Coronavirus (OLD)

[denphone]

Originally Posted by jfman

Was that better or worse than 19, den?

Oh dear another senior moment l am afraid.

[Carth]

Herd Immunity

Allegedly, the infection rate is falling . . how do we know that we aren't already close to it?

There are people out there who probably have the virus but no symptoms.
There are those who have/had the virus with very minor symptoms.
There are those who have/had the virus and put it down to a week with Flu.

Until everyone is tested, nobody knows who has it, has had it, and - importantly - has possibly had it twice.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I thought CF'ers might find this item that I found on Twitter informative - she explains clearly why lockdown (to get the number of infected down) then track and trace is the optimal policy until a vaccine is available (uses US figures, but I'm sure they are the same for us).

https://twitter.com/rachel_elisse/st...17792488062982

Rachel seems to contradict herself and is not entirely accurate in her portrayal of this issue.

However, I just want to highlight two points in particular, as most of this has been done to death already.

And unless you staff nursing homes with robots — and that is just the start — you CAN’T shield the vulnerable.

Surely, this is the point - you cannot shield the vulnerable - or the rest of the population, for that matter, from this virus. So the lockdown is not eliminating the deaths, it's just slowing down the infection rate. If you locked everyone away so it couldn't get to them, the virus would simply start spreading again as soon as you unlock the doors again, because the virus is out there and people from abroad will keep bringing it in. Only herd immunity or a vaccine is able to thwart it.

It would be bad enough if we managed to deliver a vaccine by September, but it is unlikely that this would be mass produced and given to all the population by the end of the year. That is the best case scenario.

People are already sick and tired of the lockdown and starting to breach it in greater numbers, and we are only in week 5! I cannot understand how people can seriously believe that this lockdown can be sustained until the end of the year, let alone another 18 months, if this is how long it takes to get a new vaccine. I can tell you that the government is not going to be funding 80% of salaries for much longer, and businesses need to get back on their feet pretty quickly or they will collapse, taking all those jobs with them.

No, people have had enough, and that means we have to get to some semblance of normality quickly. Sadly, yes, that will mean more deaths. But which is the less of two evils, and is it really in our gift to control this thing? Waiting in lockdown or partial lockdown for 6-18 months is not at all sustainable.

Incidentally, I have heard many older people say that they are not prepared to spend their final years in lockdown, and they will not comply with these rules beyond the 12-week period. If that's what older people think, how will you control the younger ones? I can tell you, you won't, and this is one good reason why this country needs to relax these restrictions as soon as possible, despite the death toll.

...there are some who argue that the virus is less deadly than thought, perhaps no more deadly than the flu. If that were the case, it might make sense to let the virus go. But that also flies in the face of the evidence.

Some may argue that, but I think what those of us who are trying to put this into perspective have been arguing is that the death figures are not all that exceptional, in that you can get something like up to 40,000 flu deaths in a year and people barely notice this. Yet look at the news each night and the figures are sensationalised to the point that some more highly strung people have been terrified by this. But we have only just reached these kind of numbers and the figures are now declining.

The five year average for the number of deaths in the UK have been exceeded now, it is true, but not by a particularly large number - 184,950 in 2020 compared with 174,718 over the same period on average over the last five years. Does the BBC announce these figures throughout the year and agonise over these deaths? No, they don't, and people scarcely notice as a result. The media is scare-mongering big time, and while it is sad that anyone has to die, most of us know that you cannot control nature as some would claim.

The power of human beings to control everything is limited and we need to come to terms with that. We have to ask ourselves whether the ruination of our economy is worth the relatively small impact we can make on the continuing progression of this virus before a vaccine can be found.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Rachel seems to contradict herself and is not entirely accurate in her portrayal of this issue.

However, I just want to highlight two points in particular, as most of this has been done to death already.

Surely, this is the point - you cannot shield the vulnerable - or the rest of the population, for that matter, from this virus. So the lockdown is not eliminating the deaths, it's just slowing down the infection rate. If you locked everyone away so it couldn't get to them, the virus would simply start spreading again as soon as you unlock the doors again, because the virus is out there and people from abroad will keep bringing it in. Only herd immunity or a vaccine is able to thwart it.

