SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

@finneh this is the direct result of "treating people like adults" over the Christmas period, removing the restrictions but plainly communicating the risks. Is it possible, based on this evidence, that individual adults aren't able to make appropriate risk calculations in this scenario, and therefore expose the health system to more risk than could be justified? Is it right that individuals can choose to push medical staff to the brink - at a time when medical staff burnout was already a serious problem pre-pandemic - simply because they choose not to accept the risks that they're exposing themselves to? I can't imagine people think the amount of pressure medical staff are being put under is reasonable, especially given so many of the infections are entirely avoidable.
People will do as they please on an individual basis it seems. I’m sure there’s an interesting psychological lesson to learn because generally it’s the threat of consequence that stops people doing as they please. In this situation the threat of consequence isn’t from the law but from the risk of infecting other people, family members even. And it appears not to be a significant enough threat to stop people doing what they want.
Safe to say that in a crisis situation the best response is direct commands. I’m sure there’s a management style study that backs that up that’s basically says ‘when things are either really tough or really easy, management style should be hard. When things are normal it should be relaxed’. I can’t remember the name of the study though
 
Just had a video call with a friend my age in London who has deteriorated all week and may not survive tonight. He doesn't even have the breath to whisper.
What the hell. How old are they and did they have any previous condition
 
What the hell. How old are they and did they have any previous condition

Why do people keep asking this? We all know that an underlying condition increases the chance of doing badly but surely at this stage we also all know that there are plenty of people in ITUs (and morgues) that were neither elderly nor had an underlying condition?
 


The incubation period for an infection is usually 5-7 days (but can be up to 14) and antibodies often take up.to 3 weeks after infection (and presumably vaccination) to build to detectable levels. So unsurprisingly you can test positive for covid very soon after having your first shot.

The aim is to reduce R to below 1 if possible and/or massively reduce the symptoms of those who do become infected.
 
Why do people keep asking this? We all know that an underlying condition increases the chance of doing badly but surely at this stage we also all know that there are plenty of people in ITUs (and morgues) that were neither elderly nor had an underlying condition?

Because it is scary to think you may get severe covid most likely.
 
Why do people keep asking this? We all know that an underlying condition increases the chance of doing badly but surely at this stage we also all know that there are plenty of people in ITUs (and morgues) that were neither elderly nor had an underlying condition?

Tell me if I'm wrong but I seem to remember reading that one of the main suspects in those deaths is that the infection puts a lot of strains on the heart and other organs who overtime can fail.
 
Tell me if I'm wrong but I seem to remember reading that one of the main suspects in those deaths is that the infection puts a lot of strains on the heart and other organs who overtime can fail.

Kind of. It’s pretty complex. The main driver for what kills a lot of young people seems to be abnormal clotting. Driven by an exaggerated immune response. Their lungs get messed up on the vascular side, as well as the airway side. The “cytokine storm” can mess up other organs too (kidneys, liver)

The older/more vulnerable can die from a more straightforward viral pneumonia. Airways fill up with crap, they get oxygen deficient and don’t have enough reserves to compensate. It’s physically tiring struggling to breathe - day after day - and if they’re frail to begin with they just can’t maintain the effort.
 
Kind of. It’s pretty complex. The main driver for what kills a lot of young people seems to be abnormal clotting. Driven by an exaggerated immune response.

The older/more vulnerable can die from a more straightforward viral pneumonia. Airways fill up with crap, they get oxygen deficient and don’t have enough reserves to compensate. It’s physically tiring struggling to breathe - day after day - and if they’re frail to begin with they just can’t maintain the effort.

Thanks, I remember someone mentioning blood clots.
 
I may be exaggerating the coagulopathy. It’s really interesting and stuck in my memory but calling it “the main driver” could be poetic license!

When you mentioned it I recalled that someone suggested it, it was linked to antiphospholipid syndrome. But I didn't follow it and don't know if they found more evidences.
 
