the worse effective areas, Jesus Christ it was the first to go into lockdown! Bloody shit hole 

We have that to a degree over here too, due to property prices. And there's not nearly so much of a problem here, so perhaps this is something of a misconception?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Kingleicester said:

I don’t think it helps when you have 4 generations of family’s living under the same roof, it’s an utter embarrassment how Leicester have constantly been around the worse effective areas, Jesus Christ it was the first to go into lockdown! Bloody shit hole 

It seems to have levelled off at around 110 cases per 100k in Leicester. of course that’s better than it’s been for a long time. I suppose that whilst a lack of hospitalisations will mean that the authorities won’t be overly concerned, a recorded case rate at that level could give rise to a variant. The Kent strain developed late aug into September when case rates were v low. Does that counter my concern?? We still remain pretty ignorant about this thing .......

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, String fellow said:

There have been some great posts on here since yesterday, not bad for football forum! Reference was made recently to B-cells and T-cells. So I've tried to make sense of how they work. B-cells have receptors which bind onto viral antigens. T-cells detect the infected B-cells and convert them into larger plasma cells. These develop antibodies similar to the original B-cells' receptors and are released. The new antibodies bind with more viral antigens, neutralising them, before being eaten up by macrophages. Copies of the B-cells and T-cells are kept and lay dormant until a new input of the virus is detected. Apparently, most people already have B-cells and T-cells to fight off Covid-19 as a result of dormant cells resulting from having had similar coronaviruses previously.    

Absolutely - white blood cells, B and T lymphocytes. And because the latter are the the main components of the adaptive immune system, they 'remember' what the infected cells look like and fight off any future threats mobilising immunomodulating signalling agents - cytokines. 

 

Macrophages are the 'heavies' the muscle - the doormen that immediately pile in and deal with any gatecrashers. B-cells then clear up the carnage. 

 

The Oxford Astra-Zeneca vaccine that I had is a protein vaccine introducing the spike protein from the virus. It also needs a very small quantity of infection (adenovirus from a chimpanzee influenza) to alert and deploy the body's defences. The internal ruckus/dust up that follows is what can make you feel so shit. It's a chemical fire alarm - and for some, this can overreact, hence being laid up for days even weeks. Since there is huge biodiversity of the immune system it simply affects some more acutely than others. Interestingly, this adverse innate immune response is generally tempered with age.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Line-X said:

You have still failed to answer the question. Given the uncertainties and the multiple variables/unknowns governing infection, reinfection and transmission - do you think it's safe and possible to conclude at this stage that the proposed roadmap to recovery is "s**t, far too slow"? (censored due to your earlier claimed sensitivities). A simple yes or no will suffice. 

It is possible for absolutely anyone to conclude that the roadmap is unadulterated rubbish.  For someone who has no influence, it is safe as well to come to that conclusion.  For someone who does has influence, it is likely to harm their career if they think that because to think that any plan is unadulterated rubbish when other sensible people think it is good, is foolish.  They might think it needs a lot of improvement, but not that it has no merit at all.  For someone who has decisive influence, whether it is safe to treat it as complete rubbish depends on what the results of it will be; and like you say, we don't know, do we.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dsr-burnley said:

It is possible for absolutely anyone to conclude that the roadmap is unadulterated rubbish.  For someone who has no influence, it is safe as well to come to that conclusion.  For someone who does has influence, it is likely to harm their career if they think that because to think that any plan is unadulterated rubbish when other sensible people think it is good, is foolish.  They might think it needs a lot of improvement, but not that it has no merit at all.  For someone who has decisive influence, whether it is safe to treat it as complete rubbish depends on what the results of it will be; and like you say, we don't know, do we.

No indeed we don't - which is why a simple "no" would have been sufficient. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

It is possible for absolutely anyone to conclude that the roadmap is unadulterated rubbish.  For someone who has no influence, it is safe as well to come to that conclusion.  For someone who does has influence, it is likely to harm their career if they think that because to think that any plan is unadulterated rubbish when other sensible people think it is good, is foolish.  They might think it needs a lot of improvement, but not that it has no merit at all.  For someone who has decisive influence, whether it is safe to treat it as complete rubbish depends on what the results of it will be; and like you say, we don't know, do we.

Tbh I think that very much depends on what they then do with that conclusion. The UK is a democracy - in theory, everyone has influence - and likewise any human can carry this virus depending on vaccination status and exert influence through lack of care in that way, after all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Kingleicester said:

I don’t think it helps when you have 4 generations of family’s living under the same roof, it’s an utter embarrassment how Leicester have constantly been around the worse effective areas, Jesus Christ it was the first to go into lockdown! Bloody shit hole 

The vaccine take up has got to improve. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-56488779

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Line-X said:

No indeed we don't - which is why a simple "no" would have been sufficient. 

No it wouldn't.  Lockdown is still causing physical, mental, and financial damage.  It isn't "safe" to maintain lockdown longer than it is believed to be needed.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

No it wouldn't.  Lockdown is still causing physical, mental, and financial damage.  It isn't "safe" to maintain lockdown longer than it is believed to be needed.

Indeed - which is why I said this -

 

1 hour ago, Line-X said:

The point is, the uncertainty of the complex dynamics and variables surrounding an infectious virus means that policy makers and scientists face a tough set of choices as they weigh the dynamic of the virus against other important societal factors.

Do try to keep up.

 

So apologies. Even in view then of the appreciable uncertainties and the multiple variables/unknowns governing infection, reinfection and transmission - you do in fact think it's safe and possible to conclude at this stage that the proposed roadmap to recovery is "s**t, far too slow"?

 

Righto. Got there in the end. Thanks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Indeed - which is why I said this -

 

Do try to keep up.

 

So apologies. Even in view then of the appreciable uncertainties and the multiple variables/unknowns governing infection, reinfection and transmission - you do in fact think it's safe and possible to conclude at this stage that the proposed roadmap to recovery is "s**t, far too slow"?

 

Righto. Got there in the end. Thanks. 

Well done.  There are certain national publications where the ability to condense a nuanced argument into any one-word conclusion you like is a valuable skill.  Perhaps you should get a job writing for one of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Well done.  There are certain national publications where the ability to condense a nuanced argument into any one-word conclusion you like is a valuable skill.  Perhaps you should get a job writing for one of them.

A nuanced argument indeed - and governed by a very complex set of mutable variables. Which is why I'd suggest that reducing an appraisal to the current roadmap proposals to "shit, too slow" as being both presumptuous and simplistic. I simply asked you if you agree - yes or no. We got there in the end...sort of. 

 

There are certain public forums in which condensing a nuanced argument into opinionated populist three word comments and contrary rebuke is a valuable skill. Congratulations. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nick said:

Anybody had the Pfizer 1st dose and got any side effects? 

Sore arm, really tired and mild symptoms (headache, temperature, dizzy) all gone within 24 hours though.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
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...