That's untrue. If you did lock everyone away until there was no virus as soon as you unlocked the doors - who would they get it from?

We are an island - we can isolate people at the borders for two weeks to limit the spread, only allow people in who were tested in the immediate period prior to travel, only allow people in from other countries that have contained the virus, etc.

There's a number of mechanisms that can be used - again we come back to the idea that you think it would be too hard and you'd rather just open up the economy for 250,000 people to die.

It would be bad enough if we managed to deliver a vaccine by September, but it is unlikely that this would be mass produced and given to all the population by the end of the year. That is the best case scenario.

People are already sick and tired of the lockdown and starting to breach it in greater numbers, and we are only in week 5! I cannot understand how people can seriously believe that this lockdown can be sustained until the end of the year, let alone another 18 months, if this is how long it takes to get a new vaccine. I can tell you that the government is not going to be funding 80% of salaries for much longer, and businesses need to get back on their feet pretty quickly or they will collapse, taking all those jobs with them.

No, people have had enough, and that means we have to get to some semblance of normality quickly. Sadly, yes, that will mean more deaths. But which is the less of two evils, and is it really in our gift to control this thing? Waiting in lockdown or partial lockdown for 6-18 months is not at all sustainable.

The polling shows the people are in support of the lockdown. Support for this Prime Minister has never been higher.

You are unfortunately continuing to conflate public opinion with your own subjective opinion on these matters.

Incidentally, I have heard many older people say that they are not prepared to spend their final years in lockdown, and they will not comply with these rules beyond the 12-week period.

Anecdotal evidence.

If that's what older people think, how will you control the younger ones? I can tell you, you won't, and this is one good reason why this country needs to relax these restrictions as soon as possible, despite the death toll.

Some may argue that, but I think what those of us have tried to convey is that the death figures are not all that exceptional, in that you can get something like up to 40,000 flu deaths in a year and people barely notice this.

Which again comes back to the question of how Coronavirus got noticed in the first place if it was simply another case of the normal flu.

Yet look at the news each night and the figures are sensationalised

Understating the figures by 20,000 can hardly be considered sensationalist. If you think it's bad now I hope you weren't reading the papers when Italy and Spain hit 20,000 deaths.

Incidentally, whatever happened to Italy being worse affected because of more intergenerational households and bigger family meals? That pseudoscience didn't last long.

to the point that some more highly strung people have been terrified by this. But we have only just reached these numbers and the figures are now declining.

The five year average for the number of deaths in the UK have been exceeded now, it is true, but not by a particularly large number - 184,950 in 2020 compared with 174,718 over the same period on average over the last five years. Does the BBC announce these figures throughout the year and agonise over these deaths? No, they don't, and people scarcely notice as a result. The media is scare-mongering big time, and while it is sad that anyone has to die, most of us know that you cannot control nature as some would claim.

The power of human beings to control everything is limited and we need to come to terms with that. We have to ask ourselves whether the ruination of our economy is worth the relatively small impact we can make on the continuing progression of this virus before a vaccine can be found.

Old Boy you are the one continuing to spread fear and terror on this very forum. We are on the verge of becoming a space-faring civilisation. Something like 0.7 on the Kardashev scale with plans to put a man on Mars.

You are massively understating the capability of the human race if you think that we couldn't delay the spread of a virus until a vaccine is found.

Just come out and say you'd prefer we didn't pay people to sit in the house for 8-12 weeks and prefer they died in low paying jobs just so the FTSE 100 can go up 10-15%. That'd be a much more honest assessment of the matter.

---------- Post added at 09:59 ---------- Previous post was at 09:53 ----------

Originally Posted by Carth

Herd Immunity

Allegedly, the infection rate is falling . . how do we know that we aren't already close to it?

There are people out there who probably have the virus but no symptoms.
There are those who have/had the virus with very minor symptoms.
There are those who have/had the virus and put it down to a week with Flu.

Until everyone is tested, nobody knows who has it, has had it, and - importantly - has possibly had it twice.

