Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[LongTimeLurker]

15 minutes ago, Snafu said:

...If this was an equally contagious virus that largely affected young people, would there be so much panic and policies to restrict movement?

If the IFR was 0.1% across the board rather than up to > 5% in the chunk of the population that has the highest electoral turnout, odds on it would be business as usual. Think the main problem though in trying to deal with this in an informed rational way is that many people outside that older demographic (even on here where they are being given the straight goods by lots of posters) still seem to think and react as if the overall IFR is 2% as they were being told on the telly six months ago.

[Paco]

This really is a shite time, I’m frustrated beyond any belief with it, but ‘shielding’ the vulnerable/elderly and letting the rest of us crack on is just as bad an option now as it was in March. It’s impossible to do, two or three weeks ago it was almost exclusively young adults getting Covid and now it’s seeped into the elderly and hospitalisations are shooting up. We’re starting to see care home cases as well despite the precautions they’re taking - Covid in the community means you’re far more likely to pick it up in pubs, supermarkets, cafes, libraries, buses or even, shock horror, schools! Because it’s an airborne virus and your magic two metre distance won’t save you. A nurse will go into a care home or a carer will pop into see their elderly mum and dad while carrying Covid. No amount of wishful thinking gets rid of that reality.

For reasons I don’t really understand the UK is suffering dreadfully from this. The USA is held up as the biggest loser in all of this, with New York being the clear global epicentre for some time and the President/governors effectively ignoring medical advice and aside from a few token ‘measures’ there are large swathes of the USA where you might not know there’s a pandemic on. Nearly one in forty Americans has provided a positive Covid test. And yet their death rate adjusted for population is only just catching up to ours now after a full summer with single figures dying daily. I can’t explain that, there are probably hundreds of factors, but it does mean no politician can follow the lead of America in any conscience.

It’ll be like this until a vaccine, or the major vaccines fail. Get used to the idea, because this is the path Western Europe have chosen - it isn’t a SNP or Tory thing, it’s a Scotland/England/Wales/NI/Ireland/France/Belgium/Spain thing. I don’t fully understand how we’ve landed here, most likely because of March and how deeply seeded we let it get in our communities, but it is what it is.

[Scary Bear]

9 hours ago, Thereisalight.. said:

Past caring about football is what I meant. The game is dead 

Scotland are playing tonight. 

Get back to promoting mask wearing so we can get back to the football.

[Aufc]

The idea that you can just shield the vulnerable and let everyone else get on with life as before is unrealistic.

Once the disease is more wide-spread then the ability to keep it out of homes/care-homes etc becomes impossible.

Vulnerable people still need to have contact with others I.e to get food, go to places like the doctors, care workers etc so if we massively increase the chance of those people having the virus by it being wide-spread in the community, then we massively increase the opportunity for it to reach vulnerable people. 

It also ignores the harm that having the virus, even if you don’t die with it, can do to you. A lot of people who were never in the vulnerable category, have reported serious and quite wide-ranging ongoing health issues from it. 

 

But you can limit their contact. Family members dropping food to them. Yes they might need to go to doctors but their contact with other people would be minimal. I would say that this is better than the alternative of possible death.

 

On your other point, yes there is a risk of some people suffering long term side effects but this is small compared to the long term damage to the economy and other consequences such as cancer treatments not being treated and mental health issues. It is a bit like the jobs issue. Sadly you cant save every job

[Lurkst]

13 minutes ago, FFCinthearea said:

They shouldn’t have had kids then if they can’t afford to keep them.

If only we'd had thinking like this when the world population was below 3 billion.

 

[Jambomo]

5 minutes ago, Aufc said:

 

But you can limit their contact. Family members dropping food to them. Yes they might need to go to doctors but their contact with other people would be minimal. I would say that this is better than the alternative of possible death.

 

On your other point, yes there is a risk of some people suffering long term side effects but this is small compared to the long term damage to the economy and other consequences such as cancer treatments not being treated and mental health issues. It is a bit like the jobs issue. Sadly you cant save every job

That’s my point, limiting contact, whilst it will improve things, becomes a worse outcome when you increase the chances of those contacts carrying the disease. Hand sanitizers and disinfectants only go so far. 
 

We don’t know that those with long-term side effects IS small in comparison with other things. What struck me in this paper was the claim at the start that in a study of 100 survivors, 78 show abnormal MRI scans and I think that even 34 out of the 100 with unusual fatigue symptoms would, if that is reflected in the wider population, be pretty significant on services like NHS etc.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30701-5

[Dunning1874]

15 minutes ago, Snafu said:

'Lets throw the old and vulnerable 'in the sea' and let us get on with our lives'

I find it quite ironic that the ones who spout this are the ones who are largely responsible for this current situation because they are incapable of behaving themselves for only a couple of months and can't follow guidelines to prevent the virus spreading again.

Its down to people like that that kept the virus going just before and as the restriction were being lifted.

Our governments are failing and the virus is spreading again due to the utter selfishness of some of the utter cretins we have to share this island with.

