Coronavirus

[Andicis]

2 minutes ago, Albert said:

You can go on about summer months, but the previous national lockdown did indeed lead to a clear downturn, as predicted. 

Respiratory virus, summer months. It can't really be overlooked. It's a clear trend in almost all respiratory viruses isn't it? Lockdown started just as the weather changed. Therefore, does correlation in locking down actually equal causation? I have doubts. 

 

4 minutes ago, Albert said:

The tier system is just a mess, it worked while there was a proper national lockdown, and that's where things should be now. Bits and pieces strategies have just done harm the whole time, with limited benefits. 

Isn't the virus growing most quickly in tier 4 areas, which are in proper lockdown anyway? Pretty much nowhere is in tier 2, which means unless a huge number of people are going to gyms, hairdressers and retail stores, it's effectively still a lockdown. 

 

6 minutes ago, Albert said:

The UK should be putting restrictions back to what they were nationally, and going from there. Start with what worked, and alter from there. That said, Christmas will not have helped. 

Sure, let's just create more debt, finish more businesses off for good for a system that is genuinely not stopping cases from growing regardless. Lockdowns at this point aren't going to work unless you're an authoritarian state, of which we are not. 

 

7 minutes ago, Albert said:

there being massive risks for cancer patients if they venture out into the World with the virus out of control; remember, they are part of that very high risk group. 

Agreed, but isn't it more dangerous for them to be un-diagnosed for the length of time that lockdowns are continuing? 

 

8 minutes ago, Albert said:

People's mental health is going to be harmed further by the NHS collapsing, as well as the general harm from people being forced to make the decision to stay home themselves, rather than it being a mandate. The issue we're seeing aren't cured by the government doing a 'mission accomplished' dance while the country burns. 

And not by their businesses collapsing? Why can't adults make their own decisions?

[Andicis]

3 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

we have two choices; lockdown, or a punitive limited version thereof, where folk like my father would effectively be prisoners in their own homes, in his case as a widower and therefore all alone, or herd immunity, which I think we already know could be catastrophic in terms of death count. 

Letting it burn for the vulnerable has never been a sensible way out of it, like you said it'd be pretty catastrophic. Thing is, aren't we all prisoners in our own home anyway? My grandmother hasn't left her house in months as it currently is, would it change much for the strategy to be based on heavy shielding of the vulnerable? 

5 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

I also think one needs to be very careful about assigning notions like a greater tolerance of lockdowns to any sector of the public in general terms. While older folk may be quite sensibly more fearful of catching Covid and therefore more willing to acquiesce to lockdown regs, that should not be mistaken for something it is not.

To an extent, but I would say there is a case for it? I mean the extreme examples comparing people living in small city centre flats with those living in large properties in the countryside are pretty massive differences. As someone who's been spending weeks at a time stuck inside a small city centre flat, as compared to now when I'm at my parents house, it has had a huge difference on me personally. I do think it should be a consideration, because I don't believe lockdowns are impacting us all equally. 

 

8 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Lastly, if any comment about house sizes has been made (I've not seen one) I'd also counter that grandparents and older folks' homes often tend to be the gathering points for the wider family until such time as the olde folk in question are unable to maintain them, at which point, most tend to downsize. When devoid of kids grandkids, nieces, nephews et el, I doubt they are especially enjoyable spaces in their own right. Possibly quite the opposite. I should state that this is a general observation and not in any directed at your good self!

Fair comment.

[Albert]

4 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Respiratory virus, summer months. It can't really be overlooked. It's a clear trend in almost all respiratory viruses isn't it? Lockdown started just as the weather changed. Therefore, does correlation in locking down actually equal causation? I have doubts. 

It can have an impact, no doubt, but the data does show that the UK was capable of bringing the R number below 1, and seeing a decrease in that recent national lockdown. The decreases were correlated with the lockdowns in both cases, and a decrease in R number has been observed with the tiered system too, just not quite enough to control the situation. This is consistent with data from elsewhere in the World as well. You are welcome to your doubts, but the data doesn't support them. 

4 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Isn't the virus growing most quickly in tier 4 areas, which are in proper lockdown anyway? Pretty much nowhere is in tier 2, which means unless a huge number of people are going to gyms, hairdressers and retail stores, it's effectively still a lockdown. 

