Mutating Corona Virus

[hightail]

4 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

understand your question i think.

ie were they all mild or no symptoms

but I think the more important part is the reports that they tested negative

They did at some point but then presumably tested positive again later.  That points to re-infection doesn’t it?  Or questionable accuracy of tests I suppose.  If it’s a case of symptomless people testing negative then maybe they were at the time of that test.  The symptoms are so variable it takes very little for Coronavirus to be suspected, my daughter had to self isolate according to nhs111 because of a slight cough and is pretty convinced she only had a cold. Would a positive test a couple of weeks later have given the impression of continuing infection when it was actually new?  We can’t know because we’re not testing.

 

 

 

 

[hightail]

2 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

Hightail, I don't know if this answers any of your questions about mortality rates. From the FT today, Chris Giles is saying the death rate is at least twice what HMG are saying it is.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab

If the lockdown is making a difference it’s admission rates should be coming down first and given the stated incubation period we surely should be seeing results.

[hightail]

The all toll excess death rate 'because' of coronavirus is not all deaths 'from' coronavirus.  We are running a severely reduced NHS service for a lot of things at the moment.  It's exactly this sort of statistic can be very unhelpful once the media gets hold of it.

 

Of course if we were testing..........

 

 

[hightail]

1 hour ago, tobyjugg2 said:

If its the testing thats failing ... despite south korea and China being defined as the leaders in testing (all conspiracy bo*****s aside) ... then it seems to me we have a far bigger problem

.. aka we cant even properly identify the darned thing.

Do we know how accurate our current testing is?

I'm just trying to get my head around the numbers, the real risks to various sectors of the community and therefore where the govt might choose to go with an exit strategy.  It isn't realistic to lock all those with underlying conditions and over 70s in their homes for the rest of the year - have no idea if that's on the cards or just media speculation.

 

Have heard/read that subsequent waves should be less virulent.  I don't know if that's because of how a virus behaves or because the most vulnerable have already succumbed.

 

[hightail]

And as if by magic this pops up on my screen

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/coronavirus-tests-nhs-075450420.html

[hightail]

6 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

If we want to shield the over 70s then if they have people going in to see them every day, the carers have to have the right PPE or we'll get the same situation as has happened in care homes with inadequately protected carers spreading the virus.

On March 5th I went in to a care home to clear out my aunt's room after she died.  I said then to the staff that the virus would tear through such a place and they looked at me as if I was stupid.  Six weeks later it's all over the media as if it's an unexpected surprise.  It can't be.

[hightail]

1 hour ago, tobyjugg2 said:

Who the heck is going to give Pritti Patel access to their movements.

Not me. 

[hightail]

4 hours ago, tobyjugg2 said:

 

and How do you excuse the UK having the highest death rate in Europe, despite having more warning and thereby more time to prepare and more detail on what happened elsewhere?

I honestly believe that extra warning and therefore extra data meant (and means) the government had decided it was worth the risk.  On paper I can understand their reasoning, doesn't mean I condone it so please don't shoot the messenger.  This virus is not indiscriminate in that the worst affected, those most likely to have a fatal outcome are well known to be certain identifiable groups and they just happen to be those who (in the main) contribute least and cost most. 

[hightail]

Monsters - well yes in that it seems heartless to write off the old and infirm (forgive the terminology but I can’t see how else to put it).  In terms of the future and rebuilding an economy it may make some sense if you’re sat in a committee meeting thinking huge numbers rather than real people.  I’d like to think the response would have been different if this were something that disproportionately affected children which mercifully it doesn’t.

 

 

 

 

 

[hightail]

9 hours ago, maroondevo52 said:

My 'route' at work is in Glasgow, the streets are busier than before the 'lockdown', total insanity

I’m not suggesting they’re all essential journeys right now but as the lockdown eases there is likely to be more traffic on the roads than before.  Many who can will use their cars rather than public transport for the foreseeable future.  I’m afraid I will be one.  

[hightail]

13 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

and how many people think that the app wont be automatically 'updated' in various ways once installed - including in ways you would never agree too if asked up front?

Or if it could ever be uninstalled.  I really don’t want to turn into a conspiracy theorist but it is hard not to be suspicious of something designed to ‘track and trace’.

[hightail]

22 minutes ago, cjcregg said:

I'd be genuinely interested to know if anyone agrees with this, ie that it's more likely that UK Government policy was to purposely allow the virus infect and exterminate the poor, than their official stated policy.

I’d say your way of phrasing it is a tad strong.  More that it’s easier to ignore the plight of those who are not exactly at the forefront of society and seen as an expense rather than a resource.  Everything they’ve done otherwise has only been in response to negative press.

[hightail]

10 hours ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

I just wonder how long any partial lockdown is sustainable for.  The economic impact could be worse than having let a herd immunity policy run. I am not saying that I think that a herd immunity policy should have been implemented with few restrictions introduced, as the numbers of deaths may have been much greater.

