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

Wibble said:
I'm not sure but it seems likely given the speed with which each develop. And you don't really have a choice but to deal with the most immediate threat anyway. You can't decide, in effect, to let people die now just in case others die later.

Everything has consequences, poverty increases the death rate for example but that isn't now. You can't ignore it but it is less immediately important.
Click to expand...

Sure you can, if the overall outcome is better. Is it a bit unfair? Well it's all pretty unfair anyway.

Nobody has a clue how to get out if the situation we've put ourselves in. No government or advising body is going to come out and say "we didn't really think this through...... uhhhh..." 7.8 billion lives on hold... The number of deaths sound bad, but there have already been more births today than have ever died from the virus.

We just need a mass "have you had coronavirus" test urgently. Everything else, from me, from you, from the smartest scientists on the planet, is speculation without one.
 
Wibble said:
Not sure. Currently everyone is taken to a hotel for a 14 day quarantine under police guard - paid for by the government. Until very reliable testing for live infections and antibodies are available I doubt we will move to certification. Quarantine could become self funded in due course.
Click to expand...
This is exactly how it's done in Azores. Do they test people before they finish quarantine?
 
Camilo said:
Sure you can, if the overall outcome is better. Is it a bit unfair? Well it's all pretty unfair anyway.

Nobody has a clue how to get out if the situation we've put ourselves in. No government or advising body is going to come out and say "we didn't really think this through...... uhhhh..." 7.8 billion lives on hold... The number of deaths sound bad, but there have already been more births today than have ever died from the virus.

We just need a mass "have you had coronavirus" test urgently. Everything else, from me, from you, from the smartest scientists on the planet, is speculation without one.
Click to expand...

But lacking that evidence, which we do, you deal with the immediate threat.
 
sammsky1 said:
I think mankind will accept any sequence or combination of 'medicines' to get around covid19.

If Roche anti-body test works as claimed, they'll make an instant fortune across the globe, even if it has limited usefulness until vaccines available for masses. Given its been produced so quickly, doubt they invested that much $R&D.
Click to expand...

Cynically speaking they could pack an immune imboost crap and label them as 90percent effective and still people would flock to buy them. Legal loopholes and all that
 
Pogue Mahone said:
If they refuse the vaccine we already have a disease that will wipe out 1% of them. Which is a start.
Click to expand...

Wonder what would happen if there was a disease that wiped out 80% of sick but there was a ready made cure at the start of outbreak, because for example another vaccine gave you immunity. Would anti-vax crew still refuse? It's definitely easier to risk someone else's health/life than it is to risk yours but would they do it?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
By the way, has any government anywhere considered lifting restrictions completely for people under 30? Obviously they would need to be aware that some of them would still die and there should be no obligation for them to stop working from home etc Everyone over 30 would have to follow strict instructions to keep away from the young ‘uns who, in turn, would have to stop mingling with older folk i.e. need to be under 30 AND moved out from family home (which would be tough to implement, maybe smartphone app?)

It would seem like a relatively effective way to get cracking on herd immunity and help the economy tick over without overwhelming the health service. Devil in the detail, obviously!
Click to expand...


That does sound devilishly simple and effective. What's the catch?
 
Wibble said:
Let it run loose and the economy would be devastated, even more so than is already inevitable, so it would be dumb indeed. But given the current bunch of clowns in charge who knows?
Click to expand...

Let me begin by saying I am totally playing devils advocate with what I am about to post. Not so sure that economies would be devastated if the virus was allowed to run loose. In the western world just consider the amount of funds/resources needed to support the elderly and those with severe health problems. An absolute fortune would be saved in welfare, pension, health payments. We would be back in the days when most of the population died off before reaching retirement age etc. Makes me shudder to think of it but not so dumb from an economic viewpoint as you suggest.
 
Grinner said:
That does sound devilishly simple and effective. What's the catch?
Click to expand...

I think stopping the disease ridden whippersnappers spraying their dirty spittle all over places where their older and wiser peers might touch it will be the challenge. Would make a trip to the supermarket even more of a white knuckle ride. Plus the more distinguished citizens would have to basically stay in lockdown for fecking ages. Which would suck.
 
I overheard a conference call yesterday of one of the largest UK supermarkets and the government have asked them to test their employees. Every little helps i guess.

It probably makes sense to ask employers to do this but i suspect it's been done in a mad dash to get numbers up for the media spin.
 
