Coronavirus

[Ghost of Clough]

3 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

Does anyone know if this can be caught, rid-of and then caught again straight after? 

There have been a couple reports of it being possible

[Tamworthram]

32 minutes ago, inter politics said:

I see the chief science adviser is supposedly saying you have more chance of catching this in a pub (more closed space) than a stadium. That's great but a lot of folk make social days of trips to stadiums, hence the requirement to cancel events. It's rather concerning who silly Boris has working around him.

I personally believe (with no medical training) that the statement is probably correct and therefore not silly. IMO you are more likely to catch it in an enclosed environment (e.g. pub) than in an open air stadium. If you choose To go to the pub  on the way to the stadium then you know the increased risks. Believe it or not, whilst preferable for some, going to the pub on the way to a match isn’t mandatory. You don’t have to cancel such events just to stop people going to the pub.

[Stive Pesley]

42 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Its spread around the world now, containing it has long gone - unless you're in an 'at risk' group carry on as normal (following the simple precautions advised) and try not to let the constant media  coverage terrify you.   

If we shut everything for a month now, it will only come back again when everything reopened and we'd be in a similar situation - may as well bite the bullet, try to keep the peak manageable by the NHS and other essential services.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-millions-of-britons-will-need-to-contract-covid-19-for-herd-immunity-11956793

60% of 65 million (British population) is 39 million.  Even if the fatality rate is 1-2%, that's close on half a million people will die. You think the NHS can cope with that if we go with the current bow-wave approach?

[TigerTedd]

1 hour ago, SchtivePesley said:

Based on how viruses spread, that's not necessarily true. A virus needs a host to infect, and if there are no more hosts to infect then it disappears.

If you lockdown for 4 weeks, then the majority of those with the virus will present the symptoms, so we get a clear picture of who has it and the spread can be stopped

That's the theory anyway. Economic and social impacts are a different matter, but I find it hard to see why people would question whether social distancing has any effect. No one said "is there any evidence that being celibate and avoiding blood transfusions actually prevents you from catching HIV?"

 

The problem at the moment is that we're carrying on as normal with thousands of people mingling together - and no idea who has it and who doesn't

I get that. If it was possible to quarantine the world for 4 weeks we’d be sorted. But it’s just not possible. So it’s always going to be out there in the word ready to be caught by someone. 

How did swine flu, bird flu, sars all get sorted out in the end? I don’t remember a lock down or panic of these proportions. 

i genuinely don’t remember what the answer is, so it could help to prove or disprove my point. 

[RoyMac5]

5 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

60% of 65 million (British population) is 39 million.  Even if the fatality rate is 1-2%, that's close on half a million people will die. You think the NHS can cope with that if we go with the current bow-wave approach?

The point of the current approach is to 'spread the peak' of infections so the NHS can try and cope.

[maxjam]

3 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

60% of 65 million (British population) is 39 million.  Even if the fatality rate is 1-2%, that's close on half a million people will die. You think the NHS can cope with that if we go with the current bow-wave approach?

And preventing the spread is futile imo.  I see the EFL have cancelled all games now until early April - what happens if/when the season kicks off again and there is another outbreak?  Its around the world now and people fly in and out of the country all the time.  Cancel again?  And what about when it returns next year with other seasonal flu's?

I think the best approach is to let everyone catch it asap so the general population develops resistance, if you are in an at risk group hide away for a few weeks (as is probably wise anyway).  The alternative is to keep having mass outbreaks and lurching from shutdown to shutdown. 

[inter politics]

14 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I personally believe (with no medical training) that the statement is probably correct and therefore not silly. IMO you are more likely to catch it in an enclosed environment (e.g. pub) than in an open air stadium. If you choose To go to the pub  on the way to the stadium then you know the increased risks. Believe it or not, whilst preferable for some, going to the pub on the way to a match isn’t mandatory. You don’t have to cancel such events just to stop people going to the pub.

I completely agree, I usually don't go to pubs either but cancelling the event is the best way to safeguard the majority.

The statement alone is clearly correct but one has to consider the reality of social interactions and habits.

[Sith Happens]

Blimey...makes me wonder why we employ Christopher John MacRae Whitty CB FRCP FFPH FMedSci as Chief Medical Officer for England, Chief Medical Adviser to the UK Government, Chief Scientific Adviser at the Department of Health and Social Care and head of the National Institute for Health Research.....

He must be on a good whack...Boris Johnson would have been much better off seeking advice from those posting on a football forum...could have saved a load of dosh.

[inter politics]

13 minutes ago, maxjam said:

And preventing the spread is futile imo.  I see the EFL have cancelled all games now until early April - what happens if/when the season kicks off again and there is another outbreak?  Its around the world now and people fly in and out of the country all the time.  Cancel again?  And what about when it returns next year with other seasonal flu's?

