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

Pardon my ignorance but Germany are fully equipped to handle a large increase in hospitalised patients with a reasonable survival rate, right? Plus, warnings are in place for at risk people to stay at home and stay safe from family members going out?

Does this not mean that herd immunity is in play in a controlled manner?
They are but how large an increase is the question. When Merkel talked about it a month ago she said a reproduction rate of 1.1 - which they're at now - would overwhelm their system by October. At 1.3 it would be overwhelmed by June. She explained it pretty plainly here.


Their understanding of the situation has evolved since then and I suspect their model predicts less drastic outcomes at this stage, but it isn't the case that they can just let the consistently R0 increase because they've got such a healthy healthcare system.

They've got thresholds to control things, so if more 50 cases per 100,000 people appear then restrictions are reimposed at a local level. The places where they've passed the thresholds still seem to be triggered by large numbers indoors for sustained periods - meat packing plants and care homes - but the general increase in the R0 is a broader issue.

Ultimately every country has said that a) the lockdown relaxation is conditional, so if thresholds are broken then there is always the possibility of restrictions being reimposed and b) we don't have very good information on what individual effect each restriction has. So it is entirely expected that the R0 will increase as the lockdown is relaxed and they should get a better idea of what impact each restriction has, and likely reconfigure the set of restrictions as the evidence comes in. Part of what factors into that is adherence to certain relaxations e.g. so far people have been more likely to abuse the public protest crowd limits than some of the other restrictions.
 
Last edited:
If media outlets are concerned that newspaper sales will plummet as a result of Covid-19, then they have clearly had their heads under a rock for the last 10-15 years.

With or without the pandemic, their industry would be dead in the next 5-10 years anyway. Clutching at straws against the inevitable tide. A world without tabloid papers? Good fecking riddance.

If you think they're bad wait until we live in a world of unaccountable clickbait 'news' websites.
 
They are but how large an increase is the question. When Merkel talked about it a month ago she said a reproduction rate of 1.1 - which they're at now - would overwhelm their system by October. At 1.3 it would be overwhelmed by June. She explained it pretty plainly here.


Their understanding of the situation has evolved since then and I suspect their model predicts less drastic outcomes at this stage, but it isn't the case that they can just let the consistently R0 increase because they've got such a healthy healthcare system.

They've got thresholds to control things, so if more 50 cases per 100,000 people appear then restrictions are reimposed at a local level. The places where they've passed the thresholds still seem to be triggered by large numbers indoors for sustained periods - meat packing plants and care homes - but the general increase in the R0 is a broader issue.

Ultimately every country has said that a) the lockdown relaxation is conditional, so if thresholds are broken then there is always the possibility of restrictions being reimposed and b) we don't have very good information on what individual effect each restriction has. So it is entirely expected that the R0 will increase as the lockdown is relaxed and they should get a better idea of what impact each restriction has, and likely reconfigure the set of restrictions as the evidence comes in. Part of what factors into that is adherence to certain relaxations e.g. so far people have been more likely to abuse the public protest crowd limits than some of the other restrictions.


Fair enough, thanks for the detailed explanation.
 
So stay alert equals stay at home.What a waste.
Nah, it means "do whatever you want" in the hopes that people will take it upon themselves to go out more and shop, party etc. But when it ultimately results in a resurgence of cases and people turn to the government and blame them they can say "oh but we were still telling people to stay at home".
 
We can't stay in hiding forever ever. The economy will cost more life's than this virus. Look at the unemployment figures in the USA. People's livelihoods are being savaged. It isn't going to go away anytime soon is it? We need to just get on with it now.
 
We can't stay in hiding forever ever. The economy will cost more life's than this virus. Look at the unemployment figures in the USA. People's livelihoods are being savaged. It isn't going to go away anytime soon is it? We need to just get on with it now.
Gerronwivit!
 
We can't stay in hiding forever ever. The economy will cost more life's than this virus. Look at the unemployment figures in the USA. People's livelihoods are being savaged. It isn't going to go away anytime soon is it? We need to just get on with it now.
Are these new slogans from the government?
 
Just saw my neighbour loaded up in a body bag into a van full of other sealed bodies by police and ambulance in full on biohazard PPE... What time tonight does Boris tell us everything is fine?
 
We can't stay in hiding forever ever. The economy will cost more life's than this virus. Look at the unemployment figures in the USA. People's livelihoods are being savaged. It isn't going to go away anytime soon is it? We need to just get on with it now.
This view assumes the world will be the same. It's not going to be. It's time the "lets get back to work" crew recognised the fact that that world is gone.
 
Just saw my neighbour loaded up in a body bag into a van full of other sealed bodies by police and ambulance in full on biohazard PPE... What time tonight does Boris tell us everything is fine?
This is where a good testing system should be in place so someone like yourself and the general close proximity neighbours can find out if they have it
 
This view assumes the world will be the same. It's not going to be. It's time the "lets get back to work" crew recognised the fact that that world is gone.
Obviously there has to be certain measures in place. Lets not get all hysterical and say the world is gone though. Its survived before this and it will after this.
 
if the economy is opened soon is a lot business who had their rents temporarily cancelled will go bankrupt because they won't get enough costumers and employees who were furloughed by companies that can survive with lower sales will lose their jobs
 
I actually think this feck up has been intentional. The government and media are working as one. The government pushes the sensible message of lockdown while the media riles up the public to break out. That way the government gets its wish of the economy picking up again and they don’t have any ownership whatsoever of the inevitable death toll.