0le said:
In my opinion the masks really should only be reserved for situations where social distancing cannot be observed and/or exposure to infected individuals is high.
Click to expand...
I think if it comes to allowing people out to travel to see friends and family, it should be very clear messaging - wear your mask in public & if you don’t then face the consequences. We have already seen how people have interpreted ambiguous messaging about exercising
 
King Eric 7 said:
No, you should have enough essentials to keep yourself fed while you self quarantine. Or try to order food for delivery.
Click to expand...


There are waiting lists for home delivery of up to 1month in some parts of the UK. So yeah, you're telling that person to sit at home, wither and die.

Get a grip mate. Seriously, get a grip.
 
Virgil said:
Let me begin by saying I am totally playing devils advocate with what I am about to post. Not so sure that economies would be devastated if the virus was allowed to run loose. In the western world just consider the amount of funds/resources needed to support the elderly and those with severe health problems. An absolute fortune would be saved in welfare, pension, health payments. We would be back in the days when most of the population died off before reaching retirement age etc. Makes me shudder to think of it but not so dumb from an economic viewpoint as you suggest.
Click to expand...

Old people spend money too, some of them spend a lot.

The problem with what you suggest is twofold. Firstly it's not only the elderly who are affected, and secondly elderly in the context of this virus is not all that old. The young and middle aged can still easily be knocked off their feet by the virus and need hospital treatment to survive, it wouldn't take long before hospitals are full and the young start dying in big numbers too.


0le said:
In my opinion the masks really should only be reserved for situations where social distancing cannot be observed and/or exposure to infected individuals is high.
Click to expand...

I just pull the mask down over my chin when there is nobody within sight. I don't know how HCWs wear them all day long, they're stifling. They're only effective if you have the virus, but wearing them has been made law here because you don't always know if you have it. That's the point governments are hoping to address by making them mandatory.

Drawfull said:
we could debate 1 and 2 all day, but 3 - people need to eat. I live alone - my family are in another country and I have no neighbours. Should I die?
Click to expand...

Food delivery services. Going to a supermarket knowing you have the virus would be a criminal offence in many countries. I'm surprised if it's not in the UK too.
 
BootsyCollins said:
Might be a stupid question, but if the death rate is 1%, would that also mean thats its much less contagious than what we thought?
Like ca "only" 18 million would be infected.
Click to expand...


1% of the world's population is over 70 million people dead.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
By the way, has any government anywhere considered lifting restrictions completely for people under 30? Obviously they would need to be aware that some of them would still die and there should be no obligation for them to stop working from home etc Everyone over 30 would have to follow strict instructions to keep away from the young ‘uns who, in turn, would have to stop mingling with older folk i.e. need to be under 30 AND moved out from family home (which would be tough to implement, maybe smartphone app?)

It would seem like a relatively effective way to get cracking on herd immunity and help the economy tick over without overwhelming the health service. Devil in the detail, obviously!
Click to expand...

However you do it herd immunity is likely to require a HIT of 80/85% as Ro seems likely to be higher than 3 and that means millions dead no matter how you get there barring a vaccine.
 
Does anyone else think that it's time for them to knock these daily updates on the head, or just me?

It's becoming a hindrance now. At the beginning, even as someone who hates them it was a welcome thing to see - there was info to relay, things to tell us.

Now, there's nothing to tell us - it's just the same three helmets stood there repeating the same answers to the same questions:

"we're not ending lockdown yet"
"no vaccine this year"
"we're seeing improvements but not enough yet"
"no we aren't lying about PPE"


This is no longer helpful, if anything I think it's starting to proper piss off a large portion of society who are fed up with being hit around the head with the same information at 5pm every day. A daily reminder of how shit their life is and that it isnt going to get better just yet. "And now we have your daily reminder that your life might well be coming to an end...."

Feck off with it - do it twice a week. Once on a Tues (usually the worst day in terms of numbers) and once on a Fri to summarise any developments that have occurred that week.
 
Alabaster Codify7 said:
Does anyone else think that it's time for them to knock these daily updates on the head, or just me?

It's becoming a hindrance now. At the beginning, even as someone who hates them it was a welcome thing to see - there was info to relay, things to tell us.

Now, there's nothing to tell us - it's just the same three helmets stood there repeating the same answers to the same questions:

"we're not ending lockdown yet"
"no vaccine this year"
"we're seeing improvements but not enough yet"
"no we aren't lying about PPE"


This is no longer helpful, if anything I think it's starting to proper piss off a large portion of society who are fed up with being hit around the head with the same information at 5pm every day. A daily reminder of how shit their life is and that it isnt going to get better just yet. "And now we have your daily reminder that your life might well be coming to an end...."

