Corona Virus main thread

[SHRIMPER 328]

Take a screenshot of the graphs is one way round it.

[sonyc 5,492]

2 hours ago, SHRIMPER said:

Take a screenshot of the graphs is one way round it.

Thank you Shrimper.

Here are are those charts!

 

Edited August 24, 2020 by sonyc

[ricardo 7,347]

All indicators still in decline

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

[Van wink 2,994]

20 minutes ago, ricardo said:

All indicators still in decline

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

It’s good to see the U.K. doing so well atm Ricardo. The current  figures don’t change my pessimistic view for the coming months but as things stand we all should be feeling reassured that what we are doing is being effective.

One obvious fear is that sensible people take the wrong message from this and start to take precautions less seriously. Hopefully they won’t and the  clowns that put us all at risk by failing to follow guidance will continue to be In the minority.

 

[sonyc 5,492]

The West Midlands police today have expressed their amazement at people seemingly being almost disinterested that we are in the midst of a pandemic. Some scathing comments about younger people in Birmingham not socially distancing etc. It feels clear to me who are the vectors.

Hopefully the older and more vulnerable are better protected though now than in April. But I think you're right to be concerned VW.

[Van wink 2,994]

30 minutes ago, sonyc said:

The West Midlands police today have expressed their amazement at people seemingly being almost disinterested that we are in the midst of a pandemic. Some scathing comments about younger people in Birmingham not socially distancing etc. It feels clear to me who are the vectors.

Hopefully the older and more vulnerable are better protected though now than in April. But I think you're right to be concerned VW.

Yep, have you got a new dog.

[Aggy 752]

44 minutes ago, sonyc said:

The West Midlands police today have expressed their amazement at people seemingly being almost disinterested that we are in the midst of a pandemic. Some scathing comments about younger people in Birmingham not socially distancing etc. It feels clear to me who are the vectors.

Hopefully the older and more vulnerable are better protected though now than in April. But I think you're right to be concerned VW.

Highly likely there were always this many cases amongst younger people, we just didn’t know about them until the testing increased. My guess is that before lockdown there were huge numbers amongst 20-50 year olds but we only got to know about those in hospital.
 

If that many youngsters have always had it, and the deaths remain this low, it makes clear sense to me that younger people continue to get on with it and more vulnerable and elderly are forced to shield. Some on here might moan because it’s elderly people having their “civil liberties” removed rather than youngsters, but seems obvious to me!

[sonyc 5,492]

37 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Highly likely there were always this many cases amongst younger people, we just didn’t know about them until the testing increased. My guess is that before lockdown there were huge numbers amongst 20-50 year olds but we only got to know about those in hospital.
 

If that many youngsters have always had it, and the deaths remain this low, it makes clear sense to me that younger people continue to get on with it and more vulnerable and elderly are forced to shield. Some on here might moan because it’s elderly people having their “civil liberties” removed rather than youngsters, but seems obvious to me!

Looking at that age distribution graph posted earlier Aggy (need to click on it to increase clarity and size as I had to screenshot from a PDF) you can see the 'fatter' bar graph of younger people (20s, 30s and 40s) in June/July than in the January to May period. It makes sense then that numbers have slightly increased because younger folk want to be out (pubs, sport etc) more and congregate. Therefore as you've intimated, they're getting on with life. Maybe they feel they are more immune or willing to take their chances (as if it's a form of the flu). 

 

[sonyc 5,492]

1 hour ago, Van wink said:

Yep, have you got a new dog.

Same dog (Snowy) ....just an updated photo I had on my phone (yearly haircut).... shows more of her.

Edited August 24, 2020 by sonyc

[Aggy 752]

2 hours ago, sonyc said:

Looking at that age distribution graph posted earlier Aggy (need to click on it to increase clarity and size as I had to screenshot from a PDF) you can see the 'fatter' bar graph of younger people (20s, 30s and 40s) in June/July than in the January to May period. It makes sense then that numbers have slightly increased because younger folk want to be out (pubs, sport etc) more and congregate. Therefore as you've intimated, they're getting on with life. Maybe they feel they are more immune or willing to take their chances (as if it's a form of the flu). 

 

Doesn’t account for increased and widened testing though, which is the problem with all these sorts of graphs. Until probably mid July, the large majority of tests were done on elderly more vulnerable people in hospitals and care home - we didn’t (and realistically still don’t) have a clue how many younger people had it then because they weren’t ill enough to get tests.

Person I work with in her early fifties, lives with husband, her three uni /sixth form aged kids and two of the kids’ partners. Earlier this month they were out for a meal, one of them couldn’t taste much. In January, you just think the restaurant’s not very good. In August you know it’s a symptom, get tested and they all had it! That’s five “youngsters” and two more “fairly young -sters” who are recorded in the stats now but wouldn’t have been in January, or even May/June time when it was still only really those admitted to hospital / care homes getting tested (ie predominantly older people).

