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

[Virgil]

Are people really saying the UK shouldn't have closed its border to those that werent uk residents or essential travel, then once those came into the UK, forced the relevant stay at home/hotel quarantine like other countries have done?

Thats all golden blunder said.

We even had a caf poster come from asia and go out and about shopping the day after

I for one am not saying that. My hackles were raised when Golden Blunder was linking the UKs stance to implying that because of Brexit we could/should have closed our borders....as if the U.K. was out of step with the rest of the world (with the exception of USA).

All I would say is be consistent. For example go look up when individual EU countries imposed border controls on one another and banned internal flights or ferries. Then again, closer to home for golden blunder I suppose Ireland and the U.K. should have banned other than essential travel between one another. Not quite sure that they have even today but I do know that travel between the two nations was still possible by both air and sea up to mid April.

Yes to allow foreign travellers to get around the USA travel lockdown by using Heathrow was plainly daft as was allowing fans to attend the Liverpool match or allowing Cheltenham to go ahead. However both of those events resulted in a significant number of Irish tourists so the Irish government allowing them to come cannot be absolved of blame Unless of course they were all quarantined and tracked and traced whe they returned home. And that’s without adding in events such as the Manchester Irish Festival.

Without doubt the U.K. has made mistakes but at this stage it is far too early to say whether we are any worse than most other nations. Maybe in a year or so it will become possible to judge. Certainly given our population size and density we do not seem to be doing worse than most....Germany excepted. As for when comparisons are made with countries such as South Korea or China my eyes raise to the sky for what western nation is handling the crisis as well as they are. Then again I simply trust and hope that those in power in every nation is doing their best to safeguard their populations Both now and in the future without losing sight of the need to get economies back on track as soon as is possible. Too many poor and disadvantaged will be crippled for years to come unless there is some relaxation of isolation measures soon.

I reckon that most posters on this forum are quite able to cope with the lockdowns in our respective countries without feeling the power of poverty but respectfully I would suggest we are probably far from being representative of our populations at large.

 

[FootballHQ]

It's the period of adjustment while transitioning out of the lockdowns and the actions of people during them that would worry me especially in countries like the UK and USA it terrifies me to be honest.

At least now say In Sweden the population have been taught (again using candy analogy) to eat in moderation and that it will have to stay that way for the foreseeable. I have faith in some nations like Germany, Austria, Norway, Denmark and the likes of their people easing out of restrictions to a manageable level.

I worry for others that it's going to be lockdown, release, spike, lockdown, release, spike, lockdown on repeat with the buy-in and effects of every lockdown being diluted more every time.

I think you've got to remember what "normal" life was like in February. Over 500k every weekend going to watch football matches. Not just at the stadium but in pubs, public transport etc before and after games. You also had six nations on then which had mass attendances and also european travel.

Going out on the lash on Friday-Sat night was still a thing. Even in March I had a couple of friends go to a rave in a packed warehouse in Coalville. None of that will be happening in June, July or August.

In June I was going to Download festival which usually attracts 100k every year. Think Glasto has higher amount and amazing to actually read a list of all the actual festivals that take place every summer in the UK now, probably over a 100. All but a handful cancelled.

That's a staggering amount of mass social contact to take out of the equation for next 3-4 months and probably the rest of the year.

What you can't quite cancel forever is normal life though.

The problem however will be winter when flu season starts and people start dying just of the flu and I fear panic will set in again. Government is just buying time and hoping for an effective treatment to be developed here or abroad before a vaccine becomes serious possibility.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

I think (hope) that over the course of this next month we're going to get some positive outcomes from treatment trials. We've already had the Remdesivir trial which shows positives regarding treatment times and was on the cusp of achieving a statistically significant reduction in mortality before it was discontinued. Within a fortnight we should also have the results from some of the Tocilizumab and Siltuximab trials, both of which released interim results that suggested a decent level of efficacy in severe cases. Towards the end of the month we should also start to hear about interim results from plasma therapy trials, as well as reports from the Chinese and Oxford vaccine studies.

Overall I think we will end the month a lot better placed than we began it.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

There's not a chance of that in the UK. The whole point of the lock down is to flatten the curve to allow essential services to cope and not to exceed capacity. It largely means the same number of people are likely to be infected but over a longer period. This can only be about buying time until a vaccine or treatments are developed, or failing that (this not being guaranteed) keeping the spread controlled until herd immunity is achieved. The government don't want to admit it but there you go.