Feck off with it - do it twice a week. Once on a Tues (usually the worst day in terms of numbers) and once on a Fri to summarise any developments that have occurred that week.
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying but I still think there is value in having a daily briefing mostly to continue to emphasise just how serious this continues to be and that people need to keep up the social distancing measures. The fear would be that if you stand it down to 2 times per week then some people will think things have changed and may be more tempted to act like things are much better than they are. Unfortunately this is going to go on for potentially a year or two and we all need to keep having this drummed into us every single day because SOME people need to be told.
 
Alabaster Codify7 said:
Does anyone else think that it's time for them to knock these daily updates on the head, or just me?

It's becoming a hindrance now. At the beginning, even as someone who hates them it was a welcome thing to see - there was info to relay, things to tell us.

Now, there's nothing to tell us - it's just the same three helmets stood there repeating the same answers to the same questions:

"we're not ending lockdown yet"
"no vaccine this year"
"we're seeing improvements but not enough yet"
"no we aren't lying about PPE"


This is no longer helpful, if anything I think it's starting to proper piss off a large portion of society who are fed up with being hit around the head with the same information at 5pm every day. A daily reminder of how shit their life is and that it isnt going to get better just yet. "And now we have your daily reminder that your life might well be coming to an end...."

Feck off with it - do it twice a week. Once on a Tues (usually the worst day in terms of numbers) and once on a Fri to summarise any developments that have occurred that week.
Click to expand...
I watch it once or twice a week max anyway.
 
Wibble said:
1% of the world's population is over 70 million people dead.
Click to expand...

Yes i understand that, but i meant like now its "only" 18 million infected.
That it spreads in a lesser tempo then what we thought, and is not as contagious. Like i said, might. be a stupid question and i see i worded it a little wrong.

Edit : i am in no way trying to downplay the virus in anyway, just so you know.
 
pratyush_utd said:
There is no mention of IFR in that article. Most of the studies put IFR around 0.5% which is higher but not as high as previous estimates.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.15.20066050v1

IFR estimation for Sweden.
Click to expand...
Thanks. They assume that on the day of 200 deaths 31.3. in Stockholm there was about 20% already infected. Whereas this Geneva sample says it is around 6-7%. Sweden calculates the real number of death, like Belgium, I don't know how real Swiss numbers are for deaths. But I am still willing to bet against Stockholm's numbers/assumptions.
 
BootsyCollins said:
Yes i understand that, but i meant like now its "only" 18 million infected.
That it spreads in a lesser tempo then what we thought, and is not as contagious. Like i said, might. be a stupid question and i see i worded it a little wrong.

Edit : i am in no way trying to downplay the virus in anyway, just so you know.
Click to expand...

It is only slowing because we are locking down the world not because the virus isn't highly contagious.
 
dwd said:
I watch it once or twice a week max anyway.
Click to expand...


I have stopped watching in general to be honest. I just read the summaries online which are basically identical every day, maybe a different helmet's name every other day.

I usually get home from my hike and find my parents looking like they'd like to cry after seeing it. I keep tellign them to stop watching it because there is nothing new to hear, but oh well.
 
Alabaster Codify7 said:
I have stopped watching in general to be honest. I just read the summaries online which are basically identical every day, maybe a different helmet's name every other day.

I usually get home from my hike and find my parents looking like they'd like to cry after seeing it. I keep tellign them to stop watching it because there is nothing new to hear, but oh well.
Click to expand...

They are probably watching it looking for any signs of hope that things will change for the better soon. For those who have to self-isolate this is probably the only bit of hope they can cling on to so I totally get why they watch it. For those of us lucky enough to still be able to leave the house, even only once per day, I don't think we can fully understand what it must be like for those who can't.
 
Wibble said:
Not sure TBH
Click to expand...
Here our health authority decided at the last minute (right before the first wave finished) to test quarantined hotels, and luckily avoided releasing some positives to the community.

14 day quarantines are nowhere near enough for containment if you don't test them. Even if you do, some false negatives will slip through. I don't think it's realistic to completely isolate a large island from the disease.

We have since extended the hotel quarantines to more 14 days at home after they leave the hotel. But these are nowhere near as easy to enforce.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I think stopping the disease ridden whippersnappers spraying their dirty spittle all over places where their older and wiser peers might touch it will be the challenge. Would make a trip to the supermarket even more of a white knuckle ride. Plus the more distinguished citizens would have to basically stay in lockdown for fecking ages. Which would suck.
Click to expand...

You could stretch it to 40 at least. In England only 126 COVID deaths have been under 40, out of 16k. That would also allow me to leave the house again!
 
