Jump to content
Fuzzar

Corona Virus main thread

Recommended Posts

R between 1.1 and 1.4, up from between 1.0 and 1.2 a week ago, hugely significant.

Share this post


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

Writing this as large parts of the north going back into lockdown / curfews  and I read that Norwich is now an area of concern.

Norwich has been on the watch list since the Banham outbreak I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.greatyarmouthmercury.co.uk/news/norfolk-off-government-coronavirus-watchlist-1-6845036

norfolk

taken off the watchlist. Problem is our population is so low just a few cases looks bad. I think in general Norfolk should be very proud of how we’ve reacted to this. In general I think the population has done very well in trying to keep infection low in the community. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

positives  back up but still below 2% of tests

Latest UK Numbers  4322 - 27

Inpatients  1020 up by 32

 

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

Yesterdays European.

Italy   1585 - 13

France 10593 - 50

Spain   11291 - 162

Germany  2177 - 8

massive numbers of positives, France and Spain but fatalities not taking off as they did in March.

 

Edited by ricardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sonyc said:

@Yellow Fever

Here's an example of "sleepwalking" you commented on a week or so ago.... 

 

 

"The Welsh first minister, Mark Drakeford, has strongly criticised Boris Johnson for not discussing the Covid crisis with the leaders of the devolved nations.

Speaking at a press conference in Cardiff, Drakeford said there was a “vacancy at the heart” of the UK.

He said he had had one brief conversation with Johnson since 28 May.

He said:

This is simply unacceptable to anyone who believes that we ought to be facing the coronavirus crisis together.

We need a regular, reliable rhythm of engagement: a reliable meeting even once a week would be a start.

I make this argument not because we should all do the same things, but because being round the same table allows each of us to make the best decisions for the nations we represent.

There is a vacancy at the heart of the United Kingdom, and it needs urgently to be filled, so we can talk to each other, share information, pool ideas and demonstrate a determination that the whole of the country can face these challenges together at this most difficult time"

Very little attention to the detail, the trends occuring across Europe ....yet again we appear behind the curve. Harding yesterday stated she was surprised at the upturn in numbers...even though in this little messageboard in the sleepy depths of Norfolk....we've been discussing whether rates would rise for at least a month. She has blamed modellers of course.

Who would have thought with offices getting back to work, schools re-opening and the hospitality industry re-establishing that this would create just the conditions for the virus? Yet....as Aggy has pointed out, hospitalisation figures (and deaths) have not followed (yet). And Ricardo is bullish about being over pessimistic.

I am still of the belief that the government's messaging has been less than adequate over these summer months. The quote above hints at the sheer frustration from Wales (& reading Scotland too). 

Writing this as large parts of the north going back into lockdown / curfews  and I read that Norwich is now an area of concern.

No argument from me there SonyC.

However - the Professionals are getting rather more than concerned hence the discussions on the 'circuit breaker'. 

That is what I would do - and possibly more for 2 or 3 weeks. Get ahead of the curve. Instead the government (or more likely Johnson / Cummings)  will daly around afraid of the economic impact as per last March and then have an even bigger impact to deal with both in terms of  health and economics. It what seems to happen with amateurs and chancers in charge.  Always gambling and hoping for the best.

They can redeem themselves a little (actually that's impossible - damage done)  if they act ruthlessly next week at the latest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

No argument from me there SonyC.

However - the Professionals are getting rather more than concerned hence the discussions on the 'circuit breaker'. 

That is what I would do - and possibly more for 2 or 3 weeks. Get ahead of the curve. Instead the government (or more likely Johnson / Cummings)  will daly around afraid of the economic impact as per last March and then have an even bigger impact to deal with both in terms of  health and economics. It what seems to happen with amateurs and chancers in charge.  Always gambling and hoping for the best.

They can redeem themselves a little (actually that's impossible - damage done)  if they act ruthlessly next week at the latest.

We need a national lock down now to get things under control, the problem is that only buys time and if the time is wasted, as it was over the summer, then we gain no advantage in the long term

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Van wink said:

We need a national lock down now to get things under control, the problem is that only buys time and if the time is wasted, as it was over the summer, then we gain no advantage in the long term

That's two for lockdown now.  Its creeping back up the agenda.

I suspect that the Sweden and, increasingly, Italy experiences  together with the obvious downsides will stop lockdown happening but there does seem to be a slow shift this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just heard Johnson on the radio now speaking. He stated there would be no full lockdown.

So that's been put to bed then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, sonyc said:

I've just heard Johnson on the radio now speaking. He stated there would be no full lockdown.

So that's been put to bed then.

