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

[redshaw]

We now have as many patients in hospital as we did on the 22nd/23rd of March. ~3k.

 

[Reddevildans]

We now have as many patients in hospital as we did on the 22nd/23rd of March. ~3k.

This wave is most likely going to see a long protracted rise in hospitalizations rather than a sudden sharp increase seen in march and april. How high that rise will be remains to be seen and will determine deaths together with the new treatments now available.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

This wave is most likely going to see a long protracted rise in hospitalizations rather than a sudden sharp increase seen in march and april. How high that rise will be remains to be seen and will determine deaths together with the new treatments now available.

Increase is looking fairly sharp to me. Almost exponential.

There were 2,783 patients in hospital with Covid-19 today, an increase from 1,881 a week earlier, and 349 on ventilators, compared with 259 seven days ago.

It was inevitable too. I don’t know why people thought cases could rise at such a dramatic rate without hospitalisations and deaths tracking that increase a few weeks down the line. The virus hasn’t got any less deadly.

 

[Tibs]

Theoretically speaking, if there was a 2 week lockdown to coincide with half term holidays, how much of an impact would it have?

 

[Pexbo]

Theoretically speaking, if there was a 2 week lockdown to coincide with half term holidays, how much of an impact would it have?

On hospitality? Quite a lot I’d imagine. People have booked holidays for half term and will be frustrated if there is nowhere to go and nothing to do.

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

My mate which I play footie with has been hospitalized after testing positive for covid as virus has got to his lungs (30y old, skinny lad). Brings it home really.

Shit, sorry to hear that mate, send him all our best wishes

 

[One Night Only]

Yeah there are different views on why governments have made it up. It’s either to:

• Depopulate Earth by ordering people to suffocate by wearing masks
• To get extra money from NHS and equivalents for putting covid as cause of death
• To control population by telling them to wear masks and incapacitate their brains preventing them from thinking logically
• Depopulate Earth by producing a deadly vaccine
• Put more money into Bill Gates pockets

Isn't one of the theories that this is just see how easily governments can get people to do what they want and that there is something bigger coming down the road?

It's like living in some whacko movie. Equilibrium maybe. Good movie.

 

[Hound Dog]

It was inevitable too. I don’t know why people thought cases could rise at such a dramatic rate without hospitalisations and deaths tracking that increase a few weeks down the line. The virus hasn’t got any less deadly.

Do you think that there is any substance in claims that the CFR will go down compared to the first wave as the doctors are now better at treating it?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Do you think that there is any substance in claims that the CFR will go down compared to the first wave as the doctors are now better at treating it?

I’d say so. A little bit. There’s good evidence that dexamethasone brings down mortality and I don’t think everyone got it during the first wave. Marginal gains though. Probably not enough to affect overall CFR.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Wow. This is interesting. And unprecedented. Could shave months off the lengthy approval timelines I’ve been banging on about.

 

[Wibble]

Wow. This is interesting. And unprecedented. Could shave months off the lengthy approval timelines I’ve been banging on about.

Very good news.

 

[Wibble]

Australia is assuming the International border will be closed until late next year in line with a vaccine being rolled out.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...089c2071acb15e#block-5f7d20fe8f089c2071acb15e

 

[Drifter]

Desperation.

Top scientists call for herd immunity approach - as government's 'soft touch' criticised

https://news.sky.com/story/scientis...ers-say-restrictions-are-not-working-12096597

 

[Sarni]

3,000 cases reported for yesterday, 75 deaths. It’s getting really really bad here.

 

[Snowjoe]

3,000 cases reported for yesterday, 75 deaths. It’s getting really really bad here.

It’s been bizarre seeing your posts about Poland because even though I knew it was a very religious country in parts when I visited I was struck with how proud the people were about their scientific input to the world over the years and they really seemed to value that sort of thing. But suppose there’s mad people everywhere when it comes to masks and scientists.

 

[Wibble]

Desperation.

Top scientists call for herd immunity approach - as government's 'soft touch' criticised

https://news.sky.com/story/scientis...ers-say-restrictions-are-not-working-12096597

That is a very bizarre idea in a country that is in trouble already and where the hospitals would quickly become overwhelmed. Especially give we may be close to the beginning of a vaccine being available which may well be able to be largely implemented before the end of 2021. Seems to be buying into the shambolic management of the UK government and concluding you might as well give up trying and lock the oldies away for a year. Then again in a country who managed to under-report 25,000 cases by trying to us an old excel file format as a database maybe the UK is fecked.

