Coronavirus.

[Jamiescott1]

Bored now especially as I disagree with the lockdown.
We need to be tested instead

 

[edwin_m]

It's unlikely to wipe out the human species, but it could result in a greater ongoing death rate than we're used to in a modern society.

 

[The Ham]

Bored especially as I disagree with the lockdown.
We need to be tested instead

Whilst most people would agree that we need to ramp up testing, there's a few problems with that.

Firstly it takes time to ramp up testing to the point that it's a viable option.

Secondly we can't test for who's already had the virus and so what do we do with those who don't have it?

The current test might not pick up people who are just infected.

What's the strategy along side testing?

 

[Bantamzen]

Whilst most people would agree that we need to ramp up testing, there's a few problems with that.

Firstly it takes time to ramp up testing to the point that it's a viable option.

Secondly we can't test for who's already had the virus and so what do we do with those who don't have it?

The current test might not pick up people who are just infected.

What's the strategy along side testing?

Antibody tests are currently being developed & tested as I understand, in fact I believe the government has placed an order pending the trials proving successful.

 

[Bantamzen]

It's unlikely to wipe out the human species, but it could result in a greater ongoing death rate than we're used to in a modern society.

The response to it might be unprecedented, but much higher levels of mortality than usual owning to viral infections are nothing new under the sun. What is new is the level of exposure to it's spread via online platforms, news feeds etc. This in part is driving the public sense of fear, that may or may not be proportional to the actual threat of the virus.
It remains to be seen how much more dangerous this is compared to others similar to it, and views on this are starting to shift.

 

[The Ham]

It's unlikely to wipe out the human species, but it could result in a greater ongoing death rate than we're used to in a modern society.

For now, yes, however long term maybe not.

Assuming that we become immune to getting it a second time this could well be something like chicken pox, something which children get (and is rarely serious) and once we've had it we're then immune for the rest of our lives. However if we get it as an adult then (like shingles) it would be something which was of concern.

Even if we don't get lifetime immunity then chances are the vaccine would be given in year 9 along side the BCG vaccination (unless there's underlying heath issues where an earlier vaccine could be provided).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Shingles isn't caused by catching the chickenpox virus again. The chickenpox virus is different from coronaviruses, it stays in your body and occasionally causes flare-ups.

HIV is another example of a type of virus that can be managed but not completely removed. A further one is the herpes virus that causes cold sores - once you've got it you've got it for life.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/chickenpox/ refers:

Shingles and chickenpox
You cannot catch shingles from someone with chickenpox.

You can catch chickenpox from someone with shingles if you have not had chickenpox before.

When you get chickenpox, the virus stays in your body. It can be triggered again if your immune system is low and cause shingles.

This can be because of stress, certain conditions, or treatments like chemotherapy.

 

[ainsworth74]

Even if we don't get lifetime immunity then chances are the vaccine would be given in year 9 along side the BCG vaccination (unless there's underlying heath issues where an earlier vaccine could be provided).

BCG vaccine isn't routinely given anymore and has been removed from the NHS vaccination schedule. You only get it these days if there's some underlying reason to be given it (i.e. you're at a higher risk of coming into contact with TB).

 

[CaptainHaddock]

The response to it might be unprecedented, but much higher levels of mortality than usual owning to viral infections are nothing new under the sun. What is new is the level of exposure to it's spread via online platforms, news feeds etc. This in part is driving the public sense of fear, that may or may not be proportional to the actual threat of the virus.
It remains to be seen how much more dangerous this is compared to others similar to it, and views on this are starting to shift.

This is a very interesting point. Estimates very, but it seems now most experts expect the final death toll from Covid-19 in the UK to be between 5,000 and 20,000.

Yet two years ago, a combination of a flu epidemic and an exceptionally cold winter caused 50,000 excess deaths and no-one was calling for a full lockdown back then.

(Source - http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/co...cess-winter-deaths-last-year/20037896.article)

"There were over 50,000 excess winter deaths in England and Wales last winter, the highest recorded since 1975/76, according to data released by the Office of National Statistics (ONS). The increase is thought to be a result of the prevalence of flu last year, alongside ineffectiveness of the flu vaccine and colder than usual temperatures in the 2017/18 winter period, according to the ONS. The excess winter mortality rate, which compares the numbers of deaths between December and March to the average number of deaths across the rest of the year, continued to be the highest in females and people aged 85 and over."

Understandably, as Bantamzen says, some people are now starting to question whether the draconian measures the government has taken are proportionate to the actual threat.

