|
Post by juju on Mar 31, 2020 7:48:06 GMT
So most of us are on lockdown, and fingers crossed that will slow the spread.
But what happens when lockdown is lifted, say, in the summer? Corona won’t just go away. How do we know that person in the queue next to us, or on the train, or in the pub doesn’t have it? How does this work? How do we prevent it all just going back to square one?
I think it’ll be a long time before I want to stand near anyone again, lockdown or not. Much as I hate it, I feel safer.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Mar 31, 2020 8:51:35 GMT
There's a significant risk of a rebound in infections if people believe it's all over. But there's also a risk of lots of people having no money and not surviving on benefits (what benefits) if some non-home work doesn't resume.
I suppose the best thing will be a slow return - keep older and immunodeficient people isolated, but allow some social meetings to resume, some workplaces to reopen. And keep washing hands (... people will forget that immediately). The problem will be for people whose choice is made for them by employers. All companies will demand to be among the first to resume (and all families and friend groups will want to take the first chance.)
Do we trust the British public to be sensible? Or British businesses? Or the British government?
|
|
|
Post by Kye on Mar 31, 2020 9:21:55 GMT
I think the hope is that those who now have it will eventually be "resolved" (either by getting over it or dying) and no longer infectious. So fewer people to catch it from. I hope they won't keep older people from travelling...
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Mar 31, 2020 11:07:05 GMT
No. Old people have to stay put! Defined as anyone slightly older than me.
|
|
|
Post by Kye on Mar 31, 2020 11:27:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Mar 31, 2020 11:47:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Kye on Mar 31, 2020 12:05:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by juju on Mar 31, 2020 12:05:43 GMT
There's a significant risk of a rebound in infections if people believe it's all over. But there's also a risk of lots of people having no money and not surviving on benefits (what benefits) if some non-home work doesn't resume. I suppose the best thing will be a slow return - keep older and immunodeficient people isolated, but allow some social meetings to resume, some workplaces to reopen. And keep washing hands (... people will forget that immediately). The problem will be for people whose choice is made for them by employers. All companies will demand to be among the first to resume (and all families and friend groups will want to take the first chance.) Do we trust the British public to be sensible? Or British businesses? Or the British government? So really, there’s a good chance we’ll all get it at some point. We’re just trying not to all get it at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by Kye on Mar 31, 2020 12:14:54 GMT
Basically, yes. Then there's the search for a vaccine or an effective treatment. That would change the dynamic.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Mar 31, 2020 14:52:16 GMT
So really, there’s a good chance we’ll all get it at some point. We’re just trying not to all get it at the same time. Not necessarily. South Korea has solved the Coronavirus problem and life is now proceeding fairly normally without a total lockdown. After an initial spike caused by a religious cult/sect, South Korea brought the virus under control and there are now only a small number of new cases (currently 125 new cases, 4 deaths per day). South Korea Covid-19 cases and deathsThey have achieved this by two means: (a) a huge number of tests, and controversially, (b) using everyone's mobile data to track their movements. The NHS is considering a similar (voluntary) scheme to alert people if they have recently been in contact with someone testing positive for the virus: UK considers virus-tracing app to ease lockdownI'm fully in favour of such a scheme even if it were mandatory if it means we can return to normal but our (cursed) freedom ideology means that privacy rights campaigners are likely to try and jeopardize the scheme, UK coronavirus app must respect privacy rights.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2020 15:29:35 GMT
yes, they've played a blinder in dealing with this virus. Re (b), it's important to recognise that technology was used to trace people who otherwise wouldn't have known they'd been at risk of catching the virus. So, from one identified carrier, they had a better chance of halting the spread. I'd just like to add that this didn't happen by chance. South Korea knew that they'd get the virus at some point because of the proximity to China and the amount of people travelling between the two countries. They didn't sit on their hands wondering what to do next. Very early, they made sure they got all the equipment and people ready to carry out the testing and tracking. Planning, that's what I'd call it. I can think of several other countries where there's been a noticeable lack of planning... bumbling along from one approach to another is just a disaster waiting to happen
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Mar 31, 2020 23:26:19 GMT
We're not doing brilliantly here frankly although we're better than the US, whose President does not seem to think there's anything particularly to worry about.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Apr 1, 2020 13:37:54 GMT
Many countries in Europe are doing badly. The UK has 27 deaths per million people and are midway between Germany (6) and France (45). Italy and Spain are leading with 192 and 165 deaths per million. In contrast, the US is doing quite well with 9 deaths per million whilst New York State is doing badly (63 deaths per million people). We're not doing brilliantly here frankly although we're better than the US, whose President does not seem to think there's anything particularly to worry about. The rural (Republican) states are probably doing quite well, it's the urban (Democrat) areas that are doing badly.
