Coronavirus.

[nlogax]

To anyone worried about the virus, my advice would be, switch off your computer, limit watching the news to 10 minutes a day and, if possible, get out into the outdoors, enjoy a nice walk and chill out!

A++. Contrary to the lockdown narrative it's essential to get some sunshine and fresh air. One bonus is the air is fresher by the day right now as people cut down on travel and work from home. Take advantage of that on a walk or a run.

 

[Bantamzen]

Very well said. I think the big problem here is that the media is as ever presenting the worst case scenario as fact when in reality no-one knows what's going to happen. Yes, the virus could kill thousands of people and last for months but for all we know it could be over in a couple of weeks and, by May we'll all be sitting around feeling a bit lost because all the sporting events, festivals and concerts we were planning on going to got cancelled prematurely!

Add to that the vast number of people sat a home right now wasting their time getting increasingly and irrationally panicky becuase of all the scaremongering on social media and it's not surprising that some posters, even on a relatively sensible forum like this one, are wildly exaggerating the situation.

To anyone worried about the virus, my advice would be, switch off your computer, limit watching the news to 10 minutes a day and, if possible, get out into the outdoors, enjoy a nice walk and chill out!

A++. Contrary to the lockdown narrative it's essential to get some sunshine and fresh air. One bonus is the air is fresher by the day right now as people cut down on travel and work from home. Take advantage of that on a walk or a run.

Totally agreed. Whilst I don't fully agree with the government's decisions, I will be taking advantage of the fact that my current "office" is much closer to some rather nice walks than my Leeds base....

 

[Meerkat]

But the point is that it is not about stopping it, simply slowing it enough until we can afford it. Or in other words its an economic decision. Of course we could also commit enough money straight away to being proactive and getting to the most vulnerable, prioritising testing them & giving them the support so they have the best chance of not contracting it, thus saving lives that way. Which is my point all along. We still don't know how to control the common cold, a cousin of covid-19, so we really can't sit on our hands and hope for a solution.

It’s not a case of affording the capacity - the capacity has to be built/constructed/trained.
We do know how to treat a common cold so it doesn’t put you in hospital.

 

[Mogster]

Very well said. I think the big problem here is that the media is as ever presenting the worst case scenario as fact when in reality no-one knows what's going to happen. Yes, the virus could kill thousands of people and last for months but for all we know it could be over in a couple of weeks and, by May we'll all be sitting around feeling a bit lost because all the sporting events, festivals and concerts we were planning on going to got cancelled prematurely!

Add to that the vast number of people sat a home right now wasting their time getting increasingly and irrationally panicky becuase of all the scaremongering on social media and it's not surprising that some posters, even on a relatively sensible forum like this one, are wildly exaggerating the situation.

To anyone worried about the virus, my advice would be, switch off your computer, limit watching the news to 10 minutes a day and, if possible, get out into the outdoors, enjoy a nice walk and chill out!

I’ve actually started to try to give myself some Corona downtime, I was getting worried, thinking too much and not sleeping too well. I’m actually on annual leave currently but it’s easy very easy to spend all day reading Corona stuff, especially as healthcare science is my job and I like numbers, stats and charts. I’ve started to have a cutoff after tea until I go to bed, a period that I don’t look at the days Corona stats and opinion (mostly...)

 

[nlogax]

The science is proven. If you keep reading and listening for Coronavirus news, day and night, you will drive yourself mad. Friends don't let friends watching streaming news feeds

 

[Cowley]

I’ve actually started to try to give myself some Corona downtime, I was getting worried, thinking too much and not sleeping too well. I’m actually on annual leave currently but it’s easy very easy to spend all day reading Corona stuff, especially as healthcare science is my job and I like numbers, stats and charts. I’ve started to have a cutoff after tea until I go to bed, a period that I don’t look at the days Corona stats and opinion (mostly...)

This is a very good point, and I’ve been listening to podcasts including a bit of comedy to have a break from it all.

 

[Bantamzen]

It’s not a case of affording the capacity - the capacity has to be built/constructed/trained.
We do know how to treat a common cold so it doesn’t put you in hospital.

