Coronavirus: How scared should we be?

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed, COVID goes on the certficate if you had it at the time you passed away, not just if it actually caused the passing, and also remember on a bad flu year, global deaths can be upo to 650,000, check what the current figure is ! World Health Org says on average 300,000 to 650,000

I wonder have there been any cases of people having COVID and flu, and what effect that had?

 

[yorkie]

I wonder have there been any cases of people having COVID and flu, and what effect that had?

There has; it was reported here:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...they-are-attending-school.204134/post-4567910

Among the evidence is a study of a nine-year-old British boy who contracted coronavirus in a French Alps but did not pass it on despite having contact with more than 170 people at three schools.

The boy, among the cases linked to Steve Walsh, the first Briton to test positive, also had influenza and a common cold which he passed to both of his siblings – but neither picked up Covid-19.

 

[Bantamzen]

Indeed, COVID goes on the certficate if you had it at the time you passed away, not just if it actually caused the passing, and also remember on a bad flu year, global deaths can be upo to 650,000, check what the current figure is ! World Health Org says on average 300,000 to 650,000

I wonder have there been any cases of people having COVID and flu, and what effect that had?

The data that we are not seeing is what underlying conditions existed among those registered as dying with covid where the person was reported as being positive but that covid was not considered the primary cause of death, or a significant factor. I'm not sure if this would be widely available even within government, especially where the person has died outside of hospitals, but data even if it were confined to hospital cases might help indicate a pattern for things like this.

 

[LAX54]

I wonder have there been any cases of people having COVID and flu, and what effect that had?

Can you get both at the same time ? Is this virus, not a (nasty) version of influenza ?

 

[takno]

Is this virus, not a (nasty) version of influenza ?

Not at all. It's a completely different virus, which shares some of the more common symptoms

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not at all. It's a completely different virus, which shares some of the more common symptoms

It's got more in common with a common cold, of which about 20% (I think) are caused by coronaviruses.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Only 77 deaths in all settings today and none in Scotland.

Weekend figures I fully appreciate, but encouraging given that last weekend was still in triple digits (albeit not by very much once figures had been tweaked to reflect accounting for the previous weekend having been a Bank Holiday)

We just need to see weekday figures come down to, or even be a little less than, today's figure, and we know we're doing something right. European countries ARE still recording deaths Tuesday to Saturday. Think France, Spain and Italy were around 70 each last Tuesday.

Could that be us mid-end June?! As an aside, I see the figure for the 23rd of March was 74 and that was a Monday. However, would this be comparing apples and apples or apples and oranges? I don't think care homes were registered back then, so are we actually looking at the lowest cumulative figure since the 22nd of March, incidentally also a Sunday?

 

[yorkie]

This thread is to discuss Coronavirus: How scared should we be?

It is not to discuss masks, or social distancing etc; we have other threads for those discussions.

I have moved some posts to: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...mpact-on-public-life-public-transport.203436/

Thanks

 

[GRALISTAIR]

My wife is going back to England next Saturday for 2 months and she is a lifelong asthmatic. I am not scared at all. Seems like we are heading in the right direction.

 

[adc82140]

What's important to remember is terminology, which the media are prone to misunderstanding. The death rate is those dying WITH coronavirus, not OF coronavirus. Big difference. Sky News are the worst offenders.

Take another example. If you are unfortunate enough to have Alzheimers but die of a heart attack, the heart attack killed you, not the Alzheimers. But Alzheimers will be mentioned on the death certificate.

 

[Bantamzen]

What's important to remember is terminology, which the media are prone to misunderstanding. The death rate is those dying WITH coronavirus, not OF coronavirus. Big difference. Sky News are the worst offenders.

Take another example. If you are unfortunate enough to have Alzheimers but die of a heart attack, the heart attack killed you, not the Alzheimers. But Alzheimers will be mentioned on the death certificate.

Its another point I've been trying to make for a while. As yet there is no in-depth data on the people who have died with covid & what, if any other conditions they might have & what the actuals causes of death where. This would give us a much better idea of just the impact the virus actually has on our society, and why it impacts some countries more than others even though many have employed similar tactics to try to slow the spread.

