Jump to content


Photo

Finally, A Corona Virus Thread...


  • Please log in to reply
613 replies to this topic

#241 Horace

Horace

    Billy No Mates

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Barnsley

Posted 08 April 2020 - 08:46 AM

Very well put sir.  Would be interesting to see what comments this garners if published on FB.

 

There is only one point at from a preservative society we will be safe to reopen from the lockdown, the successful implementation and administration of a vaccine.  

 

To put this into context from a scientific point of view, the common cold is of the same type (corona virus (RNA virus)).  Scientists have been looking for a vaccine against the common cold since the 80s, to no avail.

 

So, there may be some benefit in "herd immunity" but what does this mean?  We have managed complete herd immunity in 2 ways, 1 - vaccination, smallpox being the first and measles being a more recent example.  However measles is also an example of where successful herd immunity has been curtailed and reversed by social media hearsay in the MMR jab causing autism.  (FYI, autism has been around in pretty much the same volume for millennia, its just only recently we have started diagnosing with a name any social difficulty, no matter how small, as somewhere on the "spectrum" (aren't we all, after all, that is how a spectrum works).) or 2 - Everybody gets it and those that can deal with it at the time survive,  chickenpox is a good example of this, where there is not a vaccine required or administered as the fatality rate, yes people die from chicken pox (20-25 people per year in the UK), is so low.

 

Coronaviruses where effective (there are many which are harmless) are awful and the effects truly harrowing, however there is very little at this time science can do to prevent them spreading.  Isolation is merely a slowing of the spread, allowing those who do become infected at this reduced rate to be able to obtain the necessary attention and treatment in order that they may survive, be immune, and increase the chance of reaching herd immunity where the odds of a vaccine are so slim (we have yet to discover one for MERS or SARS or the common cold (all coronaviruses)).  The sad thing is that the NHS is unable to cope today even with this reduced number of cases on top of other pressures, and even more sad that a number of people of all backgrounds and age groups will lose their lives.  

 

It is still important, however, to contextualise this loss and pain experienced.  Every year, globally, 500,000 to 600,000 people's live are lost to influenza, flu, I'm sure you have all had it at one time or another.  Whilst there is a "flu jab" available this is not a guaranteed vaccine, but a best guess effort as to the mutation of the virus that will likely materialise, and at worst a there-or-there-abouts quasi immunity to the flu virus flying around that particular winter.  For context, we are currently at around 50,000 corona virus deaths.  Whist this is a loss, we must be rational in our response.  

 

The measures that we are under today are perfect for reducing a virus spread where a vaccine horizon is predicted.  "Stay apart until it can be made safe" is a great strategy, however this comes with many pitfalls as soon as you add an indefinite time span to this.  The release, or "exit strategy" as it is coined in the media, of the lockdown is extremely important.  Release it too fast, without a vaccine program available, and you risk flooding the heath systems and succeed only in moving the impact further down the road, hopefully with a well prepared health service to deal with it.  Release it too slow and you end up in another recession, with multiple small, medium and even large businesses failing, quantitive easing only being able to go so far and plunging the country into a deep recession for an unpredictable period which is arguably equally damaging to the health of the nation and the global population.

 

Thus we are in an extremely difficult situation, and I would urge everybody to follow the guidance of social distancing, whilst attempting to maintain your economic, professional and personal lives as close as is possible to before this outbreak commenced.

 

Personally, I am lucky enough to have a job which enables me to work from home pretty much business as usual, however I feel I am in a minority, and after everything that has happened since June 2016 i really feel for anyone who has had to live that uncertainty followed immediately by a much more real, and uncertain threat.

 

Stay safe out there VXers.  Hopefully a clear path comes soon :grouphug:

 



#242 Foxy

Foxy

    I love Nev

  • 10,743 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lichfield

Posted 08 April 2020 - 08:58 AM

I did pinch it and put it on FB in a couple of the CV ranty hatter groups. It didn’t get as much response as I hoped, they obviously struggle to read so many big words in one place. 