The country can't afford people to be in lockdown for months and years on end. A recession takes years off life expectancy and a failed economy could kill more than the virus.

Its a very uncomfortable truth but the virus largely kills elderly people who cannot contribute to the economy and who often (due to underlying health conditions) do not have a long time to live. That is tragic, as is every life lost but there is a balance we need to keep. A long term lock down to save those people, whilst risking the ability for the people working now who fund the economy (and often care for those vulnerable groups), and ruining the future of the very young who are the people who will fund the country when the current crop retire is unthinkable.

Antibody testing is ongoing and if that indicates that there is an "iceberg" of people who have already had the virus (and the studies so far indicate that) and if, as suggested the actual risk of death overall is less than 0.1% (or less again for younger people) the economic damage will at some stage outweigh the damage the virus causes. People run the risk of death everyday from all kinds of threats, yet we do not lockdown because of it. How many die of Malaria, or Flu across the world every year? How may die in car accidents?

I think social distancing will remain in some form for a while but even that will have a shelf life. Some people you read online seem to think the world will be forever changed and I think some things (i.e. the way we work and the use of technology to minimise unnecessary travel) will, but socialising won't. Its innately human for people to want to socialise and that's why places we can do that exist. Things may change over time (i.e. local pubs closing and being replaced by a Nando's or similar as a place where young people meet) but the principle remains the same. People will not put up with months and months of having to work but then not "let off steam" as they usually would by meeting friends at the end of the week, or going to a cinema, concert or sports event. People are already getting sick of this so what'll happen in three months? Compliance cannot possibly be policed and eventually, the tide will turn against the Government because people will want a return to normality. As an example a 70+ year old friend of my parents, having been self-isolating for weeks has said that he'd rather take his chances and enjoy what years he has left than be locked up every day because he isn't living a life. If that was me I'd feel the same given that at some point in the next few years some disease or ailment is going to do for me anyway.

As an aside, the media have a lot to answer for. They've seemingly convinced a generation of young, healthy people that they're going to die of they go to Tesco to pick up some shopping. Evidently this is very serious but accurate reporting around risk should be made clear, rather than prioritising getting clicks online with sensational articles filled with doom and gloom about how we'll never return to normal. Printing daily deaths is, I suppose required but the human brain is not wired up to deal with that much death, even though around 1600 people a day die on average in the UK.

Agree with a lot of what you say but this bit...

Antibody testing is ongoing and if that indicates that there is an "iceberg" of people who have already had the virus (and the studies so far indicate that)

...is not true at all. All the better designed studies give single digit % prevalence. More of an ice cube than an iceberg.

I disagree with your last paragraph too. Early on in this thing there were loads of complaints of fear mongering and we saw British young people crowding pubs when all the countries around the UK were already in lockdown. If we’ve learned anything from the thousands of British people already killed by this virus (with thousands more deaths, young and old, to follow) it’s that it wasn’t taken seriously enough. If we’ve got to a stage where young healthy people are nervous to go to Tescos then that’s great. Because that’s what’s needed to stop another massive surge. Let’s not forget that second peak of the Spanish flu killed more than the first.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Indeed it is, thanks for the daily graphs!

Thank's man. Let's hope it continues.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

My point is that Oslo and Stockholm were in a similar spot on March 12th. The death toll for both cities lends some credence to this thesis. It took about 12-14 days for Stockholm to start significantly racing ahead of Oslo in deaths per capita, which wouldn't have happened to such a degree if Oslo had taken Stockholm's approach.

12-14 days, you know how long it usually take to end up in hospital and then die from this virus right mate?
That point alone is telling and actually backs up my point rather than yours like you think it does.
Common sense alone tells you a week 9 half term in the alps was much worse than a week 7 or 8, you surely realise that right? Do we even need to mention how much more testing Norway were doing than Sweden even in early stages to catch so many cases that you are going off from March 12th? Even now, with 13000 more “confirmed cases” than Norway, you guys have still done almost 50,000 more tests.

 

[Kag]

There's not a chance of that in the UK. The whole point of the lock down is to flatten the curve to allow essential services to cope and not to exceed capacity. It largely means the same number of people are likely to be infected but over a longer period. This can only be about buying time until a vaccine or treatments are developed, or failing that (this not being guaranteed) keeping the spread controlled until herd immunity is achieved. The government don't want to admit it but there you go.