They'll be enough 'local' lockdowns for most of the country to be in lockdown.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, sonyc said:

I've just heard Johnson on the radio now speaking. He stated there would be no full lockdown.

So that's been put to bed then.

Something will happen around half term. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

They'll be enough 'local' lockdowns for most of the country to be in lockdown.

 

 

Exactly ALS - A few weeks ago it's exactly what I feared / thought - with limited 'national' action all the local lockdowns will grow and merge together and we will be defcato in a national one. They are talking about London now!

Might as well hit the so called circuit breaker next week. At least Johnson can then seen to be leading not lagging the ground reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Exactly ALS - A few weeks ago it's exactly what I feared / thought - with limited 'national' action all the local lockdowns will grow and merge together and we will be defcato in a national one. They are talking about London now!

Might as well hit the so called circuit breaker next week. At least Johnson can then seen to be leading not lagging the ground reality.

The local “lockdowns” involve pubs closing between 10pm and 5am and..well, that’s about it. You can’t meet up with people outside of your ‘bubble’ but you can still go to restaurants, pubs, shops, work, cafes, parks etc. Nothing like the lockdown of a few months ago where it was literally illegal to leave your own home other than to go food shopping. I’d call them restrictions rather than a “lockdown”.

Worth also mentioning once more that in a “normal” flu season from October to March we have anywhere from 14,000 to 20,000 deaths on a fairly regular basis. (And in the lifetime of posters on here there have been 80,000 deaths on average in every annual flu season across a whole decade!) 14,000 deaths across six months is 80 deaths a day, every day for six months. 20,000 deaths across six months is 110 deaths a day, every day for six months. (80,000 is 440 deaths a day, every day for six months.). And that’s with a flu jab. Yet no restrictions at all. Ricardo has deaths at 27 yesterday.

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Aggy said:

The local “lockdowns” involve pubs closing between 10pm and 5am and..well, that’s about it. You can’t meet up with people outside of your ‘bubble’ but you can still go to restaurants, pubs, shops, work, cafes, parks etc. Nothing like the lockdown of a few months ago where it was literally illegal to leave your own home other than to go food shopping. I’d call them restrictions rather than a “lockdown”.

Worth also mentioning once more that in a “normal” flu season from October to March we have anywhere from 14,000 to 20,000 deaths on a fairly regular basis. (And in the lifetime of posters on here there have been 80,000 deaths on average in every annual flu season across a whole decade!) 14,000 deaths across six months is 80 deaths a day, every day for six months. 20,000 deaths across six months is 110 deaths a day, every day for six months. (80,000 is 440 deaths a day, every day for six months.). And that’s with a flu jab. Yet no restrictions at all. Ricardo has deaths at 27 yesterday.

I think the 'circuit breaker' being discussed is indeed the closure of pubs and restaurants and other limitations for 2 or 3 weeks.

What's with all this comparing to flu? We can still have a flu out-break, indeed we are quite likely to on top of Covid. Although flu kills (how is cross immunity, herd immunity for that?) Covid is a much more serious disease with long term consequences too even for those that recover. Ask Johnson. The so called 'sticky blood' may cause all sorts of issues - small strokes, long term damage to other organs and issues we are only now starting to see. We know about flu, how to treat it and generally what it does. Covid ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I think the 'circuit breaker' being discussed is indeed the closure of pubs and restaurants and other limitations for 2 or 3 weeks.

What's with all this comparing to flu? We can still have a flu out-break, indeed we are quite likely to on top of Covid. Although flu kills (how is cross immunity, herd immunity for that?) Covid is a much more serious disease with long term consequences too even for those that recover. Ask Johnson. The so called 'sticky blood' may cause all sorts of issues - small strokes, long term damage to other organs and issues we are only now starting to see. We know about flu, how to treat it and generally what it does. Covid ?

I've read also that for 85% of folk who have been hospitalised with Covid and recovered still have all kinds of longer term health conditions. That is a high percentage. You go into hospital and have a successful treatment for Covid but there's a high chance it marks you.

I understand the flu comparison in terms of deaths and it's a valid one to make in terms of the possibility for over-reacting and ungrounded worry... but ....there are other outcomes than death! Not fatal ones but certainly health problems, some very unpleasant, hanging over you.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I think the 'circuit breaker' being discussed is indeed the closure of pubs and restaurants and other limitations for 2 or 3 weeks.

What's with all this comparing to flu? We can still have a flu out-break, indeed we are quite likely to on top of Covid. Although flu kills (how is cross immunity, herd immunity for that?) Covid is a much more serious disease with long term consequences too even for those that recover. Ask Johnson. The so called 'sticky blood' may cause all sorts of issues - small strokes, long term damage to other organs and issues we are only now starting to see. We know about flu, how to treat it and generally what it does. Covid ?

