SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

[Walrus]

I'm surprised and terrified that people are so willing to give up their essential freedoms because they're a little scared. If someone would have asked me in January how deadly a pandemic would have to be for people to be as willing as they currently collectively are to give up their freedoms I'd have said at least 10x more deadly overall and around 50x more deadly for those under 60.

As someone concerned about the progressive erosion of civil liberties (which is always under the guise of keeping the populace safety) the enthusiasm with which we're gifted our basic rights to government for a bit of purported safety is far more concerning that the virus itself. I've no doubt future governments will look at how quickly we were willing to sacrifice these freedoms and use it as a blueprint.

Literally in this thread less than 48 hours ago a video was posted of someone alone on a park bench in a communal space with no-one within 50 metres of them with close to zero chance for infecting anyone else. Several police officers who were not themselves following social distancing guidelines arrested them without being able to quote the legislation for which they were relying. If that in and of itself wasn't frightening enough, rather than protests regarding a clear abuse of police powers, we have people criticising that the person even had the right to sit on the bench in the first place. We've joyfully sleepwalked into 1984.

This sort of sense of entitlement is more the issue for me. Some people have such an exaggerated sense of self-importance that they put their own "essential freedoms" above the safety of those around them. Its equivalent to the whole "Ronaldo is a slave at United" nonsense. Sometimes sacrifice is required to maintain the freedoms and quality of life that people (in the UK) enjoy in this modern age. Im in my 30's so have never experienced anything like the World Wars - this is pretty much the most extreme national disaster to take place in my lifetime so far. I think a lot of people of my generation and those around dont realise how lucky they have been to live in what has been largely a time of stability and peace for the world, and they dont understand or appreciate that sometimes life has hardships that we must endure.

The idea that this is a "slippery slope" to some sort of totalitarian police state is a nonsense in my view. Admittedly I have very little faith in the general public (especially after the last 5 years or so), but I remain confident that there are some fairly basic red lines where the populace will collectively tell the gov't to feck off. The current situation isnt one of them - its about a new virus, which is still mostly unknown, which has spread around the world and is killing thousands of people. It is an impossible balance to try to find, to protect the public safety whilst also trying to minimise the long term damage to the economy, but its definitely a bit early to be pining over lost personal freedoms.

For what its worth, I mostly identify as a libertarian, too.

 

[BluesJr]

I'm surprised and terrified that people are so willing to give up their essential freedoms because they're a little scared. If someone would have asked me in January how deadly a pandemic would have to be for people to be as willing as they currently collectively are to give up their freedoms I'd have said at least 10x more deadly overall and around 50x more deadly for those under 60.

As someone concerned about the progressive erosion of civil liberties (which is always under the guise of keeping the populace safety) the enthusiasm with which we're gifted our basic rights to government for a bit of purported safety is far more concerning that the virus itself. I've no doubt future governments will look at how quickly we were willing to sacrifice these freedoms and use it as a blueprint.

Literally in this thread less than 48 hours ago a video was posted of someone alone on a park bench in a communal space with no-one within 50 metres of them with close to zero chance for infecting anyone else. Several police officers who were not themselves following the guidelines they were enforcing arrested them without being able to quote the legislation for which they were relying. If that in and of itself wasn't frightening enough, rather than protests regarding a clear abuse of police powers, we have people criticising that the person even had the right to sit on the bench in the first place. We've joyfully sleepwalked into 1984.

No words for this post.

 

[Alabaster Codify7]

I'm surprised and terrified that people are so willing to give up their essential freedoms because they're a little scared. If someone would have asked me in January how deadly a pandemic would have to be for people to be as willing as they currently collectively are to give up their freedoms I'd have said at least 10x more deadly overall and around 50x more deadly for those under 60.

As someone concerned about the progressive erosion of civil liberties (which is always under the guise of keeping the populace safety) the enthusiasm with which we're gifted our basic rights to government for a bit of purported safety is far more concerning that the virus itself. I've no doubt future governments will look at how quickly we were willing to sacrifice these freedoms and use it as a blueprint.

