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

More than that.

We need to be able to keep shops stocked, food being produced, utilities running and medical professionals working (amongst other things).

I can understand why people think that the 'economy' should take second billing, but it's very much the backbone of everything we are as a civilised society. It's also why multiple or prolonged lockdowns are so undesirable.

When thousands of people lose their jobs, and hundreds of businesses fail, and millions of families are unable to pay for food, etc. the shit is going got hit the fan even more than it already has. Rioting and looting are real concerns.

A lockdown will happen. But it's the special one-hit weapon you use in a boss fight after you've taken their shield down. Do it to early or too late, and you lose it efficacy.

This is a problem with two variables. C19 is one. The fabric of society is the other. It's why mathematicians telling epidemiologist/behavioural scientists what to do is so misguided (albeit well-meaning).

It's what I feel also. But so many people appear so angry at the government for not doing it now. I guess what I didn't consider earlier is that people/posters are saying that in the belief that a lockdown will eventually and in a short enough time lead to us eradicating the virus. I think we have no chance of that when you think how quickly it has spread from one food market to the entire World.
 
It's what I feel also. But so many people appear so angry at the government for not doing it now. I guess what I didn't consider earlier is that people/posters are saying that in the belief that a lockdown will eventually and in a short enough time lead to us eradicating the virus. I think we have no chance of that when you think how quickly it has spread from one food market to the entire World.

A lockdown buys time to find a vaccine though.
 
Thank you, that was a great write-up.

Would you agree that while _mathematically_ 81% is "majority", in medical terms at least 20% requiring hospitalization is not negligible? How many of flu patients require hospitalization? Fair to say the number is orders of magnitude less than 20%?
20% requiring hospitalisation is catastrophic. The NHS is struggling as it is. A proportion of these will require HDU/ICU beds which are already being stretched. I'm fairly sheltered in the cancer hospital, but I have close friends triaging in major hospitals and the protocols they have implemented already are pretty scary. I won't go into details about them but it's brutal.

We see surges throughout winter with the flu, I'd say on average in a busy medical receiving unit maybe 5 - 10% will be in because of the flu. However, the reason they've presented is that the flu has triggered an underlying condition to flare up and that requires the hospitalisation. We normally don't find out they've got flu till day 2 of their stay and by then they've been in multi-bed rooms etc.

95% of that 5 - 10% are over 70. (Roughly). Although there's a significant amount of flu attending in winter, it is nowhere near what the potential for COVID could be. It's going to be a hellish spring/summer.
 
My feeling is that the UK will start to follow the consensus soon. If you were a political strategist you’d be advising that. If the UK went it’s own way and got it wrong it would finish Boris’s government.
With 4+ years to the next general election, I only pray Boris has more sense than to factor political strategy into this thinking. It’s a pretty odious Cabinet and political advisor to place that faith in.

I can’t get too excited about the next steps and their exact timing, as if you read enough you will know what they roughly are (https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-a-guide-to-what-you-can-expect-across-the-uk). Most of Western Europe is on the same path and I think we’ll find the various steps will have little effect, in comparison to the virus just taking its fairly natural course when already widely prevalent. I think we have less agency than we might be comfortable admitting.

The lessons will hopefully be learnt about we tackle these sort of outbreaks early and hard globally going forward. Look at the appetite for taking this seriously a month ago even. You think a lockdown would have been adhered to or had any effect, other than just undermining future attempts? There were people thinking the football wasn’t even jeopardy three weeks ago. Nobody gave a feck. We can’t solve today’s problem with yesterday’s solution. We’ve been fecked since January and the initial cover up. Unless the whole of the West cut East Asia off at that stage, we were done for, and even then we needed fortune.
 
Last edited:
A couple of years from now we'll be expected to look at coronavirus in the same way that we do with the common cold. "Sorry boss, can't come in today because I've got coronavirus."

It'll just be the norm. Slowly we'll forget that it came about because of some guy eating a bat in a country that has had multiple natural warnings that their shitty food standards are dangerous, or because of neglectful pathogen boogeymen in a lab decided to release it and see what happens, or aliens, or sentient wasps. I don't know, I didn't really start paying attention to the cause of this until there was no more Andrex on the shelves.
Is that true? :lol:
 
Are we gonna lockdown for 10 months though? It'd never work and the entire World as we know it would be ruined.

Even 2 weeks is better than nothing. Stops the spread for a while at least.

I'd have thought a 4 week total lock down and nobody entering or leaving the country for however long would be the best way to go
 
He has his own PE team too.
He also ranted about how he did care about people by listing the responsibilities of the job he's paid to do as somehow being proof to his altruism. He also clearly doesn't know what affluent means.