I'm not talking about just building capacity, that does take time. I'm talking about getting all the vulnerable into a managed programme where they can get access to accurate, help & advice on how to minimise their own risk, and how their friends and family can do the same. I'm wanting to reach them before they even potentially come into contact with the virus. For example I follow a couple of vloggers over in Japan, and whilst the government there have shut down many large events, and encouraged people to stay at home more, they have not forced the kind of lock down seen in Europe. Instead they seem to have been proactive in getting good quality information out there, especially to the more vulnerable. And it seems to be working without any attempts to shame people trying to go about their daily lives.

The money currently pledged to try and prop up businesses could easily have been used to be more proactive to our vulnerable. And sadly I have a horrible feeling I know why this approach hasn't been taken, because it could be governmental Pandora's Box. After all, if the government could be proactive towards covid-19, they could equally be as proactive towards mental health, or homelessness...

I hope that is just my cynicism overworking, but I doubt it.

 

[trebor79]

I've started to try to limit my Corona intake to the daily WHO sitreps. Clear, concise information with no hyperbole.
Oddly, the cases and deaths figures they report are considerably lower than what the BBC churns out.
I'd also suggest reading the Imperial College report than informed the current policy. It quite clearly states that the current measures will be required, on and off (bit more on that off) for the next 2 years. That assumes an effective vaccine is ready for mass production within 18 months.
I don't like that the world i knew and mostly loved is gone. But I accept it is. One day, we will reach a new normal, and I am hopeful that there will be at least as many positives as negatives compared to a few weeks ago.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The "vulnerable groups" thing is difficult anyway. I have asthma, so technically fall in that group, but I'm not concerned at all about getting it. It's incredibly mild, and indeed I suspect were I a couch potato rather than a somewhat oversized runner I wouldn't even know I had it (running is the main activity where I find myself reaching for the inhaler - even cycling isn't enough to kick it off - also climbing, but that's because of the thick chalk dust in the atmosphere in most climbing walls). Indeed I've only got a preventer because I specifically asked for one because I didn't want to be using that much salbutamol as I do something physical pretty much every day, and I only had a flu jab once, this year, because the pharmacist basically said "here's your inhalers, if you want a free flu jab we can do it now" so I said "might as well".

If I was older or had severe asthma, I'd probably be quite concerned.

 

[Meerkat]

The money currently pledged to try and prop up businesses could easily have been used to be more proactive to our vulnerable. And sadly I have a horrible feeling I know why this approach hasn't been taken, because it could be governmental Pandora's Box. After all, if the government could be proactive towards covid-19, they could equally be as proactive towards mental health, or homelessness...

I think it’s paranoia rather than cynicism!
How do you propose to protect the vulnerable at short notice if large numbers of the rest are infected?
The elderly are exposed even in lockdown - they still need doctors, hospital visits, food deliveries. If the virus sweeps through uncontrolled then those services would be at risk of collapse, let alone the transmission risk.

 

[TheEdge]

I don't like that the world i knew and mostly loved is gone. But I accept it is. One day, we will reach a new normal, and I am hopeful that there will be at least as many positives as negatives compared to a few weeks ago.

Good lord give it over with this level of hyperbole.

The world is not ending. If this was some entirely unknown and new disease to science that was taking someone who was healthy at breakfast and they were dead by dinner then perhaps this would be applicable. If this was akin to the Black Death with 50% death rate then maybe this would be fair, if this was Ebola wildfiring across the world then fine.

But it's not.

Its an upper respiratory tract infection which in the vast majority of cases is asymptomatic or gives you symptoms akin to a bad cold. For the 5% of RECORDED cases bad enough to need hospital treatment it has a 3.5% mortality. But across the population in general accounting for all expected cases, its about the same mortality rate as flu.

Yes, there will be a few months of hardship but its not the apocalypse, modern science already has vaccines on trial and at least three existing antivirals that appear to work on it.

 

[Antman]

There are too many that seem to be enjoying this, in an “I told you so” sort of way, and seem to delight in feeding the collective hysteria.

I've thought that as well..... seems the virus has brought some excitement into some people's previously dull lives.