Literally in this thread less than 48 hours ago a video was posted of someone alone on a park bench in a communal space with no-one within 50 metres of them with close to zero chance for infecting anyone else. Several police officers who were not themselves following the guidelines they were enforcing arrested them without being able to quote the legislation for which they were relying. If that in and of itself wasn't frightening enough, rather than protests regarding a clear abuse of police powers, we have people criticising that the person even had the right to sit on the bench in the first place. We've joyfully sleepwalked into 1984.

There's definitely something to worry about there, yes. At present, they've got us policing each other out of fear and frustration, which in some ways is definitely a good thing as there's a lot of people taking the piss out there which is having an effect on us all.

But how far does that go and when does it stop? On Sunday, my 63yr old mother was barking across the road at the neighbours because the man of the house was chatting to a builder in his garden. Proper shouting at him for flounting social distancing measures, it was quite awkward to be around. Afterwards my mother was a bit upset and said she mainly did because she's fed up and frustrated at not being able to see her grandkids. The bloke was hardly having a group BBQ or some pissup with his mates, it was a 5min conversation in his own front garden.

Remember when those rumours came out about China implementing that 'social credit' thing where you got browny points for grassing up neighbours/colleagues who were speaking bad about the government? Better access to housing, education etc. Scoring you like an episode of 'Black Mirror'.

Well this is how things like that start. Get the scared, frustrated people to police themselves and demonise each other.

I have no doubt that when this all over there will be stricter measures imposed on all of us - some for genuine good, some for rotten motives.

 

[Hansa]

A move towards more authoritarian, nationalistic policies in response to the national supply shortages and relative lack of successful international co-operation and increased need for safety, with compromises accepted to deliver that.

I'm a little bit more optimistic than this, although some head of states will clearly seize the opportunity and move towards authoritarianism, particularly if this has been part of the country's recent past.

Our mistake was to put most of our eggs in one or two baskets; PPE from China and medicines from India. I don't think every country after this is over will start thinking only about themselves in terms of policies, but we'll probably get more localized production of supplies. For example, a handful of European countries taking responsibility of producing enough of this and that, so that we won't have a single point failure again.

 

[Revan]

There is a lot more viruses that have appeared in the last two decades Iquitos, Itaya, Chapare, Sabia or Guanarito viruses are examples in South America and not the only ones. H5N1 and H7N9 are interesting examples though, they were both first discovered in Scotland and Minnesota among poultry populations, now human contaminations were first reported in China and in the case of H7N9 it has only been reported in China, the interesting question is whether they were just first reported in China or evolved to human there.

But my point is simple, China and East Asia as a whole have the particularly of having for a large part a good tropical weather that viruses and parasites like, also large amounts of people live in relatively small areas and with human actions like deforestation, wild animals have less places to go that are as far as possible from Humans which means that we will be more and more in contact with new pathogens. The same thing is happening in South America and Africa. Europe alread burnt its forests and got rid of a substantial part of wildlife, so we are kind of safe.

Fair point, good post.

I haven’t heard about those other viruses though, so I don’t know if they were less dangerous or the situation was handled better.

 

[MDFC Manager]

I'm surprised and terrified that people are so willing to give up their essential freedoms because they're a little scared. If someone would have asked me in January how deadly a pandemic would have to be for people to be as willing as they currently collectively are to give up their freedoms I'd have said at least 10x more deadly overall and around 50x more deadly for those under 60.

As someone concerned about the progressive erosion of civil liberties (which is always under the guise of keeping the populace safety) the enthusiasm with which we're gifted our basic rights to government for a bit of purported safety is far more concerning that the virus itself. I've no doubt future governments will look at how quickly we were willing to sacrifice these freedoms and use it as a blueprint.