 

[bussnapperwm]

Dominic Cummings has had to self isolate now after displaying symptoms

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it not the case, though, that projected deaths were about 250,000-500,000 in the event of no measures being taken?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Dominic Cummings has had to self isolate now after displaying symptoms

They've all got it then. Oops

Government by teleconference it is!

 

[ainsworth74]

Is it not the case, though, that projected deaths were about 250,000-500,000 in the event of no measures being taken?

Yes we might have 20,000 deaths (though I'm sure one of the government scientific advisers also said "we'd be doing well to keep it below 20,000") but that's because of what we've done. If we'd done nothing then hundreds of thousands of deaths would have resulted.

I fear, however, that there's going to be a number of people who won't accept that crucial clarification.

 

[Bantamzen]

Is it not the case, though, that projected deaths were about 250,000-500,000 in the event of no measures being taken?

It is, however there are lots of measures between "doing nothing" & "full lockdown". Governments have generally moved quickly to "full lockdown" on the basis of the first countries actions (i.e. China, Italy), partly to be seen to be proactive, but more honestly to slow the impact on health services. This might seem reasonable on the face of until you start to look at the slow response from our government. They stalled on co-ordinating with the EU over medical equipment, they've been accused by the clothing industry on stalling orders for protective gear, & its been slow to respond to demands to test NHS front line staff & people most at risk, whilst making sure they all get tested.

The fact is we don't, or ever will know if those original models where anywhere near correct. We can probably agree they were likely worst case scenarios designed to get governments globally to react, but may not have been accurate for all countries. As I type over on the BBC news feed is reporting that the mortality rate in Germany is far below the curve the original model forecast, and this is being put down to a better testing regime. Indeed it is reporting that such is their available capacity, they are taking in patients from France & Italy. So serious questions will be raised, is our lock-down to protect us, the NHS or the government's previous policies? Once this has all past it's peak, this ought to be at the front of all our minds.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The fact is we don't, or ever will know if those original models where anywhere near correct. We can probably agree they were likely worst case scenarios designed to get governments globally to react, but may not have been accurate for all countries. As I type over on the BBC news feed is reporting that the mortality rate in Germany is far below the curve the original model forecast, and this is being put down to a better testing regime. Indeed it is reporting that such is their available capacity, they are taking in patients from France & Italy. So serious questions will be raised, is our lock-down to protect us, the NHS or the government's previous policies? Once this has all past it's peak, this ought to be at the front of all our minds.

I'm certain there will be a full inquiry into this once it's over.

 

[DarloRich]

As I type over on the BBC news feed is reporting that the mortality rate in Germany is far below the curve the original model forecast, and this is being put down to a better testing regime.

There is some suggestion they are not recording cornovirus as cause of death and instead listing the underlying medical issue.

Questions should be asked about how and why we were not in position to test, how and why we didn't ( or perhaps still don't) have the correct PPE in place, how and why we didn't take part in the EU drive to deliver ventilators and when and in what numbers the British industry drive to deliver ventilators will actually deliver.

 

[Meerkat]

Yet two years ago, a combination of a flu epidemic and an exceptionally cold winter caused 50,000 excess deaths and no-one was calling for a full lockdown back then.

Do flu deaths happen in a very short space of time and do a significant number involve a fortnight occupying an intensive care bed? And of course deaths isn’t the significant number here, the significant number is how many people require hospital treatment and ICU beds

 

[DarloRich]

I was reflecting on something Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick said yesterday. He mentioned that "strategic coordination centres" are being established around the UK. They sound like the proposed cold war regional government system. it is very interesting. I hope they don't have to use their power to shoot looters anytime soon

 

[OneOffDave]

Do flu deaths happen in a very short space of time and do a significant number involve a fortnight occupying an intensive care bed? And of course deaths isn’t the significant number here, the significant number is how many people require hospital treatment and ICU beds

The National weekly flu report has all this data in if you want to dig for it. It includes GP consultations, hospitalisations and admissions to ICU. If you go back to the last 'bad' flu season then the information will be there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was reflecting on something Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick said yesterday. He mentioned that "strategic coordination centres" are being established around the UK. They sound like the proposed cold war regional government system. it is very interesting. I hope they don't have to use their power to shoot looters anytime soon

I believe these are for coordinating things like food deliveries. However, they are using very strong language to describe them, things like "gold commanders". I have a feeling this may be to shut up the fairly common moan I'm seeing around the place of "we want the Army on the streets".

