I say 14000 largely unnecessary deaths was an utter disaster even if places like the UK and US were far far worse.
SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I say 14000 largely unnecessary deaths was an utter disaster even if places like the UK and US were far far worse.
Well my boy's starting his half term early. Apparently he coughed a couple of times so he has to have a covid test, the LFT variety.
He's autistic, 4 year old, and needed sedating last time he had to have a test before going in for minor surgery. We just about managed to test him the first time he needed one but now he knows what's coming and even with 4 of us we can't do it safely, for him or us.
He's autistic, 4 year old, and needed sedating last time he had to have a test before going in for minor surgery. We just about managed to test him the first time he needed one but now he knows what's coming and even with 4 of us we can't do it safely, for him or us.
Man that’s tough for you. Good call not to retest though. Assume positive and behave accordingly. Sounds like by far the least stressful option.
Hasn't it already been determined that initial data is showing a very very good vaccine response to the latest variant? I reckon with current measures we'll be o.k for next few months.
From October onwards is still big unknown.
Rise in cases can surely be attributed to surge testing.
Yeah, there is a good response. Although almost certainly not as good as the response to the original variant. Especially for people who have only had one dose.
I wouldn’t worry too much about October onwards. Once everyone has had two doses of vaccines even this new variant shouldn’t cause too many problems. The big risk is over the next month or two with millions of people either unvaccinated or not fully vaccinated.
Yep and cheers, that's what we're doing, we did it over Christmas* so we can do it again.
*school phoned us on the Monday before Christmas to say someone in his class had tested positive and we should get a test, we decided to self isolate rather than pin and traumatise him. It actually turned out nice, no arguing with the in-laws/biting my tongue when talking to the mother-in-law because we wanted to spend some of Christmas with my family, no running around, just a nice chilled day with multiple meals delivered to us.
definitely the best route to take there! My girlfriend was a carer to a boy who wasn’t autistic but presented that way in many ways and is non verbal. We had to take him to hospital once when he was 4 and for the blood tests given I’m 6’6” and 16 stone it took 3 other hospital staff to restrain him with me to be able to get blood from him. I don’t know where they get their strength from but frustrating they asked for a test over a couple of coughs
Have to say I get a bit judgey when I see anyone wearing disposable masks. No need for them. Wash and reuse everyone. Please.
Yeah, in the early days of the pandemic, I got it a bit. But a year in, to see people still wearing these and to see so many lodged in hedges and discarded around bus stops is saddening as well as infuriating.
My son was similar around that age. He had a worrying temperature but wouldn't take calpol, just kept spitting it out. So we took him to a walk in centre. They couldn't get him to take it, so we were told to strip him down to pants and get to the hospital. Obviously we're fearing something terrible like meningitis at this point, as he'd even started to get a rash. The hospital people couldn't get him to take anything orally, so they ended up with four people restraining him so they could administer a suppository... Which he immediately forced out. I can't even remember what it was that did the trick in the end!
Ended up spending 10 hours in medical facilities that day for what turned out to be a simple fever just because of a three year old's stubbornness.
Rise in kids with serious covid
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...e-cases-and-deaths?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...e-cases-and-deaths?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Don’t think there’s much more to this than a numbers game.
It was never the case that kids were 100% protected against severe illness. A very tiny % have always been ending up in hospital. What was interesting/unusual is that it was a smaller % than, for example, children who catch influenza.
When you have the type of wild, completely out of control, surge we saw in Brazil and India even that tiny % will add up to fairly significant numbers.
Maybe not or perhaps new varients combined with overwhelmed medical facilities are making it worse. Or a combination of both.
Overwhelmed medical facilities will affect mortality rates among those who get very unwell but unlikely to have much of an impact on the % who get sick enough to need admission.
Re the new variants we still don’t have any convincing evidence that they make adults sicker than “original covid”. So we’re even further off being able to come to any conclusion re kids, due to the smaller numbers involved.
I still think increased transmissibility is driving all of this. The bigger the % of a population infected the bigger the numbers of young healthy people ending up hospitalised/dead, prompting articles like this.