Literally in this thread less than 48 hours ago a video was posted of someone alone on a park bench in a communal space with no-one within 50 metres of them with close to zero chance for infecting anyone else. Several police officers who were not themselves following the guidelines they were enforcing arrested them without being able to quote the legislation for which they were relying. If that in and of itself wasn't frightening enough, rather than protests regarding a clear abuse of police powers, we have people criticising that the person even had the right to sit on the bench in the first place. We've joyfully sleepwalked into 1984.

This isn't a serious post, right?

 

[horsechoker]

Italy today:
604 deaths (-32 yesterday)
3039 new cases (-560 yesterday)
106 fewer in intensive care.

 

[FireballXL5]

This isn't a serious post, right?

I think self isolation is making some people go bonkers.

 

[Ady87]

Who knew Raab had an empathetic bone in his body?

 

[Sarni]

This isn't a serious post, right?

It can’t be. It’s just too crazy. Then again my mate from work said today that US are so lucky to have a president like Trump handling it because he has done everything perfectly so far. I think people are really breaking up mentally.

 

[Pagh Wraith]

This isn't a serious post, right?

There were some really well written responses disagreeing with the original post. What is the point of these one liners questioning the sincerity of the poster? Doesn't advance the conversation and to me they always scream "Hey look at me how outraged I am."

For what it's worth, finneh made some good points and there is definitely reason to be concerned. Of course there is when most of us have never seen their liberties infringed upon like this. On the other hand, I don't really see an alternative to partial and temporary lockdowns. We're dealing with an unknown virus that is capable of overwhelming national health systems. Drastic measures had to be taken.

 

[11101]

Italy today:
604 deaths (-32 yesterday)
3039 new cases (-560 yesterday)
106 fewer in intensive care.

And it's taken almost 2 months from the outbreak to get to this point. The government are saying lockdown will last for some time yet and are pleading with the generally very religious Italians to stay at home over Easter.

 

[Compton22]

So around 18000 of the reported cases have required hospitalisation which means that a third of the cases requiring hospitalisation have resulted in death? That's really scary

 

[horsechoker]

And it's taken almost 2 months from the outbreak to get to this point. The government are saying lockdown will last for some time yet and are pleading with the generally very religious Italians to stay at home over Easter.

Hopefully people will listen and not congregate. There's already been too many deaths.

 

[stepic]

At least Whitty and Valance answer questions. Raab just provides typical political bullshit responses that ignore the main point of pretty much every question directed towards him.

 

[Penna]

And it's taken almost 2 months from the outbreak to get to this point. The government are saying lockdown will last for some time yet and are pleading with the generally very religious Italians to stay at home over Easter.

There's no Mass to attend, in any case. We can all watch online or in Italy on TV, as we've been doing for weeks now. I suspect most Italians will be keener to go and have a big meal with their families, as you know! The weather's going to continue to be warm, which kind of doesn't help.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

I'm surprised and terrified that people are so willing to give up their essential freedoms because they're a little scared. If someone would have asked me in January how deadly a pandemic would have to be for people to be as willing as they currently collectively are to give up their freedoms I'd have said at least 10x more deadly overall and around 50x more deadly for those under 60.

As someone concerned about the progressive erosion of civil liberties (which is always under the guise of keeping the populace safety) the enthusiasm with which we're gifted our basic rights to government for a bit of purported safety is far more concerning that the virus itself. I've no doubt future governments will look at how quickly we were willing to sacrifice these freedoms and use it as a blueprint.

Literally in this thread less than 48 hours ago a video was posted of someone alone on a park bench in a communal space with no-one within 50 metres of them with close to zero chance for infecting anyone else. Several police officers who were not themselves following the guidelines they were enforcing arrested them without being able to quote the legislation for which they were relying. If that in and of itself wasn't frightening enough, rather than protests regarding a clear abuse of police powers, we have people criticising that the person even had the right to sit on the bench in the first place. We've joyfully sleepwalked into 1984.

What's the old quote? Give me liberty or give me death.

With this situation, it's your choice.

