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

Snafu17

Full Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2014
Messages
1,869
Just to add to the mortality in the young discussion, not dying from an infection doesn’t mean you will shake it off and live happily ever after.

I can't find anything about the likelihood of long term effects in younger patients in this article?
 

Withnail

Full Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
29,337
Location
The Arena of the Unwell
I don’t think anyone knows for certain. The most plausible explanation I’ve heard is that inhaled nicotine downregulates the ACE2 receptors in your lungs that the spikes on the coronavirus binds to. Ex smokers won’t have that upside but will have residual smoking related damage to their lungs and heart.

Mind you, I think the data on vaping is less clearcut.
Does anyone know your lungs ever fully recover from smoking?

I was on again off again smoker (20 a day when I was on it) for around 15 years. I gave up for a year or two at a time 2 or 3 times. Then I smoked when I was drinking for maybe another 4 and vaped for about a year somewhere in there too before giving up completely 5 years ago.
 

massi83

Full Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
2,595

Really useful visual showing all the factors associated with dying in the UK. The further to the right and the narrower the “wings” the stronger the association. I didn’t realise being male was quite as dramatic a risk factor as this.

Smoking data also very interesting. Better to be currently smoking than an ex-smoker.
Hypertension a bit surprising, compared to what has been reported before.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
34,063
What exactly is a relatively short time frame? Almost none of the pre-existing conditions are terminal.
The only studies I've seen on this suggest that on average approx. a decade of life is lost.

I'm not sure if they were taking the generally undercounted nursing home deaths into account, where you would expect people to die at a quicker rate anyway, though I'm also not sure how well those are taken into account in official figures either.

I'm not surprised people think less time is lost though, as one of the UK government's advisers previously said up to 2/3rds of those who died would have died soon anyway. Make of that what you will.
 

finneh

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
7,318
It is important to ascertain what you think is a normal and acceptable productive working day when validating your opinion on the efficiency of working from home.

The question is why are they working longer hours than they would at work and why is there a need for them to be logged in for 14.5hrs in a 24hr period?
In the example I gave they were working longer hours to get in front of their workload, so that they would be less stressed in the coming weeks and could tackle things more effectively.

Note being "logged in" doesn't mean you're working.

You say they took breaks but did they take a break of oh say 6hrs during this period or are you paying them over-time?

This wasn't presented as a once-off busy week either. It seems to be the norm.
In this specific instance they took around 3 hours of breaks over the period. It wasn't a "one off" in the sense that a 55-60 hour working week is something that is likely to happen several times a year. However if you assumed a 70+ hour week would be even an occasional occurance then you'd be wrong and I was unclear.

In terms of pay the specific member of staff received a £15k bonus in recognition of his work, but no he didn't receive "overtime" specifically.

If some of your staff are apparently flogging themselves working most of their waking hours and others are only 10% productive, effectively doing nothing, and you're the manager then I'd suggest you're not a very good one and don't have the best interests or well-being of your staff in mind at all.

This is my reading of the way the information was presented so happy to be wrong but this looks really bad at the moment.
Again they are not flogging themselves and I didn't say some are working most of their waking hours whilst others are 10% productive. Each member of staff has an individual load so one person falling behind only effects their outcomes and future workload. I said that some staff work more productively from home, but most do not. A minority of staff use the quieter environment and lack of commute a great opportunity to get in front of their workload. Their 90+ minute daily commute is used instead to work and the flexibility allows them to work in "batches" that they find works for them, rather than a "normal" solid 9-10 hours when the office is open. Most staff however are less productive.

This is getting extremely off topic either way. It was merely a comment as to why I don't believe we'll see a widespread change in WFH post Covid.
 

nimic

something nice
Scout
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
31,039
Location
And I'm all out of bubblegum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52594023

UK 'to bring in 14-day quarantine' for air passengers

Some of the decision making is just weird. No quarantine when our own infections were low, and we were probably importing the infection into the country en-masse.
The UK hasn't had a quarantine for incoming travel? That was the first thing Norway did, before any sort of shut down was implemented. We've actually recently decreased the quarantine from 14 days to 10 days.

Incidentally, health authorities in Norway are now saying that the shut down was too strict and lasted too long, and probably did not have a significant effect. Indications are that the rate of infection was already falling drastically from social distancing measures before the shut down. It's unclear whether that includes the quarantine, though.
 

Arruda

Love is in the air, everywhere I look around
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
12,584
Location
Azores
Supports
Porto
We've had the 14 day quarantine here in Azores. It's a lot more effective in smaller insular regions, I guess. But, as any quarantine, it requires people to be tested before it's lifted, otherwise 14 days aren't nearly enough, let alone 10.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
34,063
Well I know my workplace is certainly planning for a large shift to WFH anyway, with a current target of 40% continuing to WFH post-crisis. Which is a lot given how many roles there are that currently can't be done from home. We were already likely to move in that direction over the next 10-20 years because that's the way the world is going but this crisis has massively expedited that process. The other larger financial service companies I'm in contact with are also signalling to their employees that they're planning to permanently shift in that direction.