#243 coldel

coldel

    Need to get Out More

  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,183 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Richmond

Posted 08 April 2020 - 10:27 AM

 

 


 

 

  From a purely biological point of view I can sympathise with this viewpoint, however we, as a species, have evolved beyond that basic instinct and to our benefit, or not as the case may be, our goal is not only to ensure our survival as a group, but to extend our survival as individuals at all costs as well.  Which of these two outlooks are selfish?  Now there's a question.... :lol:

 

 

One answer to your question is.

 

Depends on how close to home it is. A member of .org lost a very close cousin yesterday.

I personally havent seen my mother for 2 weeks who has been holed up in a hospital having icu / oxygen that is in lock down.

 

I personally would rather be in debt, rather than dead, but others may differ.
 

 

 

Yes I think its easy to be objective and talk from the safety of a tower locked away somewhere, but guarantee if you lost your immediate family because of this you wouldn't give two shits about the global economy. 



#244 Rosssco

Rosssco

    Scary Internerd

  • 4,185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Aberdeen

Posted 08 April 2020 - 11:30 AM

 

 

 


 

 

  From a purely biological point of view I can sympathise with this viewpoint, however we, as a species, have evolved beyond that basic instinct and to our benefit, or not as the case may be, our goal is not only to ensure our survival as a group, but to extend our survival as individuals at all costs as well.  Which of these two outlooks are selfish?  Now there's a question.... :lol:

 

 

One answer to your question is.

 

Depends on how close to home it is. A member of .org lost a very close cousin yesterday.

I personally havent seen my mother for 2 weeks who has been holed up in a hospital having icu / oxygen that is in lock down.

 

I personally would rather be in debt, rather than dead, but others may differ.
 

 

 

Yes I think its easy to be objective and talk from the safety of a tower locked away somewhere, but guarantee if you lost your immediate family because of this you wouldn't give two shits about the global economy. 

 

 

Well of course, if in the (extremely unlikely event) that you lost your immediate family to this virus, you wouldn't be focusing on the economy.. Same with any disease really.

 

But as the vast majority wont be in or even near that terrible situation, lets not catastrophize for the rest of society for whom COVID-19 won't be the thing that affect them the most.



#245 Zoobeef

Zoobeef

    Joes bedroom assistant.

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,103 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Retford/Bovington

Posted 08 April 2020 - 11:47 AM

Theyve just cancelled the planned social distancing (half the shift stay at home) and we're all in tonight as normal.

Possibly a sign of getting all the trains ready to go again for the next couple of weeks.

As much as you love your nan, grandad etc. The government have put a price on their heads. If you cant accept that then you're blind to the real world.

My nan will be staying isolated from the world for the time being. Not isolating the world for my nan.



#246 coldel

coldel

    Need to get Out More

  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,183 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Richmond

Posted 08 April 2020 - 12:47 PM

 

 

 

 


 

 

  From a purely biological point of view I can sympathise with this viewpoint, however we, as a species, have evolved beyond that basic instinct and to our benefit, or not as the case may be, our goal is not only to ensure our survival as a group, but to extend our survival as individuals at all costs as well.  Which of these two outlooks are selfish?  Now there's a question.... :lol:

 

 

One answer to your question is.

 

Depends on how close to home it is. A member of .org lost a very close cousin yesterday.

I personally havent seen my mother for 2 weeks who has been holed up in a hospital having icu / oxygen that is in lock down.

 

I personally would rather be in debt, rather than dead, but others may differ.
 

 

 

Yes I think its easy to be objective and talk from the safety of a tower locked away somewhere, but guarantee if you lost your immediate family because of this you wouldn't give two shits about the global economy. 

 

 

Well of course, if in the (extremely unlikely event) that you lost your immediate family to this virus, you wouldn't be focusing on the economy.. Same with any disease really.

 

But as the vast majority wont be in or even near that terrible situation, lets not catastrophize for the rest of society for whom COVID-19 won't be the thing that affect them the most.

 

 

I guess what we won't know, is what this would have been like if we had all carried on as normal. The reason we went into lockdown was because of a report stating that there is a scenario where a quarter of a million people would die in the UK alone if we went on the present path. Had that played out, the impact would have been catastrophic.