The issue is that the current system is bits and pieces, and clearly isn't being enforced as well as it should be. If the argument is that 'tier 4 is basically full lockdown', and 'most places are in 3 or 4', then really, the UK should go back into that full national lockdown, which was working. 

4 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Sure, let's just create more debt, finish more businesses off for good for a system that is genuinely not stopping cases from growing regardless. Lockdowns at this point aren't going to work unless you're an authoritarian state, of which we are not. 

Opening up will end those business quicker, and cost the UK the NHS and far more lives. It would also interfere with the rollout of the vaccine, further complicating the situation. 

It's amazing that you have such little faith in the people of the UK. 

The UK should be making moves to support businesses through these months, much as other countries have done when required. More debt isn't great, but the long term costs of not doing so will be massive. Support and stimulus have worked in the past, and while the UK has done some, it's no where near enough for the mistakes that have led to this situation. 

4 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Agreed, but isn't it more dangerous for them to be un-diagnosed for the length of time that lockdowns are continuing? 

They'll remain undiagnosed, as the issue is that the NHS is under enormous pressure. The only solution to that is getting case numbers under control. Opening up only makes this problem bigger, not smaller. 

4 minutes ago, Andicis said:

And not by their businesses collapsing? Why can't adults make their own decisions?

Because, as we've seen, given the choice there are sections of the population that ruin it for the rest. They think they're special, they're not actually spreading it. It just means that some ignore their responsibility, costing others doing the right thing. It's not giving the power to adults to decide, it's giving people the power to ruin it for everyone. 

[Albert]

5 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Letting it burn for the vulnerable has never been a sensible way out of it, like you said it'd be pretty catastrophic. Thing is, aren't we all prisoners in our own home anyway? My grandmother hasn't left her house in months as it currently is, would it change much for the strategy to be based on heavy shielding of the vulnerable? 

'Shielding' just doesn't work, there is no plan for it to work. Sweden, a country that pursued such a strategy, has recently apologised for their quite frankly abysmal policy towards management of the virus, as it was just a dumb plan to begin with. 

5 minutes ago, Andicis said:

To an extent, but I would say there is a case for it? I mean the extreme examples comparing people living in small city centre flats with those living in large properties in the countryside are pretty massive differences. As someone who's been spending weeks at a time stuck inside a small city centre flat, as compared to now when I'm at my parents house, it has had a huge difference on me personally. I do think it should be a consideration, because I don't believe lockdowns are impacting us all equally. 

This is why there needs to be more support for people in general. Everyone is in a different position, and people are suffering in different ways through this. The government's mismanagement has put people in these position, and their policy is doing little to help people through the consequences of their failed policy choices. 

[Andicis]

1 minute ago, Albert said:

Because, as we've seen, given the choice there are sections of the population that ruin it for the rest. They think they're special, they're not actually spreading it. It just means that some ignore their responsibility, costing others doing the right thing. It's not giving the power to adults to decide, it's giving people the power to ruin it for everyone. 

 

1 minute ago, Albert said:

It's amazing that you have such little faith in the people of the UK. 

You appear to have contradicted yourself, as I suspected you might do. On one hand, you acknowledge people will do what they want, and on the other you accuse me being the one of little faith... 

 

2 minutes ago, Albert said:

The decreases were correlated with the lockdowns in both cases,

The decreases due to the second lockdown were pretty minimal though, in comparison to the first one. 

 

3 minutes ago, Albert said:

The issue is that the current system is bits and pieces, and clearly isn't being enforced as well as it should be. If the argument is that 'tier 4 is basically full lockdown', and 'most places are in 3 or 4', then really, the UK should go back into that full national lockdown, which was working. 

It comes back to the point again of why would locking down areas without covid have any impact, when the places with high amounts of it are already locked down. And again, why is the growth in the areas in tier 3/4, but less so in the areas in the lower tiers? Locking down everyone is punitive to the areas with low transmission. It solves nothing.

 

4 minutes ago, Albert said:

The UK should be making moves to support businesses through these months, much as other countries have done when required.

Agreed.

 

5 minutes ago, Albert said:

They'll remain undiagnosed, as the issue is that the NHS is under enormous pressure. The only solution to that is getting case numbers under control. Opening up only makes this problem bigger, not smaller. 

Surely 9 months in, the UK should have an actual solution or at least a method of lessening the damage? 

[Andicis]

3 minutes ago, Albert said:

'Shielding' just doesn't work, there is no plan for it to work. Sweden, a country that pursued such a strategy, has recently apologised for their quite frankly abysmal policy towards management of the virus, as it was just a dumb plan to begin with. 