 

[Heardy]

At least Whitty and Valance answer questions. Raab just provides typical political bullshit responses that ignore the main point of pretty much every question directed towards him.

Agree with this!

The fact that we're so far behind the curve on testing and have been caught on the back foot in terms of approving private testing through domestic labs that have apparently offered services and not procuring necessary tests is a travesty!

 

[Heardy]

So around 18000 of the reported cases have required hospitalisation which means that a third of the cases requiring hospitalisation have resulted in death? That's really scary

I guess the hope here is that there is a vastly greater number of cases that do not need hospital admission. I feel that we would have a far better picture of the severity of the disease and our ability to deal with it (within the constraints of NHS capacity) if we had a better idea of how many people within the population have actually had it and fought it off themselves.

 

[Smores]

I'm surprised and terrified that people are so willing to give up their essential freedoms because they're a little scared. If someone would have asked me in January how deadly a pandemic would have to be for people to be as willing as they currently collectively are to give up their freedoms I'd have said at least 10x more deadly overall and around 50x more deadly for those under 60.

As someone concerned about the progressive erosion of civil liberties (which is always under the guise of keeping the populace safety) the enthusiasm with which we're gifted our basic rights to government for a bit of purported safety is far more concerning that the virus itself. I've no doubt future governments will look at how quickly we were willing to sacrifice these freedoms and use it as a blueprint.

Literally in this thread less than 48 hours ago a video was posted of someone alone on a park bench in a communal space with no-one within 50 metres of them with close to zero chance for infecting anyone else. Several police officers who were not themselves following the guidelines they were enforcing arrested them without being able to quote the legislation for which they were relying. If that in and of itself wasn't frightening enough, rather than protests regarding a clear abuse of police powers, we have people criticising that the person even had the right to sit on the bench in the first place. We've joyfully sleepwalked into 1984.

That's generally because you don't believe in society or the goodwill of society, I've read enough of your posts across threads to know that.

The majority in time of crisis are actually able to snap out the individualistic mindset and band together for the greater good, It's human nature. Giving up your freedom requires a lack of choice and instruction but the government and police are merely imposing collective judgement here.

There's a certainly valid debate to be had as to whether people are right to trust governments with creeping legislation.

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

Why are people so obsessed with ending the lockdown? Do you honestly feel safe when you’re out and about? This won’t change within a month and everything will magically be back to how it was. The virus will still be out there in a months time.

Personally I'll settle for being able to go and see my other half, she only lives ten mins up the road, and I'm missing her like mad, that would do me.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Awwww bless him!

 

[Dante]

Breathing exercise should you get into difficulty.
.

Think it can help before you get bad helping the lungs stay functioning and not getting logged up and also that old guy from the cruise very early on in the outbreak managed to avoid going on a ventilator in Japan by doing breathing exercises he knew.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

In light of these figures, here's the amended graph of 'deaths aggregated over 3 days'.

Again, I think this is a quite good way of illustrating things in order to even out the inconsistencies of reporting from the NHS.

If the UK can keep anywhere near 1846 over the next 3 days (as horrific as that will still be), I think we can start whispering that we might have finally peaked. It'd still be a few weeks before we're safely on the other side, though.

 

[barros]

I think self isolation is making some people go bonkers.

I think people who live in apartments are going bonkers, I live in a house with a yard and part of my time is inside my shop/garage or cutting wood with my son, still have a side job which I go out 1 day a week and I start feeling the cabin fever.

 

[Dante]

I think self isolation is making some people go bonkers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_arrest

 

[finneh]

That's generally because you don't believe in society or the goodwill of society, I've read enough of your posts across threads to know that.

The majority in time of crisis are actually able to snap out the individualistic mindset and band together for the greater good, It's human nature. Giving up your freedom requires a lack of choice and instruction but the government and police are merely imposing collective judgement here.

There's a certainly valid debate to be had as to whether people are right to trust governments with creeping legislation.

