Corona Virus main thread

[sonyc 5,491]

1 hour ago, Ramrod said:

Please read this. 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/The-evidence-on-Covid-19-is-not-as-clear-as-we-think

That is a decent read and offers some juxtaposition of scientific opinion / different perspective to the prevailing media reporting of this, thank you.

I wonder which science Sweden are following. I noted they are sceptical of Imperial College (rather than dismissive). It's a country too with lots of trust between government and its people.

[Ramrod 258]

25 minutes ago, Bill said:

China is a capitalist state.Look up what capitalism means and you will see.

What it is doing is no different to the expansionist Great Britain of the 19th century. Plundering the world for raw materials for a cowed workforce to turn them into goods to be sold around the world. The US did the same at the turn of that century onward. For China's police state look up the Pinkerton agency and the IWW.

Look up how resistance to such explotation in China is lauded here, but villified here when it is by our own people. How the Sun and Tory MPs reacted to a vote to defeat a pay rise for nurses.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/18339251.watch-tory-mps-cheer-blocking-pay-rise-nhs-nurses/

but never mind, they did stand on their doorsteps and clap

As I said earlier, until folks want to educate themselves little will change.........even the delusion that China is 'communist'

I can see your points as to comparisons of expansionist empires and China is doing just that. 

The difference is the sheer scale. 

But the government is Marxist. They  use capitalism to expand and exploit their own people to do so. 

We need to pay more and have less with more goods made in the UK and no sharing of knowledge. 

There was no Google or Facebook in China because China insists on shared information from companies it hosts. 

Companies like Apple and Tesla need reigning in. Like him it not, Trump might be the only leader willing to confront China. 

[Ramrod 258]

12 minutes ago, sonyc said:

That is a decent read and offers some juxtaposition of scientific opinion / different perspective to the prevailing media reporting of this, thank you.

I wonder which science Sweden are following. I noted they are sceptical of Imperial College (rather than dismissive). It's a country too with lots of trust between government and its people.

I was amused by the comment that Swedes already do social distancing better than anyone else. 

[Branston Pickle 3,635]

Just now, Ramrod said:

I was amused by the comment that Swedes already do social distancing better than anyone else. 

More than 50% of Swedes live alone, so there’s an inherent degree of social distancing built in to their society.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,155]

17 minutes ago, sonyc said:

That is a decent read and offers some juxtaposition of scientific opinion / different perspective to the prevailing media reporting of this, thank you.

I wonder which science Sweden are following. I noted they are sceptical of Imperial College (rather than dismissive). It's a country too with lots of trust between government and its people.

There is one massively important point that article completely overlooks. The death rate from Covid 19 would be much higher if it wasn't possible to treat the worst affected with ventilators. That's why governments all round the world are scrambling to get as many ventilators as possible. 

[Branston Pickle 3,635]

15 minutes ago, sonyc said:

That is a decent read and offers some juxtaposition of scientific opinion / different perspective to the prevailing media reporting of this, thank you.

I wonder which science Sweden are following. I noted they are sceptical of Imperial College (rather than dismissive). It's a country too with lots of trust between government and its people.

That article is ok, but does rather go on too long making what is pretty much the same point over and over.  And this isn’t purely about the death rates, there’s the survivors who may have longer term effects. I’m not overly sure what he thinks should be done instead of what is happening. 

The thing is most governments and seasoned professionals in the health industry are extremely concerned, so perhaps it’s better to listen to them if there’s any doubt. I guess one point is whether you consider all lives to be equal and the vulnerable population worth trying to save - in any civilised society that has to be ‘yes’.

[sonyc 5,491]

Yeah, thanks Thirsty. And 55% are saved through supportive ventilation. It's clearly a nasty disease. Yet it's the different way of looking at the science that's interesting. I like to keep an open mind though I am of course influenced by some writers more than others. 

Edited March 29, 2020 by sonyc
Spelling

[Yellow Fever 3,747]

6 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

The thing is most governments and seasoned professionals in the health industry are extremely concerned, so perhaps it’s better to listen to them if there’s any doubt. I guess one point is whether you consider all lives to be equal and the vulnerable population worth trying to save - in any civilised society that has to be ‘yes’.

Yes I think that is right. In any civilised society you have to try to save the  vulnerable even if that is from their own ignorance.

Thst said, you can not save everybody at any cost and so once the pandemic is under control there will be a  controlled loosening of the current restrictions.

Edited March 29, 2020 by Yellow Fever

[sonyc 5,491]

2 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

That article is ok, but does rather go on too long making what is pretty much the same point over and over.  And this isn’t purely about the death rates, there’s the survivors who may have longer term effects. I’m not overly sure what he thinks should be done instead of what is happening. 

