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

1 minute ago, filbertway said:

I wonder what the number of infections avtually was at the peak in March. We were only testing hospitalised people. I cant even begin to imagine the numbers, wouldnt be surprised if it was 15/20 thousand a day though.

 

Given what we know now and testing availability there is no way a national lockdowm should be required. If it did happen were all screwed, forget covid. The country will be thrown into a depression.

 

I just keep hoping we start trying to deal with this smartly rather than emotionally. Make sure our short term solutions dont have negative long term effects.

It's a valid point. I reckon for cases, the UK has had 10x more than what has been confirmed. Easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Not really. There's roughly 5% who develop bad symptoms which is 1 in 20 people, that's still very high odds. And you probably have a lot more than 20 immediate friends or family members. Chances of 1 if not several of your friends and family getting severely ill if they catch it is very high.

 

Winning the lottery is 0.000002% or 1 in 45,000,000. Chances of you ever knowing anyone who wins the lottery is pretty slim to none.

 

 

You're either completely ignoring the nuances in my points, or totally misunderstanding them. 

I'm not suggesting the chances of winning the lottery equate to the chances of catching and/or dying from covid.

I was making the point that people recognise extreme events and build it into a belief system that 'it' could happen to them as well. 

So actually by highlighting the tiny odds of the lottery all you've done is strengthen my point. People STILL buy a lottery ticket despite those odds. And people STILL fear for their lives despite what must be tiny odds to first catch and then die from COVID despite ongoing measures to restrict its spread. 

Perspective, man. Perspective.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Much less when we've had z-layerex in here describing how horrible it was working in a covid ward in March and how it was people in their 40s and 50s who were coming into hospital in the main and taking up most of the hospital beds not elderly people already at death's door at all.

 

It absolutely isn't a case that it's all just people already in palliative care losing a couple of months of their life. Research has shown covid takes an average of 10 years off people's life and that's balanced against the people who were already at death's door.

 

32 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

I wish you'd stop referencing the names of posters on here who work on the front line in your arguments. It doesn't add the prestige to your argument that you think it does. Yes, I'm aware of how horrible it must have been, but it takes nothing away from the broader picture. Next you'll be telling me to wrap my legs in cotton wool because it's a blood bath for those on the front line serving the country.

To quote someone you might listen to, you're either ignoring the important points or misunderstanding them. They key point being made here was that people in hospital were not at deaths door, they were generally healthy middle aged people. Quoting the source of that information does add some credence to point, especially compared to - say - plucking odds out of thin air. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fktf said:

 

To quote someone you might listen to, you're either ignoring the important points or misunderstanding them. They key point being made here was that people in hospital were not at deaths door, they were generally healthy middle aged people. Quoting the source of that information does add some credence to point, especially compared to - say - plucking odds out of thin air. 

The people taking up beds, and the people making up the numbers aren't necessarily the same thing, though, are they? See: PHE numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

The people taking up beds, and the people making up the numbers aren't necessarily the same thing, though, are they? See: PHE numbers.

Not as long as we keep under NHS capacity - easy to do now, but will get harder as winter approaches

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

The 0.6% death rate was literally released yesterday based on very recent analysis and antibody tests by the WHO. It's not going to be way out at all.

 

I don't understand why you're so globally going against all global expert data just so you can make an excuse to wave away greater restrictions. It's so bizarre.

 

Much less when we've had z-layerex in here describing how horrible it was working in a covid ward in March and how it was people in their 40s and 50s who were coming into hospital in the main and taking up most of the hospital beds not elderly people already at death's door at all.

 

It absolutely isn't a case that it's all just people already in palliative care losing a couple of months of their life. Research has shown covid takes an average of 10 years off people's life and that's balanced against the people who were already at death's door.

 

I feel sorry for you because it sounds like only seeing several family members or friends get it which will change your mind and I wouldn't wish covid on anyone.

Dennis Wise?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nod.E said:

And you'd have a point if your death was guaranteed or highly likely.

 

Without knowing the ins and outs of your condition there are likely other diseases and illnesses that would cause complications, too.

