Coronavirus

[faraway saint]

5 minutes ago, Hendo said:

Saw a top statistician on the Andrew Marr show today.

He said that two children, out of 10 million in the UK, have died.

Twenty six out of 17 million young people have died.

More people in these groups have died through things like road traffic accidents.

The big risk is for the over 75s, but especially the over 90s, where mortality is over 1% (though I've seen some studies that put that at a significantly higher rate).

Time the government adapted their response and didn't treat risk as uniform across situations and populations; it's not.

This isn't anything new and was discussed at the start of this situation.

There were people on here suggesting that the focus should mainly be on protecting the vulnerable groups, it's not all age related, and the rest of society can get on with it.

See how that went down. 

Wrecking the economy unnecessarily was suggested as I recall. 

Unfortunately, and I agree 100% these numbers showing the chances of anyone, never mind younger/healthier people, dying are very low it can happen as there's been cases highlighted.

[antrin]

.

Edited May 10, 2020 by antrin

[antrin]

20 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

And how many people have died having COVID-19 where it wasn't mentioned on the death certificate?

Can that not work both ways?

 

20 hours ago, faraway saint said:

Never came across that.

Unlikely in the current climate IMO. 

 

20 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

20 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

And how many people have died having COVID-19 where it wasn't mentioned on the death certificate?

Can that not work both ways?

Yes and it does. If someone dies and hasn't been tested for covid some doctirs don't put covid on death cert. This is a matter of clinical judgement/opinion.

 

20 hours ago, faraway saint said:

So, there's no official confirmation this person HAD the virus?

Thanks for clearing that up. 

 

1 minute ago, antrin said:

You have come across that.  It was discussed in earlier posts on this thread.

 

[faraway saint]

1 minute ago, antrin said:

 

 

 

 

 

This thread, yeah, that's enough for me. 

[antrin]

2 hours ago, StanleySaint said:

Whatever else you may think of Boris' handling of the pandemic his irresponsible comments last week about easing restrictions in his speach today have resulted in the public disregarding instructions, the old well if it will be ok to sunbathe on monday why can't I do it on friday mentality. Soundbite buffonery.

Here's a link to a long, constructive and clear read by Alistair Campbell about governmental (including The Buffoon) responses and lack of genuine communication with the public.

He also criticises media and journalistic failings in the process and makes what appear sensible suggestions for a better approach.

as I say - a long read.  Many big words.

It won’t be for everyone.  

https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2020/05/06/alastair-campbell-we-are-witnessing-a-national-catastrophe/content.html

 

[FTOF]

26 minutes ago, Hendo said:

Saw a top statistician on the Andrew Marr show today.

He said that two children, out of 10 million in the UK, have died.

Twenty six out of 17 million young people have died.

More people in these groups have died through things like road traffic accidents.

The big risk is for the over 75s, but especially the over 90s, where mortality is over 1% (though I've seen some studies that put that at a significantly higher rate).

Time the government adapted their response and didn't treat risk as uniform across situations and populations; it's not.

It's not the death rate amongst the young that's significant. It's very low, which is good.

It's how the virus is spread in large groups of young people and the consequences for the more at risk groups.

We have no idea how transmission rates will be affected by large gatherings in the younger age groups. We also have no idea if the virus could become more virulent and therefore more harmful to younger people in large gatherings.

As mentioned elsewhere, many younger people are asymptomatic, so unless they are tested, following the spread of the virus will be impossible.

I suppose there's only one way to find out, but it's a risky move IMO.

Edited May 10, 2020 by FTOF

[FTOF]

Edited due to inability to use editing facility properly.

Edited May 10, 2020 by FTOF

[antrin]

32 minutes ago, Hendo said:

Saw a top statistician on the Andrew Marr show today.

He said that two children, out of 10 million in the UK, have died.

Twenty six out of 17 million young people have died.

More people in these groups have died through things like road traffic accidents.

The big risk is for the over 75s, but especially the over 90s, where mortality is over 1% (though I've seen some studies that put that at a significantly higher rate).

Time the government adapted their response and didn't treat risk as uniform across situations and populations; it's not.

That IS an interesting statistic and ripe for conjecture...

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Yes.
No pun intended.

What impact did it have on planning though?

[Hendo]

25 minutes ago, FTOF said:

It's not the death rate amongst the young that's significant. It's very low, which is good.

It's how the virus is spread in large groups of young people and the consequences for the more at risk groups.

We have no idea how transmission rates will be affected by large gatherings in the younger age groups. We also have no idea if the virus could become more virulent and therefore more harmful to younger people in large gatherings.

As mentioned elsewhere, many younger people are asymptomatic, so unless they are tested, following the spread of the virus will be impossible.

I suppose there's only one way to find out, but it's a risky move IMO.

I agree there needs to be greater discussion about how to manage the risk between less and more at risk groups. I saw in Switzerland they are allowing contact between children and their grandparents, as they don't believe children transmit the virus readily. Need to see how that pans out, like you say it's a risky move if they are wrong, but testing things like that is probably the only way out of this.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Saw a top statistician on the Andrew Marr show today.
He said that two children, out of 10 million in the UK, have died.
Twenty six out of 17 million young people have died.
More people in these groups have died through things like road traffic accidents.
The big risk is for the over 75s, but especially the over 90s, where mortality is over 1% (though I've seen some studies that put that at a significantly higher rate).
Time the government adapted their response and didn't treat risk as uniform across situations and populations; it's not.

