Coronavirus (1 Viewer)

  • Thread starter Thread starter AGinAg (37)
  • Start date Start date

Are you worried about contracting coronavirus?

  • Yes, I am absolutely terrified

    Votes: 12 15.6%

  • Yes, I am slightly concerned

    Votes: 35 45.5%

  • I am neither concerned or unconcerned

    Votes: 7 9.1%

  • No, I am slightly unconcerned

    Votes: 6 7.8%

  • No, I am totally unconcerned

    Votes: 6 7.8%

  • Bring back the old poll

    Votes: 3 3.9%

  • Charlotte Awbrey tits out doing the Macarena

    Votes: 2 2.6%

  • I believe VoR is evil

    Votes: 11 14.3%
  • Total voters
    77
big ron said:
Cases are going up, but deaths arent. Why would we go into lockdown if its not killing/hospitalising people?
Click to expand...
Also why are they persisting with this ridiculous local lockdown that ISN'T WORKING.
Banning people from other households since July yet the rates are still going up up up.
 
The local lockdown is kind of working. Manchester currently has 80 cases per 100,000 of population and, whilst it is still going up, it's going up a lot more slowly than in Liverpool, where there is much less of a lockdown and which is now at more than 100 cases per 100,000 of population.
 
Alex said:
Also why are they persisting with this ridiculous local lockdown that ISN'T WORKING.
Banning people from other households since July yet the rates are still going up up up.
Click to expand...
It’s your fault! You’re a COVID warden round these parts now :tongueout:
 
dmlaw said:
The local lockdown is kind of working. Manchester currently has 80 cases per 100,000 of population and, whilst it is still going up, it's going up a lot more slowly than in Liverpool, where there is much less of a lockdown and which is now at more than 100 cases per 100,000 of population.
Click to expand...
We're almost 7 weeks in now and way above when we went in and everywhere is still way higher than national average. It needed to be targeted than this broad brush approach
 
Surely local lockdowns are never going to work as long as people can travel between cities/regions with restrictions.
 
I look at Phillip and Holly and think to myself, “AS IF they haven’t hugged since 23rd March!”
 
big ron said:
Cases are going up, but deaths arent. Why would we go into lockdown if its not killing/hospitalising people?
Click to expand...
The serious answer is that it's only a matter of time before it does. Even although it's only young people at the moment really getting it, if it moves back into older people the deaths will shoot up. And Christmas is quite intergenerational and too many people would break lockdown to see their family so the best option is to reduce prevalence as much as possible beforehand.
 
ZenGiraffe said:
The serious answer is that it's only a matter of time before it does. Even although it's only young people at the moment really getting it, if it moves back into older people the deaths will shoot up. And Christmas is quite intergenerational and too many people would break lockdown to see their family so the best option is to reduce prevalence as much as possible beforehand.
Click to expand...

Thats only speculative, just as likely the virus has mutated to be weaker, or people are exposed to less viral load so symptoms are far weaker. The big difference could be the weather, but if we get a cold dry snap, and still dont see a spike, then what?
 
big ron said:
Thats only speculative, just as likely the virus has mutated to be weaker, or people are exposed to less viral load so symptoms are far weaker. The big difference could be the weather, but if we get a cold dry snap, and still dont see a spike, then what?
Click to expand...
Going off what our Nic says the scientists are saying, Spain and France are beginning to see the deaths climb up after having cases rise for a while now too. There was always a lag anyway between infections and deaths, it doesn't really get deadly until the two week mark if I remember rightly (see Boris Johnson) and if the majority of cases are in the young to begin with, it will take even longer.

However, we have also got better at treating it, so people would survive now who wouldn't have March/April, and people have changed their behaviour already so those more at risk are probably being more cautious now than they were before.

The biggest risk I believe I read/heard is of people start getting Coronavirus and something else, like cold or flu, which is where the weather will really come into it.
 
Win_the_game said:
I suspect there are plans afoot for a substantive lockdown. A couple of schools here are planning to revert to full-time home learning from mid-October and others are bulk-ordering iPads if they need to close.
.
Click to expand...

This is surprising if they're already going into October with the idea that it is likely to happen. In our schools we've prepped passwords and resources in the event that it does happen, but it all feels very hypothetical at the minute.
 
ZenGiraffe said:
Going off what our Nic says the scientists are saying, Spain and France are beginning to see the deaths climb up after having cases rise for a while now too. There was always a lag anyway between infections and deaths, it doesn't really get deadly until the two week mark if I remember rightly (see Boris Johnson) and if the majority of cases are in the young to begin with, it will take even longer.
Click to expand...