 

People aren't going out and living their lives and 'sacrificing' your life. They're probably impacting your odds from say 5,000/1 to 4,500/1.

 

A life lived in fear isn't worth living, and pointing to extreme cases and constructing arguments based on those is wholly unscientific.

 

You'll be fine. Easy for me to say? Maybe. But seriously, if I've said it once I've said it a thousand times. Don't let a number in the thousands scare you. On face value the numbers appear large, but honestly, they're not.

 

If you cop it you'll be so very unlucky, much like if you died in a car accident. We all still drive cars, some of us not as well as others.

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/deadly-side-effect-coronavirus-hitting-18261885

 

30% is a pretty scary stat, surely you agree? And that's presumably in people who aren't already susceptible to clots without the treatment I get, which as I've already said, hasn't taken place since the beginning of March. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/deadly-side-effect-coronavirus-hitting-18261885

 

30% is a pretty scary stat, surely you agree? And that's presumably in people who aren't already susceptible to clots without the treatment I get, which as I've already said, hasn't taken place since the beginning of March. 

Hmm.

'Up to' 30% 'of people who fall seriously ill' getting 'potentially' deadly blood clots.

That's a very different meaning to '30% of people that get Coronavirus will die of deadly blood clots', but that's how most will read it.

Edited by Nod.E
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

If you were to calculate the odds of somebody dying from the virus, you'd need not only the death rate but the chances of them actually catching the virus as well. That's the bit you're seemingly forgetting.

I wish you'd stop referencing the names of posters on here who work on the front line in your arguments. It doesn't add the prestige to your argument that you think it does. Yes, I'm aware of how horrible it must have been, but it takes nothing away from the broader picture. Next you'll be telling me to wrap my legs in cotton wool because it's a blood bath for those on the front line serving the country.

You seem to keep going on about my friends and family and that potentially being the point at which I might change my tune. We have literally had the biggest peak in Europe already and not only do I not have any friends or family that have had it or died from it, I don't even know of any family members of friends, of friends. And that's with a peak that, without night clubbing, working in offices, not wearing masks, not distancing etc etc. which we're not going to repeat before a vaccine is available. 

Yes and the bottom point is exactly my point. We locked down at a point where cases were rapidly rising to bring the R number below zero even when so few people in the country had had it. 

 

We've literally had 60,000 dead and the NHS having to forgo essential cancer and dementia care when no one you know or anyone they know has caught it is exactly the point - that should show just how impactful the virus is and just how many millions would die directly and indirectly if we did just let it rip through the population.

 

The reason no one you know has had it is because of lockdown and the restrictions we had on society which you are moaning about.

 

You only have to look to history at Spanish flu to see how quickly a few tens of thousands of cases becomes hundreds of millions of cases - that's how exponential growth and contagious diseases work. Growing from 1 case to 100,000 cases takes longer than growing from 10,000 cases takes longer than growing from 10,000 cases to 100,000 does if left unchecked.

 

A very small proportion of population caught it and we were still at a point where the NHS was at full capacity and many non-covid wards had to be turned into covid wards to cope and many will die from non-covid related illnesses over the next few years because they couldn't get essential treatment for months between March-May time.

 

We were at a point where cases were accelerating extremely quickly so we had to lock down so the NHS could cope.

 

Now we have eased restrictions again and cases are rising again and more importantly the rate at which they're rising is now starting to accelerate again.

 

The weather is also 5 or 6 weeks away from turning and while we don't know how covid will react to this weather, we know that other coronaviruses spread 4 or 5 times quicker during the colder weather and there's a very good chance covid would be the same.

 

The NHS will also have to deal with its usual higher demand in the winter on top of covid as well, which means the number of cases needed to force the NHS to reach capacity will be much less than it was back in March.

 

Right now it's getting clearer that our current level of society is unsustainable, especially when schools go back in September. And that restrictions are going to have to come back in.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sampson said:

Yes and the bottom point is exactly my point. We locked down at a point where cases were rapidly rising to bring the R number below zero even when so few people in the country had had it. 