My guess is that, if we had done the same amount of testing from January to now and tests had been as readily available for the general population throughout that period, what you’d see is that before lockdown there were high levels of infection in all age groups, high levels of hospital admissions and deaths predominantly in the elderly.  During lockdown the number of infections reduced in all age groups, number of hospital admissions and deaths in elderly reduced. After restrictions eased but “shielding” largely  continued, you see increasing infections in youngsters, no rise in deaths/hospital admissions in the elderly. 

The only way I see deaths going back up again at any significant level is if the elderly and vulnerable start mixing freely and not taking adequate precautions. Should we restrict “youngsters” to keep the number of infections down - well, yes, because then it reduces the potential to spread to the vulnerable, but the far more proportionate way of dealing with it is to keep vulnerable people “shielding”, rather than have the whole country “shielding” when the large majority of the population don’t need to.

That’s why we won’t end up with full lockdown again - smaller measures such as restricting the size of gatherings of “youngsters” plus, if necessary, more stringent “shielding” measures for the vulnerable. That would do as good a job as “full lockdown” in terms of avoiding deaths but with nowhere near the same level of damage to the large majority of the population...

Bit ramble-y, apologies!

Edited August 24, 2020 by Aggy

[Van wink 2,994]

 

[sonyc 5,492]

That is a long reply but a very measured response @Aggy and I have to agree with all of it. Makes perfect sense and logic. The corollary of course is that the more vulnerable and aged sections in our communities have to be 'shielded' and/or protect themselves or take a huge risk. Whilst I'm hopeful of a vaccine (other thread) it may still practically be 2021 before it rolls out. Whitty, I sense, knows quite well we are heading for more dangerous waters with his comments yesterday. There are going to be lots of local lockdowns. If those dreaded death rates can remain very low it will be welcome.

Agree very strongly that there are other health dangers (your quote "level of damage" covers that and the economy) and systemic problems for which the health service must regain a focus.

Scientists are still studying this and I'm more hopeful we will learn more about transmission and treatments in the next two / three months that facilitates better understanding...creating a breakthrough of sorts.

[Bill 1,788]

1 hour ago, Aggy said:

Doesn’t account for increased and widened testing though, which is the problem with all these sorts of graphs. Until probably mid July, the large majority of tests were done on elderly more vulnerable people in hospitals and care home - we didn’t (and realistically still don’t) have a clue how many younger people had it then because they weren’t ill enough to get tests.

Excellent post, as the above bit points out

We have the numpties gazing at tea leaves, chickens entrails and all manner of nonsensical numbers as if they are if they are any more that varied numbers,

there is nothing that could be called a control to set these numbers against

Precautions are pretty much non existent. Some people put on a face mask before they enter a shop, as many don't. Hand sanitising is as much adhered to as wiping your feet before you go into the shop.

People are walking about and socialising as before the virus,

Now whether those a good or bad things that is not the relevance here,

If there are such a wide range of behaviours then it will almost be impossible to correctly identify what is the cause in any increase or decrease of deaths or infections - other than the fair certainty that it is not some following the advice that is causing any decrease, as that advice is in the main being ignored,

What is needed is correct information - not superstition and astrological mumbo jumbo peddled by the gullible,

[Rock The Boat 1,325]

1 hour ago, Aggy said:

Doesn’t account for increased and widened testing though, which is the problem with all these sorts of graphs. Until probably mid July, the large majority of tests were done on elderly more vulnerable people in hospitals and care home - we didn’t (and realistically still don’t) have a clue how many younger people had it then because they weren’t ill enough to get tests.

Person I work with in her early fifties, lives with husband, her three uni /sixth form aged kids and two of the kids’ partners. Earlier this month they were out for a meal, one of them couldn’t taste much. In January, you just think the restaurant’s not very good. In August you know it’s a symptom, get tested and they all had it! That’s five “youngsters” and two more “fairly young -sters” who are recorded in the stats now but wouldn’t have been in January, or even May/June time when it was still only really those admitted to hospital / care homes getting tested (ie predominantly older people).

My guess is that, if we had done the same amount of testing from January to now and tests had been as readily available for the general population throughout that period, what you’d see is that before lockdown there were high levels of infection in all age groups, high levels of hospital admissions and deaths predominantly in the elderly.  During lockdown the number of infections reduced in all age groups, number of hospital admissions and deaths in elderly reduced. After restrictions eased but “shielding” largely  continued, you see increasing infections in youngsters, no rise in deaths/hospital admissions in the elderly. 

The only way I see deaths going back up again at any significant level is if the elderly and vulnerable start mixing freely and not taking adequate precautions. Should we restrict “youngsters” to keep the number of infections down - well, yes, because then it reduces the potential to spread to the vulnerable, but the far more proportionate way of dealing with it is to keep vulnerable people “shielding”, rather than have the whole country “shielding” when the large majority of the population don’t need to.

