Coronavirus.

[DarloRich]

Why are people only focusing on testing and social distancing/lockdowns? The easiest solution to this seems to be the development of antiviral drugs to successfully treat or lessen the severity of the symptoms, available for all. And unlike an actual vaccine being developed, it is thought antivirals may be available for widespread use before the end of the year, rather than in a year or more. We know there are many drugs already in trial, with some producing very good results.

The biggest problem with this right now is that it is new and there are currently no treatments to either cure or lessen the symptoms, once this changes the picture changes hugely.

This was discussed in detial at the Friday press conference. Trials of re purposed drugs are already underway with new drugs being developed

 

[Goldfish62]

Sigh. It will take as long as it takes and you and others need to grasp that and preapre for that. We have to do this or people will die who dont need to.

This weekend will be a test and may, if behaviour is not good, lead to more severe restrictions.

EDIT: Look at the numbers and the charts. They arent dropping yet. The rules will have to carry on until they do. They will drop of people stay at home.

If you're one of those unfortunate souls it apparently takes around three weeks to die once you have caught it. So of course the numbers are still up. We're not yet three weeks into the lockdown.

The evidence from webcams and reports suggests there's a very high level of compliance so far this weekend yet some weirdos are still making up stories that certain places are packed when they're not.

 

[yorksrob]

Or as with their death statistics they are compiling the numbers differently to us. The numbers seem to have become a totem of national pride now, it’s hard to know what to believe.

The FT was quoting 500,000 tests per week for Germany a few days ago, which seems a crazy number. The USA are saying they’ve done 1.3M tests so far while only a week or so ago they’d hardly done any...

I daresay we'll find out the full story in due course.

 

[Philip]

Sigh. It will take as long as it takes and you and others need to grasp that and preapre for that. We have to do this or people will die who dont need to.

This weekend will be a test and may, if behaviour is not good, lead to more severe restrictions.

EDIT: Look at the numbers and the charts. They arent dropping yet. The rules will have to carry on until they do. They will drop of people stay at home.

Today there has been a fairly substantial drop in new positive cases and more significantly the numbers were more or less stable over the previous 3 days. Don't forget the week before 'the lockdown' began things were already much quieter. Yes we had that weekend of stupidity, but in the week running up to that, the government had asked people to work from home if possible, reduce social contact and reduce public transport usage. And it was much quieter as a result. The positive tests coming out now should be from people who were infected during that week, so we may be starting to see the effects of the social distancing.

 

[DarloRich]

If you're one of those unfortunate souls it apparently takes around three weeks to die once you have caught it. So of course the numbers are still up. We're not yet three weeks into the lockdown.

The evidence from webcams and reports suggests there's a very high level of compliance so far this weekend yet some weirdos are still making up stories that certain places are packed when they're not.

I will wait for news from mainstream sources.

 

[DarloRich]

Today there has been a fairly substantial drop in new positive cases and more significantly the numbers were more or less stable over the previous 3 days. Don't forget the week before 'the lockdown' began things were already much quieter. Yes we had that weekend of stupidity, but in the week running up to that, the government had asked people to work from home if possible, reduce social contact and reduce public transport usage. And it was much quieter as a result. The positive tests coming out now should be from people who were infected during that week, so we may be starting to see the effects of the social distancing.

Agree - but it is still very early. We need to have a plan for long term management of the virus. Squash transmission now and then slacken off slowly as the pressure on nhs goes down.

I think this will go on for more than 3 weeks. It has everywhere else.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Sigh. It will take as long as it takes and you and others need to grasp that and preapre for that. We have to do this or people will die who dont need to.

This weekend will be a test and may, if behaviour is not good, lead to more severe restrictions.

EDIT: Look at the numbers and the charts. They arent dropping yet. The rules will have to carry on until they do. They will drop if people stay at home.

I think the point @Bantamzen was trying to make was that steadily more people will get impatient - not that he/she is impatient. That is my fear - there are plenty of people out there who need a very simple message and somehow need to be persueaded to stay in.