It’s the way the media is going about it that is most suspicious to me. They’re not directly attacking the government messages they are just running their own propaganda campaign which flies directly in the face of what the government is apparently trying to achieve.
 


Citing the rate of infection as the reason for diversion from UK government messaging, but then refusing to disclose the R number seems odd.
 
Obviously there has to be certain measures in place. Lets not get all hysterical and say the world is gone though. Its survived before this and it will after this.

That's not what he said, he said that the pre-Covid world is gone. We are in a different paradigm.
 


Citing the rate of infection as the reason for diversion from UK government messaging, but then refusing to disclose the R number seems odd.

Ni arent following the uk either. Foster has said ours is 0.8 and to high to open again
 
Not sure if its been discussed yet but it seems to me that this virus is here to stay until either a vaccine is produced or until we acheive some form of herd immunity.
If that is the case what would happen if we adopted the policy of only shielding the very vulnerable until that happened.
For example, everwhere to open as normal, all bars, restaurants, offices, schools, etc, BUT, anyone over say 60, anyone with underlying health problems to be kept off work and paid in full until either the vaccine or infections drop to a more safe level.
Would that save the economy and even protect against higher deaths in the long term?
Would the nhs be able to cope with the increased demand if we were to do that? What proportion of those hospitalised have no underlying health problems?
 
This is the opening sentence from a Sunday Times article:

'In a suburb of Stevenage, Hertfordshire, a young man disguised as a bush can be seen on video, shuffling down the street, using front gardens as camouflage to avoid the police.'
 
Someone coined a phrase for this paradox. Can’t remember what it is. You take measures to avoid a catastrophe. The measures work. We avoid a catastrophe. People say “why did we take these measure? there wasn’t any catastrophe “

It's insane.

2009 H1N1 is a prime example. We had 150 deaths in Portugal, and in a demographic a lot younger than Covid. For years people still say we "stupidly panicked", when I think it's obvious that the fact we were all paranoid for a few weeks excessively washing hands and not handshaking or kissing (the only measures that were taken) played a major part in us "only" having 150 deaths. Flu is incredibly seasonal, so we only had to be careful for a few weeks to dramatically lower it's transmission rate, but it worked out well.
 
Starting tomorrow I'll be on our "Covid ER" for two weeks. We have no cases here, so I guess I'll be paid to do nothing and just sit there under massive PPE, just to take care of a couple of suspicious cases who will most likely be passed on to regular ER anyway.

I was actually enjoying the regular ER, and learning a lot, so was a bit disappointed with this.
 
If people are becoming immune after their first infection, does that mean they can no longer be a carrier or can they still carry the virus?

I'd expect their antibodies kill the virus so it wouldn't be able to pass on?

Not sure how it works tbh. Curious though.
 
Obviously there has to be certain measures in place. Lets not get all hysterical and say the world is gone though. Its survived before this and it will after this.
It's not going to be anything like the same that's the point. How can people return to work when public transport is going to have to operate at 1/10th capacity?

Stop the idea that we'll just have to get on with it. Things have changed until there's a vaccine.
 
My 5 and 4-year-old kids have been stuck indoors for more than a month. On the rare occasions that they do go out they wear masks. They constantly wash hands. For a long time I've believed that young kids developed their immune systems by being exposed to germs. Is this true? And if so, won't that mean mankind is raising a generation of immune-compromised kids?

I'm of course exaggerating here. But if this super hygienic life goes on for a few years then this could become a thing, no?
 
If you think they're bad wait until we live in a world of unaccountable clickbait 'news' websites.
Sadly, this is true. There needs to be a global watchdog with the power to take down "news" websites that spread unsubstantiated or damaging news. It sounds a bit Big Brother to me, but there needs to be some accountability.
 
My 5 and 4-year-old kids have been stuck indoors for more than a month. On the rare occasions that they do go out they wear masks. They constantly wash hands. For a long time I've believed that young kids developed their immune systems by being exposed to germs. Is this true? And if so, won't that mean mankind is raising a generation of immune-compromised kids?

I'm of course exaggerating here. But if this super hygienic life goes on for a few years then this could become a thing, no?
there's plenty of time for your kids to be exposed to the virus, or be vaccinated against it without risking spreading the germ at this moment
 
It's not going to be anything like the same that's the point. How can people return to work when public transport is going to have to operate at 1/10th capacity?

Stop the idea that we'll just have to get on with it. Things have changed until there's a vaccine.
Which maybe never? So let's stay indoors forever. The media doesn't help reporting the death rate everyday. Around 50 million people die around the world every year from various different causes. If it got reported everyday how many people died of cancer, or car crashes or any other type of disease everyday, everybody would be in hysterics.
 
My 5 and 4-year-old kids have been stuck indoors for more than a month. On the rare occasions that they do go out they wear masks. They constantly wash hands. For a long time I've believed that young kids developed their immune systems by being exposed to germs. Is this true? And if so, won't that mean mankind is raising a generation of immune-compromised kids?

I'm of course exaggerating here. But if this super hygienic life goes on for a few years then this could become a thing, no?

Yes it's true. Kids needs to play with dirt, dirty dogs, etc, to develope a strong immune system.

Those germphobic parents that keep everything ultra super clean, are doing a disservice to their kids immunological system.