The country can't afford people to be in lockdown for months and years on end. A recession takes years off life expectancy and a failed economy could kill more than the virus.

Its a very uncomfortable truth but the virus largely kills elderly people who cannot contribute to the economy and who often (due to underlying health conditions) do not have a long time to live. That is tragic, as is every life lost but there is a balance we need to keep. A long term lock down to save those people, whilst risking the ability for the people working now who fund the economy (and often care for those vulnerable groups), and ruining the future of the very young who are the people who will fund the country when the current crop retire is unthinkable.

Antibody testing is ongoing and if that indicates that there is an "iceberg" of people who have already had the virus (and the studies so far indicate that) and if, as suggested the actual risk of death overall is less than 0.1% (or less again for younger people) the economic damage will at some stage outweigh the damage the virus causes. People run the risk of death everyday from all kinds of threats, yet we do not lockdown because of it. How many die of Malaria, or Flu across the world every year? How may die in car accidents?

I think social distancing will remain in some form for a while but even that will have a shelf life. Some people you read online seem to think the world will be forever changed and I think some things (i.e. the way we work and the use of technology to minimise unnecessary travel) will, but socialising won't. Its innately human for people to want to socialise and that's why places we can do that exist. Things may change over time (i.e. local pubs closing and being replaced by a Nando's or similar as a place where young people meet) but the principle remains the same. People will not put up with months and months of having to work but then not "let off steam" as they usually would by meeting friends at the end of the week, or going to a cinema, concert or sports event. People are already getting sick of this so what'll happen in three months? Compliance cannot possibly be policed and eventually, the tide will turn against the Government because people will want a return to normality. As an example a 70+ year old friend of my parents, having been self-isolating for weeks has said that he'd rather take his chances and enjoy what years he has left than be locked up every day because he isn't living a life. If that was me I'd feel the same given that at some point in the next few years some disease or ailment is going to do for me anyway.

As an aside, the media have a lot to answer for. They've seemingly convinced a generation of young, healthy people that they're going to die of they go to Tesco to pick up some shopping. Evidently this is very serious but accurate reporting around risk should be made clear, rather than prioritising getting clicks online with sensational articles filled with doom and gloom about how we'll never return to normal. Printing daily deaths is, I suppose required but the human brain is not wired up to deal with that much death, even though around 1600 people a day die on average in the UK.

Good post.

The government has a seriously difficult job to do with regards to communicating how to relax the current measures. There are far too many people that have lost sight of reality, and have consumed themselves with this virus, as if it’s the only variable that contributes towards danger and death. I’ve followed the measures, I agreed with them and I understand the severity of the virus, but those people that harbour views relating to “full” or continuous lockdowns are too narrow in their thinking.

Recent reports indicate that there has been a 75% reduction in emergency cancer diagnosis. That’s deeply troubling. You factor in heart attacks, strokes and suicide (which will all increase in light of the incoming economic fallout and probable implementation of austerity) and the effects of lockdown may begin to outweigh the primary impact of the virus.

It’s concerning that expressing this view makes you some sort of pariah, void of all apparent empathy. Given someone has already used the word ‘sociopath’ in response to you, I fear we’re in yet more division within the public. The public will begin to argue about fall out about this, big-style.

 

[Smores]

Hopefully the 3rd model as looks like we could cope under lesser lockdowns.

 

[Hansa]

12-14 days, you know how long it usually take to end up in hospital and then die from this virus right mate?
That point alone is telling and actually backs up my point rather than yours like you think it does.
Common sense alone tells you a week 9 half term in the alps was much worse than a week 7 or 8, you surely realise that right? Do we even need to mention how much more testing Norway were doing than Sweden even in early stages to catch so many cases?

Aaaand again. Why are you talking about week 7-8? I specifically told you in my last post that the Norwegians were infected alongside the Swedes in Austria. This dishonest way of debating is a waste of time.

 

[711]

If you can get one with the metal strip that goes over your nose you can pinch that tight, and it helps with the glasses problem. We have to wear them while driving here for some weird reason, and it's difficult. You have to sneakily free your nose.

