Coronavirus Thread

[Samilktray]

14 minutes ago, Costock_Fox said:

I’d lockdown for Hayfever and wasps 100%

Genuinely can’t believe more hasn’t been done by the world to wipe out wasps tbf 

[st albans fox]

6 minutes ago, Otis said:

This is the thing. We can't go restricting large parts of the population and economy due to people dieing having refused the vaccine. These finer details are now very relevant and should be published. 

 

4 deaths today within 28 days of a positive covid test.

1600 other deaths today.

I agree - but those who refuse the vaccine and end up in hospital .....is it fair that we abandon all restrictions if that means the NHS will come under undue pressure and NHS workers become at risk - remember the efficacy is max 90%. 

 

that’s why I think we’re headed for a compromise 

[Otis]

10 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

I agree - but those who refuse the vaccine and end up in hospital .....is it fair that we abandon all restrictions if that means the NHS will come under undue pressure and NHS workers become at risk - remember the efficacy is max 90%. 

 

that’s why I think we’re headed for a compromise 

The NHS wouldn't be under pressure, the numbers would be relatively low.

And why would the NHS workers be at risk than normal if they have taken the vaccine?

You may be correct about a compromise but I personally don't think there is any justification for one given the criteria for the roadmap has been met. But then again we are used to the government moving the goalposts. 

[VLC86]

20 minutes ago, Samilktray said:

Genuinely can’t believe more hasn’t been done by the world to wipe out wasps tbf 

Evil ****ers aren’t they. 

[st albans fox]

10 minutes ago, Otis said:

The NHS wouldn't be under pressure, the numbers would be relatively low.

And why would the NHS workers be at risk than normal if they have taken the vaccine?

You may be correct about a compromise but I personally don't think there is any justification for one given the criteria for the roadmap has been met. But then again we are used to the government moving the goalposts. 

If they are treating covid patients then they are at higher risk than you or me of catching it.  If fully vaccinated around 10-15%. 

[dsr-burnley]

29 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

I agree - but those who refuse the vaccine and end up in hospital .....is it fair that we abandon all restrictions if that means the NHS will come under undue pressure and NHS workers become at risk - remember the efficacy is max 90%. 

 

that’s why I think we’re headed for a compromise 

That's surely the efficiency in stopping people catching it.  The efficiency in stopping people going to hospital with it is more like 99%, based on the first 9,000 Indian variant cases anyway.

[st albans fox]

Just now, dsr-burnley said:

That's surely the efficiency in stopping people catching it.  The efficiency in stopping people going to hospital with it is more like 99%, based on the first 9,000 Indian variant cases anyway.

I’m speaking about nhs workers who are treating covid patients. And yes, they should in theory only be likely to get severely ill if they fall into the likely age bracket and the unfortunate 1%. 

 

and I could also argue that the viral load of these patients could be higher than your average sufferer. 

[Leicester_Loyal]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

It’s a week since cases started to rise as a consequence of the delta variant taking some hold - quoting low death rates a week on from that is a bit pointless. I’m afraid that it will be two more weeks before you will see any consequential uptick in deaths and the June 21 date will be upon us.  For that reason it’s expected that June 21 is going to be delayed or scaled back 

Alright Mr. Negative.

 

They said all this with the other variants btw, but deaths and hospitalisations still dropped. I also don't believe a word any of them say, nor the media.

 

If people don't want the vaccine, fair enough, let them live normally, but don't expect the rest of us to live under restrictions because of it. Same for those who still want to keep everything closed, you stay indoors and let the rest of us live.

 

Fed up with constant negativity when we're having less than 10 people die a day ffs, whilst hundreds of thousands of people can't even get an appointment at a hospital for their cancer screenings, it's ridiculous.

 

EDIT: Cases were always expected to rise btw, I don't know why people are surprised they're rising.

Edited 6 June 2021 by Leicester_Loyal

[Legend_in_blue]

41 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Alright Mr. Negative.

 

They said all this with the other variants btw, but deaths and hospitalisations still dropped. I also don't believe a word any of them say, nor the media.

 

If people don't want the vaccine, fair enough, let them live normally, but don't expect the rest of us to live under restrictions because of it. Same for those who still want to keep everything closed, you stay indoors and let the rest of us live.

 

Fed up with constant negativity when we're having less than 10 people die a day ffs, whilst hundreds of thousands of people can't even get an appointment at a hospital for their cancer screenings, it's ridiculous.

