COVID-19 Pandemic

[Astral Goat Juice]

11 minutes ago, kold weather said:

I think thats the fear, and partly why the government here are somewhat prepared to let the working population cop it so to speak and to resist too harshly the virus. Other places that went into lockdown are very much at risk of a 2nd wave and they will be very susceptible , whilst in theory we will have a lower risk. No guarantee of course, but history suggests its quite likely.

Yes, herd immunity. 

I'm very confident in our countries decision not to follow 95% of the world decision to shut everything down. I trust and believe in our medical personnel to do the right thing. This is uncharted waters, so only time will tell, but its god damn scary.

[nick sussex]

5 minutes ago, kold weather said:

I think thats the fear, and partly why the government here are somewhat prepared to let the working population cop it so to speak and to resist too harshly the virus. Other places that went into lockdown are very much at risk of a 2nd wave and they will be very susceptible , whilst in theory we will have a lower risk. No guarantee of course, but history suggests its quite likely.

Not sure those in the higher risk groups will see it that way . 

The problem with the governments approach is that by going for the herd immunity response events are more out of their control .

Most other  European countries are going all out to stop their health systems from becoming overwhelmed. 

The UK government is rolling the dice to a degree . 

[emax]

3 minutes ago, kold weather said:

I think thats the fear, and partly why the government here are somewhat prepared to let the working population cop it so to speak and to resist too harshly the virus. Other places that went into lockdown are very much at risk of a 2nd wave and they will be very susceptible , whilst in theory we will have a lower risk. No guarantee of course, but history suggests its quite likely.

I agree. I must admit, I'm still undecided on the school closure and public gathering side of things, but I'm very happy to let our experts decide for me, seeing as they know more than anyone here does.

As for all those who think schools should close...then what? Even the countries (or parts of countries) that are in lockdown, they've done that more as a reactive measure, rather than a proactive measure. Whilst they had no choice, lockdown (as the extreme measure) doesnt really work as a preventative measure, not long term anyway. This virus wont just disappear in a couple of months, so how long do you keep a country locked down for? 

As I say, I'm still undecided on the schools and public gathering front, as there are equal pros and cons to both sides, however, I'd rather our experts take a decision based on what they think is best, rather than just simply "go with the flow". Whether that ends up as a worse decision, only time will tell, but everyone is going to suffer eventually (one way or another in their own way, more so financially I'd say), and I personally dont see the UK approach making the death rate any worse by taking these actions, but I know plenty here will disagree! 

[feb1991blizzard]

1 minute ago, emax said:

I agree. I must admit, I'm still undecided on the school closure and public gathering side of things, but I'm very happy to let our experts decide for me, seeing as they know more than anyone here does.

As for all those who think schools should close...then what? Even the countries (or parts of countries) that are in lockdown, they've done that more as a reactive measure, rather than a proactive measure. Whilst they had no choice, lockdown (as the extreme measure) doesnt really work as a preventative measure, not long term anyway. This virus wont just disappear in a couple of months, so how long do you keep a country locked down for? 

As I say, I'm still undecided on the schools and public gathering front, as there are equal pros and cons to both sides, however, I'd rather our experts take a decision based on what they think is best, rather than just simply "go with the flow". Whether that ends up as a worse decision, only time will tell, but everyone is going to suffer eventually (one way or another in their own way, more so financially I'd say), and I personally dont see the UK approach making the death rate any worse by taking these actions, but I know plenty here will disagree! 

I do agree with that to be honest, even flu doesn't go away completely in summer, i had a bad one in summer 1996 - ok clubbing and taking certain things contributed to weakening my immune system to get it but i still had it.

[emax]

2 minutes ago, nick sussex said:

Not sure those in the higher risk groups will see it that way . 

The problem with the governments approach is that by going for the herd immunity response events are more out of their control .

Most other  European countries are going all out to stop their health systems from becoming overwhelmed. 

The UK government is rolling the dice to a degree . 

Taking Italy as the first example so far, how long can they keep the country locked down for? I totally agree with their actions to let their health system recover, but then what? You have to slowly open up regions month by month, which is effectively creating herd immunity, but in a slow way. Now I'm not saying that isnt the right decision, but I dont see it being a sustainable one. The country would be on its knees before long.

[Cheshire Freeze]

8 minutes ago, nick sussex said:

Not sure those in the higher risk groups will see it that way . 

The problem with the governments approach is that by going for the herd immunity response events are more out of their control .

