Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[ICTChris]

1 minute ago, RiG said:

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?  

I read that, I'm not entirely sure I believe the veracity of those figures.  I think they are based on a survey of what you would do if asked to isolate.  I'm sure compliance hasn't been 100% but 20% seems low.  I'm sure it's a factor though.

 

[Paco]

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

In what way is Manchester currently “locked down”?

You can eat out at a cafe, a restaurant and a pub all in the same day, in between your gym class and five-a-side game. You can wander down to watch the local semi-pro club play football in the evening or head to the bowling alley.

You just can’t have anyone round to the house, and the pub shuts at 10. That’s it.

[Detournement]

1 hour ago, Paco said:

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

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.
 

Proper shielding involves staying home, carers and frontline NHS being tested and issued with proper PPE and care home workers being well compensated to do oil rig style 'trips' and live in for a couple of weeks.

With America their shite health care system means a lot of the low hanging fruit for Covid is already dead, they have a younger population and more testing capacity. 

[Michael W]

16 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.

My armchair conclusion (NW England):

1) The additional measures were pretty half-arsed and ineffective;

2) People still ignored them anyway; and

3) The students arrived and an already high prevalence of the virus just shot up. 

I see Andy Burnam's been whining again today. Time to shut the North West down for six weeks. 

[Scary Bear]

8 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

I read that, I'm not entirely sure I believe the veracity of those figures.  I think they are based on a survey of what you would do if asked to isolate.  I'm sure compliance hasn't been 100% but 20% seems low.  I'm sure it's a factor though.

 

20% does seem low but it could be correct. Someone I know has it and so has their whole family. Main issues seem to be - who walks the dog now? Who now buys food for their shielding parents? Can they get an online delivery slot at the supermarket? As the person didn’t feel that bad, although they looked a bit washed out in the video call, they hadn’t even called in sick to work yet. Must be a few more things, but those were the ones they mentioned.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Scary Bear

[Jacksgranda]

On 06/10/2020 at 20:46, invergowrie arab said:

It's 6 quid relief rather than 6 quid.

So, if you pay 20% tax then 1.20 a week and higher rate then 2.40 a week.

That makes more sense re "the decent bottle of whisky" comment.

[LongTimeLurker]

1 hour ago, Donathan said:

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.

...or the R₀ dipped sufficiently with warmer weather and relatively strict lockdown procedures that there was an effective state of herd immunity for a bit. Open things up in colder weather and there needs to be a "second wave" to get to a state of herd immunity again because the R₀ will rise as more opportunities for infection have been provided. Adding extra restrictions without closing down most of the economy and face-to-face education just prolongs that process for a bit. There are examples around the world of countries having their peak unfold slowly during a relatively strict national lockdown because there was no way they could achieve the necessary level of compliance, so even very strict lockdown rules don't necessarily work over the longer term. People who are waiting on a vaccine as if it can happen on demand on a timeline of months rather than years or even decades are being very naive. Could happen if we are very lucky, but it's far from a sure thing and any positive news you hear in that context could easily be a pump and dump share price scam.

Edited October 8, 2020 by LongTimeLurker

[Jacksgranda]

On 06/10/2020 at 21:21, Donathan said:

Does this guy get entered into a raffle every time he says "the virtue signalling middle class left working from home on full pay"?

He should certainly be entered into something...

[vikingTON]

8 hours ago, welshbairn said:

OMG they've closed the pubs! Lock up the over 50's and fat people, and close the schools! (Or make pupils go to school less often so they only share germs on certain days. Or something.)

Having fewer people in an enclosed space is literally the cornerstone of the public health regulations in every other part of society right now champ: the onus is on someone to demonstrate why this isn't necessary for the weans and to explain why they've made a roaring c**t of the outbreak since schools reopened at full capacity since August.

It's also absolutely laughable for you to claim an overreaction to restrictions, given that you and about 30 of your gormless colleagues fired in a misspelled petition!!!111!!! because your beloved Highland League was punted in the bin a few weeks ago.

1 hour ago, Jambomo said:

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. 

 

Why do all or even most vulnerable people 'still need to go out and get food' in 2020, when we have the Internet and massively scaled up delivery services since March? How many GP visits are taking place in person this year?