 

I have friends who work in the NHS, one very senior, who are saying the NHS is failing even during lockdown. If we carried on as is for the sake of the economy we would have seen thousands, possibly tens of thousands dying from what would have been normally routine operations due to lack of surgeons/beds on top of hundreds of thousands dying through this virus. 

 

Sure, that was a worst case scenario, but given the actual Flu driven (rather than Flu associated) deaths globally being around 300k vs the potential for 250k deaths by C19 in the UK alone the scale would have been catastrophic with every person in the UK probably losing someone close to them either a family member or friend. No point having an economy if half your senior leaders in the economy are not longer around to run it ;-)



#247 Rosssco

Rosssco

    Scary Internerd

  • 4,185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Aberdeen

Posted 08 April 2020 - 01:40 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I guess what we won't know, is what this would have been like if we had all carried on as normal. The reason we went into lockdown was because of a report stating that there is a scenario where a quarter of a million people would die in the UK alone if we went on the present path. Had that played out, the impact would have been catastrophic.

 

I have friends who work in the NHS, one very senior, who are saying the NHS is failing even during lockdown. If we carried on as is for the sake of the economy we would have seen thousands, possibly tens of thousands dying from what would have been normally routine operations due to lack of surgeons/beds on top of hundreds of thousands dying through this virus. 

 

Sure, that was a worst case scenario, but given the actual Flu driven (rather than Flu associated) deaths globally being around 300k vs the potential for 250k deaths by C19 in the UK alone the scale would have been catastrophic with every person in the UK probably losing someone close to them either a family member or friend. No point having an economy if half your senior leaders in the economy are not longer around to run it ;-)

 

 

I agree, and just to point this out (as many seem to fall into this trap) this is not a binary decision. I personally agree with the current lockdown only because the lack of credible information / data would lead a government to take emergency measures based on a near worst-case scenario. I don't blame health organisations or politicians for that. It buys time to get those who are really fighting the fight (health cares workers and their supporting networks) to ramp up, increase bed and equipment capacity, and verify potential in existing drugs and treatments.

 

However, we must quickly obtain the data and apply our rational hat as quickly as possible. As I've noted, the more data comes in, the more it seems to indicate the worst case scenario is very unlikely and the situation is more manageable than previously thought.

 

This is undoubtedly the biggest public health crisis for many decades. No one sensible should dispute that. The measures however must move to proportionality and become 'more intelligent' once we get the data that allows this, and balance out the short-term benefits of saving lives against the medium - long term benefits of saving lives. We shouldn't care about loosing some freedoms temporarily, or taking a pay cut or going into negative growth from a year odd if it will stave off the worst. However, the current situation and trajectory indicates we will have sacrificed huge hard-fought rights and freedoms, and may end of financially crippling our economy for an extended period of time.

 

We could likely save thousands of lives and serious injury every year in this country by reducing the speed limit to 25mph and installing huge traffic calming measures, barriers etc. This is in our power, have the cash, and we have data to back that up. We don't do that because we know it will have a significant detrimental impact on our lives, freedoms and efficiency of our businesses. 

 

On a point of comparison to seasonal flu, we are lucky that we have a measure of in built immunity to a lot of flu strains, and effective vaccines for others (though not all), so the effects of this are significantly reduced than what they would be otherwise. Even at that though, a bad flu season such as 2017/18 where a new / mutated version of the influenza virus came along, killed an extra 20-30k people in the UK (I'll need to get a citation for that, but that's the figures I've read elsewhere).. This should really be head line news but it usually isn't, mainly because there isn't a rolling death counter on our screens!



#248 coldel

coldel

    Need to get Out More

  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,183 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Richmond

Posted 08 April 2020 - 01:52 PM

Yep I also agree the lock-down is the right thing to do. And also that as we get more information we have to make decisions based on that. I don't think anyone is suggesting we stay in lockdown until we find a vaccine for C19, what I believe we are waiting for is reliable information and the flattening of the curve before going any further. All makes great common sense. What wouldn't be right is next week to just end the lockdown without enough information, because if this kicks off again all the economic damage we have seen so far will be for nothing, and ultimately you cannot exchange potentially hundreds of thousands of lives in a short period of time for a comfortable economy. Recessions are bad for some companies but a hotbed for evolving into new ones - Disney, FedEx, Microsoft, FB etc. all launched during recessions - if you want to take a positive view of it!