There is a 2 week max incubation period yes, hence the 14 days of self isolation if you've been in contact with someone who tests positive or shows symptoms. The thing is, cases have been rising since the start of August, when they passed the 1000 daily mark, yet deaths have remained comparatively low.

My point isn't a tinfoil hat one, its that so far the data suggests the death rate isn't rising with the same correlation as the number of cases, but the press and to some extent the government are acting like deaths are rising. The data suggests that for a myriad of reasons, lower load, possible mutation, better treatment, etc that the death rate wont spiral out of control, so why do we need stricter measures? As @funky said it seems like they response is wrong to the actual situation.
 
big ron said:
My point isn't a tinfoil hat one, its that so far the data suggests the death rate isn't rising with the same correlation as the number of cases, but the press and to some extent the government are acting like deaths are rising. The data suggests that for a myriad of reasons, lower load, possible mutation, better treatment, etc that the death rate wont spiral out of control, so why do we need stricter measures? As @funky said it seems like they response is wrong to the actual situation.
Click to expand...
The explanation we are being given as most likely is that it is demographic in who is getting Coronavirus that explains it, which they collect alongside Test and Protect. Also, deaths alone shouldn't be the metric. The stories you see of people who survived it still having long term health issues should be enough to justify concern.

Our CMO was specifically asked about the mutation question and said that was much less likely as an explanation and that he hasn't seen any evidence of that. I haven't seen him asked about viral load though, but I haven't been watching briefings religiously recently. Also, my preference is that the government act too cautiously, because in these situations over-reacting is better than under-reacting, but that requires more support from government. Which with furlough ending, is clearly not the Westminster approach.
 
A lot of talk this morning about a return to a full scale national lockdown for two weeks happening imminently, but the government denying it of course.

The official line is that they want to give it a couple of weeks to see how this rule of six works out before introducing further measures, which is fair enough, but I can’t see it driving down cases all that much.

For one thing, not nearly enough has been made (other than one quick passing remark in a press conference) of the fact that these meetings of 6 people are still meant to be socially distanced or else it’s pretty useless and the virus will still spread through households.

Why they haven’t been making more of this is anybody’s guess. Going for herd immunity? Inconvenient for the hospitality industry? Potential accusations of being confusing?
 
ZenGiraffe said:
The explanation we are being given as most likely is that it is demographic in who is getting Coronavirus that explains it, which they collect alongside Test and Protect. Also, deaths alone shouldn't be the metric. The stories you see of people who survived it still having long term health issues should be enough to justify concern.

Our CMO was specifically asked about the mutation question and said that was much less likely as an explanation and that he hasn't seen any evidence of that. I haven't seen him asked about viral load though, but I haven't been watching briefings religiously recently. Also, my preference is that the government act too cautiously, because in these situations over-reacting is better than under-reacting, but that requires more support from government. Which with furlough ending, is clearly not the Westminster approach.
Click to expand...

Yep, some cases do result in long term symptoms, but we have a myriad of ‘tropical’ diseases, viruses and bacteria that can in rare and isolated cases cause serious long term effects.

Again, I’m no antimasker, but how long do we sacrifice so much when death rates remain low?
 
Pingu said:
A lot of talk this morning about a return to a full scale national lockdown for two weeks happening imminently, but the government denying it of course.
Click to expand...

Why 2 weeks? Surely, after those 2 weeks we will be back at square one. :confused:
 
Rita said:
Why 2 weeks? Surely, after those 2 weeks we will be back at square one. :confused:
Click to expand...

I wonder if Whitty et al feel that if we go into a full scale lockdown NOW, we will be able to get the numbers levelling off after 2 weeks?

But yes it’s rather ambitious and they’ll clearly hold off like they did in March.
 
Rita said:
Why 2 weeks? Surely, after those 2 weeks we will be back at square one. :confused:
Click to expand...
Surely it needs to be at least 4 weeks, if the virus takes up to two weeks to become symptomatic, and you are in a household of more than 1 person, which is most of us, it would take that long for it to die out in a household?

My only explanation is how the local lockdowns have been implemented, which is you say a smaller amount of time then extend it, rather than being upfront with how long it should be.
 
Soldi said:
Surely local lockdowns are never going to work as long as people can travel between cities/regions with restrictions.
Click to expand...
Going back to this it’s well within the law that, despite not being able to socialise with anyone other than my household here, I’m more than welcome to go home next weekend and work in a busy hospital, as well as mix with other households as well.
 