The extent to which a shift to WFH can happen is very industry-specific but I suspect that not making that shift where you can will soon be a dated structure in a lot of sectors.
 

Withnail

Full Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
29,337
Location
The Arena of the Unwell
In the example I gave they were working longer hours to get in front of their workload, so that they would be less stressed in the coming weeks and could tackle things more effectively.

Note being "logged in" doesn't mean you're working.



In this specific instance they took around 3 hours of breaks over the period. It wasn't a "one off" in the sense that a 55-60 hour working week is something that is likely to happen several times a year. However if you assumed a 70+ hour week would be even an occasional occurance then you'd be wrong and I was unclear.

In terms of pay the specific member of staff received a £15k bonus in recognition of his work, but no he didn't receive "overtime" specifically.



Again they are not flogging themselves and I didn't say some are working most of their waking hours whilst others are 10% productive. Each member of staff has an individual load so one person falling behind only effects their outcomes and future workload. I said that some staff work more productively from home, but most do not. A minority of staff use the quieter environment and lack of commute a great opportunity to get in front of their workload. Their 90+ minute daily commute is used instead to work and the flexibility allows them to work in "batches" that they find works for them, rather than a "normal" solid 9-10 hours when the office is open. Most staff however are less productive.

This is getting extremely off topic either way. It was merely a comment as to why I don't believe we'll see a widespread change in WFH post Covid.

I don't think any of that is off topic at all.

It's relevant as it informs your point of view. Working that many hours in the short-term on condition you will be rewarded with a decent bonus is a different thing altogether to what I assumed was going on.

However, I would fundamentally disagree with counting the hours previously used for commuting as business hours.

However, the way you've described how your business runs isn't the norm in my experience. We are being strongly urged to only work our regular hours and to take our breaks as we would have taken them in the office.

In my line of work, we will most definitely keep up the working from home aspect where it suits both the employee and the business and productivity is a factor in that decision-making process.

Most likely it would be some kind of hybrid as I feel some things can only be done face-to-face especially when setting up projects with new or existing clients where a knowledge transfer is needed.

Personally I'd need at least one day in the office a week.
 
Last edited:

decorativeed

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
12,331
Location
Tameside
OK, I thought about it for 10. Supposed someone leaves their home for whatever reason. If they follow a strict social distancing regime and adhere to all the rules set out then the virus would also bite the dust. So, staying indoors for 21 days, which I still think is possible, isn't quite so vital.
21 feckin days. I stayed indoors for 21 days. It wasn't that hard. The maskless people walking down our road clearly disagree.
You know what, I could easily stay inside for 21 days. No problem whatsoever. The reason I'm able to do that is because I don't have an essential role in society, and the role I do have can easily be done from home. That's why ive not been furloughed. I've also been lucky enough to be able to get a good supply of food in the house, so if there were suddenly an enforced 21 day lock down, I'd be fine, I'd maybe have to eat smaller portions.

The obvious trouble is that my situation is not applicable to everyone. It's not applicable to nurses, doctors, people in hospitals and care homes, farmers, people who make and deliver essentials like food, the police officers and emergency workers who need to enforce these rules etc. Also, the people who don't have money in the bank, who aren't able to stock up 3 weeks worth of food - during a panic buying spree we've never seen the likes of, no less. Those people would be forced to face the choice of almost certain starvation or take their chances with the virus and the law and go looting and stealing to put food on the table.

If you've spent more than a minute playing out this scenario in your head but not thought of any of these things, then you're clearly living in another uninverse.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,351
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Does anyone know your lungs ever fully recover from smoking?

I was on again off again smoker (20 a day when I was on it) for around 15 years. I gave up for a year or two at a time 2 or 3 times. Then I smoked when I was drinking for maybe another 4 and vaped for about a year somewhere in there too before giving up completely 5 years ago.
Your smoking history is, give or take a year, exactly the same as mine. I don’t think either of us are out of the woods yet, unfortunately. But this was good to read, earlier in the year.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,351
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
I can't find anything about the likelihood of long term effects in younger patients in this article?
Scroll a few tweets down that thread...


The key point is it hasn’t been round long enough for us to understand long term effects. But there’s plenty of reasons to think that they will be an issue for many people.
 

SteveJ

all-round nice guy, aka Uncle Joe Kardashian
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
62,851
Incredibly, the 'Most Read' story for the week on my area's newspaper website is 'Piers Morgan misses ITV's Good Morning Britain - here's why and when he could return'. This, in a place where hundreds of people have died.
 

Adamsk7

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
2,699
How does this myth that "almost no-one under the age of 80 or without pre-existing condition" is dying persists? Is it just wishful thinking or are there actually more reliable numbers out there indicating it to be the case? It is a lot more deadly to older patients but it's still very deadly for younger people too.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/
I think that data shows exactly that. 24 people under 45 with no pre existing conditions out of nearly 7,000 died from that New York study. Death rate from the China study show a 0.4% death ratio in the same age group (and that’s likely overestimated). I guess it depends what you think is “Young”? I’d say someone in their 50’s and 60’s is old. They may not be THAT old in 2020 when life expectancy has gone up but they certainly aren’t “young”, which again I would consider under 40.