#249 jonnyboy

jonnyboy

    The hardtop guy

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Lightweight sportscars, Brunettes, Petrol & Beer.

Posted 08 April 2020 - 02:01 PM

There has to be a phased return to normality. A blanket action is no good in this situation I think London and the big cities will have restrictions longer than the isle of sky for example. 

 

Here in glorious Wakefield we have 177 cases from a 350000 population Neighbouring Leeds a very compact city has 340 from 789000 people. So yes action to halt the rapid spread may be justified but there is no vaccine coming for this at all any time soon that is just a cold hard fact. We simply cannot sustain locking the whole country down. The risk for us living in a little village on the outskirts of Wakefield is magnitudes smaller than the risk for someone that lives and works in London. 

 

There's no doubt people will take social distancing seriously so that measure can go on as it probably will for a year in some way. Getting normal daily life going again is not too hard but how they will manage flights and the tube things like that is a much more difficult challenge. As I have said before in this thread sadly there will always be an element of having to let this thing run with mitigation being the only thing we can put up. 



#250 TheRealVXed

TheRealVXed

    Sidekick

  • 5,975 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gotham City
  • Interests:Holy potatoes, fist combat, lycra

Posted 08 April 2020 - 02:05 PM

Just want to pull out some stats around the death rates due to Covid vs general death rates

 

Average annual deaths UK

600,000 deaths / 67,800,000 population = 0.88%

 

Projected potential deaths due to Covid (to Aug 2020)

No action: 510,000 deaths / 67,800,000 population = 0.75%

Partial Lockdown: 250,000 deaths / 67,800,000 population = 0.37%

Current situation: 20,000 deaths / 67,800,800 population = 0.03%

 

Quote from Sir David Spiedelhalter of the above statistics;

 

"that does not mean 480,000 lives are being saved - many will die whether or not they get the virus.

 

Every year, about 600,000 people in the UK die. And the frail and elderly are most at risk, just as they are if they have coronavirus....That does not mean there will be no extra deaths - but, Sir David says, there will be "a substantial overlap"."

 

https://www.bbc.co.u...health-51979654

 

I too have friends and relations in all sorts of fields including epidemiology, virology and the NHS, I also have several at risk relations including a cousin with Crohn's disease who is on immunosuppressants and is in his mid-20s.  Additionally I am being very careful to deal in facts, and express no personal opinions here :)

 

The NHS was already in a pretty poor condition prior to this outbreak (lack of funding, reduced nursing numbers, community care failing etc.), so it is understandable that it has no scope to effectively cope and quickly respond to these kind of fast moving, high volume situations.  I would not wish on anyone to lose a loved one unnecessarily, and it is true we shall never know what would have happened had we done nothing, but as I mention in my first post on this thread, those venerable remain venerable until there is a vaccine available, whether or not there is a lockdown in place.

 


Edited by TheRealVXed, 08 April 2020 - 02:06 PM.


#251 Rosssco

Rosssco

    Scary Internerd

  • 4,185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Aberdeen

Posted 08 April 2020 - 02:06 PM

Yeah I don't think anyone is suggesting these measures will be reduced over the next week. Just that some people think a lockdown is a solution, which is isn't. Its merely a delaying tactic. Only a vaccine or natural immunity are the solutions, and the timescales for those are waaay off. So we have to compromise somewhere.

 

I am very suspicious of the 'curve' data though - its not clear what the deaths are actually attributable to, as it may be the case (and indeed likely) that many are primarily due to other factors, and that CV19 being present within they bodies is not a conclusive in attributing death. Which is why I've been essentially ignoring it. Its good for the media to easily display and present the current situation, but it seems potentially wildly inaccurate.