Most other  European countries are going all out to stop their health systems from becoming overwhelmed. 

The UK government is rolling the dice to a degree . 

Yep, the issues with this approach are

1) you're exposing more people to a chance of death

2) you're giving the virus more chance to mutate unfavourably 

3) if it does mutate then you're potentially exposing yourself to two waves of significant deaths...the first wave you've let happen and the second wave (mutation) that no-one has any immunity to either.

History will not look favourably on this government if this gamble backfires.

Edited March 12, 2020 by CreweCold

[emax]

1 minute ago, feb1991blizzard said:

I do agree with that to be honest, even flu doesn't go away completely in summer, i had a bad one in summer 1996 - ok clubbing and taking certain things contributed to weakening my immune system to get it but i still had it.

Yeh, and although I have no idea of the governments motives, I should imagine a large part of it is being driven by the virus not going away quickly. Thats why I have reservations about closures and lock downs etc as a pre-emotive move. Yes obviously they want to slow the spread so as not to overwhelm the NHS, but at the same time, you dont want to keep kicking this thing down the road for ever. There's so many variables and factors at play from all aspects, its definitely a difficult decision to make.

[alexisj9]

2 hours ago, feb1991blizzard said:

But i have felt really bad with flu before but never called 999, The most severe flu i ever had when i was about 18, my mom thought it was meningitis and she nearly called an ambulance, but every other time i have had the flu, as horrendous as i felt, i didn't think i was going to die so didn't phone an ambulance, but now you could feel really bad with this virus but you are not necessarily going to die, so does the threashold of severity of symptoms you phone an ambulance now change because it could be COVID -19.

I've had an ambulance called for me for the flu before, I collapsed in the street, don't think I would call one out unless I felt similar to how I felt then or worse. 

[Summer Sun]

Arsenal's game against Brighton called off

[emax]

3 minutes ago, CreweCold said:

Yep, the issues with this approach are

1) you're exposing more people to a chance of death

2) you're giving the virus more chance to mutate unfavourably 

3) if it does mutate then you're potentially exposing yourself to two waves of significant deaths...the first wave you've let happen and the second wave (mutation) that no-one has any immunity to either.

History will not look favourably on this government if this gamble backfires.

I mean I might be wrong, but your points dont seem to make much sense to me.

1) Everyone is exposed to the chance of death from this eventually, no matter what you do. Unless you lock people away in a cupboard for 2 years, then theres nothing you can do to reduce the risk of death. All you can do is reduce the strain on the health service (which yes does affect death rate to a point, so maybe thats what you mean?), which in my view is the only thing that can be disputed (ie do you have more people infected, but a stronger health service, vs less infected, but a weaker health service)

2) Surely the chances to mutate are out of anyone's control? The only way to truly stop a mutation is to quarantine everyone on the planet for a month, but thats just fantasy!

3)How is that any different to any other country though? You can't base it all on the "possibility" of a worse mutation, otherwise every country would be locked down for years.

[nick sussex]

3 minutes ago, emax said:

Taking Italy as the first example so far, how long can they keep the country locked down for? I totally agree with their actions to let their health system recover, but then what? You have to slowly open up regions month by month, which is effectively creating herd immunity, but in a slow way. Now I'm not saying that isnt the right decision, but I dont see it being a sustainable one. The country would be on its knees before long.

There are measures you can take like social distancing and you can try and cut off easy avenues for the virus to spread .

You can’t stop it but the key thing is to keep the NHS from being overwhelmed. 

The Italy situation is extreme and was a perfect storm of events but is a stark lesson for the need to not let events run out of control .

People can be quite resilient and and are willing to endure restrictions if they feel that everyone is in the same boat . 

The way to combat this virus is through collective action. This will be a good test of community spirit . Will people pull together , do things like shop for their neighbours , go the extra mile etc .

 

[Kirkcaldy Weather]

WWE Confirm They Have Contingency Plan In Place For WrestleMania 36

"WWE has for the first time confirmed that they have a WrestleMania 36 contingency plan in place should they have to cancel the event in Tampa due to the coronavirus pandemic.

WWE issued a statement to PWInsider noting they are closely monitoring the situation:

"While we remain committed to hosting WrestleMania at Raymond James Stadium on Sunday, April 5, we are putting contingency plans in place in the event that it is cancelled by government officials, civil authorities and/or local venues. The health and safety of our fans, performers and employees are our top priorities and we are monitoring the situation closely with our partners and government officials in Tampa Bay"

WWE Chairman & CEO Vince McMahon was reportedly in Tampa Bay, Florida earlier today discuss with city officials the fate of the event."

