Coronavirus

[Ewe Ram]

1 hour ago, TramRam said:

Nothing to do with an election looming tho is it ?

The think there’s a huge amount to do with his issues with China 

[BaaLocks]

2 hours ago, GboroRam said:

WHO also isn't looking very good in the circumstances.

The thing that I have been very surprised by is that every country has been left to manage it in their own way. Some test, some self isolate, some believe it's seven days, some say fourteen days, some lockdown straight away, some later. 

What I really would have thought WHO would have been able to offer is a clear 'when the pandemic arrives you do this, then this, then this'.

I know this is a new virus but surely the purpose of the World Health Organization must be to Organize the Health of the World? 

[Eddie]

16 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Not being a scientist I have no idea how these things work.

With a vaccine supposedly not being available for over a year, isnt achieving herd immunity in a controlled manner the only way out of this now?

At the current subdued rate of infection, herd immunity (estimates range between 60% and 80% of the population would need to have caught the virus) would take approximately 150 years to achieve, allowing for current 'normality' in birth and death rates - and the NHS is barely coping already. Now removing all restrictions and letting it run riot by actively encouraging the transmission, whereby the number of cases doubles every 3 days, you could achieve that 'herd immunity' in just 33 days, plus another 30 days for the persons suffering from the disease to either recover or die.

There is a minor drawback to this otherwise fine theory, and it's the reason that governments very quickly backed away from the idea...

There are only around 145000 beds (that's total beds, not ICU beds) available to the NHS. Let's make an assumption here that of the people getting sick, even if as few as only 1% required hospitalisation (the number is far higher than that in reality), you would exceed total capacity in just 21 days, and that's starting from a position where all 145000 beds were available.

In addition to that, there is no evidence that any immunity acquired would be long-lasting, although equally there is no evidence to suggest that it wouldn't. Perhaps COVID-19 will be the common cold of the future, and long-term repeated exposure would reduce its current deadly threat.

[G STAR RAM]

2 minutes ago, Eddie said:

At the current subdued rate of infection, herd immunity (estimates range between 60% and 80% of the population would need to have caught the virus) would take approximately 150 years to achieve, allowing for current 'normality' in birth and death rates - and the NHS is barely coping already. Now removing all restrictions and letting it run riot by actively encouraging the transmission, whereby the number of cases doubles every 3 days, you could achieve that 'herd immunity' in just 33 days, plus another 30 days for the persons suffering from the disease to either recover or die.

There is a minor drawback to this otherwise fine theory, and it's the reason that governments very quickly backed away from the idea...

There are only around 145000 beds (that's total beds, not ICU beds) available to the NHS. Let's make an assumption here that of the people getting sick, even if as few as only 1% required hospitalisation (the number is far higher than that in reality), you would exceed total capacity in just 21 days, and that's starting from a position where all 145000 beds were available.

In addition to that, there is no evidence that any immunity acquired would be long-lasting, although equally there is no evidence to suggest that it wouldn't. Perhaps COVID-19 will be the common cold of the future, and long-term repeated exposure would reduce its current deadly threat.

Thanks for the explanation. 

Is there somewhere inbetween the 2 date ranges that you discuss for achieving herd immunity ie; could we have controlled waves of infection thereby getting the percentage up but also not overloading the NHS? Say a controlled lockdown every 2 or 3 months say?

The one thing I would pick you up on is your comment that the NHS is barely coping.

I really think that is the agenda that the media are trying to push and they appear to be desperately trying to find interviewees to back that up.

Obviously the PPE situation has been well documented but from NHS workers that I speak to, on the whole, the NHS appears to be coping just fine.

[Archied]

30 minutes ago, Ewe Ram said:

no organisation should be beyond scrutiny 

Strange though that to a post I made saying the WHO were not smelling of roses you come back with trump is just trying to shift blame ?

that seems more geared to deflect attention on to trump rather than look at the roles of all in this

[Eddie]

14 hours ago, therealhantsram said:

Interesting new theory doing the rounds in medical press today that the severe cases are related to thrombosis or related issues where the patients blood clots too easily. The theory being that the virus causes hundreds of tiny blood clots in the lungs, which stops oxygen getting to blood. 

The positive news is that if this is the case then existing drugs used for thrombosis may be able to help those severe cases.

I take one Rivaroxaban tablet daily - I have had 6 episodes of deep-vein thrombosis in the last 10 years, and I can confidently say that without the medication, I would have died several years ago.

I like to look at things positively. Recently, Trump started touting hydroxychloroquine as a 'game-changer' - and cretins started removing themselves from the gene pool by drinking solutions of aquarium cleaner. Just imagine if he started pushing thrombosis medication and his supporters started rushing down to Wilko and buying everything they could which contained Warfarin. The average IQ of the planet a few weeks later would have risen by about 10 points.

[Eddie]

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Thanks for the explanation. 

Is there somewhere inbetween the 2 date ranges that you discuss for achieving herd immunity ie; could we have controlled waves of infection thereby getting the percentage up but also not overloading the NHS? Say a controlled lockdown every 2 or 3 months say?

The one thing I would pick you up on is your comment that the NHS is barely coping.

I really think that is the agenda that the media are trying to push and they appear to be desperately trying to find interviewees to back that up.

Obviously the PPE situation has been well documented but from NHS workers that I speak to, on the whole, the NHS appears to be coping just fine.

So it's all a big media conspiracy, is it? Christ on a bike, give your head a ducking wobble.

[Archied]

19 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

The thing that I have been very surprised by is that every country has been left to manage it in their own way. Some test, some self isolate, some believe it's seven days, some say fourteen days, some lockdown straight away, some later. 

