Coronavirus Thread

[Guest Fktf]

1 hour 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. 

Do you think there's a middle-ground between yourself and the people on the other side of the fence who, quite sensibly, are worried about catching it because they, or a person they live with, are potentially very susceptible to it? You said earlier the a life lived in fear isn't worth living - but the more we let the virus spread, the more people like me become recluse for fear of catching it and taking it home to loved ones. 

[filbertway]

1 hour ago, Nalis said:

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

Slight underestimate from me. Dont think i can get away with changing it to 150/200k now

[bovril]

1 hour ago, Nalis said:

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

Surely not. That would mean nearly everyone in the city would get it in a month. 

[Nod.E]

7 minutes ago, Fktf said:

Do you think there's a middle-ground between yourself and the people on the other side of the fence who, quite sensibly, are worried about catching it because they, or a person they live with, are potentially very susceptible to it? You said earlier the a life lived in fear isn't worth living - but the more we let the virus spread, the more people like me become recluse for fear of catching it and taking it home to loved ones. 

I think that would be a legitimate fear to have, only if we were to go back to our normal lives and allowing the virus to spread freely.

'The more we let the virus spread' is a phrase loaded with very wide scope. The view I hold is that it is possible to allow the virus to spread at a fraction of its potential (potential meaning March levels and beyond) while allowing some level of normality to resume.  

If you imagine a sliding meter, I'm arguing that we allow the needle to flicker up, just a bit. Surely, as we lift some restrictions, that is an anticipated result and is what we're seeing now? If we're just going to shut everything down the moment we see a flicker, it's hardly worth bothering. It's inevitable. 

I don't think we should just allow the needle to hover in the red zone at all. I just don't believe that seeing these early increases is a sure sign that that's the direction in which we're headed. Too many things are different now vs. when we last got there. Too many measures are in place to allow that, even in a world of bars and restaurants opening their doors.

For as long as we manage to keep a lid on things, as we are doing, there shouldn't be any disproportionate fear of any harm coming to yourself or those you live with. 

Also, (and I know Covid is much worse than flu, so please bear with me), but on that basis you shouldn't meet your elders at all during winter. No, flu isn't as bad, but it's still a very real threat to the elderly. Where do we draw the line?

[Guest Fktf]

1 minute ago, Nod.E said:

I think that would be a legitimate fear to have, only if we were to go back to our normal lives and allowing the virus to spread freely.

'The more we let the virus spread' is a phrase loaded with very wide scope. The view I hold is that it is possible to allow the virus to spread at a fraction of its potential (potential meaning March levels and beyond) while allowing some level of normality to resume.  

If you imagine a sliding meter, I'm arguing that we allow the needle to flicker up, just a bit. Surely, as we lift some restrictions, that is an anticipated result and is what we're seeing now? If we're just going to shut everything down the moment we see a flicker, it's hardly worth bothering. It's inevitable. 

I don't think we should just allow the needle to hover in the red zone at all. I just don't believe that seeing these early increases is a sure sign that that's the direction in which we're headed. Too many things are different now vs. when we last got there. Too many measures are in place to allow that, even in a world of bars and restaurants opening their doors.

For as long as we manage to keep a lid on things, as we are doing, there shouldn't be any disproportionate fear of any harm coming to yourself or those you live with. 

Also, (and I know Covid is much worse than flu, so please bear with me), but on that basis you shouldn't meet your elders at all during winter. No, flu isn't as bad, but it's still a very real threat to the elderly. Where do we draw the line?

You keep trying to extend people's logic to cases they're not talking about. We don't have to have one rule to apply to every disease, and certainly how we deal with flu should be different to how we deal with Covid-19. I haven't spent any great time thinking about this, but I guess for me the line probably gets drawn because Covid-19 could feasibly end (or drastically change the lives of) a whole lot of otherwise healthy people if it gets out of control again, whereas common flu doesn't have this potential because you tend to know you've got it so can avoid passing it on, we can vaccinate against it, and there's decent treatments if you do get seriously ill. 

 

I think most people will broadly agree with the rest of what you're saying here - the question seems to be what is an appropriate time to put a lid back on things. It would be rise to be cautious - in my opinion. 

[Nod.E]

10 minutes ago, Fktf said:

You keep trying to extend people's logic to cases they're not talking about. We don't have to have one rule to apply to every disease, and certainly how we deal with flu should be different to how we deal with Covid-19. I haven't spent any great time thinking about this, but I guess for me the line probably gets drawn because Covid-19 could feasibly end (or drastically change the lives of) a whole lot of otherwise healthy people if it gets out of control again, whereas common flu doesn't have this potential because you tend to know you've got it so can avoid passing it on, we can vaccinate against it, and there's decent treatments if you do get seriously ill. 