 

[Hound Dog]

It’s been bizarre seeing your posts about Poland because even though I knew it was a very religious country in parts when I visited I was struck with how proud the people were about their scientific input to the world over the years and they really seemed to value that sort of thing. But suppose there’s mad people everywhere when it comes to masks and scientists.

You can say the exact same thing about Serbs and Tesla and our other scientists that are less known but still rather important - Pupin, Milankovic etc.

Yet, 70% of people here think that the virus is either an overblown means of control or that it does not exist at all.

 

[RedRover]

Why would it not be at the forefront of their decision-making? That's a fairly radical premise, given the governing party's consistent preference for putting the economy before healthcare, so it needs extraordinary evidence to demonstrate it.

The evidence for the opposite is pretty strong, and Leo Varadkar's words clearly echo the actions of the UK government, along with almost every other developed nation in the same scenario. How could it be that they've all settled on roughly the same plan, despite a range of economic priorities and a variety of health experts, if not for the simple fact that is the balancing act?

Arguing it's sub optimal is easy, because every decision is sub optimal. Arguing it isn't seeking to put balance at the heart of the decision-making process is a little absurd, without substantive evidence to support it. The more likely explanation is that your idea of balance and their idea of balance is different, which is inevitable in a scenario like this. It frames the problem in an entirely different context.

That depends on your point of view.

In areas under local lockdown there are businesses (largely in the hospitality sector) taking the decision to close rather than run at a loss. Swathes of the country are on local lockdown and that will have an economic impact. Nothing is stopping those businesses trading in principle, but practically the rules make it impossible to do so. Public health in that instance is being put above economic interests, and those feeling the bite of those decisions clearly feel the balance is wrong and should be challenged.

I agree, every decision is sub optimal in these unique - as I say, the balance is difficult, but I don't see why it shouldn't be questioned and we should just accept that the balance is correct. Whilst clearly the job of Government is to take decisive action, it's not unreasonable in my view to question whether that action was right, or proportionate. For example, putting millions under increased measures and making a paltry £7 million available to support businesses affected across those regions.

A further point is that in my view, the Government should be clear in its communication of the idea that we must find balance. In opening up post lockdown, clearly, economic interests were pushed to the forefront of their decision making and evidently now, faced with the inevitable increased spread, they are rowing back. Why not be honest and direct with the population about that and tell some uncomfortable truths about why we cannot solely focus on the virus? There seems a reticence to do so (due to inevitable criticism it would bring in the press) and to continually push the public health angle openly, whilst clearly taking decisions contrary to that line and pro-economy behind the scenes. You are clearly clever enough to understand the situation, but a lot of people are not.

 

[Brwned]

That depends on your point of view.

In areas under local lockdown there are businesses (largely in the hospitality sector) taking the decision to close rather than run at a loss. Swathes of the country are on local lockdown and that will have an economic impact. Nothing is stopping those businesses trading in principle, but practically the rules make it impossible to do so. Public health in that instance is being put above economic interests, and those feeling the bite of those decisions clearly feel the balance is wrong and should be challenged.

I agree, every decision is sub optimal in these unique - as I say, the balance is difficult, but I don't see why it shouldn't be questioned and we should just accept that the balance is correct. Whilst clearly the job of Government is to take decisive action, it's not unreasonable in my view to question whether that action was right, or proportionate. For example, putting millions under increased measures and making a paltry £7 million available to support businesses affected across those regions.

A further point is that in my view, the Government should be clear in its communication of the idea that we must find balance. In opening up post lockdown, clearly, economic interests were pushed to the forefront of their decision making and evidently now, faced with the inevitable increased spread, they are rowing back. Why not be honest and direct with the population about that and tell some uncomfortable truths about why we cannot solely focus on the virus? There seems a reticence to do so (due to inevitable criticism it would bring in the press) and to continually push the public health angle openly, whilst clearly taking decisions contrary to that line and pro-economy behind the scenes. You are clearly clever enough to understand the situation, but a lot of people are not.

I'll reply to the full post later, but as far as I can tell you still haven't answered my key question. Why would it not be at the forefront of their decision making? What would be the basis for taking such a position? It doesn't fit with their long term ideology nor their short term political interests, as far as I can see. That is an exceptional claim so it does require exceptional evidence.