 

[OneOffDave]

I was reflecting on something Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick said yesterday. He mentioned that "strategic coordination centres" are being established around the UK. They sound like the proposed cold war regional government system. it is very interesting. I hope they don't have to use their power to shoot looters anytime soon

Strategic coordinating groups are a common response to major incidents and meet all over the place across the year. They met in most counties that were affected by flooding earlier in the winter. It's all part of the UK's routine emergency planning and response set up. They are massively different from the Regional Seat of Government set up under the 1948 Civil Defence Act as they don't have powers to enact local legislation or commandeer assets

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Questions should be asked about how and why we were not in position to test, how and why we didn't ( or perhaps still don't) have the correct PPE in place, how and why we didn't take part in the EU drive to deliver ventilators and when and in what numbers the British industry drive to deliver ventilators will actually deliver.

I think both you and I know the answer to that one

 

[Meerkat]

I believe these are for coordinating things like food deliveries. However, they are using very strong language to describe them, things like "gold commanders". I have a feeling this may be to shut up the fairly common moan I'm seeing around the place of "we want the Army on the streets".

Gold Commanders is standard emergency response framework used by the blue light services

 

[OneOffDave]

I think both you and I know the answer to that one

Even in late December there weren't any tests anywhere for Covid-19. While it was classed as a high consequence infectious disease, tests were only able to be carried out in CL3 labs that could do PCR on RNA strands. There aren't that many of those in the UK

 

[Mag_seven]

Gold Commanders is standard emergency response framework used by the blue light services

The railway have also been known to instigate "Gold Controls" in times of severe disruption.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Do these new tests avoid having a stick thrust up your nose, or would that still be how they obtain the samples?

 

[DarloRich]

Gold Commanders is standard emergency response framework used by the blue light services

The railway have also been known to instigate "Gold Controls" in times of severe disruption.

Indeed - however it is more the structure, especially military involvement, of what has been created that is very similar to a watered down regional government system proposed for a cold war crisis.

 

[notlob.divad]

This is a very interesting point. Estimates very, but it seems now most experts expect the final death toll from Covid-19 in the UK to be between 5,000 and 20,000.

Yet two years ago, a combination of a flu epidemic and an exceptionally cold winter caused 50,000 excess deaths and no-one was calling for a full lockdown back then.

(Source - http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/co...cess-winter-deaths-last-year/20037896.article)

"There were over 50,000 excess winter deaths in England and Wales last winter, the highest recorded since 1975/76, according to data released by the Office of National Statistics (ONS). The increase is thought to be a result of the prevalence of flu last year, alongside ineffectiveness of the flu vaccine and colder than usual temperatures in the 2017/18 winter period, according to the ONS. The excess winter mortality rate, which compares the numbers of deaths between December and March to the average number of deaths across the rest of the year, continued to be the highest in females and people aged 85 and over."

Understandably, as Bantamzen says, some people are now starting to question whether the draconian measures the government has taken are proportionate to the actual threat.

But that 5 000 - 20 000 is the modelled figure with the interventions the government have made. Without them the modelled figure was several times that - 510,000 in the Imperial collage model released 16/03. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/im...-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

So why is this difference. Well number 1 our medics in the NHS have access to (and take up) Flu-shots every year. As a result you get very few medical staff having to take time off or develop serious complications from the Flu, thus the NHS can usually continue working at capacity. Combine this with the same for much of the older population and the spike in hospital admissions during the flu-season is manageable, hence 50000 being seen as a high number. So what would flu season be like without a vaccine? Doctors, nurses, paramedics and all the other critical staff in our healthcare provision having to take time off work to recover from the virus. Many many more elderly and vulnerable heading to emergency departments, the system would quickly becoem overloaded and we would see a disproportionately high rise in fatalities because of the lack of resources. That is why Covid-19 leads to the current draconian measures that we do not see for seasonal Flu and absolutely wy they are neccesary.

 

[OneOffDave]

Indeed - however it is more the structure, especially military involvement, of what has been created that is very similar to a watered down regional government system proposed for a cold war crisis.

During the Whaley Bridge incident in the summer, the military were regularly involved in the SCGs that took place because military assets were being used. The role of the military in an SCG is to take requests for effect and then pass that back to deliver that effect. RSGs during the cold war had a chair who was normally from the local authority structure and could command the military assets in their region directly.

 

[nlogax]

Do these new tests avoid having a stick thrust up your nose, or would that still be how they obtain the samples?

Antigen tests will use a nasal or oral swab to help determine if virus infection is current. Antibody tests need a pinprick of blood and will determine if the viral infection has already happened. The latter is what's been ordered to the tune of 3.5m kits.