 

I think most people will broadly agree with the rest of what you're saying here - the question seems to be what is an appropriate time to put a lid back on things. It would be rise to be cautious - in my opinion. 

The extension of logic is to some extent tongue in cheek. However I do think it's important. 

 

Where there's disproportionate fear there has to be a means of trying to contextualise.

 

Covid is quite rightly a scary thing, but its status as the most widespread news story in the history of the world (probably), heightens its status to something more monstrous than it is. And so, trying to rationalise and contextualise is a natural response when looking to invoke rational thought.

 

Even the most scary things can be exaggerated.

Edited 4 August 2020 by Nod.E

[Guest Fktf]

18 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

The extension of logic is to some extent tongue in cheek. However I do think it's important. 

 

Where there's disproportionate fear there has to be a means of trying to contextualise.

 

Covid is quite rightly a scary thing, but its status as the most widespread news story in the history of the world (probably), heightens its status to something more monstrous than it is. And so, trying to rationalise and contextualise is a natural response when looking to invoke rational thought.

 

Even the most scary things can be exaggerated.

Fair enough. But I think many people won't take the comparison to flu as an attempt to contextualise - instead - it'll get viewed as an attempt to argue that Covid-19 isn't as scary as it is.

[Lionator]

Interesting study from Denmark, healthcare workers are essentially twice as likely to have had COVID. 

 

They also find that 46% of cases in healthcare workers have been asymptomatic (or haven't involved the standard covid symptoms). 

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30589-2/fulltext

 

This suggests that if half of people don't get symptoms but can still spread it, it's virtually impossible to control unless you mass test everyonre regularly which is impossible.

[simFox]

On 03/08/2020 at 17:30, Sampson said:

928 confirmed cases today. Up from 685 this time last week.

 

The rolling 7 day averages definitely starting to accelerate now.

 

Hopefully the local restrictions do their job and the cases don't continue to accelerate in this manner.

So what? They says testing more people! 

[simFox]

5 hours 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.

 

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.

60k dead is a joke though. It's well known that anyone who has caught the virus then got better, but then died in a crash, is recorded as covid death.

 

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/why-no-one-can-ever-recover-from-covid-19-in-england-a-statistical-anomaly/

 

[Babylon]

3 hours 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

Eventually people are just going to take their chances aren't they. What's the point of a 70 year old cowering in the shadows of their house for 5 years, what sort of life is that. 

 

People will take precautions and try and go back to some sort of normality. 

[Sampson]

58 minutes ago, simFox said:

60k dead is a joke though. It's well known that anyone who has caught the virus then got better, but then died in a crash, is recorded as covid death.

 

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/why-no-one-can-ever-recover-from-covid-19-in-england-a-statistical-anomaly/

 

60k is the excess deaths which is higher than the official death statistic.

Edited 4 August 2020 by Sampson

[Sampson]

1 hour ago, simFox said:

So what? They says testing more people! 

Testing more people than 1 week ago enough to add a 40% rise? You really think they'd be adding local restrictions if that was the case?

 

Are you really trying to suggest there's some conspiracy theory to create local restrictions and cases aren't actually rising?

Edited 4 August 2020 by Sampson

[zorro en españa]

A week ago I said I’d take a look at the week’s developments in the following countries (I wanted to reassure myself that numbers stacked up - with two rather minor exceptions they have done).  There is a standout in each category -

 

Spain - 22,204 additional cases and 62 deaths

France - 8,530 additional cases and 73 deaths

Germany - 4,324 additional cases and 25 deaths

UK - 5,601 additional cases and 421 deaths

Italy - 1,932 additional cases and 48 deaths
 

Italy appears to be doing exceptionally well considering the dire situation it faced only a few months ago.  In Spain I fear the situation will worsen now unless the national government flexes its muscle; leaving it to the regions will not address this.

 

The difference between deaths in the UK and the other countries surprised me if I am to be honest.