I might be alright with a bit of practice then, Mrs numbers has already made some for the family, with copper strips in , so they should be washable. I'm guessing you will approve of the fabric.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Aaaand again. Why are you talking about week 7-8? I specifically told you in my last post that the Norwegians were infected alongside the Swedes in Austria. This dishonest way of debating is a waste of time.

fecking hell mate, for every single country the vast majority of holidays are taken during school holidays.
Week 9 was horrific timing.
You guys had week 7-8, as did the other Scandy cities, including Malmö and GBG.
Stockholm had a shit load more people in the alps during week 9 than any other Scandinavian country, and it shows.
If you think just as many Oslo people were in the alps as Stockholmers during week 9, you’re off your rocker.
If you think there was anywhere close to as much corona in the alps during week 7-8, you’re off your rocker.

 

[horsechoker]

Hopefully the 3rd model as looks like we could cope under lesser lockdowns.

Maybe I'm dense but there's no numbers on those so they just look like illustrations of waves.

Edit: I see the months but there's still nothing to indicate how many cases there are

 

[nimic]

Aaaand again. Why are you talking about week 7-8? I specifically told you in my last post that the Norwegians were infected alongside the Swedes in Austria. This dishonest way of debating is a waste of time.

You're debating the guy who thinks that many in this thread are anarchists who want to see the collapse of the western world. He'll never concede anything, so it's a bit pointless to try.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Hopefully the 3rd model as looks like we could cope under lesser lockdowns.

The real nightmare scenario is a peak during autumn/winter. People tend to forget that seasonal illnesses brings health services to their knees on every normal year, over the winter months. And they haven’t gone away. Adding covid on top of the usual cluster feck doesn’t bear thinking about.

Although I do think covid social distancing will see a big drop in all respiratory infections. Hopefully.

 

[Sweet Square]

 

[Hound Dog]

Hopefully the 3rd model as looks like we could cope under lesser lockdowns.

So basically, what this shows is that future peaks will be bigger, smaller or similar to the current one. Very insightful.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Amazing how many times journalists have been misusing the word “relapse” today. Testing positive after testing negative could have meant relapse or reinfection. Two different things. Catching twice = reinfection. Original infection flaring up again = relapse. the words have been used interchangeably in almost every article about this update.

Anyhoo. I’m being pedantic. This is still good news.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

He'll never concede anything, so it's a bit pointless to try.

My entire point is that we have no idea how much virus was already in Belgium, France, UK, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Ireland etc etc in mid March so comparing responses is rather pointless at this point and utterly unscientific.

How can I concede that? I mean, I’ll happily do so when a paper or evidence is presented showing how much virus was present in each individual country in mid-March.

Do you want me now to concede and just say “ok, you’re correct, we know without doubt that Germany and Belgium had the same level of virus mid March, so Belgium should’ve done better“? Based on absolutely zero evidence and contrary to how impressive the Belgium response was.

Or I can concede to Wibs, that Australia did an amazing job with their response, way better than Belgium, and completely ignore that they locked down later than Belgium, on the same day as the UK.

I’ll hold my position I think, we simply don’t know the most important variable. In the next few months we’ll have a better idea how well countries have responded and coped.

 

[Smores]

Amazing how many times journalists have been misusing the word “relapse” today. Testing positive after testing negative could have meant relapse or reinfection. Two different things. Catching twice = reinfection. Original infection flaring up again = relapse. the words have been used interchangeably in almost every article about this update.

Anyhoo. I’m being pedantic. This is still good news.

I was wondering this as it's behind a paywall. Have they actually concluded you can't catch it twice (or at least the same strain) or have they just concluded those previous cases were in error?

The headline suggests permanent immunity but that seems unbelievably good news.

 

[Maticmaker]

A long term lock down to save those people, whilst risking the ability for the people working now who fund the economy (and often care for those vulnerable groups), and ruining the future of the very young who are the people who will fund the country when the current crop retire is unthinkable.

Any lockdown has only one purpose and that is to delay the onset of contagion to a level where the NHS could cope, it is not, as such, about reducing the death toll for old or young. Until some medication, vaccine or other treatments can be found to push back the virus, those affected by the more virulent strains will die, unless their own bodies can fight it off with some nursing help. Older people especially those trapped in care homes and suffering from other medical problems, or simply running out of steam as they age, will have more chance of being infected, and less chance of recovery. This is not a government policy it is a fact of life at this time

 

[sammsky1]

Government hits UK testing target
The UK carried out 122,000 coronavirus tests on the last day of April, passing the government's target of 100,000.