 

[Antman]

The science is proven. If you keep reading and listening for Coronavirus news, day and night, you will drive yourself mad. Friends don't let friends watching streaming news feeds

Exactly, sit in front of the TV all day and it seems the end of the world is upon us but step outside and life is going on as normal.

 

[Mogster]

Exactly, sit in front of the TV all day and it seems the end of the world is upon us but step outside and life is going on as normal.

Very so.

 

[Bantamzen]

I think it’s paranoia rather than cynicism!
How do you propose to protect the vulnerable at short notice if large numbers of the rest are infected?
The elderly are exposed even in lockdown - they still need doctors, hospital visits, food deliveries. If the virus sweeps through uncontrolled then those services would be at risk of collapse, let alone the transmission risk.

I'm really not the one with paranoia judging by the reaction on social media. Just cynical, plain, boring, common or garden cynical...

 

[nidave]

I personally think its a load of fannel hyped up by the news media and expanded by social media for what is essentially a really bad cold.

The greatest damage is not caused by Coronavirus, but by hysterical lemming type behavior by gullible sheeps.

I'm bemused by all the panic buying and empty shelves, the demand is outstripping supply that's why themselves are empty, which any day of the week would be fully stocked anyway...people need to get a grip on reality.

This attitude is dangerous - It is not a cold. It can have fatal consequences and seems to cause lung problems - unless you can show me your medical degree and the research you have made into the long term heath impact on people you are part of the problem

 

[trebor79]

Good lord give it over with this level of hyperbole.

The world is not ending. If this was some entirely unknown and new disease to science that was taking someone who was healthy at breakfast and they were dead by dinner then perhaps this would be applicable. If this was akin to the Black Death with 50% death rate then maybe this would be fair, if this was Ebola wildfiring across the world then fine.

But it's not.

Its an upper respiratory tract infection which in the vast majority of cases is asymptomatic or gives you symptoms akin to a bad cold. For the 5% of RECORDED cases bad enough to need hospital treatment it has a 3.5% mortality. But across the population in general accounting for all expected cases, its about the same mortality rate as flu.

Yes, there will be a few months of hardship but its not the apocalypse, modern science already has vaccines on trial and at least three existing antivirals that appear to work on it.

I'm talking more about the economic impact. In those few month (or more likely years) of hardship, many businesses will have gone bust. Most shops, most pubs, most cinemas, most leisure destinations.
Millions of people will be out of work.
The country will have huge debts. The tax revenue will have collapsed. So ongoing services either need to be chopped down, or an enormous increase in taxation needs to happen. Probably a combination of both.

Some of that stuff will come back over time but a lot will not. The nation will be poorer, fiscally and culturally.

 

[87electric]

This attitude is dangerous - It is not a cold. It can have fatal consequences and seems to cause lung problems - unless you can show me your medical degree and the research you have made into the long term heath impact on people you are part of the problem

Listen to yourself,carefully.

 

[Bantamzen]

This attitude is dangerous - It is not a cold. It can have fatal consequences and seems to cause lung problems - unless you can show me your medical degree and the research you have made into the long term heath impact on people you are part of the problem

And just as dangerous is spreading fear and panic. Currently worldwide around 220,000 cases have been confirmed, with around 9,000 passing away. That is a mortality rate of known cases of around 0.4%, slightly more than influenza. In the UK most, if not all fatalities have been with people with pre-existing conditions, the virus itself has not been cited as the single cause of death from what I understand. And as of yesterday mroning in the UK 56,221 people had been tested, with 2,626 (4.67%) proving positive & 103 (3.92%) of those tested positive having died. And keep in mind that we are now only testing people who seek medical attention, not those self-isolating with possible symptoms, so the mortality rate will be skewed.

For the love of sanity will people stop trying to make this all worse. Stick to the facts.

 

[Mogster]

I'm talking more about the economic impact. In those few month (or more likely years) of hardship, many businesses will have gone bust. Most shops, most pubs, most cinemas, most leisure destinations.
Millions of people will be out of work.
The country will have huge debts. The tax revenue will have collapsed. So ongoing services either need to be chopped down, or an enormous increase in taxation needs to happen. Probably a combination of both.