Unfortunately infection is pretty much uniform though.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

I agree there needs to be greater discussion about how to manage the risk between less and more at risk groups. I saw in Switzerland they are allowing contact between children and their grandparents, as they don't believe children transmit the virus readily. Need to see how that pans out, like you say it's a risky move if they are wrong, but testing things like that is probably the only way out of this.

Also in Switzerland, one of the first businesses to come out of their lockdown was hairdressers and barbers.
Seemed an interesting approach.

[antrin]

1 minute ago, TPAFKATS said:

Also in Switzerland, one of the first businesses to come out of their lockdown was hairdressers and barbers.
Seemed an interesting approach.

Not to me.

im bald.  

[Hendo]

2 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

Unfortunately infection is pretty much uniform though.

But there is research indicating a high percentage of those infected, particularly in younger groups are assymptomatic. This makes the virus much less problematic for some but also much harder to track. The real key to this is working out why some people get the virus and it has no effect while in others, the immune system overreacts and people die as a result.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

But there is research indicating a high percentage of those infected, particularly in younger groups are assymptomatic. This makes the virus much less problematic for some but also much harder to track. The real key to this is working out why some people get the virus and it has no effect while in others, the immune system overreacts and people die as a result.

Yeah, I was meaning that young still get it and infect others including very old and high risk groups.

If isolating groups was the key then care homes should be fine?

[oaksoft]

17 hours ago, W6er said:

By not explicitly warning people not to hold them, they were tacitly approving them.

If you are going to completely change the goalposts then I'll leave you to it.

Edited May 10, 2020 by oaksoft

[Hendo]

11 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

Yeah, I was meaning that young still get it and infect others including very old and high risk groups.

If isolating groups was the key then care homes should be fine?

It's the workers who live in the community that are likely to bring it into the care home. The one in Skye went from no cases to 54 in a short period of time, around half of those infected were staff.

My dad lives in Skye, a few weeks ago they had 0 cases, but they didn't close the bridge and there's now been a significant outbreak. All these eejits visiting their holiday homes, yes I'm looking at you Catherine Calderwood 😡

[stlucifer]

3 minutes ago, Hendo said:

It's the workers who live in the community that are likely to bring it into the care home. The one in Skye went from no cases to 54 in a short period of time, around half of those infected were staff.

My dad lives in Skye, a few weeks ago they had 0 cases, but they didn't close the bridge and there's now been a significant outbreak. All these eejits visiting their holiday homes, yes I'm looking at you Catherine Calderwood 😡

A serious question here. Do you know if any of the Calderwood family came in contact with anyone on Skye?

[Cookie Monster]

BBC News - Coronavirus: Germany infection rate rises as lockdown eases
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52604676


STAY HOME, SAVE LIVES

[W6er]

3 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

BBC News - Coronavirus: Germany infection rate rises as lockdown eases
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52604676


STAY HOME, SAVE LIVES

I have heard that testing in Helsinki seems to indicate the lockdown has been too effective, as very few people actually have the antibodies indicating they were infected.

[FTOF]

1 hour ago, TPAFKATS said:

2 hours ago, FTOF said:

Yes.
No pun intended.

What impact did it have on planning though?

It was a distraction.

[FTOF]

1 hour ago, Hendo said:

But there is research indicating a high percentage of those infected, particularly in younger groups are assymptomatic. This makes the virus much less problematic for some but also much harder to track. The real key to this is working out why some people get the virus and it has no effect while in others, the immune system overreacts and people die as a result.

Genetics.

Unfortunately, it will probably take a while to decipher which aspects of the genome are at play here.

[faraway saint]

1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said:

BBC News - Coronavirus: Germany infection rate rises as lockdown eases
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52604676


STAY HOME, SAVE LIVES

There will be a rise whenever any country relaxes it's lockdown, however strict, or not, it was.

In this case the headline is a tad dramatic.

I'd be comfortable, if I was in Germany, this is under control and, unless we stay at home forever, there's a risk that's worth taking as the numbers are very low.

[faraway saint]

I'm not averse to changes in the current lockdown I just don't believe the time is right as we are still very high in key areas which, IMO, could result in getting back to the high numbers we had in the first 2/3 weeks in April. 

[Bud the Baker]

5 hours ago, faraway saint said:

Do you have any evidence to disprove it.........................

Bullshit.................you're full of that this morning. 

Dear oh dear. 

We're talking about a government that's running two death counts, one by the DoH & one by the ONS - I have no idea which is more accurate but I do know which is more convenient. 

We're talking about a government that gave us the comedy capers routine of 100,000 tests by the end of April - a routine that fell flat on it's face within 48 hours. 

Neither of these however compare to the biggest piece of bullshit on the thread this weekend, your claim to have a friend - dear, oh dear!.