 

[DFreshKing]

I was wondering this as it's behind a paywall. Have they actually concluded you can't catch it twice (or at least the same strain) or have they just concluded those previous cases were in error?

The headline suggests permanent immunity but that seems unbelievably good news.

It was always the most likely event rather than unbelievable but with all the fear around it's no surprise most were cautious.

 

[SalfordRed18]

Who exactly did they apparently test?

 

[redshaw]

438 hospital deaths. It's good news we've come down to the 400-600 range all week. Other countries hard hit did this in the 4th week, we took 5 weeks so good to finally do it.

Who exactly did they apparently test?

They stuck a test stick up Johnson's nose 20,000 times to reach the goal.

 

[vodrake]

Government hits UK testing target
The UK carried out 122,000 coronavirus tests on the last day of April, passing the government's target of 100,000.

By massively fiddling the numbers

https://www.hsj.co.uk/story.aspx?storyCode=7027544

The Department of Health and Social Care is now including tests that have been posted or delivered to people’s homes in its figures. This means tests which are sent to people are counted before the recipient has provided and returned their sample to a laboratory.

HSJ understands that up to 50,000 of the tests that will be reported as having taken place on 30 April will actually represent the mailing or the agreeing to mail a home testing kit.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I was wondering this as it's behind a paywall. Have they actually concluded you can't catch it twice (or at least the same strain) or have they just concluded those previous cases were in error?

The headline suggests permanent immunity but that seems unbelievably good news.

They concluded that people have been testing positive after previously testing negative because they’re getting viral debris (rather than live viruses) on the swab. Presumably part of the healing process involves damaged cells breaking down and releasing loads of bits and pieces of dead virus.

Tells us feck all about whether they’re immune or not, unfortunately. Basically the headline is massively misleading.

 

[Smores]

As much as the testing figure has been manipulated for PR reasons at least they're testing more which is a positive.

The aim is a continued test and trace system though.

 

[Penna]

I might be alright with a bit of practice then, Mrs numbers has already made some for the family, with copper strips in , so they should be washable. I'm guessing you will approve of the fabric.

She's very clever to have made that! I've just ordered a couple of fabric ones for oates and me because we're going to have to be wearing them for a very long time - mine has a chihuahua on it (wearing pink sunglasses).

 

[Flying high]

By massively fiddling the numbers

https://www.hsj.co.uk/story.aspx?storyCode=7027544

The most disgusting part of this, is that they likely delayed sending out some tests, in order to do it all on this specific date.

What a fking shambles of a government.

 

[Fiskey]

By massively fiddling the numbers

https://www.hsj.co.uk/story.aspx?storyCode=7027544

Is there more evidence of this? The kind of thing the media should be getting to the bottom of.

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

Face masks inevitably going to form part of the easing of lockdowns, I assume the Government has finally got a decent supply now?

They keep saying that there's weak evidence that they help.

 

[Flying high]

Is there more evidence of this? The kind of thing the media should be getting to the bottom of.

I'd like to see the proof too. But honestly, when it comes to this government, start with the assumption that they are lying, you will rarely be wrong.

Plus, it does explain the huge leap in numbers. They didn't suddenly open twice as many drive through centres did they?

 

[sammsky1]

 

[redshaw]

I've tried one for a few minutes and it made my glasses steam up. If they become expected I'll have to sneakily modify them in some way.

Many other tip videos as well

 

[nimic]

My entire point is that we have no idea how much virus was already in Belgium, France, UK, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Ireland etc etc in mid March so comparing responses is rather pointless at this point and utterly unscientific.

How can I concede that? I mean, I’ll happily do so when a paper or evidence is presented showing how much virus was present in each individual country in mid-March.

Do you want me now to concede and just say “ok, you’re correct, we know without doubt that Germany and Belgium had the same level of virus mid March, so Belgium should’ve done better“? Based on absolutely zero evidence and contrary to how impressive the Belgium response was.

Or I can concede to Wibs, that Australia did an amazing job with their response, way better than Belgium, and completely ignore that they locked down later than Belgium, on the same day as the UK.

I’ll hold my position I think, we simply don’t know the most important variable. In the next few months we’ll have a better idea how well countries have responded and coped.

That's fair. Though it does mean debating the merits of this and that might be more than pointless right now.