Why shouldn't it? If you can keep it from the demographic most likely to get seriously ill whilst you are vaccinating them, is that not a way to keep moving? Weren't Sweden just letting it burn so to speak? If a national lockdown can be worked, shielding should surely be even easier than that? 

 

5 minutes ago, Albert said:

This is why there needs to be more support for people in general. Everyone is in a different position, and people are suffering in different ways through this. The government's mismanagement has put people in these position, and their policy is doing little to help people through the consequences of their failed policy choices. 

That's very vague, though. Support, how so? 

[Comrade 86]

11 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Thing is, aren't we all prisoners in our own home anyway? My grandmother hasn't left her house in months as it currently is, would it change much for the strategy to be based on heavy shielding of the vulnerable?

My thinking is no and yes. We are currently under lockdown so I would concede that we are all subject to the same restrictions as those who are especially vulnerable, but there is now an end-game with vaccinations already being rolled out. As for you gran, I have every sympathy for the reasons already stated, but a scenario that legislates the old and vulnerable MUST stay at home is something rather different. I think being able to play golf is the one thing keeping my old man alive if I'm honest!

 

15 minutes ago, Andicis said:

To an extent, but I would say there is a case for it? I mean the extreme examples comparing people living in small city centre flats with those living in large properties in the countryside are pretty massive differences. As someone who's been spending weeks at a time stuck inside a small city centre flat, as compared to now when I'm at my parents house, it has had a huge difference on me personally. I do think it should be a consideration, because I don't believe lockdowns are impacting us all equally.

It might be stating the obvious here, but having a nice home is preferable to not having one irrespective of the pandemic and it is nothing to do with the virus that such imbalances exist. Perhaps this seems a slightly fatuous point to make but I think it's salient in the wider scheme of things. Funnily enough, my lad is now back home with his mum in Putney having left his uni digs in Camden and is hating it, so there's also an element of horses for courses too. I take your point though. As someone who grew up in London, I think it's tougher for those who do not have a garden space or even a sun deck or balcony, than it is for those who do, though getting some kids off the Xbox and outdoors can be nigh impossible so horse and courses again to some extent, not a golden rule.

I think the wonderful thing is that we are now approaching a place where the light at the end of the tunnel appears not be be another onrushing freight train! I think this ought to play into our thinking as having endured such a grim time of it for so long, now is not the time for civil disobedience or risk-taking. I'm hoping we can knuckle down and then with the warmer Spring weather, start to release the shackles at pace. I believe this will happen.

All I can say is chin up lad, don't let it grind you down and try not to worry too much about the future. It will be tough, but the economy will bounce back and bright young things like yourself will find gainful employment even if it is harder for a few years than would have been the case. In 1979, though I don't recall it, the army were collecting rubbish, there were rats the size of cats running free all over London, a 3 day working week and endless power-cuts. It's the circle of life my friend (I know, cheesy AF!), so try not to let it get you down too much, tough brief though that might seem right now! 

[Albert]

13 minutes ago, Andicis said:

 

You appear to have contradicted yourself, as I suspected you might do. On one hand, you acknowledge people will do what they want, and on the other you accuse me being the one of little faith... 

The contradiction is in your interpretation. I have faith that the people of the UK can buckle down and get the job done if asked, what I don't have faith in is the selfish few to take upon themselves to make the right choice without it being a mandate. 

13 minutes ago, Andicis said:

The decreases due to the second lockdown were pretty minimal though, in comparison to the first one. 

The rate decrease was pretty large, the difference was the amount of time it was kept for. 

13 minutes ago, Andicis said:

It comes back to the point again of why would locking down areas without covid have any impact, when the places with high amounts of it are already locked down. And again, why is the growth in the areas in tier 3/4, but less so in the areas in the lower tiers? Locking down everyone is punitive to the areas with low transmission. It solves nothing.

Stopping movement, and having restrictions in place to prevent rapid spread through other areas when it does spread more to other areas. Because of the way transmission works, by the time you notice which ones have the largest growth rate, it's been that way for a week or two, and the damage is already done. 

13 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Agreed.

 

Surely 9 months in, the UK should have an actual solution or at least a method of lessening the damage? 

The solution was controlling the virus, everything else is just stop gap measures. The UK declined to go after such a method. 