What I really would have thought WHO would have been able to offer is a clear 'when the pandemic arrives you do this, then this, then this'.

I know this is a new virus but surely the purpose of the World Health Organization must be to Organize the Health of the World? 

There’s been rumbling for a long time within the WHO before this about what and where the focus of the WHO went and who it was set by , as the second largest funder behind the USA gov the gates foundation is felt by many to have to much control on how and where the money is spent ,, do some google searching and read up , there’s some interesting and balanced stuff 

[G STAR RAM]

3 minutes ago, Eddie said:

So it's all a big media conspiracy, is it? Christ on a bike, give your head a ducking wobble.

No it's not a conspiracy but its easy see that the media is revelling in all bad news and brushing over any positive news.

Saw an interview with the NHS the other day where the interviewer was desperately trying to get the worker to slag off the Government. The employee said there was no shortage of PPE at their hospital and they were coping just fine. The disappointment the interviewer showed was tangible.

I'd be interested to read any stats that back up your assertion that the NHS is barely coping. There must be something out there in terms of bed occupancy and ventilator usage that has led you to your conclusion?

I am aware of the oxygen shortage at Watford hospital last weekend but other than that have not really heard anything to suggest that any other resources are being stretched to breaking point.

The news I have seen seem to suggest that the London Nightingale hospital has hardly been used and the one up North may be closed down without being used at all.

[Ewe Ram]

15 minutes ago, Archied said:

Strange though that to a post I made saying the WHO were not smelling of roses you come back with trump is just trying to shift blame ?

that seems more geared to deflect attention on to trump rather than look at the roles of all in this

I’m not sure the point you’re trying to make, but the WHO collects and disseminates data given to them. I believe they were given incorrect information by China. In fact I wouldn’t rely on any data released by China  

15 minutes ago, Archied said:

[FindernRam]

3 minutes ago, Eddie said:

So it's all a big media conspiracy, is it?

No its not ...but the media here is doing a pretty rubbish job particularly in the daily briefings. Rather than look forward, as in "what are you doing to improve PPE supplies?" it's "do you accept you got it wrong at the beginning?" Just a waste of Airtime! Point scoring. 

The question I would ask  is: As we learn more about this virus; are a higher percentage of admitted patients recovering now, than at the beginning?

Trump of course is doing his best to alienate almost every media person on the planet rather than admit he screwed it up. Yesterday it was " I am the Supreme Leader you will do as I say" I guess when it continues to go badly he will shift to "well they didn't listen to me its all their (Democrats) fault".

[TramRam]

35 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

The thing that I have been very surprised by is that every country has been left to manage it in their own way. Some test, some self isolate, some believe it's seven days, some say fourteen days, some lockdown straight away, some later. 

What I really would have thought WHO would have been able to offer is a clear 'when the pandemic arrives you do this, then this, then this'.

I know this is a new virus but surely the purpose of the World Health Organization must be to Organize the Health of the World? 

I'm a cynic of the highest order, WHO=FIFA=the UN?

[A Ram for All Seasons]

52 minutes ago, Ewe Ram said:

The think there’s a huge amount to do with his issues with China 

Trump's argument seems to be that the WHO is too slitty eyed for its own good and foreigners are to blame for everything.

[G STAR RAM]

3 minutes ago, A Ram for All Seasons said:

Trump's argument seems to be that the WHO is too slitty eyed for its own good and foreigners are to blame for everything.

That isnt his argument though is it?

[G STAR RAM]

8 minutes ago, Ewe Ram said:

I’m not sure the point you’re trying to make, but the WHO collects and disseminates data given to them. I believe they were given incorrect information by China. In fact I wouldn’t rely on any data released by China  

The WHO receives a lot of funding if that is its only role.

If you, yourself, are very sceptical about information China provides, would you not expect the WHO to be too?

Surely we are talking about huge negligence if the WHO have just relied on the data China has given it without any sort of due diligence?

[Ewe Ram]

10 minutes ago, A Ram for All Seasons said:

Trump's argument seems to be that the WHO is too slitty eyed for its own good and foreigners are to blame for everything.

No, you said that 

[GboroRam]

14 minutes ago, A Ram for All Seasons said:

Trump's argument seems to be that the WHO is too slitty eyed for its own good and foreigners are to blame for everything.

There is one train of thought that Trump is looking at how many US nationals are involved in the areas where funding goes. It may be life-changing work, but if it's not American people directly involved he doesn't want to send money to it. And to be fair, plenty of people in this country have similar views. 

[A Ram for All Seasons]

3 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

There is one train of thought that Trump is looking at how many US nationals are involved in the areas where funding goes. It may be life-changing work, but if it's not American people directly involved he doesn't want to send money to it. And to be fair, plenty of people in this country have similar views. 

That was written before he felt it necessary to look for scapegoats for his own failings. Can't blame this one on the Mexicans.

[Archied]

1 minute ago, GboroRam said:

There is one train of thought that Trump is looking at how many US nationals are involved in the areas where funding goes. It may be life-changing work, but if it's not American people directly involved he doesn't want to send money to it. And to be fair, plenty of people in this country have similar views. 

Wouldn’t really get involved in trumps motives or thought myself , my interest is more around the concerns expressed from lots of sources that perhaps the focus had moved to being more helpful to big pharmaceutical companies than aiming to build or strengthen underdeveloped countries health services , but hey that’s just my concern from the good and bad I’m reading about the WHO in it’s present state 

[Archied]

2 minutes ago, A Ram for All Seasons said:

That was written before he felt it necessary to look for scapegoats for his own failings. Can't blame this one on the Mexicans.

Always sad to see agenda driven blindness no matter what side of the spectrum it come from ,,,, there can be more than one bad guy