 

We've literally had 60,000 dead and the NHS having to forgo essential cancer and dementia care when no one you know or anyone they know has caught it is exactly the point - that should show just how impactful the virus is and just how many millions would die directly and indirectly if we did just let it rip through the population.

You word this as though I want to go back to normal. I don't. My point is that we're so far from letting it rip through the population. So, so far from that. 

 

1 minute ago, Sampson said:

 

The reason no one you know has had it is because of lockdown and the restrictions we had on society which you are moaning about.

 

You only have to look to history at Spanish flu to see how quickly a few tens of thousands of cases becomes hundreds of millions of cases - that's how exponential growth and contagious diseases work. Growing from 1 case to 100,000 cases takes longer than growing from 10,000 cases takes longer than growing from 10,000 cases to 100,000 does if left unchecked.

 

A very small proportion of population caught it and we were still at a point where the NHS was at full capacity and many non-covid wards had to be turned into covid wards to cope and many will die from non-covid related illnesses over the next few years because they couldn't get essential treatment for months between March-May time.

 

We were at a point where cases were accelerating extremely quickly so we had to lock down so the NHS could cope.

 

Now we have eased restrictions again and cases are rising again and more importantly the rate at which they're rising is now starting to accelerate again.
 

Well of course they're rising again. Did you expect cases to drop when restrictions started to be eased? You're panicking mate. Not a chance we get back to peak levels with the way we all as a society have adapted.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

Hmm.

'Up to' 30% 'of people who fall seriously ill' getting 'potentially' deadly blood clots.

That's a very different meaning to '30% of people that get Coronavirus will die of deadly blood clots', but that's how most will read it.

And the death rate is the first thing you care about that? Not falling seriously ill or getting blood clots which will affect you for years if not you're entire life.

 

You don't go on a ventilator or get a blood clot and then just recover. It takes at the very least 6-12 months to get over something like that. Years a lot of the time.

 

As people keep saying. The number of deaths is a small part of it. For every death, there's estimated anywhere between 10-50 people who get permanent organ damage.

 

It isn't just a cold you get over in 2 or 3 weeks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sampson said:

And the death rate is the first thing you care about that? Not falling seriously ill or getting blood clots which will affect you for years if not you're entire life.

 

You don't go on a ventilator or get a blood clot and then just recover. It takes at the very least 6-12 months to get over something like that. Years a lot of the time.

 

As people keep saying. The number of deaths is a small part of it. For every death, there's estimated anywhere between 10-50 people who get permanent organ damage.

 

It isn't just a cold you get over in 2 or 3 weeks. 

Yes, and that's a serious problem for the 30% of those that fall seriously ill. Didn't you say 5% fall seriously ill? So we're talking about 1.5% (0.05 * 0.3) of people that get the virus. 

That's an issue if we let it rip through the population, but we're not doing that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

Yes, and that's a serious problem for the 30% of those that fall seriously ill. Didn't you say 5% fall seriously ill? So we're talking about 1.5% (0.05 * 0.3) of people that get the virus. 

That's an issue if we let it rip through the population, but we're not doing that.

 

That was just related to blood clots. Anyone who falls seriously ill is going to be feeling the affects on their lungs and breathing for at the very least 6 months from what I gather. Many athletic young people who got it in March time not bad enough to go to hospital still say they can't walk up the stairs without getting out of breath anymore let alone exercise like they used to. 

 

But the cases are accelerating so we absolutely would be letting it rip through the nation unless we imposed more restrictions in the areas it is growing, which is exactly what we have done which you were rallying against the other day.

 

Spain locked down the entire Catalonia region based on about 2,000 cases a day there in a population of about 15,000,000 because of the rate it was accelerating not because of the raw numbers and they were absolutely right to do so. We would very likely lockdown the whole of the South West as well of we quickly got up to 2,000 cases combined in Bristol, Cornwall and Dorset.

 

Again, it's the accelerating rate of growth that is the more important and worrying number - not the number of cases themselves, because that's how it quickly gets out of control.

Edited by Sampson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Sampson said:

 

Now we have eased restrictions again and cases are rising again and more importantly the rate at which they're rising is now starting to accelerate again.