That’s why we won’t end up with full lockdown again - smaller measures such as restricting the size of gatherings of “youngsters” plus, if necessary, more stringent “shielding” measures for the vulnerable. That would do as good a job as “full lockdown” in terms of avoiding deaths but with nowhere near the same level of damage to the large majority of the population...

Bit ramble-y, apologies!

Young people out socialising is a good thing. They won't die and they will build up herd immunity. The trick is to keep them separate from the elderly, who need to continue to shield. Fortunately most elderly have that bit extra common sense and will behave responsibly. If they don't it's their lookout.

[ricardo 7,347]

U.K. positives still well below 1% of those tested.

France, Spain and Italy now finding a much higher percentage

Some countries e.g. France have only been testing at half our rate.

 

[ricardo 7,347]

[Yellow Fever 3,747]

 

12 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

Young people out socialising is a good thing. They won't die and they will build up herd immunity. The trick is to keep them separate from the elderly, who need to continue to shield. Fortunately most elderly have that bit extra common sense and will behave responsibly. If they don't it's their lookout.

Whereas I agree a balance has to be struck between the generations (we can't prioritize the elderly over the young for very long) we should however be cautious in assuming the 'young' by I mean 20 to 40s may not also be damaged in some longer term way by Covid. We know already that it affects many organs including the brain and nervous systems and we have little to zero long term data on other effects. Those that don't care may yet win the ultimate Darwin prize!  It's really what the vaccine safety is all about - looking for 'side' effects and stopping down the line huge class actions!

[Van wink 2,994]

5 hours ago, ricardo said:

U.K. positives still well below 1% of those tested.

France, Spain and Italy now finding a much higher percentage

Some countries e.g. France have only been testing at half our rate.

 

The level of testing in the U.K. now is to be applauded and will undoubtedly be assisting.

[wooster 134]

A study by the health authorities in the Östergötland region of south-eastern Sweden aims to answer the question. It covers 122 people who died outside a hospital setting – either at home or in accommodation for the elderly – and whose deaths were attributed to Covid-19. Half of this group were aged over 88. Of the 122, 111 were judged to have extensive comorbidities and 11 had moderate comorbitities. Not one of those who died, in other words, was in good health. In only 15 per cent of cases was Covid-19 judged to be the direct cause of death. In 70 per cent of cases Covid-19 was a contributory cause and in the remaining 15 per cent death was judged to have been caused by another underlying cause – most often heart disease.

[Bill 1,788]

Put simply, the virus caused the body's immune system to react in a way that body could not cope with - as with autumn 1918

Id that is the case then no amount of staring at tea leaves or wearing fancy dress is really going to deal with that, other than extreme shielding for those whose health makes them vulnerable.

Something I think has long been known, but due to cost and logistical factors, has not been publicly acknowledged

[Van wink 2,994]

1 hour ago, Bill said:

Put simply, the virus caused the body's immune system to react in a way that body could not cope with - as with autumn 1918

Id that is the case then no amount of staring at tea leaves or wearing fancy dress is really going to deal with that, other than extreme shielding for those whose health makes them vulnerable.

Something I think has long been known, but due to cost and logistical factors, has not been publicly acknowledged

“Extreme shielding” 😂. Too many of your dodgy streams Billy. 
ps have you found your plums yet?

[ricardo 7,347]

Did my extreme shielding this morning😉, stood outside M&S under an umbrella while Mrs R went inside.

I did a quick mask (fancy dress) survey, near enough 100 percent in shops and about 40 percent in the street.

I am presently gazing at my tea leaves😁👍

[Van wink 2,994]

9 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Did my extreme shielding this morning😉, stood outside M&S under an umbrella while Mrs R went inside.

I did a quick mask (fancy dress) survey, near enough 100 percent in shops and about 40 percent in the street.

I am presently gazing at my tea leaves😁👍

Most people are mask wearing, Billy just makes it up as we all know 😉

There was a guy outside M & S this morning wearing a coat of armour, it wasn’t you doing a bit of extreme shielding was it? 
 

This was me and the Mrs yesterday Extreme Sheilding. Very noisy to be honest, my cod piece needed a bit of oil.

Edited August 25, 2020 by Van wink

[Van wink 2,994]

Banham poultry outbreak approaching 50 positives.

[ricardo 7,347]

How are the chickens doing?🐓

[T 190]

The Norwich Nostradamus needs to get some new tea leaves because they manage to completely misjudge every situation. 
 

Brexittees good to lead the country. Nope worst performance in the world

Sell shares. Nope mine are above pre Covid levels

Football won’t happen  Nope

Better German performance only temporary  nope

Racism not an issue   Nope

Climate change not an issue  Nope  

And no doubt many others  There really is no fool like an old egotistical fool

 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by T

[SHRIMPER 328]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53923052

[Van wink 2,994]

40 minutes ago, ricardo said:

How are the chickens doing?🐓

They still think corona virus is a yolk, and refusing to cover their beaks!!!

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, ricardo said:

How are the chickens doing?🐓

They think they are Swans

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Buy Banham Poultry, you won't get better

🐔🐥