We know how to treat flu? See, this is the sort of thing that irritates me a bit. Are you saying the 20,000 people who die from flu every single year don’t matter then? You don’t care about them? Your social life is more important than 20,000 people dying from something which would be far less deadly if people were banned from leaving their homes and spreading it? 

Plenty of people who get flu have long term issues. If you’re elderly, or having cancer treatment for instance, and you “survive” “normal” flu it can still have long-standing effects on you (especially if it gets to pneumonia stage where you’re hospitalised).

Equally, the large large majority of people who have covid will have literally no long-standing effects whatsoever (and many won’t have any symptoms whatsoever at any point).

I think you missed the point of the post. I wasn’t comparing the two. I was making the point that 20,000 die from flu in lots of years. We don’t ban people from leaving their homes. When the current group of “50-70s” were in their twenties, 60,000 or 80,000 people were dying every single year from flu. They still went about their daily lives - did the 80,000 dying every year from “normal” flu then not matter because it wasn’t covid? 

As for whether we can still have a flu outbreak, yes of course we can. but who dies from flu and who dies from covid? You can’t die twice. As much as some people like to deny it’s the case, covid almost exclusively kills elderly and/or unwell people. After the “first wave”, we saw deaths below the five yearly average - in large part because many who “would” have died in June, July, August had already died from covid in March and April. The ONS statistics compared “flu and pneumonia 2019” with “flu, pneumonia and covid 2020” for the same reason - you can’t just look at covid in isolation.

Point being we need to get back to looking at excess deaths - there is always an increase in pneumonia and flu related deaths in elderly and unwell people as we get into September. That covid deaths are rising now is no more of an issue than flu deaths rising every September and winter. If, however, excess deaths are so much higher than the norm that hospitals will start to become swamped, then it is an issue. 

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This feels like a very important article hence sharing (and completely underlines the importance of wearing masks).

It also confirms my growing conviction that viral load is arguably the biggest factor with this virus (maybe it's really obvious but with more and more reading around the complexity of this infection you start to become a little more educated).

https://elemental.medium.com/amp/p/30430384e5a5?__twitter_impression=true

 

Share this post


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

I've read also that for 85% of folk who have been hospitalised with Covid and recovered still have all kinds of longer term health conditions. That is a high percentage. You go into hospital and have a successful treatment for Covid but there's a high chance it marks you.

I understand the flu comparison in terms of deaths and it's a valid one to make in terms of the possibility for over-reacting and ungrounded worry... but ....there are other outcomes than death! Not fatal ones but certainly health problems, some very unpleasant, hanging over you.

In the context of what measures need to be taken, im afraid you can’t enforce legislation banning people from leaving their homes on the basis some people might (or might not) have health issues in the future. People dying in the here and now, fair enough if it’s at a bad enough level. People having an illness and having effects from it years later is just life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Aggy said:

In the context of what measures need to be taken, im afraid you can’t enforce legislation banning people from leaving their homes on the basis some people might (or might not) have health issues in the future. People dying in the here and now, fair enough if it’s at a bad enough level. People having an illness and having effects from it years later is just life.

Well I wasn't saying that nor intimating that Aggy. I was in fact acknowledging your very point (I agree with you!) but also recognising Yellow Fever's point (also valid). Posters can say different things and have a degree of validity. The point I made was that you can look at flu and covid in terms of morbidity but their after effects are quite different (it appears, as we learn more). Therefore, in such a pandemic and advice from the WHO then perhaps Covid deserves a special focus.

Flu hasn't overwhelmed the NHS in the same way has it as in April? I do agree about age related issues and the fact that both flu and C19 have affected older and more vulnerable populations.

Edited by sonyc

Share this post


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

Well I wasn't saying that nor intimating that Aggy. I was in fact acknowledging your very point (I agree with you!) but also recognising Yellow Fever's point (also valid). Posters can say different things and have a degree of validity. The point I made was that you can look at flue and covid in terms of morbidity but their after effects are quite different (it appears, as we learn more). Therefore, in such a pandemic and advice from the WHO then perhaps Covid deserves a special focus.

Flu hasn't overwhelmed the NHS in the same way has it as in April? I do agree about age related issues and the fact that both flu and C19 have affected older and more vulnerable populations.

https://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/news/20171203/flu-can-have-dangerous-domino-effect-on-seniors

I think people underestimate “normal” flu sometimes. Im not belittling covid and it does have nasty after effects. I’d argue an increased risk of stroke, heart attack and general reduction in quality of life for elderly people from “normal” flu is not ideal either. 