 

The weather is also 5 or 6 weeks away from turning and while we don't know how covid will react to this weather, we know that other coronaviruses spread 4 or 5 times quicker during the colder weather and there's a very good chance covid would be the same.

 

The NHS will also have to deal with its usual higher demand in the winter on top of covid as well, which means the number of cases needed to force the NHS to reach capacity will be much less than it was back in March.

 

Right now it's getting clearer that our current level of society is unsustainable, especially when schools go back in September. And that restrictions are going to have to come back in.

I’m curious as to how rising cases equates to current daily deaths. I haven’t followed the numbers closely but last time I saw there were like 10 deaths a day now compared to hundreds each day a few weeks ago.

 

Do you think we’ll go back to the days of 300+ deaths a day? If Joe Public sees current rates at only 10 or so, will they just think it’s all passed and back to near normal?

 

Sorry, I’m a bit uninformed with all this tbh.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nod.E said:

If you were to calculate the odds of somebody dying from the virus, you'd need not only the death rate but the chances of them actually catching the virus as well. That's the bit you're seemingly forgetting.

I wish you'd stop referencing the names of posters on here who work on the front line in your arguments. It doesn't add the prestige to your argument that you think it does. Yes, I'm aware of how horrible it must have been, but it takes nothing away from the broader picture. Next you'll be telling me to wrap my legs in cotton wool because it's a blood bath for those on the front line serving the country.

You seem to keep going on about my friends and family and that potentially being the point at which I might change my tune. We have literally had the biggest peak in Europe already and not only do I not have any friends or family that have had it or died from it, I don't even know of any family members of friends, of friends. And that's with a peak that, without night clubbing, working in offices, not wearing masks, not distancing etc etc. which we're not going to repeat before a vaccine is available. 

Which, if you had your way would be practically everybody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

can only see everything going one way around where I am. I’m 24 and if I’m out in the pub garden all I see is people of similar age to me slapping hands, hugging, kissing (I don’t judge), their mates. had to start telling myself that if I am going out to these places I can’t spend all night stressing over what other people are doing, otherwise I’ll never be able to go anywhere ever again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sampson said:

That was just related to blood clots. Anyone who falls seriously ill is going to be feeling the affects on their lungs and breathing for at the very least 6 months from what I gather. Many athletic young people who got it in March time not bad enough to go to hospital still say they can't walk up the stairs without getting out of breath anymore let alone exercise like they used to. 

 

But the cases are accelerating so we absolutely would be letting it rip through the nation unless we imposed more restrictions in the areas it is growing, which is exactly what we have done which you were rallying against the other day.

 

Spain locked down the entire Catalonia region based on about 2,000 cases a day there in a population of about 15,000,000 because of the rate it was accelerating not because of the raw numbers and they were absolutely right to do so. We would very likely lockdown the whole of the South West as well of we quickly got up to 2,000 cases combined in Bristol, Cornwall and Dorset.

 

Again, it's the accelerating rate of growth that is the more important and worrying number - not the number of cases themselves, because that's how it quickly gets out of control.

I was, and am, against it, because what we're doing now does not constitute 'letting it rip through the populations', if we don't have local lockdowns. There are so many more measures in place without local lockdowns than we had heading into the first peak. 

I'm aware that as a fit, younger person, I'm not immune. I'm aware that locking everything down will reduce the numbers of fit, younger people being stricken with the virus and having long term affects. 

It's a question of whether the trade off of impacting everybody's livelihoods (financially long term and mental health short term) is worth saving a handful of (albeit drastic) bad cases of Covid.

For me it isn't a worthwhile trade off.

Taking Covid out of the equation for a second to illustrate my point, if you were some how able to click a button and increase my chances of freak accident every time I leave the house by 10%, would I still leave the house? Yes I would.

Look, some people will suffer. Can that number be reduced? Yes, but only by causing indirect suffering elsewhere. 

The end doesn't justify the means, in my humble opinion, and that's what it comes down to. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Which, if you had your way would be practically everybody.