I wouldn't disagree and as with so many things it won't be until later when we get good data that we will know for sure.
In an academic sense teasing the nuance and detail out if all this will be fascinating and no doubt a few surprises will be found.
It is also going to be interesting to see how Australia handle opening up. The idea that we closed borders and effectively eradicated covid was only the plan to allow us to vaccinate has now been a bit lost and now the Feds are talking themselves into a corner about longer term closures to hide their vaccine purchase stuff up.
My evil self almost wants a major outbreak to remind people of the need to vaccinate. Almost.
Haven’t you been vaccinated already? I assumed that meant they had rattled through the older age groups before you. So you’re getting there, albeit a bit more slowly than the rest of the world.
There are some really tough decisions ahead for Aus/NZ. The virus is here to stay and the vaccines will never be 100% effective. So it’s a big call to open your borders up again knowing that many will die as a result.
I see there was a demonstration in support of Palestine in Bolton yesterday, hundreds of people gathering in the town centre and then in a park. It may be a valid thing to protest about, but with the situation as it is in Bolton right now, it's very ill-advised.
The situation in Palestine is much worse thoughI see there was a demonstration in support of Palestine in Bolton yesterday, hundreds of people gathering in the town centre and then in a park. It may be a valid thing to protest about, but with the situation as it is in Bolton right now, it's very ill-advised.
True (I removed the pic as it was rather big) - but right now seems a bad time to have mass protests in Bolton.
In my humble, uneducated opinion it seems like a better strategy to hold back on opening your borders until the vaccine programme is complete and you’ve offered your population the best level of immunity you can without exposure to the virus rather than accepting very early on that it’s going to inevitably rip through your population, cause thousands upon thousands of deaths and still have to intermittently go into tough lockdowns that last for weeks or months on end.
If Australia and New Zealand do hold out until their populations are sufficiently vaccinated, then cautiously open the borders with the right checks in place why would they be in any worse position going forward than if a percentage of their population had already contracted the disease? Surely it’s better to get your immunity from a vaccine anyway?
I got my AZ with the second shot due in August. The problem is that we will have vaccinated the over 50's quite soon but have nowhere near enough of anything else and the government is downplaying the need to vaccinate quickly.
We have also fecked up things like vaccinating disabled people and retirement homes. The Libs would rather tank the economy than admit their feck ups, so I fully expect them to lock the borders until after the next election. They are a moral vacuum and I hate them with a passion.
But on the plus side, they are unlikely to have had people travelling in to Bolton for the protest, and as it was held there, it meant people weren't travelling from Bolton, to Manchester perhaps, to protest.
It’s definitely better. They had an opportunity to rid their country of the virus and it was the right decision to take at the time. Their death toll will be considerably lower as a result.
Doesn’t make it any less of a head feck for whoever has to decide to open their borders. Another big challenge ahead of them is around changing the way society behaves. For countries that have been living with covid it almost feels normal to maintain a degree of social distancing. Do more work from home. Don’t send sick kids to school etc etc That’s a learning curve that’s all ahead of Australia.
I really don't understand what is hard for them. Once the people are vaccinated you open the borders. At that point it really is just a flu.
Fair enough but it seems a bit of a moot argument based on the notation that the “zero COVID” is some sort of ideologically absolute position when really the approach was never “no COVID ever” and more “no COVID until it can be reasonably managed”.
What you’re suggesting is that Australia is going to have the same sort of behavioural adjustment period most other countries have had... only under massively more favourable conditions?
You’re asking a country that’s had less than 30 deaths to accept 200-1000 deaths a year from now on.
It’s sensible and understandable if it’s truly under control. But it’s a political hand grenade that’s glued to your hand.
Yes. Good luck convincing non-boomers otherwise. I have behaved in a better way than 95% of people under 40 until there are vaccines. But after that, if we don't go back to normal I would be protesting, so I have no idea who the people would be, who would accept the restrictions at that point.
