The big Coronavirus thread

coopster_the_1st

First.Aspect said:

Interesting how little difference closing the schools had, no? I made that point and it was roundly rejected by the "but think of the children brigade". Actually, over 99.99% of children under 10 (estimates based on Chinese data make the number 99.998%, and 99.96% for 10-19 s) will be fine and I'm guessing that the mortality risk of going to and from school, or using a trampoline, is much higher.

Teachers, different story.

I 100% agree with you on this. Personally schools should have been unlocked, whether phased or all at once, as of last Monday, excluding those children who are vulnerable or those who live with vulnerable people.

Unlocking schools is now a psychological issue that will be very difficult to overcome as there is so much unnecessary fear around C19.

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

Teachers, different story.

The problem is that you need teachers to open schools, and when they are all off sick or unwilling to work, there are no schools.

john80

rick_chasey said:

Why do people think the economy will suddenly recover with the removal of a lockdown if the virus is still there?

Try changing you thinking from recovery to survival. I would hazard a guess that a good quarter or more of our economy is discretionary spending. People buy the product or service because they want to not because they have too. These businesses will be in a fight for survival over the next 12 months. Easing the lockdown should be focussed on giving them the best chance of survival.

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

Teachers, different story.

The problem is that you need teachers to open schools, and when they are all off sick or unwilling to work, there are no schools.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

bradsbeard said:

Get the worse over and done with painful that it is.

Why prolong this? All this bull about vaccines unless someone gets lucky it’s a longtime off.

Try and protect the vulnerable and allow herd immunity.

The cure is worse than the disease in the long run.

We're well past 3 weeks of lockdown and there are still over 500 dying *a day*. That's an fully loaded A340 crashing in the UK every day.

Have you had it yet?

Not a helpful metric. Better comparison would be an average rate of about 125 a day from heart attaches and strokes, or 450 a day for cancer.

I read an intersting ish article this morning, albeit in the Hate Mail which means it was probably sensationalised, quoting an oncologist estimating 50k additional cancer deaths over the next year. Quite possibly and "estimated.. as many as..." statoid to be taken with a bucket of salt, but still does show that there is increasing concern about where the cross over between Covid and collateral deaths will fall. Clearly, somewhere between long term "social distancing" and "lockdown" - closer to "social distancing" I'd guess.

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

bradsbeard said:

Get the worse over and done with painful that it is.

Why prolong this? All this bull about vaccines unless someone gets lucky it’s a longtime off.

Try and protect the vulnerable and allow herd immunity.

The cure is worse than the disease in the long run.

We're well past 3 weeks of lockdown and there are still over 500 dying *a day*. That's an fully loaded A340 crashing in the UK every day.

Have you had it yet?

Not a helpful metric. Better comparison would be an average rate of about 125 a day from heart attaches and strokes, or 450 a day for cancer.

I read an intersting ish article this morning, albeit in the Hate Mail which means it was probably sensationalised, quoting an oncologist estimating 50k additional cancer deaths over the next year. Quite possibly and "estimated.. as many as..." statoid to be taken with a bucket of salt, but still does show that there is increasing concern about where the cross over between Covid and collateral deaths will fall. Clearly, somewhere between long term "social distancing" and "lockdown" - closer to "social distancing" I'd guess.

Couldn't you argue that there'd be fewer cancer deaths as a load of cancer sufferers would be taken out by the virus if it is allowed to spread?

kingstongraham

I think a lot of people will get a surprise how much like the lockdown the "end of the lockdown" feels.

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

bradsbeard said:

Get the worse over and done with painful that it is.

Why prolong this? All this bull about vaccines unless someone gets lucky it’s a longtime off.

Try and protect the vulnerable and allow herd immunity.

The cure is worse than the disease in the long run.

We're well past 3 weeks of lockdown and there are still over 500 dying *a day*. That's an fully loaded A340 crashing in the UK every day.

Have you had it yet?

Not a helpful metric. Better comparison would be an average rate of about 125 a day from heart attaches and strokes, or 450 a day for cancer.