No it wouldn't! I'm arguing against local lockdowns. I'm not saying everybody should swing their dicks around in supermarkets, injecting themselves with covid and spraying it all over everyone.

I'm saying continue as we are because clearly cases are still, and will remain, much fewer than before the first peak. Christ.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Izzy said:

I’m curious as to how rising cases equates to current daily deaths. I haven’t followed the numbers closely but last time I saw there were like 10 deaths a day now compared to hundreds each day a few weeks ago.

 

Do you think we’ll go back to the days of 300+ deaths a day? If Joe Public sees current rates at only 10 or so, will they just think it’s all passed and back to near normal?

 

Sorry, I’m a bit uninformed with all this tbh.

 

 

The 10 deaths a day is a weekend thing because you dont have as much admin going on over the weekend.

 

You tend to see less deaths on Sundays and Mondays and more deaths on Tuesdays and Wednesdays which weekend deaths are recorded into.

 

That's exactly why people use rolling 7 day average, as it evens out the differences between the weeks.

 

The rolling 7 daily average has been pretty steady at around 60-70 deaths a day for around 5 or 6 now.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

I was, and am, against it, because what we're doing now does not constitute 'letting it rip through the populations', if we don't have local lockdowns. There are so many more measures in place without local lockdowns than we had heading into the first peak. 

I'm aware that as a fit, younger person, I'm not immune. I'm aware that locking everything down will reduce the numbers of fit, younger people being stricken with the virus and having long term affects. 

It's a question of whether the trade off of impacting everybody's livelihoods (financially long term and mental health short term) is worth saving a handful of (albeit drastic) bad cases of Covid.

For me it isn't a worthwhile trade off.

Taking Covid out of the equation for a second to illustrate my point, if you were some how able to click a button and increase my chances of freak accident every time I leave the house by 10%, would I still leave the house? Yes I would.

Look, some people will suffer. Can that number be reduced? Yes, but only by causing indirect suffering elsewhere. 

The end doesn't justify the means, in my humble opinion, and that's what it comes down to. 

Most Scientists seem to agree our current state of society is unsustainable though, especially once schools open up again and the weather gets colder. Hence why our scientific advisors are recommending we'll have to close pubs, cafes and restaurants again once schools start next month and are saying people should keep working from home unless necessary. It's the government going against the Scientific advise trying to get people back into offices and pubs again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, filbertway said:

I wonder what the number of infections avtually was at the peak in March. We were only testing hospitalised people. I cant even begin to imagine the numbers, wouldnt be surprised if it was 15/20 thousand a day though.

 

Given what we know now and testing availability there is no way a national lockdowm should be required. If it did happen were all screwed, forget covid. The country will be thrown into a depression.

 

I just keep hoping we start trying to deal with this smartly rather than emotionally. Make sure our short term solutions dont have negative long term effects.

London alone was estimated to have at least 200,000 cases per day at its peak.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nalis said:

London alone was estimated to have at least 200,000 cases per day at its peak.

And they have the cheek to imply recent increases up north is purely down to northerners not following regulations.

More people have already had it in London so it breaks the chain of transmission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Most Scientists seem to agree our current state of society is unsustainable though, especially once schools open up again and the weather gets colder. Hence why our scientific advisors are recommending we'll have to close pubs, cafes and restaurants again once schools start next month and are saying people should keep working from home unless necessary. It's the government going against the Scientific advise trying to get people back into offices and pubs again.

The schools fear might be being overplayed....Kids have been fully socialising since late May/June. They all play out together. Go round each others' houses etc. Yet no epidemic. 

 

The nag is once the central heating / school heating / office heating goes on. 

 

I've not had a cold since lockdown. That's obvs partly down to social isolation but also, in the summer, it's more unusual to pick up a cold anyway. I will almost always pick up a cold November or December once the wretched heating goes on

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Paninistickers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Desabafar said:

hypothetically if there was no vaccine for say at least 5 years what risk would people accept going forward. because this wouldn't be sustainable for the economy for that amount of time

Those at risk would have to upskill in working from home admin jobs or code or something. Can't furlough people forever.

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...