 

EDIT: Cases were always expected to rise btw, I don't know why people are surprised they're rising.

 

Completely agree.  I had to laugh at the zoomed in graph up there.  Fact is you have to zoom out quite a bit to keep up with Ferguson's (and others) crazy projections based on 40-50% transmitability.  Goalposts are constantly shifting and the current narrative of breaking the link between cases and hospitalisations has now become breaking the link between transmission and cases.  Hancock eluded to this earlier today and you can be certain this will be the stick used to usher 12-18 year olds to get the jab later on this summer.

 

It's become so much more than fighting a virus.  There's definitely more to it.  People out there are making a mint out of all of this.

 

The only way you stop the cases is if you stop the testing.  No tests, no cases.  Simple.

 

 

Edited 6 June 2021 by Legend_in_blue

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Alright Mr. Negative.

 

They said all this with the other variants btw, but deaths and hospitalisations still dropped. I also don't believe a word any of them say, nor the media.

 

If people don't want the vaccine, fair enough, let them live normally, but don't expect the rest of us to live under restrictions because of it. Same for those who still want to keep everything closed, you stay indoors and let the rest of us live.

 

Fed up with constant negativity when we're having less than 10 people die a day ffs, whilst hundreds of thousands of people can't even get an appointment at a hospital for their cancer screenings, it's ridiculous.

 

EDIT: Cases were always expected to rise btw, I don't know why people are surprised they're rising.

 

48 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

 

Completely agree.  I had to laugh at the zoomed in graph up there.  Fact is you have to zoom out quite a bit to keep up with Ferguson's (and others) crazy projections based on 40-50% transmitability.  Goalposts are constantly shifting and the current narrative of breaking the link between cases and hospitalisations has now become breaking the link between transmission and cases.  Hancock eluded to this earlier today and you can be certain this will be the stick used to usher 12-18 year olds to get the jab later on this summer.

 

It's become so much more than fighting a virus.  There's definitely more to it.  People out there are making a mint out of all of this.

 

The only way you stop the cases is if you stop the testing.  No tests, no cases.  Simple.

 

I’m not disagreeing with either of you on the basic tenet of opening up  

 

just pointing out that it’s a timing thing ref the current data (hence the zoomed in graph showing that cases are only v recently actually rising) - not sure about the ‘other variants’ comment.  We suffered a deadly second wave ref the Kent strain and managed to pretty well keep the s African and Brazil ones out of the country. 
 

this delta one is the first new one to gain any traction since the Kent.  
 

my personal view on those over the age of forty that refuse a vaccine without v good reason is that they should pay for any hospital treatment they may require as a consequence- but I realise that won’t be acceptable. And we wouldn’t stay under strong restrictions to protect that part of society who refuse a vaccination. 

Edited 6 June 2021 by st albans fox

[dsr-burnley]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

It’s a week since cases started to rise as a consequence of the delta variant taking some hold - quoting low death rates a week on from that is a bit pointless. I’m afraid that it will be two more weeks before you will see any consequential uptick in deaths and the June 21 date will be upon us.  For that reason it’s expected that June 21 is going to be delayed or scaled back 

 

It won't be at least two weeks.  I looked at the Bolton figures, since Bolton was not only first with the Indian variant, but also has the advantage that the local council area (which is how cases are recorded) is pretty much the same as the hopital trust area (how hospitalisations are recorded).

 

The correlation between cases and hospitalisations was based on a 9-day time lapse.  In other words, the best mapping of cases increasing to hospitalisations increasing, works best if the data are offset by 9 days.  It produced good results for anything between 7 and 14 days.  At 0 days the correlation was poor, as we would expect; but at 21 days, the correlation was equally poor.

 

Point being, within a week of cases rising there ought to be an equivalent small rise in hospitalisations, and within two weeks it should be a marked rise.

[z-layrex]

2 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Alright Mr. Negative.

 

They said all this with the other variants btw, but deaths and hospitalisations still dropped. I also don't believe a word any of them say, nor the media.

 

If people don't want the vaccine, fair enough, let them live normally, but don't expect the rest of us to live under restrictions because of it. Same for those who still want to keep everything closed, you stay indoors and let the rest of us live.

 

Fed up with constant negativity when we're having less than 10 people die a day ffs, whilst hundreds of thousands of people can't even get an appointment at a hospital for their cancer screenings, it's ridiculous.

 

EDIT: Cases were always expected to rise btw, I don't know why people are surprised they're rising.