I read an intersting ish article this morning, albeit in the Hate Mail which means it was probably sensationalised, quoting an oncologist estimating 50k additional cancer deaths over the next year. Quite possibly and "estimated.. as many as..." statoid to be taken with a bucket of salt, but still does show that there is increasing concern about where the cross over between Covid and collateral deaths will fall. Clearly, somewhere between long term "social distancing" and "lockdown" - closer to "social distancing" I'd guess.

Couldn't you argue that there'd be fewer cancer deaths as a load of cancer sufferers would be taken out by the virus if it is allowed to spread?

I would imagine that cancer was more evenly spread among the age groups and coronavirus, so perhaps only to a limited extent. But I'm not a consultant oncologist concerned about long-term suspension of screening.

rick_chasey

bradsbeard said:

rick_chasey said:

My point is it's a terrible amount of people to die as it is, and that is happening when social distancing is working.

To remove lockdown tomorrow means you will get hundreds of thousands of deaths in very short order, including a shed load of people who would otherwise be saved but would not have access to the required healthcare as they would be overloaded.

Most epidemiologist believe, and it makes sense, that the amount of people dying of corona vastly outnumbers the people dying as a result of lockdown.

Generally, as a rule, nations, cities and towns with higher death rates have historically recovered much more slowly from pandemics than those who have lower death rates.

Your focus is totally mortality.

Lockdown or no lockdown these people will succumb to this illness regardless.

We have large temporary hospitals hardly being used. Although staffing them is the issue.

We’re prepared to completely destroy our economy and the livelihood of millions for a death rate that a drop in the ocean compared to to UK and world population.

Nature has given a big kick in the balls and for once our science has no answer so scientists panic.

My statement earlIre stands true. As humans in the developed world we allow millions to die of starvation as it’s not on our doorstep.

Those countries tend to be in a mess, funnily enough.

I don't think you appreciate how costly 100,000s dying are, and how effective social distancing actually is.

And you are naive to think the economy just goes back to anything like normal if the virus is still around.

pblakeney

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

Teachers, different story.

The problem is that you need teachers to open schools, and when they are all off sick or unwilling to work, there are no schools.

Remove teachers who are ill, at risk, or live with people at risk, or live with essential workers.
Then do the same for pupils.
Then remove teachers and pupils who are risk averted.

It will be a low turn out.

coopster_the_1st

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

bradsbeard said:

Get the worse over and done with painful that it is.

Why prolong this? All this bull about vaccines unless someone gets lucky it’s a longtime off.

Try and protect the vulnerable and allow herd immunity.

The cure is worse than the disease in the long run.

We're well past 3 weeks of lockdown and there are still over 500 dying *a day*. That's an fully loaded A340 crashing in the UK every day.

Have you had it yet?

Not a helpful metric. Better comparison would be an average rate of about 125 a day from heart attaches and strokes, or 450 a day for cancer.

I read an intersting ish article this morning, albeit in the Hate Mail which means it was probably sensationalised, quoting an oncologist estimating 50k additional cancer deaths over the next year. Quite possibly and "estimated.. as many as..." statoid to be taken with a bucket of salt, but still does show that there is increasing concern about where the cross over between Covid and collateral deaths will fall. Clearly, somewhere between long term "social distancing" and "lockdown" - closer to "social distancing" I'd guess.

It is probably this guy, Professor Karol Sikora, Oncologist for 50 years. CMO of @Rutherford_Hplc, Ex-director of the WHO Cancer Programme.

https://twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora/status/1253003690816012289

rjsterry

Lockdown or no lockdown these people will succumb to this illness regardless.

There seems to be a rather medieval view that the deaths from C19 are somehow predetermined. The only certainty is that some people will succumb - which people and how many is down to a mixture of chance and our actions; there's no such thing as fate.

bradsbeard

Those countries tend to be in a mess, funnily enough.

I don't think you appreciate how costly 100,000s dying are, and how effective social distancing actually is.

And you are naive to think the economy just goes back to anything like normal if the virus is still around.

So okay to see millions die as long as not on your doorstep? Says a lot.

Afraid that 100000s dying is less costly than 6 million+ unemployed.

Most of these people will unfortunately succumb to this disease lockdown or no lockdown.