Soldi said:
Going back to this it’s well within the law that, despite not being able to socialise with anyone other than my household here, I’m more than welcome to go home next weekend and work in a busy hospital, as well as mix with other households as well.
Click to expand...
Wait, do England do things differently? Glaswegians and those in the surrounding areas aren't allowed to visit households anywhere in Scotland, and vice versa. It isn't just that we aren't allowed to visit households within the affected area.
 
ZenGiraffe said:
Wait, do England do things differently? Glaswegians and those in the surrounding areas aren't allowed to visit households anywhere in Scotland, and vice versa. It isn't just that we aren't allowed to visit households within the affected area.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone knows! :D

I mean even if we can’t I still HAVE TO. The ending of furlough means I’m not getting paid for my job at the arena and I need to eat/have a roof over my head.
 
ZenGiraffe said:
Wait, do England do things differently? Glaswegians and those in the surrounding areas aren't allowed to visit households anywhere in Scotland, and vice versa. It isn't just that we aren't allowed to visit households within the affected area.
Click to expand...
It’s the same here.
 
Yeah I don’t think people in the English lockdown areas are supposed to mix with other households anywhere!
 
Soldi said:
Going back to this it’s well within the law that, despite not being able to socialise with anyone other than my household here, I’m more than welcome to go home next weekend and work in a busy hospital, as well as mix with other households as well.
Click to expand...

Fine with me to pass about 100 other parents in close proximity doing the school run this morning.
 
ZenGiraffe said:
Neither of which could you describe Coronavirus. Even if it is a tiny proportion that have long term heath problems, it is a tiny proportion of at least 378,000 and rising.
Click to expand...

What data have we got on the proportion of people getting 'long covid' - is that rising in relation to cases?
 
While I was so against coming out of lockdown earlier, now we're out, the thought of going back in makes me want to cry
 
SDF said:
While I was so against coming out of lockdown earlier, now we're out, the thought of going back in makes me want to cry
Click to expand...

The thought of lockdown in cold dark winter is fucking petrifying.
 
I had a bit of fever yesterday but I’m feeling panicky and I decided I’m gonna go get tested especially since our numbers are going up.
 
Boris is apparently going to be introducing tougher measures to SAVE CHRISTMAS. :santa:

As much as I LOVE Christmas my main worry would still be if the virus is still circulating (which it definitely will be) then it is going to spread like WILDFIRE between Christmas and New Year. I’m not too sure that most will heed safety measures over that period anyway thinking “I’ll risk it for Christmas as it is better than being alone”.
 
Pingu said:
Yeah I don’t think people in the English lockdown areas are supposed to mix with other households anywhere!
Click to expand...
WOOPS

But still, if the government hadn’t stopped the furlough scheme I wouldn’t have to.
 
SDF said:
While I was so against coming out of lockdown earlier, now we're out, the thought of going back in makes me want to cry
Click to expand...
Same. As much as I academically support it, emotionally I really don't want it. I already feel like my mental health is in a bit of a spiral and I could really do without more stress.
 
I'm off work on annual leave until Monday. I'm feeling a bit bleh this morning and the sun is out so I want to go out for a walk. I'm already feeling a bit conflicted about that because of the rise in cases i.e. yes, even in lockdown we were allowed one exercise, I;ll be on my own but I'll be going to the shops, do I really *need* to etc etc etc. As @ZenGiraffe rightly says, it's not good for one's mental health.
 
Noel Gallagher is the latest anti-masker (god I have done SUCH a u-turn the last couple of years about who is the shit brother) and Jedward are on him :disco:

(as well as JKR so I'm off to that thread now)

 
ZenGiraffe said:
Not much yet, but this is the start: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...lth-effects/covid-19-long-term-health-effects

10% seems quite high, though I have literally only read the bullet points so I don't know how wide a definition they are using for it.
Click to expand...

I found something that said one hospital saw 3/4 cases that went into intensive care had long term, persistent symptoms. Which is quite high but again that depends on the % of cases to intensive care cases. It's really hard to look at it objectively which is why I keep looking to deaths vs cases because ultimately, that's what we're really trying to avoid I guess?

octophone said:
I'm off work on annual leave until Monday. I'm feeling a bit bleh this morning and the sun is out so I want to go out for a walk. I'm already feeling a bit conflicted about that because of the rise in cases i.e. yes, even in lockdown we were allowed one exercise, I;ll be on my own but I'll be going to the shops, do I really *need* to etc etc etc. As @ZenGiraffe rightly says, it's not good for one's mental health.
Click to expand...

I saw two people on a film hugging the other day and my brain instantly thought 'THATS NOT LEGAL' - and I'm not exactly abiding by the letter of the law. I dread to think what this will do long term to people, especially kids. I think Ron Jr isn't that bothered and just taking it in his stride but the conditioning is scary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom