Coronavirus: How scared should we be?

[Tetchytyke]

The duck test would suggest that he's been advising government policy.

He's an adviser, his job is to advise. Government's job is to use advice from different sources to govern.

As @Bletchleyite says, the government have gone for a wider re-opening this week than some advisers were recommending. And that's fine, it's ultimately their call to make.

I'm really very uncomfortable with political leaders hiding behind advisers, using advisers to take the heat. Advisers advise. Governments govern.

 

[Jamiescott1]

I'm currently in Croatia for a weeks holiday.
The moment I stepped off the plane I wouldn't know there's supposedly a pandemic. Everything is normal.
No social distancing, no queues, no masks, no disposable menus, tables very close together in the bars.
Its amazing and I'm dreading returning to the UK and our over the top ridcilous "rules"

 

[Yew]

He's an adviser, his job is to advise. Government's job is to use advice from different sources to govern.

As @Bletchleyite says, the government have gone for a wider re-opening this week than some advisers were recommending. And that's fine, it's ultimately their call to make.

I'm really very uncomfortable with political leaders hiding behind advisers, using advisers to take the heat. Advisers advise. Governments govern.

Okay, to be slightly more accurate, it seems that sage suggested this, and from the undue prominence of cases involving young people that have serious side effects, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that the government followed this piece of advice.

However I agree that leaders should lead, and consider the wider context, there's certainly been a dearth of that at present!

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that the government followed this piece of advice.

Some advisers in SAGE were, I believe, advocating a slower release from lockdown than what the English have actually done. So I'm not sure you can simultaneously applaud the government for going faster than some advisers advised and criticise the government for scaremongering.

 

[adc82140]

Oh blimey, they are now rattling on about the virus being airborne, rather than droplet borne. A group of scientists has written to the WHO demanding changes to guidance. This will give the mask brigade ammunition. It may well be, but in such small amounts as to not be significant. Do they want public transport, schools, the arts never to reopen?

 

[Yew]

Some advisers in SAGE were, I believe, advocating a slower release from lockdown than what the English have actually done. So I'm not sure you can simultaneously applaud the government for going faster than some advisers advised and criticise the government for scaremongering.

I struggle to understand this line of reasoning, you seem to be suggesting that if the government didn't do B, then they can't have done A, regardless of what evidence we have that they did A.

 

[Bantamzen]

Oh blimey, they are now rattling on about the virus being airborne, rather than droplet borne. A group of scientists has written to the WHO demanding changes to guidance. This will give the mask brigade ammunition. It may well be, but in such small amounts as to not be significant. Do they want public transport, schools, the arts never to reopen?

Expect lots more of this in the coming weeks, months and years. For example there are social media posts doing the round that talk about the covid-19 antibodies only lasting a short time after recovery, meaning that heard immunity is impossible. I'm sure that sooner or later a journalist will cut & paste these too stories together to make an even more compelling "argument" for perma-masks.

Of course the flaws in that "argument" would be that airborne droplets will only hang around in the air where there is no air movement. So outside unless there is literally no wind, no vehicles or even any people moving, then maybe there is a slightly increased chance that you might walk into a cloud of covid-infested droplets. And even indoors, any slight movement of the air will start to dissipate these, ever reducing the risk of infection unless you were in a room full of infected people, say like a hospital ward with covid victims.

The antibody argument can also be easily picked apart by pointing out that tests for them need certain levels of them in the blood sample, however the body doesn't need massive amounts, if any to be able to restart production on re-infection. And of course antibodies are not the only system in play, things like T-cells play a very large part and has been pointed in another thread started by @yorkie may even already have enough genetic memory from other coronaviruses to be able to actually some people protection.

I'm really starting to get very fed up with all this. It is starting to feel like rather than trying to find the most practicable, pragmatic solutions to handling this pandemic, you know like mitigation for the most vulnerable, adequate care facilities world-wide etc, the experts are going for the hero-making "quick win". Stick masks on they say, then it will be solved! Hurray!

Except that no, it won't. The virus will simply find other areas to spread through like our homes for example. Just as it is in countries that thought they had beaten it. Counteracting micro-organisms doe not come from "quick wins", just ask the myriad of complex proteins swimming around in our systems that have been refining for as long as multicellular life has existed.

 

[philosopher]

Expect lots more of this in the coming weeks, months and years. For example there are social media posts doing the round that talk about the covid-19 antibodies only lasting a short time after recovery, meaning that heard immunity is impossible. I'm sure that sooner or later a journalist will cut & paste these too stories together to make an even more compelling "argument" for perma-masks.

If antibodies only last a few months, then that implies a vaccine will not be effective. In which case will may end having to live like this permanently. I do get the feeling that might suit quite a few people who seem to want these changes such as wearing face masks and social distancing to be become permanent.