10 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Why shouldn't it? If you can keep it from the demographic most likely to get seriously ill whilst you are vaccinating them, is that not a way to keep moving? Weren't Sweden just letting it burn so to speak? If a national lockdown can be worked, shielding should surely be even easier than that? 

Sweden's strategy was using restrictions, but avoiding lockdowns, while shielding the vulnerable. It failed spectacularly. 

The issue with shielding is that no strategy exists to effectively do it. People still need to be fed and taken care of, which can't be done if the virus is running rampant in the population of people who are providing that support. It's also worth noting that in the UK alone, the number of 'vulnerable people' is in the 10s of millions range. 

10 minutes ago, Andicis said:

That's very vague, though. Support, how so? 

Financial is a big one. The government should be footing the bill for the lockdown, not the businesses. 

[Andicis]

5 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

As for you gran, I have every sympathy for the reasons already stated, but a scenario that legislates the old and vulnerable MUST stay at home is something rather different. I think being able to play golf is the one thing keeping my old man alive if I'm honest!

 

Absolutely, for different people it can make a big difference, I don't think it should be a legislative thing though, more a recommendation which allows them to make their own decisions based on their own perceived risk. 

 

6 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

I take your point though. As someone who grew up in London, I think it's tougher for those who do not have a garden space or even a sun deck or balcony, than it is for those who do, though getting some kids off the Xbox and outdoors can be nigh impossible so horse and courses again to some extent, not a golden rule.

Again, completely agree, it's a personal thing and changes from person to person, I made several assumptions that I would expect to be correct in a fairly high amount of instances, but it's far from me thinking that everyone of a certain circumstance would see things in the same way. 

 

8 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

I think the wonderful thing is that we are now approaching a place where the light at the end of the tunnel appears not be be another onrushing freight train! I think this ought to play into our thinking as having endured such a grim time of it for so long, now is not the time for civil disobedience or risk-taking. I'm hoping we can knuckle down and then with the warmer Spring weather, start to release the shackles at pace. I believe this will happen.

My problem is I'm having a hard time believing that come February/March, that any restrictions are going to be lifted. At the current rate of vaccination, it's going to take much longer and I could easily see it being much later than that in 2021 by the time they start to open things up. 

I think we both pretty much agree on the majority of things, only slight difference in viewpoints on how you actually get there. 

10 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

All I can say is chin up lad, don't let it grind you down and try not to worry too much about the future.

Definitely good advise. 

[Andicis]

12 minutes ago, Albert said:

Financial is a big one. The government should be footing the bill for the lockdown, not the businesses. 

At exactly what point does mass printing money no longer become a viable solution though. It's easy to say the government should be footing the bill, but ultimately that's just going to be passed down to the general public to cover anyway... 

15 minutes ago, Albert said:

Stopping movement, and having restrictions in place to prevent rapid spread through other areas when it does spread more to other areas. Because of the way transmission works, by the time you notice which ones have the largest growth rate, it's been that way for a week or two, and the damage is already done. 

But it's largely the same areas with low transmission during the whole pandemic i.e. places like Cornwall, people haven't really been travelling across places, mainly because there isn't really a point to it. 

 

16 minutes ago, Albert said:

The issue with shielding is that no strategy exists to effectively do it. People still need to be fed and taken care of, which can't be done if the virus is running rampant in the population of people who are providing that support. It's also worth noting that in the UK alone, the number of 'vulnerable people' is in the 10s of millions range. 

Again comes back to the point of, how can you be in a pandemic for 9 months and still be using the same primitive control methods that you started out with and not have thought of any adaptations. There is no strategy, why? Poor governance is the answer, surely? 

19 minutes ago, Albert said:

I have faith that the people of the UK can buckle down and get the job done if asked

They can't to the extent you'd need to stamp out a virus. 

[Albert]

51 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Absolutely, for different people it can make a big difference, I don't think it should be a legislative thing though, more a recommendation which allows them to make their own decisions based on their own perceived risk. 

Leaving the choice in the hands of individuals increases case loads, which impacts everyone. eg preventing vital preventative treatments for cancers, etc. It's not just about the risk that the virus poses to any one person, but the risk that people having the virus poses to the country. 

43 minutes ago, Andicis said:

At exactly what point does mass printing money no longer become a viable solution though. It's easy to say the government should be footing the bill, but ultimately that's just going to be passed down to the general public to cover anyway... 

