Coronavirus (OLD)

[Julian]

Very intersting article from a respected source in the Lancet HERE

In summary, COVID-19 is a disease that is highly infectious and spreads rapidly through society. It is often quite symptomless and might pass unnoticed, but it also causes severe disease, and even death, in a proportion of the population, and our most important task is not to stop spread, which is all but futile, but to concentrate on giving the unfortunate victims optimal care.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Julian

Very intersting article from a respected source in the Lancet HERE

Although published in the Lancet it's worth noting that the author 'masterminded' Sweden's herd immunity strategy.

Be interesting to see if this statement holds up:

98–99% of these people are probably unaware or uncertain of having had the infection

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by pip08456

I think you need to read the report again.

You know the report I read to correct me do you ?

You don’t, so how about you be quiet? There’s a good chap.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Julian

Very intersting article from a respected source in the Lancet HERE

Yes, that plays to my mindset.

In particular:

Measures to flatten the curve might have an effect, but a lockdown only pushes the severe cases into the future —it will not prevent them. Admittedly, countries have managed to slow down spread so as not to overburden health-care systems, and, yes, effective drugs that save lives might soon be developed, but this pandemic is swift, and those drugs have to be developed, tested, and marketed quickly. Much hope is put in vaccines, but they will take time, and with the unclear protective immunological response to infection, it is not certain that vaccines will be very effective.

Nice to have my view of this confirmed in 'The Lancet', but of course that won't impress jfman who will undoubtedly find someting obscure to rubbish the whole idea!

Oh, look!

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, that plays to my mindset.

In particular:

Measures to flatten the curve might have an effect, but a lockdown only pushes the severe cases into the future —it will not prevent them. Admittedly, countries have managed to slow down spread so as not to overburden health-care systems, and, yes, effective drugs that save lives might soon be developed, but this pandemic is swift, and those drugs have to be developed, tested, and marketed quickly. Much hope is put in vaccines, but they will take time, and with the unclear protective immunological response to infection, it is not certain that vaccines will be very effective.

Nice to have my view of this confirmed in 'The Lancet', but of course that won't impress jfman who will undoubtedly find someting obscure to rubbish the whole idea!

Oh, look!

There's no need to be offensive or disrespectful.

You will know the Lancet contains published material from a wide range of scientists, some of whom will offer contradictory opinions on a wide range of matters with the aim of facilitating further research or discussion.

As you say, this one plays into your pre-existing mindset.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

There's no need to be offensive or disrespectful.

You will know the Lancet contains published material from a wide range of scientists, some of whom will offer contradictory opinions on a wide range of matters with the aim of facilitating further research or discussion.

As you say, this one plays into your pre-existing mindset.

It was neither, jfman. It was meant to be humorous.

[Russ]

An interesting take, it could go some way to back up our First Minister giving us slightly more freedom from Monday:

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...laims-11985343

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

Someone can’t spell implement either.

Explain?

---------- Post added at 21:46 ---------- Previous post was at 21:42 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Initial independent testing by labs running jailbroken iPhones suggests that the NHS contact tracing app developers have indeed found a way round the issues many claimed would prevent the app running effectively in the background for any length of time.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52579547

The NHS has now released the app's source code on GitHub, so further independent scrutiny can occur over the weekend.

How is behaviour of jailbroken iPhones relevant to this discussion?

---------- Post added at 21:49 ---------- Previous post was at 21:46 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

An interesting take, it could go some way to back up our First Minister giving us slightly more freedom from Monday:

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...laims-11985343

Without statistically meaningful (and reliable) testing this can never be validated so assuming it is true and then acting on the basis of it is a tremendous roll of the dice.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It was neither, jfman. It was meant to be humorous.

The good news is if 98-99% are completely unaware then the chances are it's far more widespread than expected and we will inadvertently achieve herd immunity.

As the lockdown eases gradually we can take confidence.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

Although published in the Lancet it's worth noting that the author 'masterminded' Sweden's herd immunity strategy.

Be interesting to see if this statement holds up:

How can it? (And you don't accept it either).

98% of X can never be known. You can reverse engineer X because the so called 2% is reported. Based on 211K positive tests, that would mean to date 10.6M had the virus but never knew it.

Originally Posted by ianch99

Explain?

---------- Post added at 21:46 ---------- Previous post was at 21:42 ----------



How is behaviour of jailbroken iPhones relevant to this discussion?

All these answers and more would be yours if you actually bothered to read the thread and the articles linked therein. The iPhone issue, in particular, has already been explained twice since it was first posted this morning.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

How can it? (And you don't accept it either).

98% of X can never be known. You can reverse engineer X because the so called 2% is reported. Based on 211K positive tests, that would mean to date 10.6M had the virus but never knew it.

I agree, but it'd be nice if true.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

I agree, but it'd be nice if true.

We won’t know until an accurate anti-body test is produced.

Mrs Pierre and I often go to London several times a month. Mrs Pierre developed a cough and some kind of Respiratory issue before In December.

So we don’t know if she had it or not and I would suggest there are many thousands in our situation. It would be good to know one way or the other.

[Ken W]

The government is talking about quarantine all flights with e exception of flights from certain countries from the end of the month while the rest of the UK is under lock down. They should have been doing weeks ago, so much for Best Scientific advice!

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a...cbb3825b6981f9 (Readable link)

All travellers coming to Britain will be quarantined for a fortnight in an effort to avoid a second peak of the coronavirus pandemic, Boris Johnson will announce tomorrow.

The prime minister will say in an address to the nation that passengers arriving at airports and ports, including Britons returning from abroad, will have to self-isolate for 14 days.

Under the measures, which are likely to come into force in early June, travellers will have to provide the address at which they will self-isolate on arrival.

The authorities will conduct spot checks and those found to be breaking the rules face fines of up to £1,000 or even being deported. However, the aviation and holiday industry has warned that the move could be catastrophic for business. It is likely to end any lingering hopes that Britons could take their summer holidays abroad this year.

---------- Post added at 09:57 ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, that plays to my mindset.

In particular:

Measures to flatten the curve might have an effect, but a lockdown only pushes the severe cases into the future —it will not prevent them. Admittedly, countries have managed to slow down spread so as not to overburden health-care systems, and, yes, effective drugs that save lives might soon be developed, but this pandemic is swift, and those drugs have to be developed, tested, and marketed quickly. Much hope is put in vaccines, but they will take time, and with the unclear protective immunological response to infection, it is not certain that vaccines will be very effective.

Nice to have my view of this confirmed in 'The Lancet', but of course that won't impress jfman who will undoubtedly find someting obscure to rubbish the whole idea!

Oh, look!

Man who’s behind scientific advice in Sweden continues to say his advice was correct (shock horror).

Even though the death toll in Sweden is higher in total than the surrounding countries of Denmark, Norway, and Finland.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-...ronavirus.html

Sweden's virus death rate of 291 per million inhabitants is far higher than Norway's death rate of 40 per million, Denmark's rate of 87, or Finland's rate of 45.