 

Unfortunately, a recession will be a light let off.. A far deeper longer lasting recession is a strong potential, partly dependant on how policy makers react, what stimulous measures they take, as we sure as hell will need them. Big corps will probably do well (too big to fail and all that), and will swallow up the smaller companies, cutting jobs and reducing choice.. Anyway, more austerity on the way for all, especially those dependant on the state..



#252 Zoobeef

Zoobeef

    Joes bedroom assistant.

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,103 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Retford/Bovington

Posted 08 April 2020 - 02:08 PM

Now also look at expected deaths from a recession. Not counting life expectancy which is reduced also.

Remove 2 years from 66 million people in this country. That's a large sacrifice.



#253 Zoobeef

Zoobeef

    Joes bedroom assistant.

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,103 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Retford/Bovington

Posted 08 April 2020 - 02:10 PM

Someone should tell this family the lock down will be worth it.

https://www.mirror.c...-after-21827680



#254 Rosssco

Rosssco

    Scary Internerd

  • 4,185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Aberdeen

Posted 08 April 2020 - 02:28 PM

 

 

 

On a point of comparison to seasonal flu, we are lucky that we have a measure of in built immunity to a lot of flu strains, and effective vaccines for others (though not all), so the effects of this are significantly reduced than what they would be otherwise. Even at that though, a bad flu season such as 2017/18 where a new / mutated version of the influenza virus came along, killed an extra 20-30k people in the UK (I'll need to get a citation for that, but that's the figures I've read elsewhere).. This should really be head line news but it usually isn't, mainly because there isn't a rolling death counter on our screens!

 

 

There's the data on that flu season for comparison:

 

https://www.independ...7-a8660496.html



#255 smiley

smiley

    Thetan level 15

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,427 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 08 April 2020 - 06:04 PM

It's all taken care off :huh:

 



#256 oblomov

oblomov

    oblomov

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,882 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A colder windier place than stevieturbo's.
  • Interests:Mumblers

Posted 08 April 2020 - 06:09 PM

For all you Boris supporters and Corbyn haters.

 

https://www.mirror.c...ocking-10707293



#257 oblomov

oblomov

    oblomov

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,882 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A colder windier place than stevieturbo's.
  • Interests:Mumblers

Posted 08 April 2020 - 06:11 PM

 

 

 

 

On a point of comparison to seasonal flu, we are lucky that we have a measure of in built immunity to a lot of flu strains, and effective vaccines for others (though not all), so the effects of this are significantly reduced than what they would be otherwise. Even at that though, a bad flu season such as 2017/18 where a new / mutated version of the influenza virus came along, killed an extra 20-30k people in the UK (I'll need to get a citation for that, but that's the figures I've read elsewhere).. This should really be head line news but it usually isn't, mainly because there isn't a rolling death counter on our screens!

 

 

There's the data on that flu season for comparison:

 

https://www.independ...7-a8660496.html

 

The Ministry of Health doesn't issue annual flu death statistics as far as I'm aware.



#258 jonnyboy

jonnyboy

    The hardtop guy

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Lightweight sportscars, Brunettes, Petrol & Beer.

Posted 08 April 2020 - 06:15 PM

Yes this whole thing has really brought the flu thing into focus for me (I know CV19 isnt flu) But I'm on the jab list and never taken them up on it. This year I'll be first in the queue. Interestingly in doing a bit of armchair research I was amazed to see that takeup of the flu jab for front line medical staff was only about 60%. I would imagine takeup will be around 99% this year!  



#259 Rosssco

Rosssco

    Scary Internerd

  • 4,185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Aberdeen

Posted 08 April 2020 - 07:17 PM

An interesting perspective on the narrative. I'll let your own mind up.

 

https://youtu.be/lGC5sGdz4kg



#260 Rosssco

Rosssco

    Scary Internerd

  • 4,185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Aberdeen

Posted 08 April 2020 - 07:47 PM

And this one provides a bit of info on the actual costs we assign to people's lives in the UK. Slightly uncomfortable to read but offers some perspective.

 

https://drmalcolmken...ve-on-covid-19/


Edited by Rosssco, 08 April 2020 - 07:49 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users