Agree - but it is still very early. We need to have a plan for long term management of the virus. Squash transmission now and then slacken off slowly as the pressure on nhs goes down.

I think this will go on for more than 3 weeks. It has everywhere else.

I agree. I really hope that soon some tangible easing off can happen so that people can see/believe results of social distancing working. Plus they can have an improvement in their personal life. Otherwise there are those who will loose interest in the greater good.

 

[DarloRich]

I notice BBC news indicate that Watford General Hospital is closed to all patients. I saw some communication on this earlier today and hoped it was incorrect.

This is not good news but it does look like numbers admitted to hospital in london has leveled off.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-52151694

A hospital has asked all patients to stay away until further notice, except for women expecting to give birth, due to problems with its oxygen equipment.

Watford General Hospital has declared a critical incident and earlier urged any emergency patients to go to other hospitals with A&E units.

The hospital said the decision was taken as a "result of a technical issue with our hospital's oxygen equipment".

It added that the problem did not "pose any risk to our patients".

"A small number of patients are being transferred to other hospitals in the area...

 

[Peter Sarf]

I notice BBC news indicate that Watford General Hospital is closed to all patients. I saw some communication on this earlier today and hoped it was incorrect.

This is not good news

I think the NHS will be teetering as close to the edge as it dares. North London was the worst place a while ago. Fingers crossed this just means cases merely overflow to the next nearest hospital and the Nightingale (correct name ?) hospital soaks up the easier cases. Suffice to say this is what we are bracing ourselves for. Not a routine day though.

 

[Darandio]

I notice BBC news indicate that Watford General Hospital is closed to all patients. I saw some communication on this earlier today and hoped it was incorrect.

This is not good news but it does look like numbers admitted to hospital in london has leveled off.

The hospital are stating that they are running out of oxygen. Only last week there were government assurances that this wouldn't happen. Not good.

 

[DarloRich]

I think the NHS will be teetering as close to the edge as it dares. North London was the worst place a while ago. Fingers crossed this just means cases merely overflow to the next nearest hospital and the Nightingale (correct name ?) hospital soaks up the easier cases. Suffice to say this is what we are bracing ourselves for. Not a routine day though.

The hospital are stating that they are running out of oxygen. Only last week there were government assurances that this wouldn't happen. Not good.

Very worrying. Hopefully not the start of something worse.

There is a BOC plant at Wembley how can a local hospital be running out of oxygen ?

 

[Mag_seven]

That is my fear - there are plenty of people out there who need a very simple message and somehow need to be persuaded to stay in.

The next few days are really going to reveal just what sort of a country we are living in - one that is prepared to do whatever it takes to save lives or one that isn't. I hope its the former.

 

[swt_passenger]

The hospital are stating that they are running out of oxygen. Only last week there were government assurances that this wouldn't happen. Not good.

The latest BBC reporting seems to be describing it as a technical incident rather than a shortage.

 

[Darandio]

The latest BBC reporting seems to be describing it as a technical incident rather than a shortage.

Yes, they have just changed that bit in the last few minutes since I posted.

 

[Goldfish62]

I think the NHS will be teetering as close to the edge as it dares. North London was the worst place a while ago. Fingers crossed this just means cases merely overflow to the next nearest hospital and the Nightingale (correct name ?) hospital soaks up the easier cases. Suffice to say this is what we are bracing ourselves for. Not a routine day though.

Yet yesterday Matt Hancock was saying there are vacant ICU beds all over the country and the Nightingale isn't required yet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yet yesterday Matt Hancock was saying there are vacant ICU beds all over the country and the Nightingale isn't required yet.

This was a technical issue, not a capacity issue.

 

[Busaholic]

The hospital are stating that they are running out of oxygen. Only last week there were government assurances that this wouldn't happen. Not good.

