SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

I don't know what to think about this anymore, it is beyond what I though I'd see, but as a healthy, non smoking, not obese, and well under the at risk age, would it not be better to just get it, rather than avoid it, and then hopefully in someway help those who are at more at risk, with this herd thing, and by been able to help those in need knowing I most likely won't infect them.

Can somebody who has a good grasp of this shit answer? I've thought the same thing (live on my own and can stay away from family/friends)
 
Mate got back from Austria a couple days ago and now has a fever and cough. He’s looking to get tested, but worrying knowing it could be this close to home.
Tell him not to get tested. Just self-isolate for 7 days. The process of going to get tested involves waiting rooms etc...

Just stay the feck home. If he becomes increasingly unwell - increasing short of breath, chest pains etc, then phone 111.

This has been the protocol for a number of days now.
 
Even if we had infinte testing resources I am not sure of the benefit of testing. Let me explain why.

If you are asymptomatic and positive, nothing to do for you.
If you are mildly symptomatic and positive, nothing to do for you.
If you are very sick, you go to hospital and get tested to make sure its this and not something else and get supportive treatment.

They should be testing healthcare workers. I am going to be likely called back into my A&E job and will be seeing other doctors, consultants where I am. The guidelines suggest that I have to go into work if I'm asymptomatic or into work if symptomatic after 7 days. We all know regarding

Huge swathes of healthcare workers will be superspreaders to other colleagues, families and patients.

This article explains here the rationale for increased community testing from the benefits of ascertaining where to focus resources to help local services plan for outbreaks within communities and I think we are all for flattening the curve but governmental strategy in real terms is inadequate in achieving that.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...experts-fear-epidemic-will-let-rip-through-uk
 
7.9 million? never, ever, going to happen, this is the doomsday scenario.
How does:

- 80% are expected to be infected (UK's leak)
- 70% are going to get infected (Angela Merkel)
- 50-70% to 20-60% are going to be infected (many experts)

is never, ever going to happen?

Spanish flu (in a less connected world) infected around 1/3 of the world. Why a more contagious virus is going to infect less?

People are going to be for a shock in the next few weeks/months.
 
Last edited:
I don't know what to think about this anymore, it is beyond what I though I'd see, but as a healthy, non smoking, not obese, and well under the at risk age, would it not be better to just get it, rather than avoid it, and then hopefully in someway help those who are at more at risk, with this herd thing, and by been able to help those in need knowing I most likely won't infect them.

I've thought this too, they're not certain that you can't catch it twice yet though, I'd be game for catching it now and then being able to go do work and stuff properly again. Be able to shop while the Mrs and the kids stay home or whatever, do me nans shopping etc.
 
But in the first two scenarios you suddenly know to take extra precautions. You also know that once you're no longer sick you can rejoin the workforce or volunteer.

How do you know that you are no longer sick? Are you suggesting that people get tested multiple times? If we do that, a large amount of the population won't be tested at all before March 2021. If you take S.Korea as an example their superior testing methods allow at best 20k tests per day that means that to test everyone at that rate they would a year to just test people once, people already tested and negative could be infected by people that haven't been tested yet during that year.
 
7.9 million? never, ever, going to happen, this is the doomsday scenario.
80% are going to catch the bug no matter how many lockdowns we do. That's 53.6 million people.

Of those 53.6 million people, 15% will need hospital treatment. That's 8 million people needing to go to hospital.
 
The Guardian is reporting queues in front of dutch cannabis shop before they are closed.
Imagine having to choose between toilet paper and weed :)
 
Can somebody who has a good grasp of this shit answer? I've thought the same thing (live on my own and can stay away from family/friends)
Too many unknowns. If we assume that 70-80% are going to be infected anyway, then yes, from a selfish point of view, it might be better now (when you can expect medical care) than in two months when next to no medical care will be available.

If everyone thinks the same though, then it just makes the spread faster. Also, you can always expect to be in the lucky 20-30% (or in some forecasts 70-80%) that don't get it. And while a young fit person is not in a big danger (in average), there is still a non-trivial chance of having long-term consequences or even dying. The whistleblower, for example, was just 33 years old, and died from it. Additionally, there are already many testing going on different anti-virals, so some of them might be successful, and so in a few months, the chances of dying might decrease further more.

So, my opinion would be to avoid getting it.
 
Can somebody who has a good grasp of this shit answer? I've thought the same thing (live on my own and can stay away from family/friends)
1. There is absolutely no guarantee that just because you are not high risk group, it won't kill you
2. If you get it, you will still need to get medical care, meaning you will be taking up resources at a hospital, and can still infect people including medical staff. There is no such thing as 100% safety. Plus if enough people start thinking like you - we are up for a complete disaster. Think about that.
3. If you can isolate yourself, the best thing to do is to not get it. Don't listen to Gebelsian morons saying that the solution here is to infect 40% of population. The solution is to slow the spread as much as possible and meanwhile develop vaccines, which is what most people should get. Anybody advocating for intentional infection of people (e.g. certain UK official insinuating) should in my opinion go to jail.
 
Heads up to all the (Republic) Irish - my girlfriend got a call from her mother (who works in child care), she got a call from the guards saying the country will more than likely be on full lockdown from 11 tomorrow
 
Can somebody who has a good grasp of this shit answer? I've thought the same thing (live on my own and can stay away from family/friends)
I work in the NHS. A hospital in Glasgow has floated the idea of 'Coronavirus Clinics' where younger, less risky individuals are invited to come and actively contract the virus and self isolate for 7 days with the aim they can be productive after this period.