You've pointed out that when the pandemic reached a low point they shifted the balance towards opening up the economy, and at the pandemic peak(s) they shifted the balance to the public health interests. Looked at together, that would suggest they are taking a balanced approach, because they've veered to one side and the other.

If they weren't searching for balance and instead put public health before all else, they wouldn't have done things like eat out to help out. There was always going to be a public health cost to that, but, in balance, they decided it was worth it. Now with small businesses pushed into unprofitable territory, they know those economic costs will come but they believe it's in the best interests overall. Just because it has costs doesn't mean it wasn't balanced choice. Have you watched the interview from Leo Varadkar?

I'm not saying they've struck the right balance. I'm saying the idea that they aren't searching for balance is a shocking accusation which doesn't seem to fit the evidence.

 

[RobinLFC]

All pubs in Belgium need to close at 11pm and people only allowed to sit together at tables of 4. All pubs in Brussels close for the next 4 weeks altogether.

Seems logical that infections can be traced to pubs but there are no pubs whatsoever that can confirm that the contact tracing details which have been left behind by customers, have been retrieved by the government. I really hope that it can truly be traced back to the pubs and they're not just doing this because it seems the right thing to do.

Meanwhile I can still go to my indoor football game tonight were I'll be sweating alongside 7 teammates and 8 strangers from the opposition. Makes little sense to me.

 

[Solius]

Just got an exposure notification from the app but from some Googling it looks like I need to wait for a second before doing anything. Many false alerts apparently.

The fact that I had to find an article to explain the notification is fecking stupid.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

All pubs in Belgium need to close at 11pm and people only allowed to sit together at tables of 4. All pubs in Brussels close for the next 4 weeks altogether.

Seems logical that infections can be traced to pubs but there are no pubs whatsoever that can confirm that the contact tracing details which have been left behind by customers, have been retrieved by the government. I really hope that it can truly be traced back to the pubs and they're not just doing this because it seems the right thing to do.

Meanwhile I can still go to my indoor football game tonight were I'll be sweating alongside 7 teammates and 8 strangers from the opposition. Makes little sense to me.

Makes very little sense but also makes me very jealous. My 7-a-side game (outdoors) got cancelled a week ago with our current restrictions.

 

[gormless]

Just got an exposure notification from the app but from some Googling it looks like I need to wait for a second before doing anything. Many false alerts apparently.

The fact that I had to find an article to explain the notification is fecking stupid.

Technically the notification you got is from your operating system, but agreed awful design. Shouldn’t take a twitter thread or google search to explain it

 

[Solius]

Technically the notification you got is from your operating system, but agreed awful design. Shouldn’t take a twitter thread or google search to explain it

I couldn’t even see it in the app when I opened it, and the notification was gone after that. Very confusing. Feel like it is from when I went to Tesco earlier today because everywhere else I’ve been with my gf and she hasn’t gotten a notif.

 

[RobinLFC]

Makes very little sense but also makes me very jealous. My 7-a-side game (outdoors) got cancelled a week ago with our current restrictions.

Especially for indoor sports and with all of us being (I assume) amateurs, I think most people would have more understanding for recreational team sports to be put on hold than pubs having to close indefinitely or a curfew on pubs without evidence that it's a hotspot for transmission.

Tonight it's the indoor football opponent, but on Saturday I'm hugging a few other opponents at outdoor football for every corner. Quite ridiculous.

 

[Pexbo]

I'll reply to the full post later, but as far as I can tell you still haven't answered my key question. Why would it not be at the forefront of their decision making? What would be the basis for taking such a position? It doesn't fit with their long term ideology nor their short term political interests, as far as I can see. That is an exceptional claim so it does require exceptional evidence.

You've pointed out that when the pandemic reached a low point they shifted the balance towards opening up the economy, and at the pandemic peak(s) they shifted the balance to the public health interests. Looked at together, that would suggest they are taking a balanced approach, because they've veered to one side and the other.

If they weren't searching for balance and instead put public health before all else, they wouldn't have done things like eat out to help out. There was always going to be a public health cost to that, but, in balance, they decided it was worth it. Now with small businesses pushed into unprofitable territory, they know those economic costs will come but they believe it's in the best interests overall. Just because it has costs doesn't mean it wasn't balanced choice. Have you watched the interview from Leo Varadkar?