Agree with your post, I will say we need to wait and see what happens in a few weeks, after the infection numbers really go up, to see the effect on critical illness and deaths. The ICU admissions have always lagged behind the spike by a couple weeks at least.

 

That aside, the effect on cancer care has been devastating in areas of the country. An old colleague of mine now works as a Nurse Specialist in Palliative care or something along those lines in the Brighton area, she was telling me what an awful time it is to have cancer and how oncology services are not coping. She is seeing two patients at the moment who don't even have a confirmed diagnosis, and by the time they do it will be too late for treatment and they will be dead.

[WigstonWanderer]

10 hours ago, leicsmac said:

WRT ivermectin:

 

https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-advises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials

 

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

 

https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202100137853/

 

Bottom line seems to be that it could be useful but there's not been nearly enough clinical evidence to ensure that it doesn't cause harm if used to treat Covid. Perhaps that is too cautious a line from various authorities, but I would stop a moment to think of the almighty mess if they did approve the thing without full testing and it did turn out to have significant negative effects.

Not sure if you’ve watched any of John Campbell’s series of videos. He doesn’t come across as any kind of conspiracy theorist and has substantial practical health care experience, whilst not actually being a physician himself. His work has been very informative throughout the pandemic, though I haven’t been watching much recently.

 

I noticed this from him a couple of weeks ago regarding Ivermectin.

 

 

It does seem that that ultra cheap medications that have anecdotal evidence of efficacy from “on the ground” physicians have an uphill battle to gain acceptance due to them not being profitable for any of the drug companies. It is difficult not to be even more cynical and suppose that such companies might actively try to discredit them in order to plug their own, extremely expensive medications such as Remdesivir, which seems to be of highly dubious efficacy.

 

Reports about Ivermectin having a role in preventing COVID-19 have been around for about a year, plenty of time for the WHO to have organised thorough randomised trials. Why haven’t they done so?

[WigstonWanderer]

4 hours ago, Samilktray said:

Genuinely can’t believe more hasn’t been done by the world to wipe out wasps tbf 

European wasps are not native to Australia, and I get the impression that Aussies are pretty scared of them. I used to hate them in Britain come August, swarming round a picnic or barbecue.

 

Anyway, we get plenty of flies over here (short intervals only in Perth in my experience), but very few wasps. I believe that you are supposed to report any nests so that they can be destroyed.

[ozleicester]

2 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

European wasps are not native to Australia, and I get the impression that Aussies are pretty scared of them. I used to hate them in Britain come August, swarming round a picnic or barbecue.

 

Anyway, we get plenty of flies over here (short intervals only in Perth in my experience), but very few wasps. I believe that you are supposed to report any nests so that they can be destroyed.

When the wonderful Mrs Oz was chairwoman of the local school... and the first of the european wasps were found in the region...they were forced by the "authorities" to...
a - Build a completely enclosed lunch area

b - ensure all kids food was contained and eaten within the lunch area.

c - immediately leave/evacuate any area where a wasp was seen

 

This was a small rural school with only approx 100-120 students

also, this was a school with a resident Brown Snake the snake lived around the top of the steps to the school oval and whenever it was seen, the action that was taken was ...they put out cones and asked the kids to please be aware when passing through the area

 

The opinion at the time was that snakes are territorial and if you remove a snake, generally another will come in to replace it..as this one had been around so long it was decided it had become accustomed to the kids and was a lower threat that a potential new one.

(edit, eastern brown https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/science-environment/2012/07/australias-10-most-dangerous-snakes/ ), 

 

 

 

Edited 7 June 2021 by ozleicester

[WigstonWanderer]

An overreaction, yes, but I do hope that they manage to keep wasps from becoming widespread in Australia.

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Not sure if you’ve watched any of John Campbell’s series of videos. He doesn’t come across as any kind of conspiracy theorist and has substantial practical health care experience, whilst not actually being a physician himself. His work has been very informative throughout the pandemic, though I haven’t been watching much recently.

 

I noticed this from him a couple of weeks ago regarding Ivermectin.

 

 

It does seem that that ultra cheap medications that have anecdotal evidence of efficacy from “on the ground” physicians have an uphill battle to gain acceptance due to them not being profitable for any of the drug companies. It is difficult not to be even more cynical and suppose that such companies might actively try to discredit them in order to plug their own, extremely expensive medications such as Remdesivir, which seems to be of highly dubious efficacy.