 

[takno]

Oh blimey, they are now rattling on about the virus being airborne, rather than droplet borne. A group of scientists has written to the WHO demanding changes to guidance. This will give the mask brigade ammunition. It may well be, but in such small amounts as to not be significant. Do they want public transport, schools, the arts never to reopen?

Just read about that in the Guardian. Last week it was constantly being explained at me that it doesn't matter about the air shooting upwards out of the mask because all the droplets go forwards and get caught, so they are much more protective than they might appear. Now it turns out that we should all be worrying about where the air shoots out after all, but that's even more of a reason to wear masks, because reasons.

 

[yorksrob]

Listening to the WHO special envoy on COVID-19 this morning, their position seemed to be that whilst airborne transmission might be possible in some form, it might not necessarily be a major source. It might just be a case of ensuring mechanical ventilation, rather than recycled air conditioning in buildings (and by extension trains) for example.

 

[Bantamzen]

If antibodies only last a few months, then that implies a vaccine will not be effective. In which case will may end having to live like this permanently.

It might still have some use in helping the immune system react to it & gain generic memory for it in future. However the real fly in the ointment is that this family of viruses are really quite difficult to develop viruses for. Which leads me neatly to the rest of your comment.

​

I do get the feeling that might suit quite a few people who seem to want these changes such as wearing face masks and social distancing to be become permanent.

Could it be that some experts are actually worried that they won't reach a vaccine, and so are scrambling for an alternative "solution"?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could it be that some experts are actually worried that they won't reach a vaccine, and so are scrambling for an alternative "solution"?

It's a possibility, and we absolutely should be doing that.

 

[yorksrob]

It's a possibility, and we absolutely should be doing that.

I don't regard permanent social distancing and face masks as an "alternative solution" to anything. Concentrating on effective drugs is probably the best bet for that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't regard permanent social distancing and face masks as an "alternative solution" to anything. Concentrating on effective drugs is probably the best bet for that.

There is no option that should not be considered.

 

[Bantamzen]

It's a possibility, and we absolutely should be doing that.

Permanently wearing masks isn't a solution. Notwithstanding the fact that the evidence for their effectiveness in the community is still sketchy (not forgetting of course that even in medical environments viruses get around), or the long term social implications of never being able to read / recognise people's faces, the communication problems, the vast amount of extra waste it will generate and so on, if masks were a permanent solution for life to stop viral infections, don't you think that life would have developed some form of biological filtration system in the billions of years it has existed?

There is no option that should not be considered.

One option is to permanently lock ourselves indoors. Should we be considering that?

 

[yorksrob]

There is no option that should not be considered.

We should avoid that one.

 

[Scrotnig]

Mandating things that go against basic human nature and instincts will only work at all in the short term.

If it's wanted beyond that, they'd better get building a lot of new prisons right now because that's the only other way it will work.

 

[yorksrob]

One option is to permanently lock ourselves indoors. Should we be considering that?

Or permanently living in a tent !

 

[Yew]

There is no option that should not be considered.

Ultimately, permanent social distancing would turn this into a extinction level event.

 

[Scrotnig]

One option is to permanently lock ourselves indoors. Should we be considering that?

There's still a huge swathe of people in this country that want exactly that.
Mostly people who don't have to go out to work or who are currently furloughed and think that society can somehow just carry on like that.

 

[Bantamzen]

Or permanently living in a tent !

Sssshhhh!! Don't say that out aloud, there is a certain member on this forum that might happily take that option up!

There's still a huge swathe of people in this country that want exactly that.
Mostly people who don't have to go out to work or who are currently furloughed and think that society can somehow just carry on like that.

I know, and they are living in La-La Land. Without a huge overnight cultural shift, sooner or later they are going to have to venture back into the real world to work, relax, form relationships, procreate etc. The government money is going to last much longer.

 

[Scrotnig]

I know, and they are living in La-La Land. Without a huge overnight cultural shift, sooner or later they are going to have to venture back into the real world to work, relax, form relationships, procreate etc. The government money is going to last much longer.

It's great when you challenge them.
"So you'd rather everyone just died so you can earn money? MURDERER!"
If it wasn't so serious it'd be hilarious. Too many people genuinely think like this.

 

[birchesgreen]

There's still a huge swathe of people in this country that want exactly that.
Mostly people who don't have to go out to work or who are currently furloughed and think that society can somehow just carry on like that.

Plus quite happy for other people to be outside and supply them with goods/food of course.

It's great when you challenge them.
"So you'd rather everyone just died so you can earn money? MURDERER!"
If it wasn't so serious it'd be hilarious. Too many people genuinely think like this.