He also thinks that identifying people by their job roles is a definitive assessment of their character and ability to think clearly. In my experience one teacher can be both the best and worst person to teach others so it's irrelevant to me. Fair fecks to him for being a curriculum head though, truly. You don't just fall into those roles and they do take a look of effort to get. But how that relates to coronavirus alludes me


But, having said that, having a go at someone you disagree with and resorting to childish insults is a bit of a dick move. You and I disagree with him, he disagrees with us. Let's try and keep it civil at the very least.

I mean, when he realises that he's responsible for putting children's lives at risk he'll need all the support he can get. Hurr
 
The lessons will hopefully be learnt about we tackle these sort of outbreaks early and hard globally going forward. Look at the appetite for taking this seriously a month ago even. You think a lockdown would have been adhered to or had any effect, other than just undermining future attempts. There were people thinking the football wasn’t even jeopardy three weeks ago. Nobody gave a feck. We can’t solve today’s problem with yesterday’s solution. We’ve been fecked since January and the initial cover up. Unless the whole of the West cut East Asia off at that stage, we were done for, and even then we needed fortune.

It might be the biggest thing to come out of this by the end, if something comes, with a massive mortality rate, next time we should cut it off at source.
 
Even 2 weeks is better than nothing. Stops the spread for a while at least.

I'd have thought a 4 week total lock down and nobody entering or leaving the country for however long would be the best way to go

After 4 weeks this virus isn't gone though, and we'll still be maybe a year off a vaccine, so when it explodes again in 8 weeks, what then?

That's what the UK is getting at. Going full lockdown now, what will it achieve? Will it eradicate the virus? It appears not unless we lockdown WorldWide for months. Is the NHS at breaking point yet? No.

So they want to leave the lockdown for as late as possible, not to eradicate the virus, but to save the NHS and allow them to save as many lives as possible.

I think too many people are convinced that lockdowns will stop this in it's tracks.
 
After 4 weeks this virus isn't gone though, and we'll still be maybe a year off a vaccine, so when it explodes again in 8 weeks, what then?

It isn't? So why are we doing 2 week self isolations? That suggests to me that 2 weeks and it's gone? 4 weeks is 2 weeks plus an extra 2 for safety, then nobody else entering the country means it can't be put back into the population? I'm not totally up with everything though so I am probably wrong. Just how a simple guy thinks though.
 
It isn't? So why are we doing 2 week self isolations? That suggests to me that 2 weeks and it's gone? 4 weeks is 2 weeks plus an extra 2 for safety, then nobody else entering the country means it can't be put back into the population? I'm not totally up with everything though so I am probably wrong. Just how a simple guy thinks though.

To «flatten the curve». It is to avoid everyone getting sick at the same time so the health care system doesn’t collapse. The virus can’t be stopped - to my knowledge - just slowed down.
 
It isn't? So why are we doing 2 week self isolations? That suggests to me that 2 weeks and it's gone? 4 weeks is 2 weeks plus an extra 2 for safety, then nobody else entering the country means it can't be put back into the population? I'm not totally up with everything though so I am probably wrong. Just how a simple guy thinks though.

Well consider this came from one person, patient zero. We can stop it by lockdown in 2-4 weeks if we can ensure that every single person on the planet will be in lockdown for those 2-4 weeks and won't pass it on to anyone.

Quite frankly that's going to be impossible.
 
ISIS must be feeling pretty shitty about itself after all the work they put in and then this teeny little virus brings the entire world to a stand still. Wish I knew one to rub it in.
 
One in five requiring medical treatment is still going to be devastating for the medical system, which is what they encountered in Italy and which is what my point was. The point was not to argue whether every single person requires hospitalization. Maybe you should save your anger for your government that is doing next to nothing to protect you/us, rather than fighting with me? Just a thought

Yes, 1/5 will still be devastating. I’ve not said anything to suggest it won’t be. I just had to pull you up on what was clearly a misleading post, so now that you accept it was then we can move on. And given I can understand what the government is trying to do, I don’t really see the need to be angry at them really.
 
In one week they'll issue the instruction for over 70's and risk groups to isolate.

I think they'll hold off lockdown until early April.
If a lockdown isn't announced this week I'll be very surprised and the government will be very negligent.
 
Is that true? :lol:

Most of the initial infected are related to a wet market in Wuhan, when live wildlife animals are kept and butchered.

How it originated is still not clear. It looks that it came from a bat who infected some other animal, which eventually infected one (or several) humans. Did that happen recently, or the jump between the bat and the intermediate species happened 20-70 years is still a topic of research. Nevertheless, not a good idea to eat wildlife animals, and not a good idea to keep dozens of different species near each other in disgusting conditions. Sooner or later, something like this was bound to happen.
 
ISIS must be feeling pretty shitty about itself after all the work they put in and then this teeny little virus brings the entire world to a stand still. Wish I knew one to rub it in.
They got Trump elected and his handling of this is going to result in a huge amount of deaths. Obviously more fortune than design on their part there, though.
 
Out of curiosity, if the UK goes into 'Lockdown', what does this actually mean? Is it mainly a curfew on large gatherings etc?