When levers are gradually released if herd immunity is a thing then numbers won't spike in the same way, indeed they may not rise at all and continue to reduce. If testing is up to scale then that would allow you to accelerate the easing of restrictions every 3-4 weeks with confidence.

There could be valuable lessons to be learned from Germany, Italy and Spain in this respect who are seen as 'ahead' of us in the curve.

[heero_yuy]

Quote from The Sun:

A BILLION bottles of wine could be binned during the coronavirus pandemic as growers across Spain, France and Italy struggle to store the booze.

The closure of bars, pubs and restaurants means billions of bottles are remaining firmly corked.

According to the Daily Mail, French MEP Éric Andrieu, issued a warning that wine stocks have been left waiting in tanks.

It's due to the widespread closure of bars and pubs during the world-wide coronavirus lockdown, as well as border closures.

And the storage shortage means the 2020 harvest could be thrown away as growers are left with nowhere to store it.

They could always try dropping the price and ship it to the supermarkets.

Same story in The Times for those with access.

[tweetiepooh]

Like flour is the problem that there aren't the small containers or small container packaging stuff or simple distribution. If you can get the stuff into home size containers I'm sure distributors/retailers would find markets.

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

Like flour is the problem that there aren't the small containers or small container packaging stuff or simple distribution. If you can get the stuff into home size containers I'm sure distributors/retailers would find markets.

Table wine is often sold in 5l plastic barrels on the continent. Even here you can get 3l boxes. The problem is at least partly one of marketing. The industry relies on glass bottles with deep indentations and cork closures to denote product quality.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

They could always try dropping the price and ship it to the supermarkets.

Same story in The Times for those with access.

On a cheap £5 bottle of wine only 31p actually goes on the wine, the rest in tax, packaging, transport, shop margin.
https://www.decanter.com/learn/tax-w...canter-357119/

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Rachel seems to contradict herself and is not entirely accurate in her portrayal of this issue.

However, I just want to highlight two points in particular, as most of this has been done to death already.



Surely, this is the point - you cannot shield the vulnerable - or the rest of the population, for that matter, from this virus. So the lockdown is not eliminating the deaths, it's just slowing down the infection rate. If you locked everyone away so it couldn't get to them, the virus would simply start spreading again as soon as you unlock the doors again, because the virus is out there and people from abroad will keep bringing it in. Only herd immunity or a vaccine is able to thwart it.

It would be bad enough if we managed to deliver a vaccine by September, but it is unlikely that this would be mass produced and given to all the population by the end of the year. That is the best case scenario.

People are already sick and tired of the lockdown and starting to breach it in greater numbers, and we are only in week 5! I cannot understand how people can seriously believe that this lockdown can be sustained until the end of the year, let alone another 18 months, if this is how long it takes to get a new vaccine. I can tell you that the government is not going to be funding 80% of salaries for much longer, and businesses need to get back on their feet pretty quickly or they will collapse, taking all those jobs with them.

No, people have had enough, and that means we have to get to some semblance of normality quickly. Sadly, yes, that will mean more deaths. But which is the less of two evils, and is it really in our gift to control this thing? Waiting in lockdown or partial lockdown for 6-18 months is not at all sustainable.

Incidentally, I have heard many older people say that they are not prepared to spend their final years in lockdown, and they will not comply with these rules beyond the 12-week period. If that's what older people think, how will you control the younger ones? I can tell you, you won't, and this is one good reason why this country needs to relax these restrictions as soon as possible, despite the death toll.



Some may argue that, but I think what those of us who are trying to put this into perspective have been arguing is that the death figures are not all that exceptional, in that you can get something like up to 40,000 flu deaths in a year and people barely notice this. Yet look at the news each night and the figures are sensationalised to the point that some more highly strung people have been terrified by this. But we have only just reached these kind of numbers and the figures are now declining.

The five year average for the number of deaths in the UK have been exceeded now, it is true, but not by a particularly large number - 184,950 in 2020 compared with 174,718 over the same period on average over the last five years. Does the BBC announce these figures throughout the year and agonise over these deaths? No, they don't, and people scarcely notice as a result. The media is scare-mongering big time, and while it is sad that anyone has to die, most of us know that you cannot control nature as some would claim.