Can Young people die from it? Yes. Is it unlikely? Also yes. Is any death of Covid at any age a tragedy? Also yes.
 

UnrelatedPsuedo

I pity the poor fool who stinks like I do!
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
10,048
Location
Blitztown

SteveJ

all-round nice guy, aka Uncle Joe Kardashian
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
62,851
'Sol Campbell' is a man-made concept and 'deliberately targets the oxygen of publicity'.
 

Smores

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
25,496
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52594023

UK 'to bring in 14-day quarantine' for air passengers

Some of the decision making is just weird. No quarantine when our own infections were low, and we were probably importing the infection into the country en-masse.
I'm not sure if they'll be more detail to follow but the briefing on this so far appears to be no more than a restating of current policy dressed up as a control?

We're going to ask people to quarantine but this will be completely voluntary and in their own homes and no provisions to support it. So they'll still travel however they want and still most likely go out and do a food shop first?

In fact most likely we won't bother to track them or deport them so most will just do what they like.
 

Skills

Snitch
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
42,010
That’s going to pretty much kill off the UK airline industry isn’t it??
Yeah, it's gonna gut the industry. I was hoping they would be trying to go for something like a pre-flight test at this stage. I don't know if it is possible to develop a quick response test though.
 

Shakesy

WW Head of Recruiting
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
9,913
Location
Directly under the sun... NOW!
Even your science fiction approach doesn’t beat this.
If you've spent more than a minute playing out this scenario in your head but not thought of any of these things, then you're clearly living in another uninverse.
I fully understand that you two saw my posts of last night and didn't follow it to the point where I saw my folly. I'm now even more put in my place than before. Thanks!
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,351
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Parks are full in Dublin too. But I’m ok with that. This is tough as hell for everybody. There’s a growing body of evidence that outdoor transmission is more or less completely insignificant. So if it helps keep people sane to catch some rays in a park, then so be it.

People having house parties later on this evening can eat a bag of dicks, obviously.
 

Dumbstar

We got another woman hater here.
Joined
Jul 18, 2002
Messages
21,137
Location
Viva Karius!
Supports
Liverpool
Saw the same in my local park. Friends getting together, clearly not from the same household. Even some mini 5 a side going on, jumpers for goal posts. Don't think Boris needs to make his announcement tomorrow, the decision for easing lockdown has been made.
 

T00lsh3d

T00ly O' Sh3d
Joined
Mar 20, 2014
Messages
8,285
Parks are full in Dublin too. But I’m ok with that. This is tough as hell for everybody. There’s a growing body of evidence that outdoor transmission is more or less completely insignificant. So if it helps keep people sane to catch some rays in a park, then so be it.

can eat a bag of dicksPeople having house parties later on this evening can eat a bag of dicks, obviously.
:lol:

How many dicks is that exactly?
 

SilentWitness

ShoelessWitness
Staff
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
30,147
Supports
Everton
Parks are full in Dublin too. But I’m ok with that. This is tough as hell for everybody. There’s a growing body of evidence that outdoor transmission is more or less completely insignificant. So if it helps keep people sane to catch some rays in a park, then so be it.

People having house parties later on this evening can eat a bag of dicks, obviously.
Surely though if people are seeing this and the people in the parks are getting away with doing that it makes people believe that they are fine with having house parties etc. It most certainly is difficult but doing that just promotes 'bad behaviour'. I'd struggle to believe that it is a necessity for most of those people to be at the park, sitting and chatting with no social distancing taking place. If you relax the rules in one area then it makes people feel comfortable and relax in other areas too.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,351
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Surely though if people are seeing this and the people in the parks are getting away with doing that it makes people believe that they are fine with having house parties etc. It most certainly is difficult but doing that just promotes 'bad behaviour'. I'd struggle to believe that it is a necessity for most of those people to be at the park, sitting and chatting with no social distancing taking place. If you relax the rules in one area then it makes people feel comfortable and relax in other areas too.
Fair point.
 

Full bodied red

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Messages
2,370
Location
The Var, France
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52594023

UK 'to bring in 14-day quarantine' for air passengers

Some of the decision making is just weird. No quarantine when our own infections were low, and we were probably importing the infection into the country en-masse.

Absolutely crazy NOT to have stopped incoming passengers eight or nine weeks ago.

I don't usually trash the UK Government, but on this I''d trash them even more than most of you do on here every day.
 

T00lsh3d

T00ly O' Sh3d
Joined
Mar 20, 2014
Messages
8,285
Not as many as you used to get.Just like Creme Eggs and Mars, the bags are definitely getting smaller for the same price.
Unlike in the other examples I’m happy to have to eat a reduced amount of dicks
 

Atze-Peng

Dortmund Fan
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
592
Is this guy high? All countries that are using masks are doing particularly good