I think the best approach is to let everyone catch it asap so the general population develops resistance, if you are in an at risk group hide away for a few weeks (as is probably wise anyway).  The alternative is to keep having mass outbreaks and lurching from shutdown to shutdown. 

It's easy to say that but until we know more about this virus, I think its better to handle with kid-gloves.

Sport has been cancelled many times before but due to how we interact with sport now, it is more difficult to comprehend.

[A Ram for All Seasons]

2 hours ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

I agree with almost all of that apart from the final part.

For some GCSEs, you certainly can get an A on talent alone, but I would say that falls to a B (unless you're very clever) in biology, chemistry, physics and computing. Plus, I was the final year to do GCSEs as they were - now there's a lot more emphasis on memorisation. For example, when we analysed 16 poems in English literature, we had them all in front of us in our exam. I believe the current crop have 12 poems that they have to memorise and analyse without seeing them during the exam.

Quite frankly, I think it's an utter disgrace. The exam system was woefully outdated even before they introduced more memorisation the other year. It was a political decision to appease those who were saying exams were too easy these days. Action needs to be taken at all levels to take account for the fact that, in the real world, we have a huge, instant database at our fingertips that enables us to find any information we need. More time should be spent on using modern technology properly (e.g. figuring out what is true and what is false) than memorising stuff that we could literally find on the internet in five seconds.

Anybody on here doing a degree in virology?

[Stive Pesley]

3 minutes ago, A Ram for All Seasons said:

Anybody on here doing a degree in virology?

@maxjam seems to think he knows how viruses work ?

[maxjam]

3 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

@maxjam seems to think he knows how viruses work ?

Nope, just reading up what experts have been saying;

'Around 60% of the UK population will need to become infected with coronavirus in order for society to have "herd immunity" from future outbreaks' - Sir Patrick Vallance.  He described how 'a majority of the UK's population of more than 65 million would need to be infected with coronavirus for the risk of widespread future outbreaks to recede'.

"We think this virus is likely to be one that comes year on year, becomes like a seasonal virus,"

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-millions-of-britons-will-need-to-contract-covid-19-for-herd-immunity-11956793

[Stive Pesley]

5 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Nope, just reading up what experts have been saying;

'Around 60% of the UK population will need to become infected with coronavirus in order for society to have "herd immunity" from future outbreaks' - Sir Patrick Vallance.  He described how 'a majority of the UK's population of more than 65 million would need to be infected with coronavirus for the risk of widespread future outbreaks to recede'.

"We think this virus is likely to be one that comes year on year, becomes like a seasonal virus,"

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-millions-of-britons-will-need-to-contract-covid-19-for-herd-immunity-11956793

This one goes into more detail. The "take it on the chin" approach is very risky

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-outbreak-end.html

[RoyMac5]

19 minutes ago, inter politics said:

It's easy to say that but until we know more about this virus, I think its better to handle with kid-gloves.

Sport has been cancelled many times before but due to how we interact with sport now, it is more difficult to comprehend.

How do you know then that what we're doing is wrong?

[Mick Harford]

Just adding this for my fellow Rams

 

 

[ariotofmyown]

18 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Nope, just reading up what experts have been saying;

'Around 60% of the UK population will need to become infected with coronavirus in order for society to have "herd immunity" from future outbreaks' - Sir Patrick Vallance.  He described how 'a majority of the UK's population of more than 65 million would need to be infected with coronavirus for the risk of widespread future outbreaks to recede'.

"We think this virus is likely to be one that comes year on year, becomes like a seasonal virus,"

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-millions-of-britons-will-need-to-contract-covid-19-for-herd-immunity-11956793

Experts! I thought they were always wrong.

[inter politics]

12 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

How do you know then that what we're doing is wrong?

I don't, that's the point. If we lack information, it's better to be cautious.

[alexxxxx]

As much as boris has shown he has delegated his decision, I'm not quite sure that this would have been the case. This would have been the policy decision chosen by the government to persue, weighing up the possibilities. What the modelling and forecasting results on the economy, NHS operation and health of the nation is completely opaque.

The health guy then justifies the decision with science. 

[RoyMac5]

58 minutes ago, inter politics said:

I don't, that's the point. If we lack information, it's better to be cautious.

How do you know what that is? But anyway we don't lack information we lack 'specific' covid-19 information.

If we're too cautious then the economy will suffer - might that not cause as much problem?

[Spanish]

hear that Spain have announced a state of emergency.  They are flocking over the border to get food from Morrisons as the local supermarkets are empty