The economy will be in a far better way if we loose these measure in the coming weeks than months later.

So Hancock says hairdressers and barbers won’t be able to open for at least 6 months.

I know of one Who has already that has run out of money and won’t reopen. That’s one month. These are small independent businesses. Not a lot can survive a 8 month shutdown.

These people won’t just loose businesses but livelihoods and homes.

This will happen with a lot of small businesses.

I don’t fear the disease I fear the economic disasters we’re causing because of it.

tailwindhome

NI stats

Deaths from Covid 19 up to 40% of the total (as at 17th)

tailwindhome

There's a big question to be asked of the people suggesting we end the lockdown and shield the elderly and vulnerable if we can't shield them during lockdown

kingstongraham

coopster_the_1st said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

bradsbeard said:

Get the worse over and done with painful that it is.

Why prolong this? All this bull about vaccines unless someone gets lucky it’s a longtime off.

Try and protect the vulnerable and allow herd immunity.

The cure is worse than the disease in the long run.

We're well past 3 weeks of lockdown and there are still over 500 dying *a day*. That's an fully loaded A340 crashing in the UK every day.

Have you had it yet?

Not a helpful metric. Better comparison would be an average rate of about 125 a day from heart attaches and strokes, or 450 a day for cancer.

I read an intersting ish article this morning, albeit in the Hate Mail which means it was probably sensationalised, quoting an oncologist estimating 50k additional cancer deaths over the next year. Quite possibly and "estimated.. as many as..." statoid to be taken with a bucket of salt, but still does show that there is increasing concern about where the cross over between Covid and collateral deaths will fall. Clearly, somewhere between long term "social distancing" and "lockdown" - closer to "social distancing" I'd guess.

It is probably this guy, Professor Karol Sikora, Oncologist for 50 years. CMO of @Rutherford_Hplc, Ex-director of the WHO Cancer Programme.

https://twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora/status/1253003690816012289

Just read back through his feed.

Very pro-lockdown, with expected delays to treatment, and very gradual relaxation when appropriate. Wants hospitals to get back to normal which is obviously right, and now is the time to do it.

Can't quite square it with his hope that everything will be back to normal in June though.

TheBigBean

tailwindhome said:

There's a big question to be asked of the people suggesting we end the lockdown and shield the elderly and vulnerable if we can't shield them during lockdown

Tricky to shield anyone in a care home, but the others seem to be reasonably well shielded at the moment, provided that they didn't contract it before the lockdown. It can take quite a while to die from it, so deaths today may not have been contracted during the lockdown.

My parents, for example, are in blissful isolation, but I do wonder whether they can manage that for two years (full lockdown, wait for vaccine scenario)

pangolin

tailwindhome said:

There's a big question to be asked of the people suggesting we end the lockdown and shield the elderly and vulnerable if we can't shield them during lockdown

It's just such glib nonsense isn't it. Oh we need to end the lock down but yes of course protect the vulnerable. Lets end the lock down but of course whilst protecting the NHS too. It makes no sense.

ddraver

Well, Switzerland now testing everyone symptomatic and have made an antibody test available ("...in limited quantities...")

Because we're treated like adults here though they are open that they don't really know what the result of that antibody test might mean in terms of future health.

surrey_commuter

pangolin said:

tailwindhome said:

There's a big question to be asked of the people suggesting we end the lockdown and shield the elderly and vulnerable if we can't shield them during lockdown

It's just such glib nonsense isn't it. Oh we need to end the lock down but yes of course protect the vulnerable. Lets end the lock down but of course whilst protecting the NHS too. It makes no sense.

The lockdown will be eased, by how much will be a political decision.

Economically we can not carry on as we are. The Govt is borrowing £60bn a month, mainly from the BofE so if that ever gets shown to be snake oil we will all be on pan y agua.

Govt choice is to carry on surreptitiously pursuing herd immunity (maybe grow bigger Swedish sized balls) or protect the vulnerable/NHS but accepting we can learn from JF.

Longshot

pangolin said:

tailwindhome said:

There's a big question to be asked of the people suggesting we end the lockdown and shield the elderly and vulnerable if we can't shield them during lockdown

It's just such glib nonsense isn't it. Oh we need to end the lock down but yes of course protect the vulnerable. Lets end the lock down but of course whilst protecting the NHS too. It makes no sense.