[Costock_Fox]

Would be interested to see Bergamos residence getting tested for antibodies. It’s a small city that was decimated so you would expect many people to have anti bodies

[CosbehFox]

1 hour ago, Costock_Fox said:

Would be interested to see Bergamos residence getting tested for antibodies. It’s a small city that was decimated so you would expect many people to have anti bodies

https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-tests-show-half-of-people-in-italys-bergamo-have-antibodies/a-53739727

 

Other interesting science/medical studies on this are the town of Vo, towards Venice in Italy. 40% had no symptoms. They did their self imposed lockdown early and tested the towns population. 89 people had the virus. Managed to rid it by immediately tracking 
 

There’s a town in Austria what claim 40% of its tested population have antibodies 

Edited 4 August 2020 by Cardiff_Fox

[Costock_Fox]

5 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-tests-show-half-of-people-in-italys-bergamo-have-antibodies/a-53739727

 

Other interesting science/medical studies on this are the town of Vo, towards Venice in Italy. 40% had no symptoms. 
 

There’s a town in Austria what claim 40% of its population have antibodies 

I would expect areas like this will be the ones where we really start to see how long the antibodies last. You would hope they keep testing and testing them.

[yorkie1999]

1 hour ago, zorro en españa said:

A week ago I said I’d take a look at the week’s developments in the following countries (I wanted to reassure myself that numbers stacked up - with two rather minor exceptions they have done).  There is a standout in each category -

 

Spain - 22,204 additional cases and 62 deaths

France - 8,530 additional cases and 73 deaths

Germany - 4,324 additional cases and 25 deaths

UK - 5,601 additional cases and 421 deaths

Italy - 1,932 additional cases and 48 deaths
 

Italy appears to be doing exceptionally well considering the dire situation it faced only a few months ago.  In Spain I fear the situation will worsen now unless the national government flexes its muscle; leaving it to the regions will not address this.

 

The difference between deaths in the UK and the other countries surprised me if I am to be honest.

Well that means either we have a health system that isn’t as competent as other European nations, which I doubt, or we are working the figures out differently. Whether we are correct, or the other nations are correct in the way deaths are counted is what is debatable.

[zorro en españa]

6 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

Well that means either we have a health system that isn’t as competent as other European nations, which I doubt, or we are working the figures out differently. Whether we are correct, or the other nations are correct in the way deaths are counted is what is debatable.

I wouldn’t disagree that international comparisons are subject to conjecture and that is what every government will look to manipulate to justify its position (good and bad - and thereby lies the question of accountability).  People will make their own judgement on how well its government has performed.

 

In the long run additional deaths will be a better indication - but again that is dependent upon getting true figures although initial research gives some indications.

 

The most telling thing for me is population density.  The UK has seven metropolitan counties in excess of 1m people with no European city in touching distance of Greater London.  Germany (3 cities), Italy (2), France (1) and Spain (2).

 

Of course, in the UK, this puts untold pressure on the system and on everyone associated with tackling this pandemic including the management of test, track and trace.  It may also indicate that the figures on worldometer (my source) are probably more reflective than people want to believe (much to the chagrin of the POTUS).

[Crinklyfox]

10 hours ago, simFox said:

60k dead is a joke though. It's well known that anyone who has caught the virus then got better, but then died in a crash, is recorded as covid death.

 

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/why-no-one-can-ever-recover-from-covid-19-in-england-a-statistical-anomaly/

 

We do need improvements in the recording system as the current method as you described reduces confidence in the figures.

 

However Covid-19 does cause some deaths long after recovery from the infection.  Many of the hospitalised sufferers contract sepsis, where the body's own immune system overreacts to the virus.  Sepsis is not restricted to Covid-19 and studies have been carried out into its long term effects, I'm attaching one.

 

https://molmed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s10020-019-0132-z

 

For those who don't want to read the whole paper, this is one notable finding:

 

Of the patients who recover from sepsis well enough to be discharged from hospital:

 

50% recover

33% die within two years

16% have long term complications

[RowlattsFox]

My sister tested positive a few weeks ago with very mild symptoms, she works in a care home and it went around staff and residents pretty quickly. She lives at home with our parents in their early 60s so was worried she would pass it on. 

 

They only found my sister was positive because they did door to door testing as they live in LE5, mum and dad tested negative at the time and have done their 14 days isolation with no symptoms occuring. They haven't been tested again so either they had asymptomatic cases or it didn't pass on which seems strange given how quickly it went around the care home. 

[Lionator]

30 minutes ago, RowlattsFox said:

My sister tested positive a few weeks ago with very mild symptoms, she works in a care home and it went around staff and residents pretty quickly. She lives at home with our parents in their early 60s so was worried she would pass it on. 

 

They only found my sister was positive because they did door to door testing as they live in LE5, mum and dad tested negative at the time and have done their 14 days isolation with no symptoms occuring. They haven't been tested again so either they had asymptomatic cases or it didn't pass on which seems strange given how quickly it went around the care home. 