WWE Confirm They Have Contingency Plan In Place For WrestleMania 36

WWW.WRESTLINGNEWSSOURCE.COM

---

Visit @WNSource for all your pro wrestling news needs.

 

[HighPressure]

6 minutes ago, Summer Sun said:

Arsenal's game against Brighton called off

That is because Arteta has got it from exposure to Olympiakos owner Evangelos Marinakis, has to call into question as to why the Olympiakos v Wolves match went ahead tonight?

[Guest Delete Me]

3 minutes ago, Donegal said:

This forum seems to be pretty split on whether or not to close schools. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. I've noticed comments elsewhere about kids don't really get it there's no point. Kids do get it and should be fine but they spread it like wildfire and then those more vulnerable die. 

Q: How about proactive school closures, before there are any infections associated with a school? Are they helpful?

A: Proactive school closures—closing schools before there’s a case there—have been shown to be one of the most powerful nonpharmaceutical interventions that we can deploy. Proactive school closures work like reactive school closures not just because they get the children, the little vectors, removed from circulation. It’s not just about keeping the kids safe. It’s keeping the whole community safe. When you close the schools, you reduce the mixing of the adults—parents dropping off at the school, the teachers being present. When you close the schools, you effectively require the parents to stay home.

There was a wonderful paper published that analyzed data regarding the Spanish flu in 1918, examining proactive versus reactive school closures. When did [regional] authorities close the schools relative to when the epidemic was spiking? What they found was that proactive school closing saved substantial numbers of lives. St. Louis closed the schools about a day in advance of the epidemic spiking, for 143 days. Pittsburgh closed 7 days after the peak and only for 53 days. And the death rate for the epidemic in St. Louis was roughly one-third as high as in Pittsburgh. These things work.

Does closing schools slow the spread of coronavirus? Past outbreaks provide clues

WWW.SCIENCEMAG.ORG

---

A researcher who forecasts epidemic spread argues that proactive closures, though disruptive, could help

 

You only have to look at Hong Kong and Singapore to see what fast action with school closures can achieve

[Summer Sun]

1 minute ago, HighPressure said:

That is because Arteta has got it from exposure to Olympiakos owner Evangelos Marinakis, has to call into question as to why the Olympiakos v Wolves match went ahead tonight?

If he did get it from the Olympiakos owner that will be pretty much towards the end of the 2 week window as the isolation for the few payers affected was due to end at 22:30.

Just before after the Arsenal statement in fact.

[HighPressure]

1 minute ago, Summer Sun said:

If he did get it from the Olympiakos owner that will be pretty much towards the end of the 2 week window as the isolation for the few payers affected was due to end at 22:30.

Just before after the Arsenal statement in fact.

He has been ill for a number of days from what I understand and has only just got the test results.

[HighPressure]

1 hour ago, Paul Faulkner said:

Symptom card which may be helpful to people

 

Can I just question the fact that symptoms do not include sneezing, yet look at the WHO cover photo ? 

Coronavirus

WWW.WHO.INT

---

Coronavirus

 

[Derecho]

Crazy to think about how all this has unfolded. When this first broke out in China it was easy to think this would be another outbreak that would be contained, especially given that recent scares had been contained and the worry about them faded. However the fact it had such a long incubation time made it very difficult to contain and once it spread to Italy and started rapidly increasing in numbers, I think at that point it was clear it was more then 'just a flu'.

The impacts from this will be felt for a long time to come. I am not afraid of catching it myself the main thing I am concerned about are my elderly relatives who are vulnerable from this at a time when health services face unprecedented demand. I hope we can contain this and that our health services can cope with the demand that this coronavirus brings.

The other factor is long term. The markets are crashing like mad, to the extent where it is jaw dropping. The Dow Jones dropped 2600 points today and almost 10,000 points since late February. That is a third of their wealth in just 2 weeks. I think many businesses are at risk of going bust. Just how many do you think run coronavirus into their annual business model? None

The problem is interest rates are so so low. This means that companies are willing to take out risky loans because they don't feel a burden to immediately pay them back. So when trouble comes along then there is little wriggle room to accomodate for shocks (due to interest rates already being so low). This is why the markets have been so volatile in the last two years. I expect football clubs to be hit particularly hard by this as football is full of loans to pay for over inflated player wages. Retail, airlines, cruise ships, restaurants.... they are all going to suffer massively.