Quite the opposite. I believe that if you provide people with the statistics and explain the problem clearly, the vast majority will comply without force or impinging on their rights.

Arresting people for sitting on a bench 50m from the nearest person, spying on people walking alone with drones and/or forcing people into poverty (closing businesses that have taken lifetimes to build) is something different entirely.

I have great faith in society, just not in government.

 

[berbatrick]

i don't think it's iillegitimate to be worried about the loving embrace towards a totalitarian government this crisis has caused. most people here called out what happenedn in hungary, which also happened in the name of the virus.
the fact is the erosion of privacy rights in the uk has happened over 15+ years since the war on terror, with mass email spying, long-term police undercover work of peaceful groups, etc. when snowden exposed that first part it made a flutter but died down. the second bit got some coverage and even prosecutions but it didn't really filter through the general public, or the general public already didn't care.

 

[finneh]

That's generally because you don't believe in society or the goodwill of society, I've read enough of your posts across threads to know that.

The majority in time of crisis are actually able to snap out the individualistic mindset and band together for the greater good, It's human nature. Giving up your freedom requires a lack of choice and instruction but the government and police are merely imposing collective judgement here.

There's a certainly valid debate to be had as to whether people are right to trust governments with creeping legislation.

Quite the opposite. I believe that if you provide people with the statistics and explain the problem clearly, the vast majority will comply without force or impinging on their rights.

Arresting people for sitting on a bench 50m from the nearest person, spying on people walking alone with drones and/or forcing people into poverty (closing businesses that have taken lifetimes to build) is something different entirely.

I have great faith in society, just not in government.

 

[Arruda]

Have there been any stats or reporting on people who have recovered from intensive care having any permanent damage or are they making full recoveries?

Is pneumonia something that goes completely if you survive it?

@Arruda sorry to keep asking you this stuff.

Hey. You know I'm always happy to participate.

I don't really know how to answer in very specific terms for Covid-19, but I've read a study suggesting thata long stay in an ICU unit, even upon "full" recovery, may have an impact on longer term health outcomes of the person (increased risk of mortality from other causes, etc) and this risk may be comparatively worse the younger and healthier the person was before critical care.

As for "permanent damage" per se, I presume strong pneumonias, like any other inflammation, can carry a risk of causing fibrosis (scarring) and loss of function of normal pulmonary tissue, but I don't think this is very common.

ICU means a lot of other invasive procedures, and they all carry some risk. I think the most extreme form of critical care is when intubation/ventilation is no longer enough to maintain oxygenation, and your blood needs to be pumped out of the body for oxygenation (a lot more complex than mere dialysis). This is called extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and not all critical care units have the means/personnel to do this.

All this to say that the procedures are so intensive, and life is sustained in such artificial ways, that some (how many?) people with "full recoveries" won't be in perfect condition, i.e., their health isn't reset to a pre-disease level.

Remember I'm not a clinician, so some stuff above may be a bit off the mark, it's just a general impression. Am happy to be corrected by anyone who understands more of this.

 

[Pagh Wraith]

Personally I'll settle for being able to go and see my other half, she only lives ten mins up the road, and I'm missing her like mad, that would do me.

Is either of you in isolation? Surely this is allowed?

 

[zing]

In light of these figures, here's the amended graph of 'deaths aggregated over 3 days'.

Again, I think this is a quite good way of illustrating things in order to even out the inconsistencies of reporting from the NHS.

If the UK can keep anywhere near 1846 over the next 3 days (as horrific as that will still be), I think we can start whispering that we might have finally peaked. It'd still be a few weeks before we're safely on the other side, though.

I don't understand the optimism around flattening the curve. It's because we're all sitting at home doing nothing - it's naturally going to go down.

It means nothing for when we can go out -- it'll pick up the moment we go out.

 

[groovyalbert]

Is either of you in isolation? Surely this is allowed?

