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

More than the restrictions themselves it's worrying how people react to the mere attempts to discuss it. People are easily scared by perceived threats and it has had consequences for the freedoms of a lot of people who are not western white europeans or americans in the past. So the situation may be unique for some privileged people while others have had liberties restricted for much less serious perceived threats.

Also the fact that while imagining a unity of people against this virus people have really shown their resentment and disdain for other people. Lots of pointless anecdotes exaggerated and only meant to stir up rage. And there is classism hidden in it as well.
 
Today the tapes have been removed from the public benches/viewpoints in our village (and I assume also the children's play area, which has swings and the like). It's not much, but it's a good thing to see. I walked the dogs up to the village without the usual apprehension.
 
Some more info from Streek in Germany of a study in Heinsberg

https://www1.wdr.de/nachrichten/rheinland/corona-ergebnis-studie-heinsberg-100.html

English PDF
https://www.ukbonn.de/C12582D3002FD...on_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf

"Of the 919 individuals with evaluable infection status (out of 1,007; 405 households)
15.5% (95% CI: [12.3%; 19.0%]) were infected. This is 5-fold higher than the number of
officially reported cases for this community (3.1%). Infection was associated with characteristic
symptoms such as loss of smell and taste. 22.2% of all infected individuals were asymptomatic.

With the seven SARS-CoV-2-associated reported deaths the estimated IFR was 0.36%
[0.29%; 0.45%]. Age and sex were not found to be associated with the infection rate.

Participation in carnival festivities increased both the infection rate (21.3% vs. 9.5%, p<0.001)
and the number of symptoms in the infected (estimated relative mean increase 1.6, p=0.007).

The risk of a person being infected was not found to be associated with the number of study
participants in the household this person lived in. The secondary infection risk for study
participants living in the same household increased from 15.5% to 43.6%, to 35.5% and to
18.3% for households with two, three or four people respectively (p<0.001)."
 
Blodssvik said:
More than the restrictions themselves it's worrying how people react to the mere attempts to discuss it. People are easily scared by perceived threats and it has had consequences for the freedoms of a lot of people who are not western white europeans or americans in the past. So the situation may be unique for some privileged people while others have had liberties restricted for much less serious perceived threats.

Also the fact that while imagining a unity of people against this virus people have really shown their resentment and disdain for other people. Lots of pointless anecdotes exaggerated and only meant to stir up rage. And there is classism hidden in it as well.
Click to expand...
The sense of privilege and supremacy from the rich Western nations has always existed, now it's more obvious because we can see just how egotistical and selfish a lot of people can be when they get scared.

It's honestly very funny to see how the tone of RedCafe has changed since the crisis started. The anecdotes you mentioned really show how many look down on others without putting much context into the situations.
 
They opened up provincial parks, walking trails and driving ranges on the weekend where I am, and I was actually pleasantly surprised at the adherence to the 2metre rule for the most part but it’s just not possible to stick to it 100% unless everyone walks the same pace and doesn’t bring their dog with them. There’s a long term care home here that is responsible for 100% of Covid deaths and 75% of all cases so I think they are easing the restrictions partly because of that undeniable cluster, but I feel like a few more weeks with stricter rules would be better in the long run.
 
204 hospital deaths in England, pointing to a lowish number for UK later on in the official figures.
 
redshaw said:
204 hospital deaths in England, pointing to a lowish number for UK later on in the official figures.
Click to expand...
If it wasn't a weekend, I'd be very happy with that. I'm expecting us to hover around 500 to 600 a day for a few weeks then drop down again.

With a bit of luck any rise in infections won't equate to a rise in deaths
 
redshaw said:
Some more info from Streek in Germany of a study in Heinsberg

https://www1.wdr.de/nachrichten/rheinland/corona-ergebnis-studie-heinsberg-100.html

English PDF
https://www.ukbonn.de/C12582D3002FD21D/vwLookupDownloads/Streeck_et_al_Infection_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf/$FILE/Streeck_et_al_Infection_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf

"Of the 919 individuals with evaluable infection status (out of 1,007; 405 households)
15.5% (95% CI: [12.3%; 19.0%]) were infected. This is 5-fold higher than the number of
officially reported cases for this community (3.1%). Infection was associated with characteristic
symptoms such as loss of smell and taste. 22.2% of all infected individuals were asymptomatic.

With the seven SARS-CoV-2-associated reported deaths the estimated IFR was 0.36%
[0.29%; 0.45%]. Age and sex were not found to be associated with the infection rate.

Participation in carnival festivities increased both the infection rate (21.3% vs. 9.5%, p<0.001)
and the number of symptoms in the infected (estimated relative mean increase 1.6, p=0.007).