The one form of comfort is that the 2008 financial crisis was very drawn out because it was triggered by people defaulting on their mortgages from adjustable interest rates. Mortgages make up ~70% of the banks income, so 2008 was a hammer blow to the banks. Retail makes a much lower proportion of this. So if we can contain the Coronavirus well and get back on our feet soon, the markets will soar back up to their previous levels, the sooner the better. However if there is a ripple effect where people start defaulting on their mortgages then we are in serious long term trouble too.

I talk about the economic impact because recessions are also deadly in a statistical sense. The tricky situation is that we have to manage the situation with our healthcare system but at the same time not destroy our economy either.

I think the legacy of this coronavirus is going to be economic. It is a price that is being paid for an economy propped up by low interest rates (easy money) since the 2008 financial crash rather then genuine progress. That combined with the worst speech from a US president in recent history has contributed to the slide we are seeing today.

Edited March 13, 2020 by Quicksilver1989

[feb1991blizzard]

3 minutes ago, HighPressure said:

Can I just question the fact that symptoms do not include sneezing, yet look at the WHO cover photo ? 

Coronavirus

WWW.WHO.INT

---

Coronavirus

 

You would think that any of these types of viruses would include sneezing way down the line, after the chest has loosened, i think this one doesn't include sneezing as one of the earlier symptoms.

[Astral Goat Juice]

 

[Thundery wintry showers]

Regarding delaying cases, there's also the hope that in 1 to 2 years' time we will have a vaccine for it.  It may need to be released annually as per the flu jab if we get significant mutations, and it may well be that in the long run people who get the flu jab also get the latest jab for Covid-19.  So the UK government is taking a risk that many people may be affected before a vaccine is developed and released widely.  On the other hand, the countries that have had drastic lockdowns are taking the risk that there could be a second wave prior to a vaccine being made available, as this is likely to be 1-2 years away and it isn't feasible to keep areas locked down for that long, and they also risk causing greater damage to their economies and greater mental health problems related to social isolation (the UK government specifically flagged up social isolation as a concern, not sure if anyone has in these threads).  Lots of tough decisions to be made, no clear right answers.  But what's for certain is that a "wait and see", "keep calm and carry on" approach isn't the right answer - it's a question of how drastically and how quickly we apply "social distancing".

Edited March 13, 2020 by Thundery wintry showers

[nick sussex]

4 minutes ago, Astral Goat Juice said:

 

That’s absolutely horrific . Hard to imagine how doctors are coping with having to make those sorts of decisions .

[Southern Storm]

1 minute ago, emax said:

I mean I might be wrong, but your points dont seem to make much sense to me.

1) Everyone is exposed to the chance of death from this eventually, no matter what you do. Unless you lock people away in a cupboard for 2 years, then theres nothing you can do to reduce the risk of death. All you can do is reduce the strain on the health service (which yes does affect death rate to a point, so maybe thats what you mean?), which in my view is the only thing that can be disputed (ie do you have more people infected, but a stronger health service, vs less infected, but a weaker health service)

2) Surely the chances to mutate are out of anyone's control? The only way to truly stop a mutation is to quarantine everyone on the planet for a month, but thats just fantasy!

3)How is that any different to any other country though? You can't base it all on the "possibility" of a worse mutation, otherwise every country would be locked down for years.

Agree,

Also, it is of course possible that  the virus will mutate, but who's to say it is it would make it more deadly, it might make it more benign, after all, if the virus killed evey host it infected, it wouldn't spread very far would it.

To me it seems that the government are Dammed if they do and Dammed if they don't, personally I trust the professionals who are advising the PM, as this goes way beyond politics.

 

 

 

[Frost HoIIow]

8 minutes ago, feb1991blizzard said:

You would think that any of these types of viruses would include sneezing way down the line, after the chest has loosened, i think this one doesn't include sneezing as one of the earlier symptoms.

Yes sneezing doesn't seem to be a early red flag. As almost everyone who have gave descriptions of the early symptoms say it often starts with a fever, muscle aches & headache. Which then progresses to respiratory problems.

[alexisj9]

14 minutes ago, HighPressure said:

Can I just question the fact that symptoms do not include sneezing, yet look at the WHO cover photo ? 

Coronavirus

WWW.WHO.INT

---

Coronavirus

 

I don't know about anyone else, but but whenever I have a runny/stuffy nose I do tend to sneeze.