It's not money printing, it's borrowing. Ultimately though, that's what a government is. Everyone is suffering, and if that suffering can be smoothed out by paying it off later, so be it. The risks of sectors of the economy collapsing because of the virus, and other unnamed events, are too large as it stands. It's cheaper to protect than rebuild. 

43 minutes ago, Andicis said:

But it's largely the same areas with low transmission during the whole pandemic i.e. places like Cornwall, people haven't really been travelling across places, mainly because there isn't really a point to it. 

Then create internal boundaries, and enforce them properly, 14 days mandatory quarantine and testing crossing those boundaries, etc. At that point, restrictions could work well. 

43 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Again comes back to the point of, how can you be in a pandemic for 9 months and still be using the same primitive control methods that you started out with and not have thought of any adaptations. There is no strategy, why? Poor governance is the answer, surely? 

Definitely poor governance. The best strategy was known from the start, the UK ignored it, and got exactly what was predicted as a result. 

43 minutes ago, Andicis said:

They can't to the extent you'd need to stamp out a virus. 

Again, I have more faith in the UK than you seem to. 

[ketteringram]

Tier 4 is not lockdown. If it's lockdown that's needed, then it needs to be as it was back in April. Essential work only. 

If I lived in tier 4 (currently tier 3, so will probably be 4 very soon), my life is hardly any different to pre covid time. I'll admit , I don't have a typical lifestyle, whatever that is. But tier 4 means I wear a mask in a supermarket, and don't take a flight . And that's about the only difference.

I'll still be going to work. Mixing with dozens/hundreds of other people. Indirectly, thousands of other people.

If they carry on just using the tier system. The figures over the next 12 weeks or so, are going to be bad.

[Day]

We’re in tier 3, second lowest number of cases in the country. Doesn’t appear to be much change if they move us to tier 2 and it’s unlikely we’ll get 1 whilst there is calls for a national lockdown again. 

5 months away from getting married, timed that one well didn’t we. Feels like we’re either going to have to postpone, or it will be one hell of a party as we’ll be one of the first to be able to hold a “normal” ceremony with all our guests. 

Trying to hold it together for the missus who is panicking, wedding is nothing in the grand scheme of things I know, it kinda feels a little selfish to be worrying whilst others are losing their lives.

Only plan on getting married once, just a little down with it all now as the excitement has been stripped away from the build up. Stag do is booked for March in Newcastle, doubt that will go ahead and no Hen party has even been arranged.

Oh, and me being me, only went and got the wedding date tattooed on me when we bought the ring (pre Covid) Not the greatest of ideas in hindsight ??‍♂️

[Sith Happens]

Great news

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55280671

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Sith Happens said:

Great news

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55280671

Lets hope this is the game changer.

 

[Sith Happens]

2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Lets hope this is the game changer.

 

Seems like the approach is get it in as many people as possible to provide some protection, then a booster after 12 weeks.

They did say they had something up their sleeve with this one a few days ago.

[EtoileSportiveDeDerby]

26 minutes ago, Sith Happens said:

Great news

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55280671

Yesterday i saw somewhere that they' ve cracked the formuation to improve efficacy but haven't seen the detail of how. Does anyoneknow ?

2 weeks ago it was about 1/2 dose followed by a full one but i am not sure it is confirmed

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, EtoileSportiveDeDerby said:

Yesterday i saw somewhere that they' ve cracked the formuation to improve efficacy but haven't seen the detail of how. Does anyoneknow ?

2 weeks ago it was about 1/2 dose followed by a full one but i am not sure it is confirmed

Think it was the other way round.

But its use has been approved on the basis of 2 full doses from what I have just read, as there was not enough data available on the 1 + 1/2 dosage.

Tactic seems to be get the first dose in as many people's arm as possible.

[ketteringram]

17 minutes ago, Sith Happens said:

Seems like the approach is get it in as many people as possible to provide some protection, then a booster after 12 weeks.

They did say they had something up their sleeve with this one a few days ago.

I see what you did there.

[Guest]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-55481397

@Eddiehow does this tie in with your prediction of a fatality rate of 3%?

This would equate to over 15,000 deaths in Wuhan alone. The total recorded deaths in China is just over 4k.

Is Chia massaging the figures? I note that they do not record asymptomatic cases.

Or is Eddies remarkable record of getting everything right so far about this pandemic under threat?