See theguardian.com./society/2020/apr/02/london-hospital-almost-runs-out-oxygen-coronavirus-patients

 

[Mogster]

See theguardian.com./society/2020/apr/02/london-hospital-almost-runs-out-oxygen-coronavirus-patients

It sounds more like a technical problem with the Oxygen delivery system than a shortage.

 

[JonathanH]

Agree - but it is still very early. We need to have a plan for long term management of the virus. Squash transmission now and then slacken off slowly as the pressure on nhs goes down.

I think this will go on for more than 3 weeks. It has everywhere else.

Yes.

I think the questions at the news conference are getting too impatient about 'peaks' and timescales. We are only in the third week - the impact of the current restrictions won't be known for a week or so - the pattens in the statistics aren't really developing on a day-to-day basis. However, I think the press conferences are still worthwhile.

If the virus can't be erradicated, a peak almost has no meaning. It will just be one of a series of 'peaks' over time, and some may be higher if we have more NHS capacity because we will have relaxed the restrictions to get some more people infected.

 

[tds42]

Question - on furlough leave. How do I get it ?.

Your employer pays you the 80% of your pay in the usual way and they are the ones who claim the grant from the government. This means they won't have to (or rather shouldn't be) forcing anyone to take unpaid leave

 

[Peter Sarf]

Your employer pays you the 80% of your pay in the usual way and they are the ones who claim the grant from the government. This means they won't have to (or rather shouldn't be) forcing anyone to take unpaid leave

Thanks so it should be my choice.

Someone has now told me that you have to be off for a minimum of three weeks - true ?.

That does not include sickness or self isolation as it has to be the company closing temporarily which I knew - but is that correct ?.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Yes.

I think the questions at the news conference are getting too impatient about 'peaks' and timescales. We are only in the third week - the impact of the current restrictions won't be known for a week or so - the pattens in the statistics aren't really developing on a day-to-day basis. However, I think the press conferences are still worthwhile.

If the virus can't be erradicated, a peak almost has no meaning. It will just be one of a series of 'peaks' over time, and some may be higher if we have more NHS capacity because we will have relaxed the restrictions to get some more people infected.

I assume the virus won't get eradicated any time soon. It will be a case of drip feeding the NHS with serious cases at not too fast a rate until everyone has had it, survived and now has immunity. Obviously if the virus mutates then we could start again. Just hope it is a less serious version (as others have said) then its not a self isolation issue. Indeed perhaps it will be similar enough that our immune systems will be ready for COVID-19 [/straw-clutch].

 

[The Ham]

Thanks so it should be my choice.

Someone has now told me that you have to be off for a minimum of three weeks - true ?.

That does not include sickness or self isolation as it has to be the company closing temporarily which I knew - but is that correct ?.

I don't know for sure, but three weeks is what I've been told by my work for my initial furlough period.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I don't know for sure, but three weeks is what I've been told by my work for my initial furlough period.

Friend said it got changed to three weeks by the government. So perhaps they bottled it a bit. So come hell or high water three weeks is when they plan to send all of us back to the grinding wheels me thinks !.

 

[tds42]

The three weeks is going to be the minimum time that business expects to be furloughing people. They will be able to extend that period closer to the time. It is impossible to predict further ahead at the moment so this seems sensible.

The scheme itself runs for three months backdated from 1st March, and the government can extend it

This is a temporary scheme in place for 3 months starting from 1 March 2020, but it may be extended if necessary and employers can use this scheme anytime during this period. It is designed to help employers whose operations have been severely affected by coronavirus (COVID-19) to retain their employees and protect the UK economy.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claim-for-wage-costs-through-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme

 

[AM9]

The Government has pressured Councils to house homeless people in unused hotel rooms.

There was a feature in this evening's news where the police were

It's a really bad comparison that government who thought they would never deal with an epidemic on their soil created back in February (remember those days?). It spread quite well in Australia. Hong Kong has a minimum daytime high of 25 degrees all year round, but still got infected... On the opposite extreme, over 1000 cases in Iceland.