Im in NZ. We are expecting to have everyone (barring those who cant or wont ) vaccinated by the end of the year, the plan is for end of August.
In many respects we got lucky here and we know it. Lots of us are keen to travel but life here has been pretty normal for the majority of this whole thing so far. We wouldnt change what we have done and in general everyone is pretty relaxed with how slow the vaccination schedule is, we understand why its slow.
With respect to what happens once we finally open up we also understand the virus will appear and there will be a portion of the population that gets sick etc. However we are also pretty sure its going to be nowhere even remotely close to what would have happened if we hadnt gone down the elimination path. Its a no brainer.
The main worry is how effective the vaccines are against the variants.
I do think we will see preferred countries not having to quarantine and countries with difficult numbers having to quarantine for a while or some sort of similar control method. I do wonder about any covid passport thing, doubt we will go that far and hope we dont.
Im looking forward to heading overseas soon with work and on holiday but lets say the worst case happens and we have to stay closed for another year or 2, I wouldnt see it as a major catastrophe, we are coping quite happily here.
In many respects we got lucky here and we know it. Lots of us are keen to travel but life here has been pretty normal for the majority of this whole thing so far. We wouldnt change what we have done and in general everyone is pretty relaxed with how slow the vaccination schedule is, we understand why its slow.
With respect to what happens once we finally open up we also understand the virus will appear and there will be a portion of the population that gets sick etc. However we are also pretty sure its going to be nowhere even remotely close to what would have happened if we hadnt gone down the elimination path. Its a no brainer.
The main worry is how effective the vaccines are against the variants.
I do think we will see preferred countries not having to quarantine and countries with difficult numbers having to quarantine for a while or some sort of similar control method. I do wonder about any covid passport thing, doubt we will go that far and hope we dont.
Im looking forward to heading overseas soon with work and on holiday but lets say the worst case happens and we have to stay closed for another year or 2, I wouldnt see it as a major catastrophe, we are coping quite happily here.
Agree with you on both points. Once the population is fully vaccinated I don’t see any big concerns for a country like Australia or New Zealand. The vaccines don’t prevent everyone from getting covid but they are near perfect at reducing serious cases, and I think the vast majority of the population will be fine with near-perfect prevention + seasonal flu levels of serious cases. Only thing that changes that equation is a particularly virulent new strain, maybe one that is particularly dangerous for kids, but that will throw up most of the same problems in any country that’s fully vaccinated their population. At that point I don’t see the political will being there to start all over again. It’ll be time for plan B. Seems an unlikely scenario in any case.
I agree with you. My point is, how do you tell a country that’s eradicated, to now let the wolf in the door, while you tell them that 500 people dying a year from now is going to have to be ok.
Its an enviable position of sorts. But not an easy one to navigate.
“We stopped people dying... now we’re going to have to accept hundreds of people dying, because we need to live full lives”.
It’s really hard. To pretend otherwise is silly.
Yeah, exactly my point.
It’s also going to divide opinions about how to time their reopening. What % of the population should be fully vaccinated? Plus it looks as though some vaccines might protect better than others against the sort of variants likely to be dominant when they let the virus into the country. How will Australians who get AZ feel when they read about ‘only’ 60% efficacy against the Indian variant? Will they argue they should keep borders closed until they’ve had a chance to get an mRNA booster? When Aussies start dying the inevitable backlash against whatever decision they make will be something every politician will be desperate to avoid.
Tough decisions ahead anyway. Actively choosing to expose your citizens to a lethal virus - with associated changes to the way they live - is in a completely different ball park to the various mitigation strategy decisions that governments everywhere else have been making this last couple of years.
Last edited:
The return to work has been far from universal. I still haven't returned to the office. And our place is at a max of 50% capacity but rarely over 25%. With masks it is only the last week where they aren't required on public transport (but most still do wear them) and we have had to wear them every time there is a case of community transmission so a return won't be that difficult (well no more than usual). Social distancing is still legislated in bars and cafe's and encouraged else where with shops limiting the density of customers.