Lockdown isn't sustainable.  It might have been effective if it had been imposed much sooner and much harder but I have doubts there.  As it is we have the worst of all worlds, economic consequences which are leading and will lead to much more misery and many more non C-19 related deaths now and in the future combined with the highest death rate in Europe (as currently calculated).

 

When lockdown was first imposed it was all about not overwhelming the NHS, ensuring there was capacity.  Well that's been achieved but it was never suggested it would do anything but slow the rate of infection, not stop it.  Somehow expectations have changed, either that or they were unrealistic to start with.

 

I'm reading in articles today that scientists are warning there will be 100k deaths very quickly if we lift restrictions too much or too soon.  It's the 'very quickly' in that comment I find interesting.  100k is still 100k if it happens quickly or more slowly.  The only difference is public opinion and political fallout.

[hightail]

43 minutes ago, brassnecked said:

Not to Boris I fear.

He can’t make individuals who are shielding go out if they don’t want to.  Surely their only worry is beng forced back to work if they can’t work from home.  I can’t see any employer taking the risk of requiring someone in the high risk group to return to the workplace.

[hightail]

22 hours ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

I have been working in an office throughout this crisis and from about the middle of March, staff that needed to be working from home for health reasons, have been home and will remain there for at least 3 months.

I don't understand why the media is shouting that people can 'now' return to work.  The advice is and has always been that those who can work from home should while those who can't should continue to go to work.  Nothing has changed.  I can only guess that the government has realised there are many have been furloughed who could be working.  Those sectors which cannot trade need continued support so hopefully they're looking to target it better.

[hightail]

46 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

You seem to be one of the 30% who think the message is clear, hightail.   I struggled with it, myself.

Only on work because I have family and friends who never stopped.  Many businesses put the right measures in place and carried on.  The only ones ‘required’ to close were the obvious - retail, hospitality, entertainment etc.  Those where people would gather.

 

As for the rest of it - who knows.  Apparently I can drive for miles and have a picnic in a crowded park but can’t visit my son and speak to him from two metres away across his garden gate.

[hightail]

2 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

Some of course are doing well from it ...

My brother is.  He has a family business which supplies things which are in demand with parents while they’re home schooling.  He and the rest of his household are working very long days getting stuff out.  He hasn’t raised prices and he’s absorbing increased delivery costs.  Not everyone is profiteering.

[hightail]

59 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

Correction: Not answering - needs changing.

Hancock did clarify(???) on morning tv.  Doesn't have to be a park or a beach as long as it's a public place so presumably if I take a picnic (or a tennis racket) I can speak to my son as long as he comes out of his garden and we stay two metres apart on the public footpath. 

Edited May 12, 2020 by hightail

[hightail]

I liken the whole football thing to the availability of fish and chips during the war.  Apparently they were never rationed as they were considered essential for morale.  It's all about finding something which keeps the plebs quiet.

[hightail]

2 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

That's unbelievable, CB. Wait for the second wave of cases...

Surely that second wave has to come sometime anyway unless we stay in a complete lockdown with closed borders forever and that's not realistic.

 

 

 

 

[hightail]

19 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

My grandson is looking forward to returning to school but I am worried.

 

Many are but it is a balance.  Early June may be too soon but when will be right?  Harsh as it is to say, we do know who this virus is killing and there has to come a time when we prioritise the futures of the young over the old. 

 

My own daughter in law is high risk but not very high risk - diabetic but still under 40.  My two year granddaughter is back at nursery this week with precautions in place.  My son drops off and picks up and the child washes hands just as leaving and is changed into clean clothes.  Son puts her through a bath before mum emerges from her 'office' - she's still working full time from home.  Yes it's a rigmarole, yes it's a risk but the difference in that child for being able to play with a small, controlled group of other children for a few hours a week is marked.  They are convinced they've made the right decision but it is a very individual decision to make.

[hightail]

7 hours ago, tobyjugg2 said:

Seems that the automated message 14 day self lock down instruction will be compulsory - seemingly based on whatever/whether  the app or politicians decide on your being a high risk of infection or not

That can only work if carrying a smartphone with the app is compulsory.  How's that going to work?  What will be denied to those who don't?  GP appointments?  Benefit payments including state pension?  Just how big a stick will they be prepared to use?

[hightail]

54 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

perhaps simply extending the powers given to check on people coming into the country

... to everyone instructed to lock down?

But how will they track and trace those who don’t have the app.  

[hightail]

I think Cummings' journeys were fully sanctioned and authorities aware.  At that time it would be almost impossible for a normal person to drive that distance as a couple with a child in the car without being stopped/checked/questioned.  It would also answer why there was an expectation of 'security' at his destination.

[hightail]

59 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

Have Durham police said they were aware, hightail? I haven't seen it but I could have missed something.

I haven’t even looked.  I doubt some PR bod would have been in the loop.