The thing is most governments and seasoned professionals in the health industry are extremely concerned, so perhaps it’s better to listen to them if there’s any doubt. I guess one point is whether you consider all lives to be equal and the vulnerable population worth trying to save - in any civilised society that has to be ‘yes’.

He intimates that distancing needs to continue but casts doubt on the cause and the way it's reported. It's simply a different view. I'm not saying I agree or disagree.

Agree with you that anyone needs to be saved. My mother died in mid January. She was cared for in a nursing home for just over a year despite her increasing frailty. All lives are important. Our caring services are special, noble even.

[Bill 1,788]

1 hour ago, Ramrod said:

But the government is Marxist.

That really is as absurd as it is ignorant

Have you read ANYTHING by Marx.... clearly not

You are just bandying words about without the slightest idea of their meaning

[T 190]

8 hours ago, Harry53 said:

A vaccine is unlikely to be ready until next year and by that time the flu virus will possibly mutate into something new!!

This is the common agreed view. The question is what we do in the meantime 

[T 190]

9 hours ago, Ramrod said:

Please read this. 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/The-evidence-on-Covid-19-is-not-as-clear-as-we-think

In simpler terms the usual average Daily death rate in UK is 1800 a day so that is the benchmark. However a cautious approach until we build treatment and testing capacity makes sense. Still more people expected to die from heart disease in the US figures reported yesterday yet still an epidemic of overweight people taking no action. Perspective and a balanced approach is required. 

[dylanisabaddog 4,867]

4 minutes ago, T said:

In simpler terms the usual average Daily death rate in UK is 1800 a day so that is the benchmark. However a cautious approach until we build treatment and testing capacity makes sense. Still more people expected to die from heart disease in the US figures reported yesterday yet still an epidemic of overweight people taking no action. Perspective and a balanced approach is required. 

I think you're missing the point. If no action was taken this virus would kill 40 million people around the world based on a 60%/1% model. 

[Aggy 752]

7 hours ago, Branston Pickle said:

That article is ok, but does rather go on too long making what is pretty much the same point over and over.  And this isn’t purely about the death rates, there’s the survivors who may have longer term effects. I’m not overly sure what he thinks should be done instead of what is happening. 

The thing is most governments and seasoned professionals in the health industry are extremely concerned, so perhaps it’s better to listen to them if there’s any doubt. I guess one point is whether you consider all lives to be equal and the vulnerable population worth trying to save - in any civilised society that has to be ‘yes’.

Of course the vulnerable population is worth saving. That isn’t the debate. The point is that if there is a full blown lockdown for fifteen months (which I don’t think there will be, but am making the point), then you will create many more vulnerable people whose lives you’re ‘sacrificing’ (to quote an earlier poster) for another group of people.

It absolutely isn’t possible for the government to save absolutely every life all the time. But they should of course try to minimise deaths across the board. We haven’t banned cars despite them killing thousands a year (one reason being the economic impact of such a ban would kill many more), but it is now illegal not to wear a seatbelt. 

While the government can subsidise everybody to the tune of £2,500 a month, the plan to minimise the impact on the NHS and save lives in doing so is absolutely the right thing to do. The government can’t afford to pay that every month for a year and a half though - if the lockdown continued for that long, there would be thousands (perhaps more) who will die from starvation, malnutrition and homelessness. Are they worth trying to save?

It isn’t lives vs money, it is, as the article says, lives vs lives.

Interesting point in the article - I don’t know how accurate it is when it makes the point about many deaths “from” flu being recorded as pneumonia (for instance). Someone earlier in this thread said we aren’t differentiating between people dying “from” coronavirus and “with” coronavirus. 

[T 190]

38 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I think you're missing the point. If no action was taken this virus would kill 40 million people around the world based on a 60%/1% model. 

Im not sure I am as I fully support and am complying with the action taken. However 1pc of the population die every year in any case and we will not fully understand what we are really dealing with until the planned more widespread antibody testing is undertaken. The questions are how many people are getting this with no or mild issues and to what extent is this causing excess deaths above those that would die due to other conditions in any case. I think we should be taking action until we understand better in the next few months. However finding answers to these questions in the next few months will help guide the level of restrictions.
 

Healthy lifestyle will still have more impact on length and quality of life yet the majority ignore this advice.

Some context and perspective are required also considering the impact on people’s mental health, quality of life, physical health and economic impacts. Mass unemployment and depression are also a danger to society which have to be considered. A lot of people are also worried about unemployment for instance and these factors also need to be considered. 