[citation needed]

[superbigal]

'Lets throw the old and vulnerable 'in the sea' and let us get on with our lives'
I find it quite ironic that the ones who spout this are the ones who are largely responsible for this current situation because they are incapable of behaving themselves for only a couple of months and can't follow guidelines to prevent the virus spreading again.
Its down to people like that that kept the virus going just before and as the restriction were being lifted.
Our governments are failing and the virus is spreading again due to the utter selfishness of some of the utter cretins we have to share this island with.

Would like to see the piechart tweaked to show what percentage of new cases are caused by arseholeness behaviour.

[hk blues]

31 minutes ago, FFCinthearea said:

They shouldn’t have had kids then if they can’t afford to keep them.

18 minutes...a little disappointed t.b.h.

[LongTimeLurker]

19 minutes ago, Paco said:

...It’ll be like this until a vaccine, or the major vaccines fail. Get used to the idea, because this is the path Western Europe have chosen - it isn’t a SNP or Tory thing, it’s a Scotland/England/Wales/NI/Ireland/France/Belgium/Spain thing. I don’t fully understand how we’ve landed here, most likely because of March and how deeply seeded we let it get in our communities, but it is what it is.

These latest measures from Nicola Sturgeon are unlikely to have much of an effect on the "second wave" beyond slowing it down a bit because so many things are still open to keep the economy and education functioning, compliance is less than stellar and COVID-19 has a high R0 in the absence of very stringent measures. There's a strong suspicion that politicians like Boris Johnson are knowingly going for herd immunity but are doing it by stealth by implementing ineffective measures to make it appear like they are doing something significant in prevention terms.

[Empty It]

Its brilliant when people have 3/4 children and complain about the cost of childcare as if it's some big unexpected cost.

[Paco]

These latest measures from Nicola Sturgeon are unlikely to have much of an effect on the "second wave" beyond slowing it down a bit because so many things are still open to keep the economy and education functioning, compliance is less than stellar and COVID-19 has a high R0 in the absence of very stringent measures. There's a strong suspicion that politicians like Boris Johnson are knowingly going for herd immunity but are doing it by stealth by implementing ineffective measures to make it appear like they are doing something significant in prevention terms.

Of course all the measures announced yesterday will do is kick the can down the road. It’s banking on a vaccine by trying to get through to Spring/Summer 2021 with as little damage as possible - that’s the strategy in Western Europe.

The only reason the North of England don’t have the same measures as Scotland already is Johnson’s dithering (sound familiar?), as per most news outlets today it’ll be done by early next week. Certainly however the Johnson government is happier to let it go further than Sturgeon’s, the rates in Manchester and Liverpool are simply extraordinary. If London was being affected at even the level of Glasgow I’m in no doubt that England would have severe nationwide restrictions.

[dirty dingus]

7 minutes ago, Paco said:

 

Of course all the measures announced yesterday will do is kick the can down the road. It’s banking on a vaccine by trying to get through to Spring/Summer 2021 with as little damage as possible - that’s the strategy in Western Europe.

The only reason the North of England don’t have the same measures as Scotland already is Johnson’s dithering (sound familiar?), as per most news outlets today it’ll be done by early next week. Certainly however the Johnson government is happier to let it go further than Sturgeon’s, the rates in Manchester and Liverpool are simply extraordinary. If London was being affected at even the level of Glasgow I’m in no doubt that England would have severe nationwide restrictions.

They're not taking action because they are passing the buck onto the local councils.

[Scary Bear]

52 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

See. It's  the vulnies that are causing all this. Round them up and send them to Ascension Island. Or cast them adrift on disused ferries and cruise ships.

Maybe send them to Rothesay. And may God have mercy on their souls!

[Scary Bear]

24 minutes ago, hk blues said:

18 minutes...a little disappointed t.b.h.

We should ban the creation of kids. Maybe shut the schools and send the current bunch, whose parents can’t afford childminders, to a new purpose built internment camp in Rothesay.

[Scary Bear]

20 minutes ago, Empty It said:

Its brilliant when people have 3/4 children and complain about the cost of childcare as if it's some big unexpected cost.

Do you pay for childcare for your 3/4 children? How much does that cost you?

[ICTChris]

Can anyone say why the rates in places with the increase restrictions have continued to rise? The North of England has had hugely increased rates since the local lockdown came in. Rates in Glasgow haven’t been affected by the measures there.

[Donathan]

Can anyone say why the rates in places with the increase restrictions have continued to rise? The North of England has had hugely increased rates since the local lockdown came in. Rates in Glasgow haven’t been affected by the measures there.

Because it’s a seasonal disease. The only reason the first lockdown “worked” is because it was coming to the end of the covid season anyway.

[RiG]

5 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

Can anyone say why the rates in places with the increase restrictions have continued to rise? The North of England has had hugely increased rates since the local lockdown came in. Rates in Glasgow haven’t been affected by the measures there.

Complete speculation on my part but did someone not post some analysis which showed that less than 20% of people who were COVID positive actually isolated? So the majority of folk continued to go about "normal" life and, more than likely, continue to spread the virus on to others?  

[Donathan]

I can't mind how long the effect on rates of the original lockdown took to kick in exactly but it wasn't immediate nor after just a few days or even a couple of weeks.

The majority of the 40k-ish people who have died in the UK from covid had already caught it before 23rd March


But Manchester has been locked down for over two months and rates have increased many times over within that