A fair few European countries have permitted non-household corona-buddies, and I think you can meet with another person outside your household in Germany. Not so in the UK.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Quite the opposite. I believe that if you provide people with the statistics and explain the problem clearly, the vast majority will comply without force or impinging on their rights.

Arresting people for sitting on a bench 50m from the nearest person, spying on people walking alone with drones and/or forcing people into poverty (closing businesses that have taken lifetimes to build) is something different entirely.

I have great faith in society, just not in government.

Your faith in society is misplaced.

If the police allow that one person to sit on a bench 50m from anyone else without telling them to beat it, another person will see them and think "Hey, I can sit on that bench 50m away from anyone else, too" or "Why can;t I go walk the wilderness trails, too?" And the next person will think the same. Humans are inherently selfish. That's not a criticism but when we are all asked to stay home as much as possible we will view anyone who is not doing that with envy and ask ourselves why am I not doing this as well. Then a herd mentality takes over and you get the scenes of crowds of people not maintaining a 2m distance from each other, etc and the resultant spike in infections and hospitalizations a few days later. And this continues longer than it needs to because some people can't do what is asked of them.

 

[Pagh Wraith]

A fair few European countries have permitted non-household corona-buddies, and I think you can meet with another person outside your household in Germany. Not so in the UK.

Didn't know that, thanks. Thought there was a general 'any two people' rule for gatherings.

 

[mav_9me]

I guess the hope here is that there is a vastly greater number of cases that do not need hospital admission. I feel that we would have a far better picture of the severity of the disease and our ability to deal with it (within the constraints of NHS capacity) if we had a better idea of how many people within the population have actually had it and fought it off themselves.

There is no question there is a vast number who are asymptomatic, and another vast number who are mildly symptomatic. And so the real case fatality rate maybe low but when it is so contagious and causing so many infections, percentages lose value and absolutes are more important. For example if it turns out CFR is 1% but it is contagious that vast majority get infected, for example in USA that would be 1 million deaths.

So his point if true that 1/3 of hospitalizarions are dying that's a horrific number.

At my place in USA I wouldn't say that, but we are a small place. I know for a fact NYC is getting killed.

 

[Dante]

I don't understand the optimism around flattening the curve. It's because we're all sitting at home doing nothing - it's naturally going to go down.

It means nothing for when we can go out -- it'll pick up the moment we go out.

It's naturally going to go up. That's what would happen if we were all left to our own devices.

The fact it's going down is due to man-made social intervention.

In other words, our collective effort to socially isolate is working. That's worth celebrating. Well, that and saving thousands of lives.

 

[stepic]

Quite the opposite. I believe that if you provide people with the statistics and explain the problem clearly, the vast majority will comply without force or impinging on their rights.

Arresting people for sitting on a bench 50m from the nearest person, spying on people walking alone with drones and/or forcing people into poverty (closing businesses that have taken lifetimes to build) is something different entirely.

I have great faith in society, just not in government.

did you not see people still going to pubs despite being advised not to, until they were literally forced not to?

or people going to beaches, sunbathing in parks and so on? People clearly can’t be trusted. The draconian measures are necessary because there are so many selfish people out there. Most of us are willing to sacrifice some personal liberties for the greater good, but it only works if we all stick to it. That one lady sitting in a park isn’t a problem but if everyone acts like she does then it is a problem. A draconian line has to be drawn in this extreme situation we’re in. But it’s not like we’re all just going to accept these conditions blindly once the restrictions are reduced.

edit: basically repeated what Dwazza said

 

[JPRouve]

Fair point, good post.

I haven’t heard about those other viruses though, so I don’t know if they were less dangerous or the situation was handled better.

These viruses are viral hemorrhagic fevers and these particular viruses are arenaviruses, most of them rely on direct contact with rodents or their feces/urine and are therefore not currently as threatening. But I imagine that you remember hantavirus for which we observed human to human transmission for the first time relatively recently.