But the media haven't helped with all this, often fixating on single measures and swapping and changing what they choose to highlight and rarely taking in the wider data into context. And so if you rely purely on a handful of headlines, and/or social media, you are more likely to still believe that stepping outside your door is a guaranteed insta-death or that you will instantly be responsible for the death of thousands of people. All of which is quite clearly untrue, but sadly the true picture doesn't get as many clicks on those ad-laden websites. But I feel the time has come for the media to start to dial back its terrifying stance and grim predictions and start concentrating on what's actually happening.

 

[adc82140]

I'm a big advocate of freedom of the press, but after this is all over, I think a debate will have to be had about responsibility coming with those freedoms.

 

[Yew]

I'm a big advocate of freedom of the press, but after this is all over, I think a debate will have to be had about responsibility coming with those freedoms.

Indeed, the "wrong but not for long" model of journalism has been responsible for spreading misleading information and downright lies. And that's before we even consider the downright paranoid that's resulted from a virus that only is dangerous to an incredibly frail subset of the population.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Its another point I've been trying to make for a while. As yet there is no in-depth data on the people who have died with covid & what, if any other conditions they might have & what the actuals causes of death where. This would give us a much better idea of just the impact the virus actually has on our society, and why it impacts some countries more than others even though many have employed similar tactics to try to slow the spread.

But the media haven't helped with all this, often fixating on single measures and swapping and changing what they choose to highlight and rarely taking in the wider data into context. And so if you rely purely on a handful of headlines, and/or social media, you are more likely to still believe that stepping outside your door is a guaranteed insta-death or that you will instantly be responsible for the death of thousands of people. All of which is quite clearly untrue, but sadly the true picture doesn't get as many clicks on those ad-laden websites. But I feel the time has come for the media to start to dial back its terrifying stance and grim predictions and start concentrating on what's actually happening.

I agree entirely but it's a sad fact that bad news sells far more papers (and generates far more clicks) than good news.

Before Coronavirus the papers would scare us with dire warnings that we were all going to die of terrorism, climate change, cander or whatever. Even when this pandemic is over in a few weeks ' time you can guarantee there'll be dire warnings of future pandemics from a variety of so-called "experts".

 

[LAX54]

I agree entirely but it's a sad fact that bad news sells far more papers (and generates far more clicks) than good news.

Before Coronavirus the papers would scare us with dire warnings that we were all going to die of terrorism, climate change, cander or whatever. Even when this pandemic is over in a few weeks ' time you can guarantee there'll be dire warnings of future pandemics from a variety of so-called "experts".

So, if it were not for the likes of the Daily Mail, Sun, Social Media, 24/7 news etc ...would we be in the pickle we are now ?

 

[MikeWM]

So, if it were not for the likes of the Daily Mail, Sun, Social Media, 24/7 news etc ...would we be in the pickle we are now ?

Compare with eg. 'Hong Kong flu' in 1968 or 'Asian flu' in 1957-8. Something has clearly changed - I think media is a big part of that.

The site this is on clearly has an agenda but this article has fascinating examples of just how different reporting was then in section 3.

The 1957-58 Asian Flu Pandemic: Why Did the UK Respond So Differently?
https://lockdownsceptics.org/from-stoicism-to-hysteria-uk-pandemic-responses-a-historical-context/

The problem that initially appears to confront you whilst researching the UK’s response to the 1957-58 Asian Flu is a lack of data (more on this later). The real problem, however, is not so much data you don’t have as the tone and content of the data you do have. Sifting through a relatively meagre collection of newspaper articles, first-hand accounts, Hansard documents, National Archive records and letters to medical journals like the Lancet and the British Medical Journal you quickly start to doubt the methodological validity of the exercise you’ve embarked upon. It’s all so utterly, unrelentingly banal. A vicar in Chelmsford gets the sniffles and has to shorten one of his congregation’s favourite sermons by half a minute; an amateur football match is postponed (but not cancelled) in Barnsley due to a few players feeling a bit rummy; a village fete just south of Ely reports that although three less stalls were taken this year as compared to last year, nevertheless, the Church Restoration Fund still received £2 7s 5d; a pupil at Eton spends a day in bed with a slight temperature but rises from his sickbed to score a magnificent 52 not out against an MCC second XI the following week; a housewife in Swindon demands a home visit from her GP although, as that GP subsequently reports to the Lancet, she doesn’t really need one and is perfectly well. That’s the level at which things seem to trundle along in 1957.