Why do people keep asking this? We all know that an underlying condition increases the chance of doing badly but surely at this stage we also all know that there are plenty of people in ITUs (and morgues) that were neither elderly nor had an underlying condition?
Out of curiosity really
 
Ive just fallen out with my brother.
I have finally snapped with his Covid denial - lockdown protest bullshit. Repeating twitter bullshit as gospel but criticises anyone else that may you know listen to a doctor or someone that actually knows what they are talking about. Not feckin Karen from Facebook.
I havent been so fecking angry in years. I feel like driving to his house to punch his lights out the complete imbecile.

The world is fecked and he becomes the type of prick that is exacerbating the problem. Posting videos of the English police going into someones house claiming its in Ireland and that our right are being trod on as we are in lock down. Refuses to read any sort of credibly sources news or medical professionals opinions, wont look at the videos of health care staff on their knees. A selfish prick and I am so disgusted with him. I am ashamed of him. Livid. I have left the family whatsapp now as its making me want to smash him the arsehole.

I hope he gets a fecking horrible dose of it
 
All credit to them, only took ten months to think of that.

Fix the gate after the horse has bolted, caught covid, recovered, lived a long happy life, died peacefully in its sleep and has grand-ponies remembering him.
 
Think this is one of the highest amounts in a single country worldwide for deaths per capita?
1300 would be like 6500+ in the US..
That's scary! What percentage of people aren't wearing masks in England do you think? Could it be worse than in the US, per capita?
 
@finneh this is the direct result of "treating people like adults" over the Christmas period, removing the restrictions but plainly communicating the risks. Is it possible, based on this evidence, that individual adults aren't able to make appropriate risk calculations in this scenario, and therefore expose the health system to more risk than could be justified? Is it right that individuals can choose to push medical staff to the brink - at a time when medical staff burnout was already a serious problem pre-pandemic - simply because they choose not to accept the risks that they're exposing themselves to? I can't imagine people think the amount of pressure medical staff are being put under is reasonable, especially given so many of the infections are entirely avoidable.

Considering the rules were only relaxed for one day in about two-thirds of the country I pray your inference that this was all as a result of Christmas day are correct (as cases will then drop like a stone imminently)

However given that the South East, East and London has now been in full lockdown with no-one allowed to mix for nearly three weeks (with schools closed) and cases still don't seem to be plummeting it might also be that treating people like toddlers isn't working either?
 
Considering the rules were only relaxed for one day in about two-thirds of the country I pray your inference that this was all as a result of Christmas day are correct (as cases will then drop like a stone imminently)

However given that the South East, East and London has now been in full lockdown with no-one allowed to mix for nearly three weeks (with schools closed) and cases still don't seem to be plummeting it might also be that treating people like toddlers isn't working either?

Simple question. In your opinion would the hospitals be better or worse off, right now, had there been less restrictions in the weeks leading up to Christmas?
 
Considering the rules were only relaxed for one day in about two-thirds of the country I pray your inference that this was all as a result of Christmas day are correct (as cases will then drop like a stone imminently)

However given that the South East, East and London has now been in full lockdown with no-one allowed to mix for nearly three weeks (with schools closed) and cases still don't seem to be plummeting it might also be that treating people like toddlers isn't working either?

The UK is far from in full lockdown. They only just started demanding travellers arriving from overseas have a negative covid test FFS and the borders are still wide open. Whatever the infection figures now they would be much worse without the restrictions there are though.
 
Just had a video call with a friend my age in London who has deteriorated all week and may not survive tonight. He doesn't even have the breath to whisper.

Hope your friend pulls through.
 
Ive just fallen out with my brother.
I have finally snapped with his Covid denial - lockdown protest bullshit. Repeating twitter bullshit as gospel but criticises anyone else that may you know listen to a doctor or someone that actually knows what they are talking about. Not feckin Karen from Facebook.
I havent been so fecking angry in years. I feel like driving to his house to punch his lights out the complete imbecile.