And on the subject of coronavirus and influenza it's worth remembering that a lot of domesticated animals can carry these family of viruses. So it will happen again and most likely until the end of time, in rare occasions the virus will be a biological engineering marvel but most of the time it will be a failure because it either lacks discretion, is too lethal or fail to move to a new host.

 

[sammsky1]

I'm surprised and terrified that people are so willing to give up their essential freedoms because they're a little scared. If someone would have asked me in January how deadly a pandemic would have to be for people to be as willing as they currently collectively are to give up their freedoms I'd have said at least 10x more deadly overall and around 50x more deadly for those under 60.

As someone concerned about the progressive erosion of civil liberties (which is always under the guise of keeping the populace safety) the enthusiasm with which we're gifted our basic rights to government for a bit of purported safety is far more concerning that the virus itself. I've no doubt future governments will look at how quickly we were willing to sacrifice these freedoms and use it as a blueprint.

Literally in this thread less than 48 hours ago a video was posted of someone alone on a park bench in a communal space with no-one within 50 metres of them with close to zero chance for infecting anyone else. Several police officers who were not themselves following the guidelines they were enforcing arrested them without being able to quote the legislation for which they were relying. If that in and of itself wasn't frightening enough, rather than protests regarding a clear abuse of police powers, we have people criticising that the person even had the right to sit on the bench in the first place. We've joyfully sleepwalked into 1984.

I don't think you realise how UK compares with other nations in the world and are either very deluded or completely out of touch with what is going on in the world right now.

What you're saying is that the nation who created capitalism, with one of the worlds oldest democracies, which is dependent on its citizens to have freedom of movement to drive its economy, will wilfully destroy itself just so it can erode its citizens civil liberties?

Any 'civil liberties' that have been eroded during covid19 are purely so this nation can save a million or so of its citizens from dying. And any 'erosions' which remain thereafter would be to ensure that remains so.

In this current context, the lady in the VDO you refer to would have been disappeared in China, beaten up by cops in India or arrested and manhandled in Russia. And yet in the UK, she has the freedom to take the piss out of and waste a policeman's time.

 

[Grinner]

Hey. You know I'm always happy to participate.

I don't really know how to answer in very specific terms for Covid-19, but I've read a study suggesting thata long stay in an ICU unit, even upon "full" recovery, may have an impact on longer term health outcomes of the person (increased risk of mortality from other causes, etc) and this risk may be comparatively worse the younger and healthier the person was before critical care.

As for "permanent damage" per se, I presume strong pneumonias, like any other inflammation, can carry a risk of causing fibrosis (scarring) and loss of function of normal pulmonary tissue, but I don't think this is very common.

ICU means a lot of other invasive procedures, and they all carry some risk. I think the most extreme form of critical care is when intubation/ventilation is no longer enough to maintain oxygenation, and your blood needs to be pumped out of the body for oxygenation (a lot more complex than mere dialysis). This is called extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and not all critical care units have the means/personnel to do this.

All this to say that the procedures are so intensive, and life is sustained in such artificial ways, that some (how many?) people with "full recoveries" won't be in perfect condition, i.e., their health isn't reset to a pre-disease level.

Remember I'm not a clinician, so some stuff above may be a bit off the mark, it's just a general impression. Am happy to be corrected by anyone who understands more of this.

Interesting. I remember when I was practicing intubation they said be careful because you can crack teeth!

How serious is lung scarring? I wonder if it means even more susceptible to similar corona viruses in the furture. There seems to be a lot of thought that we are going to see more versions in the coming years.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Quite the opposite. I believe that if you provide people with the statistics and explain the problem clearly, the vast majority will comply without force or impinging on their rights.

Arresting people for sitting on a bench 50m from the nearest person, spying on people walking alone with drones and/or forcing people into poverty (closing businesses that have taken lifetimes to build) is something different entirely.

I have great faith in society, just not in government.

I think so too, but it’s not a much fancied opinion on here. Expect to be absolutely slated.

Just an extra mention here that you posted “the vast majority,” I absolutely believe you’ll always have plenty of knobheads in every society.