The power of human beings to control everything is limited and we need to come to terms with that. We have to ask ourselves whether the ruination of our economy is worth the relatively small impact we can make on the continuing progression of this virus before a vaccine can be found.

Flu season is October to March (6 months), and Public Health England estimates that on average 17,000 people have died from the flu in England annually between 2014/15 and 2018/19. However, the yearly deaths vary widely from a high of 28,330 in 2014/15 to a low of 1,692 in 2018/19 - so far nearly 22,000 (and possibly twice that figure) have died in under 2 months from COVID-19.

That’s the perspective I take from this.

Also, you are being selective with your statistics - the average deaths for this time of year have increased.

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-51979654[

It shows in the week ending 3 April there were 16,000 deaths - 6,000 more than could be expected at this time of the year when the number of deaths normally starts to fall with winter over.

This is the highest death number since these figures were first published in 2005, more than the previous peak seen during the bad flu outbreak of 2015.

Not all these extra deaths were down to coronavirus, but a significant number were.

Latest stats from ONS

The provisional number of deaths registered in England and Wales in the week ending 17 April 2020 (Week 16) was 22,351; this represents an increase of 3,835 deaths registered compared with the previous week (Week 15) and 11,854 more than the five-year average; this is the highest weekly total recorded since comparable figures begin in 1993.

Moreover, they have died in under 2 months while extreme measures have been taken to prevent the virus spreading. Such measures are not required in order to keep flu deaths around 17,000 in any six month season, aside from a strictly limited vaccination programme.

[1andrew1]

Looks like we're now going to be getting timely stats in the UK that cover coronavirus deaths regardless of where they occurred. Good to get this clarity.

The UK is set to discover a true toll of coronavirus deaths today when the Government unveils figures for fatalities in hospitals, care homes and the community.
There has previously been a lag in numbers between hospitals and other settings, such as care homes, but Health Secretary Matt Hancock said the public would receive up-to-date figures to go alongside the number of hospital deaths as of Wednesday. The UK's national testing coordinator Professor John Newton has said he expects a "substantial number" of care home deaths will be detailed.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/c...-a4426716.html

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Looks like we're now going to be getting timely stats in the UK that cover coronavirus deaths regardless of where they occurred. Good to get this clarity.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/c...-a4426716.html

Brilliant . . 73,448 deaths where Covid19 was present . . expect a social media meltdown sometime in the next few days

[denphone]

A report from The Times this morning ( behind the paywall ) says Germany is ready to tighten lockdown as the coronavirus infection rate climbs again.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/g...gain-jgbsl5xp6

[jfman]

Originally Posted by denphone

A report from The Times this morning ( behind the paywall ) says Germany is ready to tighten lockdown as the coronavirus infection rate climbs again.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/g...gain-jgbsl5xp6

With apologies but the done thing being to find the same Sun article here it is.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/115056...s-cases-surge/

[heero_yuy]

Or even put it in a nicely styled quote box

Quote from The Sun:

Germany faces the prospect of returning to a stricter lockdown after a surge in coronavirus infections and deaths.

The country has slowly been easing its lockdown after faring much better than its European neighbours as a result of an aggressive policy of mass testing.

But the country’s virus reproduction rate - known as “R” - which measures how many people the average person with Covid-19 infects has bounced back to just below one.

That means one person with the virus infects one other on average and earlier this month, the rate was at 0.7.

Germany saw the overall number of coronavirus cases grow by 1,018 on Monday and 1,144 on Tuesday.

There has also also been a steady rise in the number of deaths from 117 on April 25 to 188 on April 28

and the country has already been planning for a second wave of killer coronavirus.

Chancellor Angela Merkel has warned if they R rate increases even slightly above 1 then the country’s health service faces being overwhelmed.

The Sun and Times share news resources so the same story appears in both but often with a different emphasis

BTW if members want to tame some of the excesses on the sun website then use a script blocker.