|
|
|
Post by ceptimus on Apr 1, 2020 14:17:06 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2020 14:48:41 GMT
Many countries in Europe are doing badly. The UK has 27 deaths per million people and are midway between Germany (6) and France (45). Italy and Spain are leading with 192 and 165 deaths per million. In contrast, the US is doing quite well with 9 deaths per million whilst New York State is doing badly (63 deaths per million people). I'm not sure about "per million" stats. They tend to favour larger populations. I've found that the mortality rate is a better indicator than the deaths per million. Even so, this method isn't without its flaws. worldometers coronavirus death rate/UAE are doing great!
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Apr 1, 2020 21:38:19 GMT
I'm not sure about "per million" stats. They tend to favour smaller populations. I've found that the mortality rate is a better indicator than the deaths per million. Even so, this method isn't without its flaws. In what way do the "per million" stats favour smaller populations? Mortality rates are hopelessly unreliable. The UK tests only the severest of cases whilst Germany tests very many more. One simply cannot conclude anything from the ratios of deaths to reported cases. Deaths per million people is much more definite (not withstanding ceptimus' report). Remember that countries all count the deaths differently, and most/all countries are under-counting COVID-19 deaths in one way or another. This will affect the accuracy of the figures but by how much? You can't hide twice as many deaths. According to Dr. Liam Smeeth of Time Magazine, “Between countries there are several reasons why the death rate might vary, but they’re very small compared to the impact of how many people get tested.”
|
|
|
Post by ceptimus on Apr 1, 2020 22:08:32 GMT
With the number of deaths we're getting from Covid-19 right now, you probably could hide half of them. In an average week, over ten thousand people die in England and Wales (from all causes). The excess deaths due to coronavirus won't be that obvious just yet - especially when you consider that the lock-down measures are likely to reduce deaths from other infections, like the flu, and from road traffic accidents.
Anyway, most countries are under-counting one way or another - and it's not necessarily deliberate - it's partly down to medical facilities being stretched so that discovering exactly why each individual old person died is not a priority. If they've died at home before being tested they may not be counted. It's official policy in some countries to only count those who die in hospital after a positive test.
We'll probably not get accurate figures until the crisis is over - when statisticians can look back over the records and calculate just what occurred.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2020 1:49:26 GMT
I'm not sure about "per million" stats. They tend to favour smaller populations. I've found that the mortality rate is a better indicator than the deaths per million. Even so, this method isn't without its flaws. In what way do the "per million" stats favour smaller populations? I can't believe I wrote that. My phone has a mind of its own these last few days I meant "larger", of course. The death per million in China is miniscule compared to the death per million in Italy. But looking at testing, then smaller populations come out "better" on tests per million.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Apr 2, 2020 7:26:03 GMT
I think it’s counterproductive for the government to give stats only on confirmed cases. Confirmed cases are those who have been sick enough to have been admitted to hospital - the government directive for everyone else (milder symptoms) is to stay home and self treat. Those cases won’t ever get tested.
You will then get people (and I’ve heard / read them) thinking it’s all a bit over the top for a few thousand cases. The government either need to stress that the confirmed figures are just tip of the iceberg, or start testing everyone, which is not possible yet as they didn’t order enough tests in time.
|
|
|
Post by Elis on Apr 2, 2020 9:47:12 GMT
I read an interview yesterday where a scientist said this all kight have to be done in waves because the current lockdown would just push the issue to the future. So restrictions would have to be relaxed for a while, allowing the rate of infections to increase again and then there would have to be another lockdown. He also did say that he thought this might be something people would not cope with, though. On an economic level, as well as on a personal level.