Edited March 30, 2020 by T

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

10 hours ago, Aggy said:

So if there’s a 12-15 month lockdown, how many will die from starvation (because they can’t afford food and /or because we’ve run out as there’s no one left producing it)? How many will be made homeless and die from complications living on the street?

I've no idea and I've also made it pretty clear I don't want that sort of lockdown.

But unfortunately Boris's stupidity and prevarication means that we are now in a situation where a brief (i.e. the 2-3 weeks that some people are asking for) lockdown is just not going to stop or even drastically slow down the virus, especially when we're still not doing anything like the volume of testing that is required.

If Boris had done what he should have done at the right time, i.e. intensive testing and tracing right from the start and then lockdown earlier if that failed the contain the virus, then we might by now already be looking at easing the restrictions.

But we are where we are and are now looking at a lockdown of months rather than weeks. Hopefully not too many months though those same experts that you referred to originally are now saying it could be up to six.

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

9 hours ago, Harry53 said:

A vaccine is unlikely to be ready until next year and by that time the flu virus will possibly mutate into something new!!

Think you're right about the timing but I believe the evidence so far (such as it is!) is that this virus is much more stable than, for example, flu and therefore once we have a vaccine it may well be effective for several years.

[T 190]

16 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

I've no idea and I've also made it pretty clear I don't want that sort of lockdown.

But unfortunately Boris's stupidity and prevarication means that we are now in a situation where a brief (i.e. the 2-3 weeks that some people are asking for) lockdown is just not going to stop or even drastically slow down the virus, especially when we're still not doing anything like the volume of testing that is required.

If Boris had done what he should have done at the right time, i.e. intensive testing and tracing right from the start and then lockdown earlier if that failed the contain the virus, then we might by now already be looking at easing the restrictions.

But we are where we are and are now looking at a lockdown of months rather than weeks. Hopefully not too many months though those same experts that you referred to originally are now saying it could be up to six.

The UK simple didn’t have the testing capacity of say S Korea and Germany so was not an option. I suspect we will move to a S Korea model once testing capacity increased.
 

From discussions with government sources we expect restrictions of a few months to a year with a central case of economic recovery starting in the last quarter of the year. 

[Aggy 752]

23 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

I've no idea and I've also made it pretty clear I don't want that sort of lockdown.

But unfortunately Boris's stupidity and prevarication means that we are now in a situation where a brief (i.e. the 2-3 weeks that some people are asking for) lockdown is just not going to stop or even drastically slow down the virus, especially when we're still not doing anything like the volume of testing that is required.

If Boris had done what he should have done at the right time, i.e. intensive testing and tracing right from the start and then lockdown earlier if that failed the contain the virus, then we might by now already be looking at easing the restrictions.

But we are where we are and are now looking at a lockdown of months rather than weeks. Hopefully not too many months though those same experts that you referred to originally are now saying it could be up to six.

How are the stats in other countries? As far as I can tell (and I have to say I’ve rather given up reviewing the stats on a daily basis as they don’t do much but depress) the stats aren’t massively different anywhere. Yes Boris could have done x, y and z, but when the stats are roughly the same (and following similar ‘trends’) pretty much everywhere I’m not so sure that any one course of action would have made a massive difference.

Ive heard (admittedly on Facebook) that the number of cremations in Wuhan in March jumped significantly more than the number of reported deaths by corona - suggesting the figures from China may not be as reported. 

[ricardo 7,345]

Sky News

 

✔ @SkyNews

 

 

BREAKING: The government's regulatory body has approved a breathing aid that can help keep #coronavirus patients out of intensive care.

It's been developed by a team from University College London and the Mercedes Formula One team.

Latest: http://trib.al/kZnSfmB 

 

 

370

8:13 AM - Mar 30, 2020

 

Have just seen it demonstrated on BBC News, apparently they can produce it very quickly and in large quantities.

Edited March 30, 2020 by ricardo

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

6 minutes ago, T said:

The UK simple didn’t have the testing capacity of say S Korea and Germany so was not an option. I suspect we will move to a S Korea model once testing capacity increased.

The NHS didn't have the resources it should have had at the outset, that much is clear and obvious but it doesn't explain the two month delay in attempting to increase its capacity, or indeed source other very basic essentials such as PPE for health workers.

Whether this government announced a totally flawed strategy\response to this crisis through sheer incompetence or in an attempt to hide their culpability for the unpreparedness of the NHS I don't suppose we'll ever know and at the moment it scarely matters but the fact remains that we are in a much worse situation than we might have been had the right decisions been taken at the right time.