 

Reports about Ivermectin having a role in preventing COVID-19 have been around for about a year, plenty of time for the WHO to have organised thorough randomised trials. Why haven’t they done so?

I certainly think there is a case to argue here. Why not test it out clinically and once and for all, as you say.

 

All the same, it is best to be sure when the consequences are so important...but that is difficult when the powers that be aren't interested. It's a conundrum, for sure.

[WigstonWanderer]

26 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I certainly think there is a case to argue here. Why not test it out clinically and once and for all, as you say.

 

All the same, it is best to be sure when the consequences are so important...but that is difficult when the powers that be aren't interested. It's a conundrum, for sure.

Where there appears to be clinical evidence on the ground from doctors using their expertise and judgement for their own patients, what’s the harm in using drugs that have been proven harmless in other settings? It makes no sense.

 

If you have the stamina you might like to watch a couple of related videos.

 

(Skip the first 10 mins or so where he’s struggling with the slide show. Also the link dies at about 50 mins)

 

I fear that big business and politics are polluting science as they have in the past with tobacco, climate change, etc.

 

I guess we’ll have to see how this all pans out.

 

Edited 7 June 2021 by WigstonWanderer

[WigstonWanderer]

Here’s the same guy testifying before a US Senate committee back in December.

 

 

 

 

Edited 7 June 2021 by WigstonWanderer

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Where there appears to be clinical evidence on the ground from doctors using their expertise and judgement for their own patients, what’s the harm in using drugs that have been proven harmless in other settings? It makes no sense.

 

If you have the stamina you might like to watch a couple of related videos.

 

(Skip the first 10 mins or so where he’s struggling with the slide show. Also the link dies at about 50 mins)

 

I fear that big business and politics are polluting science as they have in the past with tobacco, climate change, etc.

 

I guess we’ll have to see how this all pans out.

 

No idea about the video you posted but totally agree with the sentence below - sadly it’s human nature ........ yes there are exceptions but once you get into the game it’s tough to fight against it. 

[Sly]

I think we all appreciate that cases would rise once we started to reopen.
 

I think the real numbers we want to see, are number of people who are getting the virus that have been vaccinated. 
 

We’ve all been told that the vaccination helps etc, however it’s still a relatively new virus that has spread around the globe like wildfire. Can it modify itself? 
 

As a person I’ve largely supported the lockdowns and the approach the Government has taken. Have they got everything right in hindsight no; could they have acted quicker, yes.

 

What is quite clear though, is that we need to get back to some form of normality and we can’t play hookey cokey with going in and out of lockdowns for years.

 

If the people who are now getting infected in these daily numbers, those that are unvaccinated, then let us vaccinated people, re-claim some hope of a normal life. 
 

 

 

 

 

[CosbehFox]

 

This is a real informative thread. It is long but establishes a few things from the horses mouth of the hospitals trusts. The final points regard the ‘debate’ are very true. Fair summary between good news, the risks and the concerns. 
 

Something which hasn’t really been discussed here with the relaxation of the restrictions is that hospitals are beginning to tackle their backlog and it’s all key to the timing of the vaccination programme/relaxation to the restrictions that it doesn’t overload the hospitals. 
 

 

Edited 7 June 2021 by Cardiff_Fox

[Buce]

8 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

European wasps are not native to Australia, and I get the impression that Aussies are pretty scared of them. I used to hate them in Britain come August, swarming round a picnic or barbecue.

 

Anyway, we get plenty of flies over here (short intervals only in Perth in my experience), but very few wasps. I believe that you are supposed to report any nests so that they can be destroyed.

 

5 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

An overreaction, yes, but I do hope that they manage to keep wasps from becoming widespread in Australia.

 

For perspective, you have over 12,000 species of native wasp in Oz, all of which play a significant part in the ecosystem.

 

Interestingly, ranked by causing death to humans, horses, cows and kangeroos are the most dangerous animals in Oz.

 

 

[WigstonWanderer]

Just now, Buce said:

 

 

For perspective, you have over 12,000 species of native wasp in Oz, all of which play a significant part in the ecosystem.

 

Interestingly, ranked by causing death to humans, horses, cows and kangeroos are the most dangerous animals in Oz.

 

 

Interesting indeed, but European wasps are not native and therefore implicitly a potential hazard over here, and also since I’ve been here I’ve never been bothered by either native or imported wasps.

[StanSP]

All Pfizer'd up!