It's a reasonable idea, but carries it's own inherit risks. There is a huge amount of trust placed on these people to properly self-isolate, you can be guaranteed not all of them would follow them to the word. Also, it may catch a few of them out and make them severely unwell, adding a previously unneeded burden on the health system.

The plan, as far as I'm aware, is to just be careful with social distancing. Aiming for 20 million infections over 8 months rather than 10 million in 1 month for example. The focus is less on the virus itself, but protecting the NHS from collapsing under the weight of cases.
 


Airport testing is pretty ineffective I think. Asymptomatic patients get through and taking paracetamol can mask high temperatures. In the US there are 6 hour queues in airports currently with people packed in like sardines. It’s like holding loads of football matches.

I suppose that depends on whether the government sticks to their plan or not. Hopefully you are right and they abandon it within the next few weeks.

There’s no way on earth the government can have hundreds to thousands dying everyday and insisting people go on as normal. There would be riots. I do feel the herd immunity narrative has taken on a life of its own.
 
1. There is absolutely no guarantee that just because you are not high risk group, it won't kill you
2. If you get it, you will still need to get medical care, meaning you will be taking up resources at a hospital, and can still infect people including medical staff. There is no such thing as 100% isolation. Plus if enough people start thinking like you - we are up for a complete disaster. Think about that.
3. If you can isolate yourself, the best thing to do is to not get it. Don't listen to Gebelsian morons saying that the solution here is to infect 40% of population. The solution is to slow the spread as much as possible and meanwhile develop vaccines, which is what most people should get. Anybody advocating for intentional infection of people (e.g. certain UK official insinuating) should in my opinion go to jail.

1. correct.
2. not correct, you may get it but not need medical attention.
3. agree with bold, personally I don't want to get it, but the odds are that I will.
 
Heads up to all the (Republic) Irish - my girlfriend got a call from her mother (who works in child care), she got a call from the guards saying the country will more than likely be on full lockdown from 11 tomorrow

Rumors all over the place. This does seem to suggest full lockdown by Friday at the latest:

 
Can somebody who has a good grasp of this shit answer? I've thought the same thing (live on my own and can stay away from family/friends)

Problem is I don't think anyone can confidently.

I'm not against the Uk approach, but they really need to test everyone if possible just so we know where we stand when comes the people around us.
 
1. There is absolutely no guarantee that just because you are not high risk group, it won't kill you
2. If you get it, you will still need to get medical care, meaning you will be taking up resources at a hospital, and can still infect people including medical staff. There is no such thing as 100% safety. Plus if enough people start thinking like you - we are up for a complete disaster. Think about that.
3. If you can isolate yourself, the best thing to do is to not get it. Don't listen to Gebelsian morons saying that the solution here is to infect 40% of population. The solution is to slow the spread as much as possible and meanwhile develop vaccines, which is what most people should get. Anybody advocating for intentional infection of people (e.g. certain UK official insinuating) should in my opinion go to jail.

not everyone who gets it needs medical care. For most people you will treat it like any flu, plenty of fluids, rest, stay in bed.
 
Rumors all over the place. This does seem to suggest full lockdown by Friday at the latest:



It's too fecking late now - a load of fecking clowns out partying every night, even tonight, spreading it everywhere. I'm fecking raging at them, the stupidity of humanity is beyond quantification
 
80% are going to catch the bug no matter how many lockdowns we do. That's 53.6 million people.

Of those 53.6 million people, 15% will need hospital treatment. That's 8 million people needing to go to hospital.

Well I thought is was 5 % for a start, and then I'm not buying into 80 % infected been the final number, no way near, I'm just not into worst case scenario, where is best case scenario in this thread?
 
Well I thought is was 5 % for a start, and then I'm not buying into 80 % infected been the final number, no way near, I'm just not into worst case scenario, where is best case scenario in this thread?
5% is intensive care.
15% hospitalisations

These are borne out by Chinese and Italian data.
 
Once again @Revan, Italy has a much higher population of risk zone citizens. And a much higher population of elderly who live with their families.

It has to be different for each country surely?

It's also been mentioned about a thousand times here and by the UK, that the UK will shutdown, when the model hits the numbers where they see the NHS cannot cope. Now the model is not based on actual reports, but a modelled figure of the infected.
Shouldnt they be shutting down before the nhs cant cope? Thats all everyone is saying though.

We all think they'll end up shutting down to late.

Better to shut down a week early than a week late
 
I've thought this too, they're not certain that you can't catch it twice yet though, I'd be game for catching it now and then being able to go do work and stuff properly again. Be able to shop while the Mrs and the kids stay home or whatever, do me nans shopping etc.

Agreed, it seems we are in a similar situation in life, but we'd need clarity that we'd had it, rather than just a normal bug.
 
Well I thought is was 5 % for a start, and then I'm not buying into 80 % infected been the final number, no way near, I'm just not into worst case scenario, where is best case scenario in this thread?
20% catching it, with 5% of them needing intensive care, and 0.7% dying.

That puts 90k people dying.

This is arguably the best-case scenario, if no draconian measures are taken.

If draconian measures are taken (China, Korea, Japan, Singapore), then it could be much better, but many experts think that that ship has sailed in January.
 
Heads up to all the (Republic) Irish - my girlfriend got a call from her mother (who works in child care), she got a call from the guards saying the country will more than likely be on full lockdown from 11 tomorrow

Yea there is a rumour spreading on whatsapp.

Some on the boards saying it is false although a lockdown will eventually have to happen at some point, bar the big shops and pharmacies.

I presume the GP is open too.