A view encouraged by official NHS posters. One clearly says people should stay indoors as otherwise they will spread the virus and people will die. Its not exactly a large leap for people to then equate going outside with murder.

 

[Bantamzen]

It's great when you challenge them.
"So you'd rather everyone just died so you can earn money? MURDERER!"
If it wasn't so serious it'd be hilarious. Too many people genuinely think like this.

Indeed, I usually counter with something like if I couldn't earn money to buy food, I would need to go a bit more primal and hunt the easiest prey hiding in their homes.....

(Note to all reading this, I am not condoning cannibalism, I like people, just couldn't eat a whole one.... Joke!!)

 

[Scrotnig]

These types are mostly on social media. I don't spend a great deal of time on there, but they pollute things like government announcements and other useful sources of information. I have taken to instantly blocking/silencing anyone with these views, along with the "army on the streets, shoot anyone outside" brigade. Life's too short.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I struggle to understand this line of reasoning, you seem to be suggesting that if the government didn't do B, then they can't have done A, regardless of what evidence we have that they did A.

A government that releases lockdown faster than some of its own advisers recommended is not scaremongering, is it?

And even indoors, any slight movement of the air will start to dissipate these, ever reducing the risk of infection

No, movement will spread the protein further. A bit of breeze doesn't cause a virus to break down, it just moves it about. Outdoors that isn't such an issue becuase of space and because most virus particles won't fall on a person or on a surface a person will touch. But indoors it really is an issue. All the big superspreader events have been indoors; Italy had one at a wedding, Singapore had one in a department store.

Your appetite for risk might be different to others', but don't pretend that a bit of breeze in a pub magically kills the bug.

FWIW I think Scotland's rules on wearing masks is taking it too far.

 

[adc82140]

The all important virus load will be low though. Perhaps this could even be advantageous- forgive the wild speculation - perhaps the load will be enough to trigger a T cell or antibody response, but not enough to make you sick.

I would be all in favour of investigating all of this in detail if we were on the upward slope of a pandemic, but we are not.

 

[MikeWM]

Could it be that some experts are actually worried that they won't reach a vaccine, and so are scrambling for an alternative "solution"?

Certainly the Oxford vaccine people seem to be rather less sure - they are now talking about mitigation of symptoms, rather than actual protection.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ockdown-has-delayed-vaccine-oxford-professor/

The delay means a vaccine will take longer than expected, and there are now fears that it will not be ready before Christmas. Even if ready sooner, it is likely to only "take the edge off" symptoms rather than conferring complete protection, Prof Gilbert said...

Which may be helpful to some degree, but I don't think it is the definition of 'vaccine' that most people expect.

 

[scarby]

If antibodies only last a few months, then that implies a vaccine will not be effective. In which case will may end having to live like this permanently. I do get the feeling that might suit quite a few people who seem to want these changes such as wearing face masks and social distancing to be become permanent.

That is exactly the point that Sweden's state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell made when quizzed on this some time ago - that if that was the case, it was pointless looking for a vaccine. It's worth noting that both Tegnell and his mentor Johan Giesecke, who are vastly experienced in dealing with infectious diseases, have been confident all along that the spread of this type of virus would see some community immunity. Also that the Swedish Public Health Authority are confident enough to say that people who have tested positive for antibodies can visit elderly relatives and vice versa.

If there was no immunity, people would simply not get better. We're seeing the virus curb itself in areas where it has been widespread, such as Stockholm and Bergamo. Once again suggesting that allowing some community infection is the only way out of this (vaccine or not, since it won't be realistic or workable to vaccinate everyone every year) - we see in countries where they have put the heavy brakes on an outbreak, not allowing it to run its course in a controlled manner, it unsurprisingly then breaks out again when heavy restrictions are lifted.

It's also been the Swedish approach therefore that unfortunately we have to go through an outbreak to get to the end of it, because that's the only way to let normal life resume, as it has now (more or less) in Stockholm. It's a bit like making a train journey - if you don't set out, or stop at halfway, you won't get to your destination.

 

[MikeWM]

Just read about that in the Guardian. Last week it was constantly being explained at me that it doesn't matter about the air shooting upwards out of the mask because all the droplets go forwards and get caught, so they are much more protective than they might appear. Now it turns out that we should all be worrying about where the air shoots out after all, but that's even more of a reason to wear masks, because reasons.

In the Guardian at the moment everything and anything is a reason to wear masks. I think the only way they'll change their mind on that one is if they find that wearing a mask makes you more likely to vote for Trump, because then they'd be in a quandary

It seems to me that a potential solution here is for everyone who really shouldn't or doesn't want to catch the virus to wear a (effective) mask *and* goggles in public places, and leave everyone else to do as they wish, and therefore try to get to something approximating to herd immunity while it is still summer.