Virgil said:
Let me begin by saying I am totally playing devils advocate with what I am about to post. Not so sure that economies would be devastated if the virus was allowed to run loose. In the western world just consider the amount of funds/resources needed to support the elderly and those with severe health problems. An absolute fortune would be saved in welfare, pension, health payments. We would be back in the days when most of the population died off before reaching retirement age etc. Makes me shudder to think of it but not so dumb from an economic viewpoint as you suggest.
Click to expand...
I can see how that might attract some people, particularly those who don't feel they are at risk now. However if you multiply the potential hosts you are multiplying the potential number of mutations of the virus. Most of these mutations will be to reduce the lethality of the disease, as a virus wants it's host to survive. However it would also increase the likelihood of a more lethal mutation occurring. So it would be a very high stakes roll of the dice to do this.

This is essentially what happened with the second wave in the "spanish Flu" pandemic. The first wave seemed to die away and everyone returned back to normal over the early summer, but in September a second wave with an incredibly lethal mutation swept rapidly aroound the world that went on to kill far more people than the first.

Also young people should consider that the 2nd wave in 1918 actually was more lethal among younger / fitter people as their immune systems put up a bigger fight against the virus leading to more rapid deaths with people drowning in watery blood.

If we think that we can afford to lose a few older people now for an economic benefit further down the line we may get a very nasty surprise.
 
lynchie said:
You could stretch it to 40 at least. In England only 126 COVID deaths have been under 40, out of 16k. That would also allow me to leave the house again!
Click to expand...


Yeah its more likely to be based on vulnerability and health than age. It'll be a general 'if you're of working age and have no health issues' type statement. Once lockdown measures are released a little, employers will start expecting some home-workers to return to the workplace. It'll definitely be gauged on individual merit - I, for example, will definitely be going back to the office. 37, very good health, no previous health issues, no children, no child-care concerns and in late summer I'm going to be living close to the office so no commuting necessary.

Exceptions will probably be made too for people who mentally are struggling with concept of having to 'be around people' again. If you're nervous about leaving home, you'll be given leniency obviously.
 
Verminator said:
Exercise Cygnus was a simulation of a flu pandemic, carried out in 2016.
What lessons were learned?

Raab, "Dunno! TLDR"

Click to expand...



Absolute cnuts, the lot of them. Cnuts.
I'd love to see some of them in court after all this blows over. They took Blair to court didn't they over the WOMD bullshit, why shouldnt the same be done for these reptiles who have completely botched it from way before day one.
 
Wibble said:
However you do it herd immunity is likely to require a HIT of 80/85% as Ro seems likely to be higher than 3 and that means millions dead no matter how you get there barring a vaccine.
Click to expand...

You’re talking about herd immunity as though its binary. If you could ‘safely’ infect every 20-40 year old in a country and - another big if - that gave them long term immunity - you’d have a highly effective buffer to take the edge off future outbreaks. Plus there’s the big economic upside of keeping them out there, working and spending money.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
By the way, has any government anywhere considered lifting restrictions completely for people under 30?
Click to expand...

This would be very possible for all ages if everyone used facemasks. Then there is the question on the supply of said masks... If we had an infinite amount of masks and everyone used them when leaving their house, the chance of spreading the disease would be +90% lower compared to a similar scenario where no one used facemasks. And one could have a fully functioning society without movement restrictions (bars and clubs would be an obvious problem) with an R well below 1.
 
Fosu-Mens said:
This would be very possible for all ages if everyone used facemasks. Then there is the question on the supply of said masks... If we had an infinite amount of masks and everyone used them when leaving their house, the chance of spreading the disease would be +90% lower compared to a similar scenario where no one used facemasks. And one could have a fully functioning society without movement restrictions (bars and clubs would be an obvious problem) with an R well below 1.
Click to expand...


For a while it would be yes, but after X amount of time it would become feasible. Your point is spot on though, it's really, really weird why facemasks haven't been implemented here when you can see the rewards in some other countries.

Do you think it's possible that the government isn't mentioning them, because they know the supply isn't there, and it would be yet another stick to beat them with? A political decision, then...
 
Fosu-Mens said:
This would be very possible for all ages if everyone used facemasks. Then there is the question on the supply of said masks... If we had an infinite amount of masks and everyone used them when leaving their house, the chance of spreading the disease would be +90% lower compared to a similar scenario where no one used facemasks. And one could have a fully functioning society without movement restrictions (bars and clubs would be an obvious problem) with an R well below 1.
Click to expand...

Any data to back this up? I’ve heard a few ID specialists who wouldn’t put the figure anywhere near that. Some of them think facemasks could increase transmission because people get more reckless about social distancing (which sounds like the scenario you’re describing, with busy pubs and clubs)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.