Some of that stuff will come back over time but a lot will not. The nation will be poorer, fiscally and culturally.

Yes the economic effects look to be truly frightening and we don’t know the full scale of it yet. 330bn...?

Totally unprecedented eye watering levels of borrowing has been announced already by western countries there’s some debate where this will all actually come from. At least we started with a large economy in decent shape, other countries aren’t so lucky...

 

[GB]

On the plus side, anyone signing up to new mortgage deals (or those on a tracker) or personal loans will be happy.

 

[Meerkat]

The death rates aren’t the key number here.
How many infected people needed hospital care, and how many of those needed ICU?

 

[DarloRich]

On the plus side, anyone signing up to new mortgage deals (or those on a tracker) or personal loans will be happy.

Intrest rate reduced to 0.1%!

 

[Bantamzen]

The death rates aren’t the key number here.
How many infected people needed hospital care, and how many of those needed ICU?

Well we know roughly that of the infected rate, 20% develop more severe symptoms so based on yesterday's figures something like 525 will have had worse, but it is not clear how many needed hospital / ICU care. I'm not sure those stats exist as yet, but I think it is fair to say that not all of those 525 needed intense hospital care.

Edit: This site is a quick overview as to where we are:

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/f94c3c90da5b4e9f9a0b19484dd4bb14

 

[edwin_m]

I think we need to know far more about how infectious asymptomatic people are before we can come to a view on which of the last few posts is right. There seem to be lost of contradictory statements on this question.

If people with no symptoms aren't infectious then a strategy of isolating the more vulnerable and people showing symptoms and letting everyone else carry on is viable. If not then it could lead to very rapid spread and a hospitalization ratio of 10% or more will overwhelm available facilities and make the death rate much higher, as seems to be happening in Italy.

At the moment we just don't know and the precautionary principle applies. If we find out within a couple of weeks and the answer is favourable then most people ought to be able to get back to something close to normality.

 

[Meerkat]

Well we know roughly that of the infected rate, 20% develop more severe symptoms so based on yesterday's figures something like 525 will have had worse, but it is not clear how many needed hospital / ICU care. I'm not sure those stats exist as yet, but I think it is fair to say that not all of those 525 needed intense hospital care.

Edit: This site is a quick overview as to where we are:

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/f94c3c90da5b4e9f9a0b19484dd4bb14

I have been assuming ‘more severe’ meant hospital care (and then a proportion of them need ICU)

 

[DarloRich]

Johnson has done 4 press conferences and has clearly had enough of the questions so now wants to avoid scrutiny by hiding away and doing his press remotely.

The man is a coward hiding from scrutiny and it isnt good enough. We cant hide, people in key services csnt hide. Neither should he.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Johnson has done 4 press conferences and has clearly had enough of the questions so now wants to avoid scrutiny by hiding away and doing his press remotely.

The man is a coward hiding from scrutiny and it isnt good enough. We cant hide, people in key services csnt hide. Neither should he.

Oh, come on. It's a load of people in a room not maintaining social distance, thereby setting a bad example and putting the Government at risk. The idea of doing it online, with questions, is a very sensible one.

On another note, I think a firm shot has been fired across the bows of Londoners who are ignoring it all and continuing to go out and get <insert noun>ed.

 

[Meerkat]

Johnson has done 4 press conferences and has clearly had enough of the questions so now wants to avoid scrutiny by hiding away and doing his press remotely.

The man is a coward hiding from scrutiny and it isnt good enough. We cant hide, people in key services csnt hide. Neither should he.

You really are an extremist!
As he said - it’s hard to lecture people when they appear to be breaking their gathering rules themselves. He also guaranteed to take questions.
I thought he looked rather perky - hopefully that means the briefings he is getting in COBRA are getting more positive (particularly re testing)

 

[Tom B]

Of course the problem is - a certain %age of people need hospital care. Whilst the NHS is stretched (end of winter plus years of cutbacks), it can cope for now. But when there's an upswing in numbers, finite resources (i.e. the appropriate beds) run out, staff start going sick... how many of those who wouldn't die of it in utopia, will do so through lack of facilities?