The risk of a person being infected was not found to be associated with the number of study
participants in the household this person lived in. The secondary infection risk for study
participants living in the same household increased from 15.5% to 43.6%, to 35.5% and to
18.3% for households with two, three or four people respectively (p<0.001)."
Click to expand...
Excellent! Seemed quite representative from age groups and otherwise from first glance. 7 deaths is a small sample for IFR, but if IFR indeed would be under 0.5%, it would be amazing news.
 
Dancfc said:
It's not so much the restrictions in itself (not initially anyway), it was the right thing as we got caught flat footed and were playing catch up.

However the fact there's people who not only seem up for this (level of lockdown) medium/long term but are also going above and beyond the call of duty really worries me, if we have any dictatorlike personalities in government they will be getting a lot of encouragement watching how this is playing out.
Click to expand...

Yep I have that same worry. And we have a lot of those types in government right now
 
Rafaeldagold said:
Is anyone else kinda scared how easily freedoms were taken away from people? Of course it’s the right thing to beat this virus now, but it gives me an uneasy feeling how very fragile our ‘freedoms’ really are.
Click to expand...
Between this and Brexit, we will lose a huge amount of freedoms over the next 12 months and not see many of them return indefinitely. When your country votes to voluntarily give up your rights to live and work in 26 other countries though, it feels a bit glib to be lamenting the restrictions placed on us by the coronavirus. The coronavirus will certainly lead to changes, some of which will be in the best interest of public health and others will be in "our best interest".
 
redshaw said:
Some more info from Streek in Germany of a study in Heinsberg

https://www1.wdr.de/nachrichten/rheinland/corona-ergebnis-studie-heinsberg-100.html

English PDF
https://www.ukbonn.de/C12582D3002FD21D/vwLookupDownloads/Streeck_et_al_Infection_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf/$FILE/Streeck_et_al_Infection_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf

"Of the 919 individuals with evaluable infection status (out of 1,007; 405 households)
15.5% (95% CI: [12.3%; 19.0%]) were infected. This is 5-fold higher than the number of
officially reported cases for this community (3.1%). Infection was associated with characteristic
symptoms such as loss of smell and taste. 22.2% of all infected individuals were asymptomatic.

With the seven SARS-CoV-2-associated reported deaths the estimated IFR was 0.36%
[0.29%; 0.45%]. Age and sex were not found to be associated with the infection rate.

Participation in carnival festivities increased both the infection rate (21.3% vs. 9.5%, p<0.001)
and the number of symptoms in the infected (estimated relative mean increase 1.6, p=0.007).

The risk of a person being infected was not found to be associated with the number of study
participants in the household this person lived in. The secondary infection risk for study
participants living in the same household increased from 15.5% to 43.6%, to 35.5% and to
18.3% for households with two, three or four people respectively (p<0.001)."
Click to expand...
massi83 said:
Excellent! Seemed quite representative from age groups and otherwise from first glance. 7 deaths is a small sample for IFR, but if IFR indeed would be under 0.5%, it would be amazing news.
Click to expand...

This bit is fascinating.

Participation in carnival festivities increased both the infection rate (21.3% vs. 9.5%, p<0.001)
and the number of symptoms in the infected (estimated relative mean increase 1.6, p=0.007).
Click to expand...

Supports the idea that viral load might be a factor in severity of illness. You can’t help wondering that the really mild/asymptomatic cases got a really tiny viral load. You’d wonder if a very simple vaccine could involve a tiny dose of live non-attenuated virus.
 
massi83 said:
Excellent! Seemed quite representative from age groups and otherwise from first glance. 7 deaths is a small sample for IFR, but if IFR indeed would be under 0.5%, it would be amazing news.
Click to expand...
It's promising but I'm skeptical about their IFR confidence intervals.
They've been derived directly from the CI limits of the infection rate which is just a starting point really. I can't see the random variance of 7 deaths being accounted for.
As a basic example, if modeled binomially on the point estimate (7/1956), random variance alone gives CI limits [0.18%, 0.74%].
 
RK said:
It's promising but I'm skeptical about their IFR confidence intervals.
They've been derived directly from the CI limits of the infection rate which is just a starting point really. I can't see the random variance of 7 deaths being accounted for.
As a basic example, if modeled binomially on the point estimate (7/1956), random variance alone gives CI limits [0.18%, 0.74%].
Click to expand...
Indeed. Clearly something they should have included.
 
Virgil said:
And let’s insist that folks can only fly for business reasons.
Click to expand...

Why? Most business can be conducted over the phone / video call / email.

Seeing the world garners appreciation of other cultures and societies, and broadens our minds.

Unless your post was sarcasm of course, and it went over my head...
 
Pogue Mahone said:


This melts my head a bit. What the hell?
Click to expand...


What is worse is that there are people in the comments saying that the airline isn't at fault because the people chose to be on the plane. Well, the airline could choose to reduce the passenger allowance for a start ffs.
 