I'm not saying they've struck the right balance. I'm saying the idea that they aren't searching for balance is a shocking accusation which doesn't seem to fit the evidence.

I think you’re being very very generous describing their actions as “balanced” rather than “reactive“.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Especially for indoor sports and with all of us being (I assume) amateurs, I think most people would have more understanding for recreational team sports to be put on hold than pubs having to close indefinitely or a curfew on pubs without evidence that it's a hotspot for transmission.

Tonight it's the indoor football opponent, but on Saturday I'm hugging a few other opponents at outdoor football for every corner. Quite ridiculous.

My personal preference would be to close pubs before stopping sports (with no fans watching, obviously) I’m not 100% sure of relative risks but it seems obvious that drunk people crammed into indoor spaces is considerably higher risk than sober people playing football together, outdoors. Indoor sports more risky but with good ventilation and sensible precautions they’re probably ok. The problem with pubs is that people get drunk and drunk people are terrible at implementing sensible precautions. That’s why they’re not allowed to drive cars.

 

[calodo2003]

see that crap on FB all the time so have taken a break from it

Seen it taken to this extreme (it was simgularly about the US) - the virus was engineered to target the older population to rid the populace of the pesky constituents who care about & want to maintain their Social Security benefits. The person suggesting this was agreeing with the use of the virus as it would reduce those who would vote on that aspect & potentially grease the skids to ultimately do away with that social program.

 

[Salt Bailly]

I wonder how many people will take a strategic covid test around the 20th of December to get 2 weeks off over the holidays...

 

[Stack]

I couldn’t even see it in the app when I opened it, and the notification was gone after that. Very confusing. Feel like it is from when I went to Tesco earlier today because everywhere else I’ve been with my gf and she hasn’t gotten a notif.

Thats a shame because if it worked properly it would be a very helpful tool to add to the other things we can do to slow infections.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

I have to say, I'm still not clear where most people are getting infected (other than within families). Is it through social events? Workplaces? Transport? Schools? Or just a mix of everywhere?

 

[Solius]

Thats a shame because if it worked properly it would be a very helpful tool to add to the other things we can do to slow infections.

Reading NZ beat Covid again. God I miss that place.

 

[11101]

Italy is going back to compulsory mask wearing all the time from tomorrow, inside or outside, and the UK is going on the restricted list along with the Netherlands and Belgium. Anybody coming from there will have to have a test on arrival. Cases are still half of what they were at the beginning but numbers have jumped over the last week.

 

[Stack]

Reading NZ beat Covid again. God I miss that place.

We have been on the right side of some good fortune and i dont think how we handled this thing is easily replicated in Europe and among bigger populations with higher population densities and multiple borders. We are very aware of how fortunate we are. Hope you get to come visit again one day relatively soon.

 

[Solius]

We have been on the right side of some good fortune and i dont think how we handled this thing is easily replicated in Europe and among bigger populations with higher population densities and multiple borders. We are very aware of how fortunate we are. Hope you get to come visit again one day relatively soon.

Lived there for two years and long term dream has always been to move there permanently. Living back in the UK is only strengthening that desire.

 

[Penna]

Italy is going back to compulsory mask wearing all the time from tomorrow, inside or outside, and the UK is going on the restricted list along with the Netherlands and Belgium. Anybody coming from there will have to have a test on arrival. Cases are still half of what they were at the beginning but numbers have jumped over the last week.

@11101, we’re on our way to Heathrow, flight back to Rome tomorrow morning. Am I right that this isn’t going to happen for a few days? It looks like it’ll start next week.

 

[RedRover]

I'll reply to the full post later, but as far as I can tell you still haven't answered my key question. Why would it not be at the forefront of their decision making? What would be the basis for taking such a position? It doesn't fit with their long term ideology nor their short term political interests, as far as I can see. That is an exceptional claim so it does require exceptional evidence.

You've pointed out that when the pandemic reached a low point they shifted the balance towards opening up the economy, and at the pandemic peak(s) they shifted the balance to the public health interests. Looked at together, that would suggest they are taking a balanced approach, because they've veered to one side and the other.