The hard bit is going to be how we decide to open up as our vaccine rollout is glacial and our government are cowards and by the sound of them will happily keep the borders locked so their vaccine feck ups don't costs a single life before the next election. There is a vague chance that they will allow vaccinated Australian's back in as long as they home quarantine but they are also talking about also having to have a negative covid test and positive antibody test within 72 hrs of flying home. If you have both I'm not sure why the home quarantine is really necessary though. Maybe there is a very very small chance that you could test negative for covid, have a decent antibody level and still import and spread covid. So if that is a good reason fair enough but with this government I doubt it. I wouldn't let them buy my car in case they set it on fire because it was the wrong colour. If they told you that night followed day I'd stay up all night to double check.
Does anyone know what's going on in Japan? Apparently Covid is rife, 80% of their population don't want the Olympics to happen and only 5% of their population has had at least one jab.
I've been looking at international travel and in particular test requirements. Now, whatever you think of the broad principle of pre-travel testing, can someone explain the value of a three day old PCR test? Why isn't an on-the-day (preferably supervised) lateral flow test a more useful measure?
I'm just curious if anyone knows the underlying analysis behind the idea. Is it because you get too many false positives on LFT - and that might mean chucking a couple of passengers off every flight? For the purposes of this question I'm taking the broad principle that a PCR test is perfect (which it isn't) and just wondering why a three day old result is more useful than the less precise but more up to date LFT - particularly if it's true that the LFT does a decent job of spotting the currently most contagious.
Is it to give people time to cancel/rebook flights/accommodation? Is it just to increase the costs/hassle as a way to discourage travel? Or are LFTs just useless really?
I'm just curious if anyone knows the underlying analysis behind the idea. Is it because you get too many false positives on LFT - and that might mean chucking a couple of passengers off every flight? For the purposes of this question I'm taking the broad principle that a PCR test is perfect (which it isn't) and just wondering why a three day old result is more useful than the less precise but more up to date LFT - particularly if it's true that the LFT does a decent job of spotting the currently most contagious.
Is it to give people time to cancel/rebook flights/accommodation? Is it just to increase the costs/hassle as a way to discourage travel? Or are LFTs just useless really?
Aren't they far less accurate? Only just over 50% in the second week of infection if I remember correctly. So false negatives rather than false positives are the issue I think.
The issue is one I've struggled with too. There just seems to be a lot of time for things to happen in 72 hours, so much so that a 3 day old PCR rest may no longer be relevant even if it was negative at the time.
Surely the 3 days is to cover transit time as well? Especially for those travelling longer distances, my other half's relative had an issue where his PCR test had expired after a nightmare journey coming from the USA to the UK.
PCR has always been the gold standard for the detection of virus. LFTs, on the other hand, are known for their poor sensitivity (though some demonstrate acceptable performance) and huge variations among different kits. I agree the "three-day" gap is not ideal, and it is possible someone gets infected during that period, but it's much more reliable than LFTs.
I get that PCRs are the best tests, I'm just wondering about the value of a test done on Tuesday for a flight on Friday.
From what I've read on infectiousness - people are reckoned to be at their most infectious +/- two days from symptoms onset. Hence the relative inaccuracy of the LFT (picking up about 50% of cases) in week two doesn't necessarily make it useless, especially as week one it's thought to be 70%
It's how to calculate that trade off between testing people on the day versus testing them too early that I'm curious about. I just wondered if anyone has seen some actual modelling on it, or is it just the broad principle of "PCR better" that makes the decision, despite the test being done at the wrong time.
From what I've read on infectiousness - people are reckoned to be at their most infectious +/- two days from symptoms onset. Hence the relative inaccuracy of the LFT (picking up about 50% of cases) in week two doesn't necessarily make it useless, especially as week one it's thought to be 70%
It's how to calculate that trade off between testing people on the day versus testing them too early that I'm curious about. I just wondered if anyone has seen some actual modelling on it, or is it just the broad principle of "PCR better" that makes the decision, despite the test being done at the wrong time.