TMDaines said:
Between this and Brexit, we will lose a huge amount of freedoms over the next 12 months and not see many of them return indefinitely. When your country votes to voluntarily give up your rights to live and work in 26 other countries though, it feels a bit glib to be lamenting the restrictions placed on us by the coronavirus. The coronavirus will certainly lead to changes, some of which will be in the best interest of public health and others will be in "our best interest".
Click to expand...

Oh I agree brexit was the stupidest decision ever.
 
VintageWhatnots said:
Why? Most business can be conducted over the phone / video call / email.

Seeing the world garners appreciation of other cultures and societies, and broadens our minds.

Unless your post was sarcasm of course, and it went over my head...
Click to expand...

I was trying to be sarcastic. Sincerest apologies for being so poor.
 
SilentWitness said:
What is worse is that there are people in the comments saying that the airline isn't at fault because the people chose to be on the plane. Well, the airline could choose to reduce the passenger allowance for a start ffs.
Click to expand...
The budget airlines are only profitable when the majority of seats are full. The Irish fella who owns Ryanair was saying the only way they'd be operating flights under social distancing guidelines is if the government pays for the empty seats. Otherwise they'd be operating at a loss and obviously would prefer to stay grounded.

Not that I'm defending aer lingus. I'm amazed they're allowed to operate under those conditions.
 
When are they releasing our timeline for coming out of lockdown?

Thought it was to be today?
 
Wouldn't be surprised if lockdown is extended by another two weeks before easing of some measures
 
SilentWitness said:
What is worse is that there are people in the comments saying that the airline isn't at fault because the people chose to be on the plane. Well, the airline could choose to reduce the passenger allowance for a start ffs.
Click to expand...

They're the same bunch who don't understand that social isolation isn't for self-preservation. Between 1and 4% of the population are supposed to be sociopaths and i think they're identifying themselves throughout this.
 
SilentWitness said:
What is worse is that there are people in the comments saying that the airline isn't at fault because the people chose to be on the plane. Well, the airline could choose to reduce the passenger allowance for a start ffs.
Click to expand...

Even still just by being in such a contained area increases the risk of contracting the virus.
 
If people go over the top in Italy over the next two weeks regarding meeting up with family, we're going to be back where we were very quickly. Just reading some comments on reddit's Italy sub and people are saying that they're seeing big groups of people together.

The rules are that people wear masks and maintain social distancing when visiting relatives, but we all know that's not going to happen inside someone's house - especially here, where people like to hug and kiss. Even when I take the puppy to the village, one old lady grabs her so enthusiastically she looks like she's going to eat her.
 
Penna said:
If people go over the top in Italy over the next two weeks regarding meeting up with family, we're going to be back where we were very quickly. Just reading some comments on reddit's Italy sub and people are saying that they're seeing big groups of people together.

The rules are that people wear masks and maintain social distancing when visiting relatives, but we all know that's not going to happen inside someone's house - especially here, where people like to hug and kiss. Even when I take the puppy to the village, one old lady grabs her so enthusiastically she looks like she's going to eat her.
Click to expand...

I think this will happen in many countries when the restrictions are eased but I still think it's the right thing to do because I imagine people in Italy are close to breaking point. What will most likely happen is that the number of new cases will increase and some restrictions will be put back. I think the first wave was about managing the number of people in hospital, now that the numbers have fallen they can take new patients in when they second wave happens.
 
I'd say there is more social distancing happening onboard that aircraft than in this IKEA queue:

EXBgFKzXsAAhxgC
 
horsechoker said:
I think this will happen in many countries when the restrictions are eased but I still think it's the right thing to do because I imagine people in Italy are close to breaking point. What will most likely happen is that the number of new cases will increase and some restrictions will be put back. I think the first wave was about managing the number of people in hospital, now that the numbers have fallen they can take new patients in when they second wave happens.
Click to expand...

This. Its going to be like the sine curve in mathematics. It goes up and then down and then up again.

The number of infections will go down, people will become bullish and meet up, then the number of infections will go up again and people will withdraw, and then they will go down again.
 
Hugh Jass said:
This. Its going to be like the sine curve in mathematics. It goes up and then down and then up again.

The number of infections will go down, people will become bullish and meet up, then the number of infections will go up again and people will withdraw, and then they will go down again.
Click to expand...

Well hopefully a decaying sine curve, as hopefully the bullishness goes down a notch with every wave
 
Skills said:
Well hopefully a decaying sine curve, as hopefully the bullishness goes down a notch with every wave
Click to expand...

That would be ideal.

But then you have to factor in the economic system. They probably only can shut down the economy so many times before shutting down the economy becomes worse than the virus.

Mixed views about a vaccine as well. Some guy from the Imperial College said it will be difficult to make one. Others then saying we will have one by august.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.