Not quite true. I was there in Febuary 1998 when the annual NE monsoon was running and the daytime temperature was less than 10 degrees. That is not atypical and even the daytime temperature from mid December to mid March rarely gets out of the teens.

 

[DerekC]

If the virus can't be erradicated, a peak almost has no meaning. It will just be one of a series of 'peaks' over time, and some may be higher if we have more NHS capacity because we will have relaxed the restrictions to get some more people infected.

I think that misses an important point which is that a peak in the rate of admissions to hospital followed by a peak in the death rate shows that the policy of social isolation is working. That is important because it will help to ensure continued compliance. Then the idea seems to be to test our way out of it. That hasn't been explained very well, but as I understand it involves going back to contact tracing and suppression, with "lockdown" maintained where necessary on a local basis. I am not sure how effective that would be - one of the good things about the current policy is that it applies across the whole country so that it is seen as fair and is easier to police.

 

[Bantamzen]

Sigh. It will take as long as it takes and you and others need to grasp that and preapre for that. We have to do this or people will die who dont need to.

This weekend will be a test and may, if behaviour is not good, lead to more severe restrictions.

EDIT: Look at the numbers and the charts. They arent dropping yet. The rules will have to carry on until they do. They will drop if people stay at home.

Sigh all you like, I live in the real world and know that we cannot live in a indefinite period of lock-down. This ins't a game, literally millions of people are sitting at home wondering when they will get paid again, and how they will pay their bills and feed themselves. And if those people suddenly find they can't... Well you figure it out.

 

[The Ham]

Sigh all you like, I live in the real world and know that we cannot live in a indefinite period of lock-down. This ins't a game, literally millions of people are sitting at home wondering when they will get paid again, and how they will pay their bills and feed themselves. And if those people suddenly find they can't... Well you figure it out.

It would never be possible for the lockdown to be indefinite, and no-one is suggesting that it should be.

Whilst there's many who are being financially impacted by this, I suspect that quite a few of these people wouldn't consider social unrest as a viable option.

The times that we've seen social unrest and riots, is when there's large groups on the streets protesting and they feel that they are unlikely to be able to be identified in such a large group.

If they tried it in near empty streets the police would be able to arrest them very efficiently, which must be a fairly significant determent in the minds of those who would otherwise consider it.

Whilst some may consider deliberately going into the streets to protest, they are going to be restrained by the thought of the harm that they may cause to the NHS and the risk it may put their older friends and family at if the NHS is unduly stressed by their actions.

Also to get significant numbers onto streets in any one area would require a significant uplift in travel, which would likely alert the authorities and so they would turn them back.

 

[Bantamzen]

I think the point @Bantamzen was trying to make was that steadily more people will get impatient - not that he/she is impatient. That is my fear - there are plenty of people out there who need a very simple message and somehow need to be persueaded to stay in.

Exactly this, lock-downs are only effective when people are willing to comply. The moment that people loss patience, or more importantly start to suffer, things will change rapidly.

It would never be possible for the lockdown to be indefinite, and no-one is suggesting that it should be.

Whilst there's many who are being financially impacted by this, I suspect that quite a few of these people wouldn't consider social unrest as a viable option.

The times that we've seen social unrest and riots, is when there's large groups on the streets protesting and they feel that they are unlikely to be able to be identified in such a large group.

If they tried it in near empty streets the police would be able to arrest them very efficiently, which must be a fairly significant determent in the minds of those who would otherwise consider it.

Whilst some may consider deliberately going into the streets to protest, they are going to be restrained by the thought of the harm that they may cause to the NHS and the risk it may put their older friends and family at if the NHS is unduly stressed by their actions.

Also to get significant numbers onto streets in any one area would require a significant uplift in travel, which would likely alert the authorities and so they would turn them back.

There are currently some 1 million people finding themselves unemployed, and many more millions unsure as to when they might get paid again. There are even some who have been told in no uncertain terms that they are not likely to get any help for months. Believe me when I say this, these people will not sit quietly by.