The message is already clear: to reduce the outbreak and your own risk of infection, it is wise to minimise your contact with others. Shielding the old and vulnerable instead of letting them go on as normal is therefore the most rational and cost-effective way of 'protecting the NHS and saving lives'. Is it going to be a 100% success? Of course not. But what we're doing here is not achieving that outcome either while pointlessly tanking the economy. It's an unsustainable policy that harms everyone to an unnecessary extent and achieves nothing other than providing political cover because of its perceived 'fairness'. That is not how you deal with a global pandemic.

Quote

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. 

Can we get some actual, hard numbers for how many 'a lot' is, how many have a clinically accepted issue and how many of those were not in a vulnerable category? After seven months of anecdotes it's about time that we actually demanded these facts because long-term recovery from a virus is not unique to Covid. 

In any case, that is not the grounds on which the current restrictions are made. If it were then we would be going for a full lockdown and the mythical goal of zero Covid, so it has nothing to do with which restrictions should be imposed while still living with the virus.

Edited October 8, 2020 by vikingTON

[Jambomo]

10 minutes ago, virginton said:

Why do all or even most vulnerable people 'still need to go out and get food' in 2020, when we have the Internet and massively scaled up delivery services since March? How many GP visits are taking place in person this year?

The message is already clear: to reduce the outbreak and your own risk of infection, it is wise to minimise your contact with others. Shielding the old and vulnerable instead of letting them go on as normal is therefore the most rational and cost-effective way of 'protecting the NHS and saving lives'. Is it going to be a 100% success? Of course not. But what we're doing here is not achieving that outcome either while pointlessly tanking the economy. It's an unsustainable policy that harms everyone to an unnecessary extent and achieves nothing other than providing political cover because of its perceived 'fairness'. That is not how you deal with a global pandemic.

Can we get some actual, hard numbers for how many 'a lot' is, how many have a clinically accepted issue and how many of those were not in a vulnerable category? After seven months of anecdotes it's about time that we actually demanded these facts because long-term recovery from a virus is not unique to Covid. 

In any case, that is not the grounds on which the current restrictions are made. If it were then we would be going for a full lockdown and the mythical goal of zero Covid, so it has nothing to do with which restrictions should be imposed while still living with the virus.

The point was that if you increase the instance of the disease in society then it massively increases the likelihood of those delivery people carrying it and potentially passing it on when delivering etc. Likewise care assistants in care homes etc. The PPE and hand washing measures aren’t some magic barrier that prevents it spreading, they can restrict it but it’s unlikely that it will completely prevent any spread.

I posted it earlier, I saw this at work the other day so there may be other studies out there now with other figures. The key one for me was the study showing out of 100 cases, 78 having abnormal MRI scans. I think that could potentially be significant. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30701-5

I don’t get what point you are trying to make with you last comment. The restrictions are on the grounds of trying to prevent the spread of the virus. For all reasons, not just so people don’t die. We are currently living with the virus so it has everything to do with it.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Jambomo

[Marshmallo]

 

[Detournement]

That guy has his marathon PB in his Twitter bio so he should be ignored imo

Edited October 8, 2020 by Detournement

[mizfit]

[Aufc]

Please explain.

What is not clear?

[Jacksgranda]

 

On 07/10/2020 at 08:47, LongTimeLurker said:

Maybe you are encountering people who have taken the time to do some reading 

 

On 07/10/2020 at 08:51, Highland Capital said:

 

No, this came from someone whom I reckon gets most of their news off Facebook...

Maybe the guy who posted on Facebook took the time to do some reading...

[Marshmallo]

Is this one of the AV GOAT TWO WEANS mob from here?

 

[101]

1 hour 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

Aye because locking up the most vulnerable and marginalised in society will improve their mental health no end.

You can save every job. Westminster could easily save every job nonsense to suggest otherwise. It's a political decision they have decided that every job isn't worth saving and it's their job to make that decision.

[ICTChris]

[Jacksgranda]

22 hours ago, ICTChris said:

I know it's Guido and everyone hates him but he's reporting that all pubs and bars will shut, cafes and restaurants can't serv alcohol, all indoor attractions to shut (not sure what that means) and holiday accomodation will stay open.  From the 10th to the 26th - it will be lifted outside the Central Belt then but only reviewed in the Central Belt.

Why specifically exclude alcohol sales?  Are people getting smashed and licking each other to give them the 'Rona?

No swingers parties.

[Wee Willie]

12 hours ago, MixuFruit said:

See how covid is a blood disease how come they do the swabs of your tonsils and not a blood test?

I got my tonsils removed in 1948.

Is that me fcuked?