@Sampson

 

While it is obvious from the stats that there is currently more infection out there than a month ago, could this potentially be a contributory the upsurge. If studies are correct and around 40% of cases are asymptomatic, and if there is more targeted testing in areas where symptomatic cases are high, then surely more asymptomatic cases are going to be identified by testing such as in @RowlattsFox case? If that testing wasn't done then these cases would never be found.

 

What's key is how much asymptomatic people spread the virus. Because that's a massive problem if they do. 

[zorro en españa]

Well, having been openly critical of the Regions’ responses here in Spain since being passed the authority to deal with the pandemic, I find the following measures being imposed by Andalusia.  Needs to be administered by the police now and if they go about it with the zeal they did during the national lockdown the coffers will be filling up.
 

“Andalusia’s regional government on Tuesday approved a set of fines for residents who are found to have infected others with the coronavirus, as the southern region struggles to contain virus outbreaks at social gatherings.

Andalusia’s Junta government has green-lighted steep fines for people who don’t respect the social distancing measures in place in the southern region and are found to have infected others with the coronavirus as a result. 

For infractions deemed minor such as infecting 15 people with the virus, not wearing a face mask properly or not wearing one at all, the fines go from €100 to €3,000.

For more serious infringements such as spreading Covid-19 to anywhere between 15 and 100 people or refusing to collaborate with authorities, the fines will be between €3,001 and €60,000. Andalusia residents who have tested positive for Covid-19 and break the two-week self-isolation period also fall within this category.

And for ‘superspreaders’ who infect more than 100 other people with the virus as a result of their negligence, the fines rocket up to anywhere between €60,001 and €600,000.

 

Establishments such as nightclubs, supermarkets and shops that surpass the maximum capacity and lead to mass infections would also be forced to shut for up to five years apart from being handed a steep fine.

Andalusia’s Health Council will have the final word on the amount to be fined for serious breaches whereas municipal police will handle penalties for the more minor offenses.

The penalties are part of a larger decree which imposes stricter regulations for businesses and citizens in the region of 8.4 million inhabitants.

The regional government’s decision is also aimed in particular at young people as it's been found that 70 percent of new infections in Andalusia constitute people between the ages of 20 and 55”

 

[Lionator]

22 minutes ago, zorro en españa said:

Well, having been openly critical of the Regions’ responses here in Spain since being passed the authority to deal with the pandemic, I find the following measures being imposed by Andalusia.  Needs to be administered by the police now and if they go about it with the zeal they did during the national lockdown the coffers will be filling up.
 

“Andalusia’s regional government on Tuesday approved a set of fines for residents who are found to have infected others with the coronavirus, as the southern region struggles to contain virus outbreaks at social gatherings.

Andalusia’s Junta government has green-lighted steep fines for people who don’t respect the social distancing measures in place in the southern region and are found to have infected others with the coronavirus as a result. 

For infractions deemed minor such as infecting 15 people with the virus, not wearing a face mask properly or not wearing one at all, the fines go from €100 to €3,000.

For more serious infringements such as spreading Covid-19 to anywhere between 15 and 100 people or refusing to collaborate with authorities, the fines will be between €3,001 and €60,000. Andalusia residents who have tested positive for Covid-19 and break the two-week self-isolation period also fall within this category.

And for ‘superspreaders’ who infect more than 100 other people with the virus as a result of their negligence, the fines rocket up to anywhere between €60,001 and €600,000.

 

Establishments such as nightclubs, supermarkets and shops that surpass the maximum capacity and lead to mass infections would also be forced to shut for up to five years apart from being handed a steep fine.

Andalusia’s Health Council will have the final word on the amount to be fined for serious breaches whereas municipal police will handle penalties for the more minor offenses.

The penalties are part of a larger decree which imposes stricter regulations for businesses and citizens in the region of 8.4 million inhabitants.

The regional government’s decision is also aimed in particular at young people as it's been found that 70 percent of new infections in Andalusia constitute people between the ages of 20 and 55”

 

I have massive issues with that, what if someone is asymptomatic and infects others? Furthermore that can not possibly be enforced, you can’t prove that somebody has infected another person. 

[filbertway]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

I have massive issues with that, what if someone is asymptomatic and infects others? Furthermore that can not possibly be enforced, you can’t prove that somebody has infected another person. 

Aye...its the kind of thing that should be heard in a meeting, shot down, then never mentioned again. Mental