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

There's not a chance of that in the UK. The whole point of the lock down is to flatten the curve to allow essential services to cope and not to exceed capacity. It largely means the same number of people are likely to be infected but over a longer period. This can only be about buying time until a vaccine or treatments are developed, or failing that (this not being guaranteed) keeping the spread controlled until herd immunity is achieved. The government don't want to admit it but there you go.

The country can't afford people to be in lockdown for months and years on end. A recession takes years off life expectancy and a failed economy could kill more than the virus.

Its a very uncomfortable truth but the virus largely kills elderly people who cannot contribute to the economy and who often (due to underlying health conditions) do not have a long time to live. That is tragic, as is every life lost but there is a balance we need to keep. A long term lock down to save those people, whilst risking the ability for the people working now who fund the economy (and often care for those vulnerable groups), and ruining the future of the very young who are the people who will fund the country when the current crop retire is unthinkable.

Antibody testing is ongoing and if that indicates that there is an "iceberg" of people who have already had the virus (and the studies so far indicate that) and if, as suggested the actual risk of death overall is less than 0.1% (or less again for younger people) the economic damage will at some stage outweigh the damage the virus causes. People run the risk of death everyday from all kinds of threats, yet we do not lockdown because of it. How many die of Malaria, or Flu across the world every year? How may die in car accidents?

I think social distancing will remain in some form for a while but even that will have a shelf life. Some people you read online seem to think the world will be forever changed and I think some things (i.e. the way we work and the use of technology to minimise unnecessary travel) will, but socialising won't. Its innately human for people to want to socialise and that's why places we can do that exist. Things may change over time (i.e. local pubs closing and being replaced by a Nando's or similar as a place where young people meet) but the principle remains the same. People will not put up with months and months of having to work but then not "let off steam" as they usually would by meeting friends at the end of the week, or going to a cinema, concert or sports event. People are already getting sick of this so what'll happen in three months? Compliance cannot possibly be policed and eventually, the tide will turn against the Government because people will want a return to normality. As an example a 70+ year old friend of my parents, having been self-isolating for weeks has said that he'd rather take his chances and enjoy what years he has left than be locked up every day because he isn't living a life. If that was me I'd feel the same given that at some point in the next few years some disease or ailment is going to do for me anyway.

As an aside, the media have a lot to answer for. They've seemingly convinced a generation of young, healthy people that they're going to die of they go to Tesco to pick up some shopping. Evidently this is very serious but accurate reporting around risk should be made clear, rather than prioritising getting clicks online with sensational articles filled with doom and gloom about how we'll never return to normal. Printing daily deaths is, I suppose required but the human brain is not wired up to deal with that much death, even though around 1600 people a day die on average in the UK.

Having brainwashed the public into thinking they're going to die if they go to Tesco's with the constant "stay at home" messaging they will simply switch to a different type of brainwashing message that it's ok to go out (especially commuting to work!) as long as we employ social distancing etc. Then people will do that instead, even though the risks are little different.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

That's fair. Though it does mean debating the merits of this and that might be more than pointless right now.

I think so.

 

[vodrake]

Is there more evidence of this? The kind of thing the media should be getting to the bottom of.

They were asked about it in the Press Conference just. Prof John Newton replied:

"The majority are counted in labs, but for any test which takes place outside the programme they’re counted when they leave the programme, he says. So tests that are mailed out or go out by satellite, have always been counted that way. "

So any home delivered tests are counted when they are dispatched rather than when/if they're sent back. According to https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-the-public 40,369 tests were dispatched this way yesterday and included in the total test results

 

[RedRover]

That's like 5hrs of fox news jammed into one post. Congratulations.

I'm not trawling through each point so I'll stick to your final one. No they haven't convinced people that they're going to die they've convinced them (as has the government) to do their civic duty and stay home to protect others, it takes a sociopath not to get why people are doing this.

You're entitled to your opinion but your reference to Fox News indicates that you've completely missed the point of my post and also completely misunderstand both what I was trying to say. Congratulations.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Antibody testing is ongoing and if that indicates that there is an "iceberg" of people who have already had the virus (and the studies so far indicate that) and if, as suggested the actual risk of death overall is less than 0.1% (or less again for younger people) the economic damage will at some stage outweigh the damage the virus causes. People run the risk of death everyday from all kinds of threats, yet we do not lockdown because of it. How many die of Malaria, or Flu across the world every year? How may die in car accidents?

The official death rate in New York State is already 0.12% of its entire population as of right now.