 

[nlogax]

So, if it were not for the likes of the Daily Mail, Sun, Social Media, 24/7 news etc ...would we be in the pickle we are now ?

Could be argued that's a more general statement not limited to the Covid situation.. but I think that's for another thread!

 

[al78]

Indeed, the "wrong but not for long" model of journalism has been responsible for spreading misleading information and downright lies. And that's before we even consider the downright paranoid that's resulted from a virus that only is dangerous to an incredibly frail subset of the population.

It was not about the risk to any individual or whether those of us young and in full health could likely fight off the virus without adverse side effects, it was to do with the fact that the frail subset of the population is quite a large subset, and if a large percentage of them catch COVID and need urgent medical attention in significant numbers in a short time, the demand for the NHS exceeds the supply, and the NHS collapses when it can't cope. The additional issue is that people can be carrying COVID without knowing it, and so spreading it without knowing it, to those frail people who are their family members.

If the issue is the lack of slack in the NHS to take up a new contageous disease, the only way I can see we make ourselves more resiliant to future pandemics (and there will be more), is to increase the capacity of the NHS, which means building more hospitals and employing more medical staff. This will likely mean raising taxes to pay for it, but it might come down to a choice of either having a little less disposable income, or periodically losing a chunk of your freedom when the NHS is in danger of being overwhelmed.

 

[6862]

Compare with eg. 'Hong Kong flu' in 1968 or 'Asian flu' in 1957-8. Something has clearly changed - I think media is a big part of that.

I think the media has a role to play in the different response, but as I have said many times elsewhere, I think a major difference is that people are not accustomed to think about the fact that they will one day die, whereas in the 1950s, there were many people alive who had lived through the world wars, and were therefore more aware of their mortality, having seen people die or at least known people who died. This isn't to say that people today are fooling themselves into think they will not die, but rather that people think about it so little that when they are told there is a tiny increased risk they will die in the next year or so, they panic.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This isn't to say that people today are fooling themselves into think they will not die, but rather that people think about it so little that when they are told there is a tiny increased risk they will die in the next year or so, they panic.

It's because, as I said, people are not very good at risk assessment (which is why in contexts where it's really important you have formal written methodologies for it, because that way the thinking is forced into the correct direction).

This is, as I've mentioned, very well illustrated by a fear of flying, which is totally irrational. The fear of COVID19, other than in those who are extremely clinically vulnerable, is very similar - people see how unpleasant dying of it is and consider only that, particularly thinking of their children, without considering its likelihood.

 

[MikeWM]

I think the media has a role to play in the different response, but as I have said many times elsewhere, I think a major difference is that people are not accustomed to think about the fact that they will one day die, whereas in the 1950s, there were many people alive who had lived through the world wars, and were therefore more aware of their mortality, having seen people die or at least known people who died.

I do agree that our cultural attitude to death has changed dramatically, probably not for the better. For example, it wasn't all that long ago you'd have a dead relative in your house before a funeral, rather than at the undertakers. You would be confronted by death directly. Nowadays it is all clinical and hidden away.

I also wonder if reduced religious belief is a factor here.

 

[sheff1]

But the media haven't helped with all this, often fixating on single measures and swapping and changing what they choose to highlight and rarely taking in the wider data into context. And so if you rely purely on a handful of headlines, and/or social media, you are more likely to still believe that stepping outside your door is a guaranteed insta-death or that you will instantly be responsible for the death of thousands of people.

If you were to believe a surprisingly large number of posters on here you would come to the same conclusion !

Terms like "murdering people" have even been bandied about.

 

[Huntergreed]

If you were to believe a surprisingly large number of posters on here you would come to the same conclusion !

Terms like "murdering people" have even been bandied about.

Indeed, and I think this may be even true to the extent that when the lockdown is eased, many will still follow the restrictions out of the false sense of fear they've been forced into by the media and government.

A 21st century democratic government using fear to try and control the population is questionable at best, but when it's been so effective that it's difficult to try and calm people down at the risk of damaging the economy further, now that's a serious problem, and it doesn't help when they announce hundreds of deaths 'with' covid every day (when most people believe this is 'from' the disease and wouldn't have happened without it) and scaremongering through sayting the 'R' number is close to 1 and if we tip it over then we will start 'murdering' the population again. The UK has really outdone itself this time, and it could prove very difficult indeed to convince people, including those in government, that it's safe to go back out and get the country going again without a 2m inpenetrable shield around them or a vaccine,

 

[Bantamzen]

If you were to believe a surprisingly large number of posters on here you would come to the same conclusion !