The world is fecked and he becomes the type of prick that is exacerbating the problem. Posting videos of the English police going into someones house claiming its in Ireland and that our right are being trod on as we are in lock down. Refuses to read any sort of credibly sources news or medical professionals opinions, wont look at the videos of health care staff on their knees. A selfish prick and I am so disgusted with him. I am ashamed of him. Livid. I have left the family whatsapp now as its making me want to smash him the arsehole.

I hope he gets a fecking horrible dose of it

That must be incredibly frustrating.
 
Simple question. In your opinion would the hospitals be better or worse off, right now, had there been less restrictions in the weeks leading up to Christmas?

That is a really interesting question in fairness and I guess it depends on what restrictions you're talking about.

For example I know some people in London who were planning on abiding by the three households rule and seeing only their sibling/parents on Christmas day. When the rules became more onerous allowing for no mixing they disregarded them completely and several friends from different households met up instead. Naturally in that anecdotal scenario if one person were positive tightening restrictions would have likely increased infection.

I suppose a parallel would be would more or less people be killed by car accidents if the speed limits were reduced by 90%. I'd probably say they would increase because people would disregard the limit completely and just go with their gut instead; which would often result in going too fast.

If you're referring to the government abandoning the social distancing policy or informing people to no longer hand sanitise then of course many more.
 
That is a really interesting question in fairness and I guess it depends on what restrictions you're talking about.

For example I know some people in London who were planning on abiding by the three households rule and seeing only their sibling/parents on Christmas day. When the rules became more onerous allowing for no mixing they disregarded them completely and several friends from different households met up instead. Naturally in that anecdotal scenario if one person were positive tightening restrictions would have likely increased infection.

I suppose a parallel would be would more or less people be killed by car accidents if the speed limits were reduced by 90%. I'd probably say they would increase because people would disregard the limit completely and just go with their gut instead; which would often result in going too fast.

If you're referring to the government abandoning the social distancing policy or informing people to no longer hand sanitise then of course many more.

Either you’re unbelievably stupid (and I don’t think you are) or the anecdote you’ve used to answer my simple question is the most disingenuous thing I’ve ever read.
 
Either you’re unbelievably stupid (and I don’t think you are) or the anecdote you’ve used to answer my simple question is the most disingenuous thing I’ve ever read.

My point is that governmental actions cause the population to react in ways that might be unexpected. Closing pubs where social distancing is enforced might encourage people to drunkenly mix in households with no social distancing. Closing schools might force working parents to drop their kids with elderly Grandparents. Rules that people deem too onerous may well be ignored and in an environment where people have lost confidence in the rules I don't think it's disingenuous to suggest they are likely to use their own potentially miscalibrated judgment to navigate through.

100 years ago in the US who'd have thought that banning the sale of alcohol would result in greater levels of corruption...
 
How in the hell are JLR workers "critical" workers? The current situation with the virus is way worse than where we were in March, but the government response is so full of holes, even calling it half-arsed would be excessively complimentary. It's like a 16th of an arse. Maybe just the anus. It's an anus response.

Also been told they have to go to work if their partners get tested positive and they will test them daily until they themselves test positive. Some sort of trial that is yet to be approved by the government
 
Last edited:
My point is that governmental actions cause the population to react in ways that might be unexpected. Closing pubs where social distancing is enforced might encourage people to drunkenly mix in households with no social distancing. Closing schools might force working parents to drop their kids with elderly Grandparents. Rules that people deem too onerous may well be ignored and in an environment where people have lost confidence in the rules I don't think it's disingenuous to suggest they are likely to use their own potentially miscalibrated judgment to navigate through.

100 years ago in the US who'd have thought that banning the sale of alcohol would result in greater levels of corruption...

Yet countries who have acted more decisively have had very high levels of public cooperation and have suppressed covid almost to the point of eradication in some cases.

The problem in the UK is a clueless government doing far too little, far too late, in an often inconsistent and poorly communicated way.