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

19 minutes ago, Aggy said:

How are the stats in other countries? As far as I can tell (and I have to say I’ve rather given up reviewing the stats on a daily basis as they don’t do much but depress) the stats aren’t massively different anywhere. Yes Boris could have done x, y and z, but when the stats are roughly the same (and following similar ‘trends’) pretty much everywhere I’m not so sure that any one course of action would have made a massive difference.

Ive heard (admittedly on Facebook) that the number of cremations in Wuhan in March jumped significantly more than the number of reported deaths by corona - suggesting the figures from China may not be as reported. 

I wouldn't put too much confidence in any countries' stats but given the amount of data that China has made available I would think theirs are as good, or better, than most.

If you look for comparisons with other countries then I think you can probably find at least one country to prove almost any point of view but certainly there are those have performed much better or much worse than us, and there are plenty that look similar.

All I would say is that as an island country with controlled borders, a high quality (though seriously under-resourced) health system and ample warning we should have been in the very good performing category if the government had taken timely, intelligent decisions and unfortunately we're not.

Edited March 30, 2020 by Creative Midfielder

[T 190]

For sure but this was a new and developing situation with new information coming all the time and still not enough info to assess this until more widespread antigen and anti body testing is available. . We are all brilliant with hindsight and This is proving to be horrible everywhere. 

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

16 minutes ago, T said:

For sure but this was a new and developing situation with new information coming all the time and still not enough info to assess this until more widespread antigen and anti body testing is available. . We are all brilliant with hindsight and This is proving to be horrible everywhere. 

Sorry T but this is getting very tedious, there is no hindsight involved here and if you don't believe me then perhaps you should take a took at the Lancet and what they said in January and since.

The idea that this government has followed the best expert advice available is a total fiction, they ignored most of the experts and took a gamble on minimising the economic impact - that gamble has totally backfired!

[Van wink 2,994]

From Andrew Neil, something we all should remember!

”Sad story from Germany: finance minister of the German state of Hesse, Thomas Schäfer, committed suicide because he had become “deeply worried” over how to cope with the economic fallout. We should not forget or lightly dismiss the huge strain on those currently governing us.”

[Indy 3,283]

15 minutes ago, Van wink said:

From Andrew Neil, something we all should remember!

”Sad story from Germany: finance minister of the German state of Hesse, Thomas Schäfer, committed suicide because he had become “deeply worried” over how to cope with the economic fallout. We should not forget or lightly dismiss the huge strain on those currently governing us.”

I’ve said this from day one, as sad as this disease is this mass togetherness will soon lead to long term isolation depression, financial worries for millions and lot worse statistics without a strategic plan to  come out of this. Like tunnel vision pilots get and focus on one issue while missing the overall pictured leading to a crash. The entire situation needs to be assessed and reacted to. Those fit enough and those coming out of this need to be allowed to return to normality and as soon as feasible, those at high risk must be cared for too.

[ron obvious 1,499]

Unbelievably, the research appears to bear this out:

Andrew Neil

 

@afneil

·

8m

 

Things the virus highlights: Greenland bans sale of alcohol in Nuuk, the capital — aimed at reducing violence against children in their homes now that schools are closed because of covid-19. A third of Greenlanders suffered sexual abuse as a child.

[Aggy 752]

1 hour ago, Creative Midfielder said:

.

If you look for comparisons with other countries then I think you can probably find at least one country to prove almost any point of view but certainly there are those have performed much better or much worse than us, and there are plenty that look similar.

 

So there are stats that work both ways and you’re choosing the ones that make the government look bad. 😉 

I’d also say we simply don’t know whether we’ll end up “looking worse” than others. There are multiple things the government had to take into account - going on a lockdown a month long her might have saved 1000 more lives, but it might have cost more than that because the lockdown was lasting longer, more people unemployed etc. etc. 

[Aggy 752]

29 minutes ago, Van wink said:

From Andrew Neil, something we all should remember!

”Sad story from Germany: finance minister of the German state of Hesse, Thomas Schäfer, committed suicide because he had become “deeply worried” over how to cope with the economic fallout. We should not forget or lightly dismiss the huge strain on those currently governing us.”

Very sad. There will be millions of people worldwide with similar financial worries currently  (albeit on a smaller scale than someone governing a state/country). 

[Van wink 2,994]

6 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Very sad. There will be millions of people worldwide with similar financial worries currently  (albeit on a smaller scale than someone governing a state/country). 

Mental health issues and other morbidity, domestic violence, abuse within the family etc will undoubtedly be factors which carry weight when a strategy for reintegration is decided upon, at the moment we are in what you could call an acute stage of the pandemic and we are single focused, but as the curve drops back many more factors come in to play as more difficult judgements emerge. One thing is for sure, whatever strategy we adopt it will be used to attack the government.