Flu hasn’t overwhelmed the NHS to the extent covid did earlier in the year, but it’s not that uncommon at all to hear that the NhS is bursting at the seams because they, for instance, got the wrong strand of flu in the flu jab. Like I said above, the issue is ensuring the NHS doesn’t become so overwhelmed it can’t give people a fighting chance. As I mentioned a few days ago, the nightingale hospitals are still (mostly) sitting there, completely empty, ready for use if needed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over 100 per 100,000 in Liverpool, and just under 100 where I am on The Wirral. So why are the restrictions here not coming into force until Tuesday? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

Over 100 per 100,000 in Liverpool, and just under 100 where I am on The Wirral. So why are the restrictions here not coming into force until Tuesday? 

I agree. Liverpool should be locked down immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aggy said:

Equally, the large large majority of people who have covid will have literally no long-standing effects whatsoever 

How do you know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

Over 100 per 100,000 in Liverpool, and just under 100 where I am on The Wirral. So why are the restrictions here not coming into force until Tuesday? 

Madness, I can understand delay when regulations have to be drafted etc but surely these are standard now and can be implemented immediately. This delay in implementation is what we did the first time round, Poor decision making.

Edited by Van wink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Aggy said:

In the context of what measures need to be taken, im afraid you can’t enforce legislation banning people from leaving their homes on the basis some people might (or might not) have health issues in the future. People dying in the here and now, fair enough if it’s at a bad enough level. People having an illness and having effects from it years later is just life.

 

2 hours ago, sonyc said:

Well I wasn't saying that nor intimating that Aggy. I was in fact acknowledging your very point (I agree with you!) but also recognising Yellow Fever's point (also valid). Posters can say different things and have a degree of validity. The point I made was that you can look at flu and covid in terms of morbidity but their after effects are quite different (it appears, as we learn more). Therefore, in such a pandemic and advice from the WHO then perhaps Covid deserves a special focus.

Flu hasn't overwhelmed the NHS in the same way has it as in April? I do agree about age related issues and the fact that both flu and C19 have affected older and more vulnerable populations.

More to the point we have seasonal vaccines for flu so we already do our best to shield / protect the over 60s' (or is it 55'these days).

The point is most flu is a known risk we can mitigate and live with. The jury is still out Covid.

What is sure is that something will kill you eventually - but that's no reason to roll the dice early!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Van wink said:

How do you know.

How do you know they will?


And if people with mild covid where you don’t show symptoms or only show mild symptoms (which is what the majority of people who have covid have) are going to develop horrible issues in the long term then we may as well just get on with it.


Or do you suggest every time a new strand of any infectious illness comes along we perpetually lockdown in full for twenty years until we can ascertain the long term affects?

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

More to the point we have seasonal vaccines for flu so we already do our best to shield / protect the over 60s' (or is it 55'these days).

The point is most flu is a known risk we can mitigate and live with. The jury is still out Covid.

What is sure is that something will kill you eventually - but that's no reason to roll the dice early!

 

 

 

Yet people still die with seasonal flu vaccines. So, I repeat, is it okay that 20,000 die every year from an illness which could be avoided if you didn’t go outside?

As you say, something will kill you eventually. The “goal” with covid has got to be to keep hospitalisations manageable. Talk of the side affects is interesting, but in terms of lockdown and restrictions, it has to be about managing hospital numbers. Otherwise the ethical questions become very problematic - why lockdown for covid but not flu? Why “sacrifice” 20k people a year dying of avoidable flu deaths if we are willing to lock down now? Etc etc.
 

“Doing our best” to shield people isn’t a good enough reason to go as extreme as lockdown, because there is then a very grey area and all sorts of ethical arguments about what “our best” is and where we draw the line. But if hospitals can’t cope, then everyone potentially suffers because even those without covid can’t get treatment when they need it because hospitals are overwhelmed.

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mr Angry said:

Over 100 per 100,000 in Liverpool, and just under 100 where I am on The Wirral. So why are the restrictions here not coming into force until Tuesday? 

 

3 hours ago, Van wink said:

Madness, I can understand delay when regulations have to be drafted etc but surely these are standard now and can be implemented immediately. This delay in implementation is what we did the first time round, Poor decision making.

Shouldn’t take as long as it has been doing to implement “emergency” legislation which they can largely rehash.

I also don’t really understand why they say “from Tuesday”. When they announced it in the north west/Yorkshire a month or so ago, they said “from midnight tonight”, then it took about six days for the legislation to come in. Saying “from next Tuesday” to me almost seems like a plea for people to go out and spend their money on local businesses this weekend. Why not just stay quiet on the specific date, or say from today (with legislation coming ASAP after) and then most people would follow it immediately anyway, even if the actual legislation doesn’t come in for four days.

Edited by Aggy

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...