The idea that too much restriction is the problem if frankly ludicrous.
 
Unbelievable numbers today.

That knobhead Boris and his small group of dickheads (Rishi, Michael Gove, Hancock, Gavin Williamson) need to be publicly flogged for their handling of this.
Can the queen step in and lock them in a dungeon for a while?
 
Considering the rules were only relaxed for one day in about two-thirds of the country I pray your inference that this was all as a result of Christmas day are correct (as cases will then drop like a stone imminently)

However given that the South East, East and London has now been in full lockdown with no-one allowed to mix for nearly three weeks (with schools closed) and cases still don't seem to be plummeting it might also be that treating people like toddlers isn't working either?

I know you like to rely on loose theories that can be moulded to fit any scenario, but we can add some actual substance to your theory and see some of the flaws which lead to some misleading conclusions.

Cases fell from 25k a day in early November to 14k at the beginning of December, which is when the first set of rules were relaxed. There were plenty of Christmas shoppers and after shops re-opened they had jumped on up to 37k just a couple of weeks later. According to Google's mobility data, you had almost as many people shopping in early December as you did in early September, when cases were 5x lower. By some measures, retail footfall was down just a few % YoY. Clearly cases being almost 3x higher before Christmas amplifies the impact of the Christmas spread, and clearly the two sets of approaches in November and December led to different epidemiological outcomes. To say they both aren't working, with no distinction, is to ignore that obvious fact.

On top of that, the rules that were outlined at the beginning of December said people from multiple households could mix for multiple days over Christmas, which many people made plans for and stuck to. Many people in this thread said they were going to do exactly that, and the ONS survey released today suggests they were among millions. They made the very adult decision to do what was best for themselves, they bought the turkey after all, what's a bit of covid compared to throwing away a good turkey? So the cases flowed from the Christmas period, not Christmas day.

If you look at the dates the tests were conducted (rather than reported), you see a simple pattern. There were around 40k cases a day in the three days before Christmas eve, and 45k cases in the three days after Christmas day. It was growing each week as a result of people doing normal things like shopping, but it wasn't blowing up. On the 29th it jumps up to 81k, and on the 30th it was 71k. 5-6 days after Christmas eve and it goes through the roof. The only other day to go above 70k in the entire pandemic was on the 4th Jan, following on from New Year's, and they haven't finished reporting cases from that day. The 5th Jan already has 50k cases reported, and it might well join those days in the top 4 peak.

Suddenly locking down when things go out of control doesn't lead to a sudden fall. The surge in cases that came directly from Christmas and NYE mean there's much more of the virus in the community, and it doesn't all spread just at once. People that have it now pass it to people in their household a few days later. People pick it up with almost no symptoms, do shopping for the next week and pass it onto nobody, and then just one person gets it and they start another chain. Australia have had cases at almost 0 for months, but those small chains keep forming week after week, even when it's few people passing it on. Which is why when they had to lock things down in Melbourne, it eventually brought things under control but there was no plumetting.

So no, cases wouldn't drop like a stone imminently if the primary driver of this surge was Christmas and NYE. It just means the peak will be much higher, community transmission will remain much longer, and the health system might reach a breaking point it otherwise wouldn't if we continue to make these adult decisions. Likewise, the fact that lockdown isn't leading to plummeting cases isn't evidence that it doesn't work, because we know how it worked last time. We went from 500 cases to 5,000 cases in 3 weeks between March and April, and we went from 5,000 cases to 500 cases in the 3 months between April and July. The higher that peak, the longer it takes to come down. People don't get to have a couple of days where things are let loose, and then they can have a couple of days of living in isolation to make up for it. That isn't how community transmission works. That's the point. We assess that risk poorly as individuals.

Now that I've answered your question, can you answer the original question with a direct answer?
 
Also been told they have to go to work if their partners get tested positive and they will test them daily until they themselves test positive. Some sort of trial that is yet to be approved by the government

Btw can anyone confirm if this is actually legal to implement.