It makes about as much sense as suggesting we can keep this lockdown going for 6-12 months.

tailwindhome

Longshot said:

pangolin said:

tailwindhome said:

There's a big question to be asked of the people suggesting we end the lockdown and shield the elderly and vulnerable if we can't shield them during lockdown

It's just such glib nonsense isn't it. Oh we need to end the lock down but yes of course protect the vulnerable. Lets end the lock down but of course whilst protecting the NHS too. It makes no sense.

It makes about as much sense as suggesting we can keep this lockdown going for 6-12 months.

Absolutely no one is suggesting that.

bradsbeard

tailwindhome said:

Longshot said:

pangolin said:

tailwindhome said:

There's a big question to be asked of the people suggesting we end the lockdown and shield the elderly and vulnerable if we can't shield them during lockdown

It's just such glib nonsense isn't it. Oh we need to end the lock down but yes of course protect the vulnerable. Lets end the lock down but of course whilst protecting the NHS too. It makes no sense.

It makes about as much sense as suggesting we can keep this lockdown going for 6-12 months.

Absolutely no one is suggesting that.

What is the suggestion then?

I see Hancock saying hairdressers and barbers won’t open for at least another 6 months.

There is no way most of these businesses will survive that king shut down.

I know one barber already gone to the wall.

The ratio of small businesses failing if social distancing were to to be 18 months would be phenomenal.

All then a cost to the government.

tailwindhome

bradsbeard said:

tailwindhome said:

Longshot said:

pangolin said:

tailwindhome said:

There's a big question to be asked of the people suggesting we end the lockdown and shield the elderly and vulnerable if we can't shield them during lockdown

It's just such glib nonsense isn't it. Oh we need to end the lock down but yes of course protect the vulnerable. Lets end the lock down but of course whilst protecting the NHS too. It makes no sense.

It makes about as much sense as suggesting we can keep this lockdown going for 6-12 months.

Absolutely no one is suggesting that.

What is the suggestion then?

I see Hancock saying hairdressers and barbers won’t open for at least another 6 months.

There is no way most of these businesses will survive that king shut down.

I know one barber already gone to the wall.

The ratio of small businesses failing if social distancing were to to be 18 months would be phenomenal.

All then a cost to the government.

Oh, OK.

If there are only two states 'as it was before' and 'lockdown', and lockdown is defined as anything other than 'as it was before', then lockdown will be a minimum of 6 -12 months.

Sorry about that.

DeVlaeminck

bradsbeard said:

So Hancock says hairdressers and barbers won’t be able to open for at least 6 months.

That's fine but we all know that Hancock will not be appearing on TV with 7-8 months worth of hair growth or a buzz cut his daughter did for him.

tailwindhome

I think I'll be having a pint in a pub before I'd sit in a barber's chair again.

Which is probably irrational

Jeremy.89

How likely is Hancock to be health Secretary in 7 to 8 months!

Longshot

tailwindhome said:

Longshot said:

pangolin said:

tailwindhome said:

There's a big question to be asked of the people suggesting we end the lockdown and shield the elderly and vulnerable if we can't shield them during lockdown

It's just such glib nonsense isn't it. Oh we need to end the lock down but yes of course protect the vulnerable. Lets end the lock down but of course whilst protecting the NHS too. It makes no sense.

It makes about as much sense as suggesting we can keep this lockdown going for 6-12 months.

Absolutely no one is suggesting that.

So what are you suggesting then? You were belittling the idea of ending the lockdown - you didn't specify anything more.

DeVlaeminck

At some point soon the govt is going to have to come up with a plan and treat people like adults by being open with it. What is the aim, what are the conditions for moving from where we are now and to where ?

tailwindhome

DeVlaeminck said:

At some point soon the govt is going to have to come up with a plan and treat people like adults by being open with it. What is the aim, what are the conditions for moving from where we are now and to where ?

They could start by not briefing out ideas on a Fri/Sat to get a reaction, then retracting on Sunday afternoon.