If they weren't searching for balance and instead put public health before all else, they wouldn't have done things like eat out to help out. There was always going to be a public health cost to that, but, in balance, they decided it was worth it. Now with small businesses pushed into unprofitable territory, they know those economic costs will come but they believe it's in the best interests overall. Just because it has costs doesn't mean it wasn't balanced choice. Have you watched the interview from Leo Varadkar?

I'm not saying they've struck the right balance. I'm saying the idea that they aren't searching for balance is a shocking accusation which doesn't seem to fit the evidence.

Perhaps I didn't understand your last post correctly. For clarity, I don't say that it isn't. If that's what you've taken from my post then fair enough. That's wasn't my intention.

I said, in my original post to which you replied:

"...My view, personally is that the need for that balance (as hard as it clearly is to find) should be something which we all recognise and which is at the forefront of the debate and decision making. We don't (again, in my opinion) see enough honesty on this from politicians."

I didn't say it wasn't at the forefront of the government's decision making process because, clearly (as I said) they pushed economic concerns to the forefront for a spell. Clearly tough decisions have to be, and are being taken. I refer to the "debate" above in terms of the general debate and a need to recognise that concerns other than the virus are relevant because I believe there are many that don't see it that way.

My point above, more generally (and perhaps clumsily worded, albeit I don't see the point of getting into semantics) is, as I say above and in my last post, I believe that we should see more honesty about it in terms of what the general public are told. We are in unique times and I personally have no problem with being told uncomfortable truths about why certain decisions have been taken, despite, as you say being sub-optimal.

Generally, (and again, in my opinion) messaging and communication from the Government has been poor both in respect of what measures are in place, why and (where possible) how long they'll be in place for. If better understood, perhaps we'd have more people willing to comply.

 

[RedRover]

I think you’re being very very generous describing their actions as “balanced” rather than “reactive“.

I think that is a major issue where I'm from. Same measures in place here (town of 90k people, rate at 120 per 100k) and Liverpool (268 per 100k, for comparison) and it's a point our local politicians are making, along with the fact that there is no support for businesses or a roadmap out of this. We could drop below the 100 per 100,000 which is proposed to be the band limit in the new 3-tier system but I suspect we won't automatically come out of measures. Even if we do the uncertainty of how quickly they could come back creates real issues for businesses in planning, cash flow etc.

 

[Brwned]

Perhaps I didn't understand your last post correctly. For clarity, I don't say that it isn't. If that's what you've taken from my post then fair enough. That's wasn't my intention.

I said, in my original post to which you replied:

"...My view, personally is that the need for that balance (as hard as it clearly is to find) should be something which we all recognise and which is at the forefront of the debate and decision making. We don't (again, in my opinion) see enough honesty on this from politicians."

I didn't say it wasn't at the forefront of the government's decision making process because, clearly (as I said) they pushed economic concerns to the forefront for a spell. Clearly tough decisions have to be, and are being taken. I refer to the "debate" above in terms of the general debate and a need to recognise that concerns other than the virus are relevant because I believe there are many that don't see it that way.

My point above, more generally (and perhaps clumsily worded, albeit I don't see the point of getting into semantics) is, as I say above and in my last post, I believe that we should see more honesty about it in terms of what the general public are told. We are in unique times and I personally have no problem with being told uncomfortable truths about why certain decisions have been taken, despite, as you say being sub-optimal. Generally, (and again, in my opinion) messaging and communication from the Government has been poor both in respect of what measures are in place, why and (where possible) how long they'll be in place for. If better understood, perhaps we'd have more people willing to comply.

Maybe I misunderstood. Is your position that the public health measures they've taken now are made in full recognition of the economic costs, that their decision-making process has had balance at the forefront of their thinking, and that you just have a different opinion on what the right balance should be?

From the way you framed your argument, it sounded like you were saying they make these decisions without taking into account the knock on effects, and that you wanted to bring a more balanced perspective to the table. Almost everyone wants a balanced approach, they just have a different idea of balance. Advocating for public health measures doesn't imply that they don't recognise the economic effects, whether that's people in government or the public.

I agree the government are poor communicators but it doesn't surprise me given who was elected.

 

[11101]

@11101, we’re on our way to Heathrow, flight back to Rome tomorrow morning. Am I right that this isn’t going to happen for a few days? It looks like it’ll start next week.

From what i can tell the new rules all come into force from 15th October, except for the masks which is immediate. It's not exactly clear yet as the new regulations were only approved this morning.

If you do need to take the test you can do it at the airport no problem.