As for the elderly people, I think some might decide they would rather take the risk and see their grandchildren again or friends than stay isolated and, possibly, die in isolation from other causes than Covid-19.
|
|
|
Post by ceptimus on Apr 2, 2020 14:33:09 GMT
As for the elderly people, I think some might decide they would rather take the risk and see their grandchildren again or friends than stay isolated and, possibly, die in isolation from other causes than Covid-19. Absolutely right. Say you're 90 years old and only realistically expect to live another two years. Do you really want to spend 50% of your estimated remaining life locked up at home alone?
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Apr 6, 2020 15:06:59 GMT
The problem, as I see it, is that after the subsidence of the initial wave, nobody will know who has, and who has not, developed an immunity by having contracted and recovered from the infection. Those who had the symptoms will be fairly obvious, but all those who were asymptomatic, or whose symptoms were so mild as to be indistinguishable from other, less risky viruses, will need to be tested to find those who have not developed any immunity. Those folks who have not developed any immunity will need to continue to remain 'out of general circulation' until such time that a proven vaccine is developed and made available.
Then...There is the report that the coronavirus is mutating, or that there are multiple novel coronavirus in circulation, which complicates everything in these assumptions. If one is exposed and infected to one strain, will it protect one from other 'subsidiary' strains? Will a developed vaccine work against all, or just one?
Yes...I'm fairly confidant that this will change a shipload of various protocols worldwide....like international travel requiring a clean bill of health, show of all applicable vaccinations, and proof of medical coverage, before disembarking. In other words, I would expect it to be a whole lot more difficult.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Apr 6, 2020 16:23:50 GMT
Yes, I agree with everything you say. Will a developed vaccine work against all [coronavirus strains], or just one? Almost certainly not. Vaccines against flu are specific to the strain.
You say that there is the report that the coronavirus is mutating. It has already mutated very early on into a more virulent strain. I have not seen any reports it has mutated further but it is expected, like most strains of flu.
The UK government is hoping to develop a test to determine whether a person has coronavirus antigens but so far there has not been any success. I suspect there may never be an antigen test.
There are reports of multiple novel coronavirus in circulation - more of a suspicion or even speculation based on theory rather than evidence.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Apr 6, 2020 16:31:49 GMT
In any case, ready, accurate, fast, and inexpensive (non-invasive) testing would be a boon to everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Apr 7, 2020 1:11:17 GMT
I don't mean to be a spreader of doom but apparently some people who were given the all clear after beating the illness are now reinfected.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Apr 7, 2020 3:50:04 GMT
I don't mean to be a spreader of doom but apparently some people who were given the all clear after beating the illness are now reinfected. Not quite accurate....Where restraints were relaxed, there have been surges in the number of new cases. So far as I know, nobody has been 'reinfected'. Remember, flattening the curve does not reduce the number infected, but spreads the same number of infections out over a much longer period of time, so that the overwhelmed health care system will be less overwhelmed. The same number of the population are expected to be exposed and infected, just such that the adequate provision of health care has a chance.....and that therapeutic avenues can be explored and tested to provide protection and better treatment. I am interpreting that as basically saying I am isolated in my own home until well into autumn. I must wait until either an safe and effective vaccine is developed or enough other members of the survivors of exposure and infection have healed and ceased to be vectors. Those options require adequate tests.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Apr 7, 2020 13:21:10 GMT
With the number of deaths we're getting from Covid-19 right now, you probably could hide half of them. In an average week, over ten thousand people die in England and Wales (from all causes). The excess deaths due to coronavirus won't be that obvious just yet - especially when you consider that the lock-down measures are likely to reduce deaths from other infections, like the flu, and from road traffic accidents. You might be interested, ceptimus, in the following BBC article which addresses the question of deaths in the community: www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52196978It is comforting to see that the figure for care homes is relatively low.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Apr 8, 2020 1:42:44 GMT
Kelly - the report I read said that people who had previously suffered from it and been declared free had been reinfected. It might have been wrong and I can't remember where I read it but will try and find.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Apr 8, 2020 2:18:21 GMT
Kelly - the report I read said that people who had previously suffered from it and been declared free had been reinfected. It might have been wrong and I can't remember where I read it but will try and find. Sure. I'm always open to new reliable reports. I'd heard of the resurgance, but that new infections reported surged, not reinfections.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2020 2:41:55 GMT
Can People Who Recover from COVID-19 Become Reinfected?Medical professionals believe positive coronavirus retests are more likely the result of errors in testing rather than reinfection.Source: snopes.com
|
|