Jump to content
Fuzzar

Corona Virus main thread

Recommended Posts

Can I suggest just the one? They're spreading like wildfire.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd agree otherwise, but since it is likely that there aren't many other topics to discuss in the future - and it could be a while - there may not be need for it. The pandemic is simply too big an issue to talk about in one thread. Good posts and information just gets buried, because people don't read more than a page or two back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Van wink said:

There will be many more threads in a few weeks

They will decline as we die off🤧💀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fuzzar said:

Can I suggest just the one? They're spreading like wildfire.

That's the nature of viruses

Perhaps you should self isolate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fuzzar said:

Can I suggest just the one? They're spreading like wildfire.

I don't think there's going to be too much else to discuss over the next few months so may as well allow for multiple threads enabling more specific thread titles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

What I can't understand is that government scientists are saying they want a herd immunity (hence the strategy to let the spread of infection simply increase but hopefully gradually). Herd immunity equates to 60% getting the infection (and of course recovering) according to sources and today's R4. In some ways therefore, since reportedly 80% of folk experience mild symptoms, the logic is that we should catch this now and not take evasive measures at all (save for the elderly and vulnerable)? Otherwise, logic appears to indicate we might take / postpone a peak right through to the end of 2020 if folk are self-isolating. Any other alternative takes on this?

Edited by sonyc
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sonyc said:

What I can't understand is that government scientists are saying they want a herd immunity (hence the strategy to let the spread of infection simply increase but hopefully gradually). Herd immunity equates to 60% getting the infection (and of course recovering) according to sources and today's R4. In some ways therefore, since reportedly 80% of folk experience mild symptoms, the logic is that we should catch this now and not take evasive measures at all (save for the elderly and vulnerable)? Otherwise, logic appears to indicate we might take / postpone a peak right through to the end of 2020 if folk are self-isolating. Any other alternative takes on this?

Because a flood of cases would overwhelm hospitals. The CMO said no country in the world could cope with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ricardo said:

Because a flood of cases would overwhelm hospitals. The CMO said no country in the world could cope with that.

But they wouldn't though would they? That's my point Ricardo. They would stay inside having caught the infection and not attend hospital.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, sonyc said:

What I can't understand is that government scientists are saying they want a herd immunity (hence the strategy to let the spread of infection simply increase but hopefully gradually). Herd immunity equates to 60% getting the infection (and of course recovering) according to sources and today's R4. In some ways therefore, since reportedly 80% of folk experience mild symptoms, the logic is that we should catch this now and not take evasive measures at all (save for the elderly and vulnerable)? Otherwise, logic appears to indicate we might take / postpone a peak right through to the end of 2020 if folk are self-isolating. Any other alternative takes on this?

I think it's really a numbers game sonyc. There are about 65 million people in the UK. If 20% of them have the virus at the same time that's 13 million people. If 1% of those 13 million people die that's 130,000 people dying earlier than they otherwise would. If 20% of people experience serious symptoms and need hospital treatment that's 2.6 million people needing a hospital bed.

Clearly those sorts of numbers are simply untenable - so doing everything possible to slow the spread of the virus and even out the rate at which people catch it is a necessity. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sonyc said:

But they wouldn't though would they? That's my point Ricardo. They would stay inside having caught the infection and not attend hospital.

Those who are seriously ill would need to go to hospital. It's those numbers they are trying to keep down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hillhead said:

Those who are seriously ill would need to go to hospital. It's those numbers they are trying to keep down.

Yep. That is my point. Only the seriously ill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sonyc said:

Yep. That is my point. Only the seriously ill. 

Yes. So keeping that number lower but sustained over a longer period of time is better than having many more seriously ill at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sonyc said:

But they wouldn't though would they? That's my point Ricardo. They would stay inside having caught the infection and not attend hospital.

Look at the figures, 20 percent require hospitalisation, 5 percent critical.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

I think it's really a numbers game sonyc. There are about 65 million people in the UK. If 20% of them have the virus at the same time that's 13 million people. If 1% of those 13 million people die that's 130,000 people dying earlier than they otherwise would. If 20% of people experience serious symptoms and need hospital treatment that's 2.6 million people needing a hospital bed.

Clearly those sorts of numbers are simply untenable - so doing everything possible to slow the spread of the virus and even out the rate at which people catch it is a necessity. 

Yes, I can see that Thirsty. They want to "flatten the sombrero". 

The scientists seem to be talking about future pandemics too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Hillhead said:

Yes. So keeping that number lower but sustained over a longer period of time is better than having many more seriously ill at the same time.

Sustaining it over a long period of time means people falling ill over a long period of time. Therefore you can't  suspend the season for a month and think it will then be ok to restart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hillhead said:

Yes. So keeping that number lower but sustained over a longer period of time is better than having many more seriously ill at the same time.

Yes I get that Hillhead. It means greater numbers overall though? As stated you would hope to flatten the curve but  extend the numbers in so doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Sustaining it over a long period of time means people falling ill over a long period of time. Therefore you can't  suspend the season for a month and think it will then be ok to restart.

I don't expect that. My replies to sonyc were only concerning the virus, not the football. I think the season is gone now.

14 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Yes I get that Hillhead. It means greater numbers overall though? As stated you would hope to flatten the curve but  extend the numbers in so doing?

My apologies I now realise what you mean. I'm not sure in what scenario more would end up with the virus but I do think it peaking more massively will be devastating. In truth I don't even think the government know whats best right now.

Edited by Hillhead
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big unknown is the mortality rate. 

It's quite possible millions of people are exhibiting no symptoms, or insignificant ones. 

What's certain is that the sick & elderly are by far the most at risk. As one advisor said last night, we need to wrap them in cotton wool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Everton, Watford and Bournemouth now self isolating 

Edited by JF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ron obvious said:

The big unknown is the mortality rate. 

It's quite possible millions of people are exhibiting no symptoms, or insignificant ones. 

What's certain is that the sick & elderly are by far the most at risk. As one advisor said last night, we need to wrap them in cotton wool.

The cotton wool shelves are empty.

Much like bog rolls😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several Watford players have been ill for a few days. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see the rest of the season being written off.....quite how they'll handle that in terms of legal issues is another thing.

Some people are requesting this season be null and void and start again next season....that could potentially cripple the EFL in terms of financial implications.

Let's hope sensible heads prevail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...