Terms like "murdering people" have even been bandied about.

Oh its still happening on my social media feeds, as I type! There are people besides themselves not just about the recent Black Lives Matter protests, but because they are seeing people walking down their streets without masks, in groups of up to six at a time! Don't they realise they are literally killing people just by walking.....

Well you get the idea. I've long stopped trying to rationalise with them because not matter what argument you bring to the table, they are convinced that staying indoors until the entire globe is vaccinated is the only rational thing to do. So the government's messaging has worked really well, to the point that some people won't be seeing much of any summer this year. Well that is until their jobs come under threat.....

 

[jumble]

If you were to believe a surprisingly large number of posters on here you would come to the same conclusion !

Terms like "murdering people" have even been bandied about.

Very strange since it is estimated that 1 in 1000 people have the disease at any one time and i should think many less in London now
Think about it.
If you are outdoors then what are the odds of you coming across someone with the disease and then actually catching it?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

So, if it were not for the likes of the Daily Mail, Sun, Social Media, 24/7 news etc ...would we be in the pickle we are now ?

If China had not locked down the Wuhan area province in which this apparently started, would any other country have locked down at all?

 

[al78]

It's because, as I said, people are not very good at risk assessment (which is why in contexts where it's really important you have formal written methodologies for it, because that way the thinking is forced into the correct direction).

This is, as I've mentioned, very well illustrated by a fear of flying, which is totally irrational. The fear of COVID19, other than in those who are extremely clinically vulnerable, is very similar - people see how unpleasant dying of it is and consider only that, particularly thinking of their children, without considering its likelihood.

On the other side of the coin are those that deny facts and evidence because they make them feel uncomfortable. Unfortunately this is dangerous, as it leads us to make careless and, at worst, dangerous decisions. Dismissing or denying a problem doesn't make it go away, it leads us make poor decision making which can harm ourselves and society.

The COVID-19 Pandemic Exposes The Harm Of Denying Scientific Facts

Your opinions about a large number of complex scientific issues are probably wrong. That's why we have science.

www.forbes.com

Are We Finally Seeing Science Denialism for the Death Wish That It Is?

Every day it seems we read news headlines that connect science denialism to cruel indifference and death. Just recently, when talking about the initial

news.utexas.edu

 

[Tetchytyke]

On the other side of the coin are those that deny facts and evidence because they make them feel uncomfortable.

A very interesting article from Forbes.

Although scientists are guilty of it too, when it suits: clusters of leukaemia in villages around Calder Hall nuclear power station were just "coincidence", for instance. Not to mention Thalidomide or, more recently, the huge opiate addiction problem in the US. And on a similar theme, the toxic waste scandal in Corby; caking the town in a fine toxic dust was also "coincidental" to birth defects in the town.

And its that sort of science that lets the anti-vaxxers and the 5G conspiracists in. If chemists were saying Thalidomide is safe when it blatantly wasn't, and if Corby council say the toxic dust is safe when it isn't, then how can you trust them on anything else they say? There's a historical reason why pharmaceutical companies are not trusted.

 

[Mojo]

Our local council is reinstating parking charges and enforcement of limited use bays from Monday 15th.

One of the comments on the story was a lady saying that it is not safe to go to the high street, and “won’t be for a long time yet.” I think whoever is tasked with bring back customers will have a tough job with attitudes like this. Not sure how really to reassure people myself either.

 

[yorkie]

Our local council is reinstating parking charges and enforcement of limited use bays from Monday 15th.

One of the comments on the story was a lady saying that it is not safe to go to the high street, and “won’t be for a long time yet.” I think whoever is tasked with bring back customers will have a tough job with attitudes like this. Not sure how really to reassure people myself either.

Most people want to get on with their lives but there are some exceptions.

Just today a 11/12 year old boy was telling me his friend has been kept at home for 3 months (they do have a garden but it's tiny) and has no idea when he will be allowed out to see his friends. The boy isn't happy but is doing as he is told. I know him; he is a lovely lad. It's heartbreaking