Coronavirus Super Thread ( merged )

[DETTY29]

12 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Think you will find that is a total rumour. I you go out for exercise, which is allowed, and stop off in shop on way back, you are seriously living in dreamland if you believe police will stop and fine you.

 

Why do people post pish like this, it doesn't help anyone.

If they are charging £20, it must be a back hander considering the initial fine is £60, reduced to £30 if paid within 28 days.

 

Edited April 3, 2020 by DETTY29

[Shanks said no]

11 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Think you will find that is a total rumour. I you go out for exercise, which is allowed, and stop off in shop on way back, you are seriously living in dreamland if you believe police will stop and fine you.

 

Why do people post pish like this, it doesn't help anyone.

 

Fair enough and I can assure you if this does turn out to be false the person who passed it on, supposedly about her brother will get a torrent of abuse from me

 

however

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52150516

144 fines handed out in Scotland as of 8 hours ago, including 9 in the Lothians

[Bongo 1874]

1 minute ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Do you fancy being a volunteer to take it then? You happy if it kills someone who does, on the off chance it may or may not work? 

If someone is critical and on the way out, it could be the difference to saving someone?. 

[Tommy Brown]

1 hour ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Based on what? Correct me if I'm wrong but neither Italy or Spain have reached that stage and they are further ahead of us. 

France have reported 2,500 over 2 days.

UK, Germany reporting higher,.

Think the counting to include deaths at home is responsible.

 

As I keep saying, critical cases are steeply rising everywhere bar Italy. They are on a plateau there and less than the majors.

UK not giving this figure with any reliability.

I have two weeks of stats

[Malinga the Swinga]

1 hour ago, Mauricio Pinilla said:

Yeah I don't get how people are saying nothings changed and everyone is going about business as usual. Simply not the case. There's still some cars on the road and people in shops but it's nowhere near normal levels and the vast majority in my experience are keeping their distance from others. 

People say it because they get to feel self important and superior to others. I stay 500 yards from bypass and the traffic is minuscule to a normal day. Queues in shops have been reasonably small and after initial rush, most supermarkets are stocked up and no one is pushing in or barging past.

[Nicholas Brody]

1 minute ago, Bongo 1874 said:

If someone is critical and on the way out, it could be the difference to saving someone?. 

 

It could also kill them.

[Malinga the Swinga]

6 minutes ago, The Frenchman Returns said:

 

Fair enough and I can assure you if this does turn out to be false the person who passed it on, supposedly about her brother will get a torrent of abuse from me

 

however

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52150516

144 fines handed out in Scotland as of 8 hours ago, including 9 in the Lothians

If someone is stupid enough to have or attend a party, then that is a different matter and they should get charged accordingly. Same for barbecues or things like that. Shopping, not so much.

[JimmyCant]

2 hours ago, Spellczech said:

That line is getting a bit tired no? How many public enquiries conclude this way...or put it another way, has there ever been one that didn't?

Not that I remember but every public enquiry there has even been that I remember has dealt with a situation that hindsight dictated might have happened but it hadn’t happened before. Hillsborough. Grenfell. Bradford to name but 3. The likliehhood of those things happening again was greatly reduced by public enquiries. Yes they could have all been prevented with hindsight knowledge but were dealing with something here that is unprecedented and that no one in the world had planned for or made provisions for 

[Malinga the Swinga]

5 minutes ago, Bongo 1874 said:

If someone is critical and on the way out, it could be the difference to saving someone?. 

Can we start experimenting on all critically ill patients then, or just CV19 ones? Do we experiment on someone who has underlying health conditions such as cancer or just stick to the ones who are purely ill from CV19.

 

who decides when seriously ill becomes serious enough to be a guineau pig for testing drugs.

 

What makes CV19 different from other diseases? 

 

Very dangerous road you are taking with this.

[kila]

Just now, Malinga the Swinga said:

Can we start experimenting on all critically ill patients then, or just CV19 ones? Do we experiment on someone who has underlying health conditions such as cancer or just stick to the ones who are purely ill from CV19.

 

who decides when seriously ill becomes serious enough to be a guineau pig for testing drugs.

 

What makes CV19 different from other diseases? 

 

Very dangerous road you are taking with this.

 

How do you think new drugs are tested? Volunteers will be needed, and those who are on death's door might be more willing to put forward themselves.

 

If I ended up in such a critical state that I was dwindling away with not much time left, I'd want a last shot at some new treatment and if I die anyway then at least something worthy to medical research came out of my last breath.

 

Obviously it is down to the individual who would put themselves forward but I don't think there'd be a shortage of people willing.

 

[Cade]

Yesterday: 

Hancock plucks a "100,000 tests a day" figure out his arse.

Today:

NHS laboratories, testing manufacturers and scientists say there is no danger of that even coming close to being achieved by the end of the month.

That didn't last long.

 

Also in today's news; the USA has intercepted a consignment of 200,000 masks purchased by the German Police and taken them for themselves.

They took them during a cargo plane transfer in Thailand.

Germany has made a formal protest to the WTO for breach of international trading law.

New York is running out of supplies because other US States are outbidding them for things that they don't need yet, but NY does.

NY governor is resorting to seizing items from hospitals that are not at full capacity and redistributing them to ones that are.

It's gone totally bonkers over there.

 

 

[Morgan]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

 

 

 

The French have laid down the law in no uncertain terms.    

In the large cities, Nice, Marseille, Paris, Lyon etc. yes, you’re right.

 

In wee places similar to where we live, you don’t see a police officer from one day to the next.

 

17 days now into lockdown and we have not had our Attestation checked even once. 

[Victorian]

The DCMO explained today.    There's are already trials of repurposed drugs going on for hospital patients.    You can't insist on joining them.    It first depends on whether the trial exists where you are.    Then it depends on the clinical decision of the doctor in charge of your care.    You can be asked if you want to participate if you qualify.

 

If I end up in hospital,   I will already have written and signed consent with me to be included,   if qualified.

[Nicholas Brody]

2 minutes ago, Cade said:

Yesterday: 

Hancock plucks a "100,000 tests a day" figure out his arse.

Today:

NHS laboratories, testing manufacturers and scientists say there is no danger of that even coming close to being achieved by the end of the month.

That didn't last long.

 

Also in today's news; the USA has intercepted a consignment of 200,000 masks purchased by the German Police and taken them for themselves.

They took them during a cargo plane transfer in Thailand.

Germany has made a formal protest to the WTO for breach of international trading law.

New York is running out of supplies because other US States are outbidding them for things that they don't need yet, but NY does.

NY governor is resorting to seizing items from hospitals that are not at full capacity and redistributing them to ones that are.

It's gone totally bonkers over there.

 

Private laboratories across Britain are now in the process of asking volunteers to help test samples for the UK government. The 100,000 figure by the end of the month? Bit of a stretch.

[DarthVodka]

I really can’t see how this virus could in anyway be man made for a few reasons

 

the science involved would be very high tech, it would need precision RNA design to create the kind of proteins that are exactly needed for this virus’s properties. Not saying it can’t be done

 

Why would anyone want to create something like this - yes there are total nutters in this world but surely if it was a weapon then it would be selective to certain demographics and not to spread across everyone.  If someone created this then they would make the death % a lot higher.

this is an unfortunate result of mutation from an existing virus and a chance sequence of events allowing it to jump species with an infectious ability in humans like never seen before 

 

 

 

[Malinga the Swinga]

2 minutes ago, kila said:

 

How do you think new drugs are tested? Volunteers will be needed, and those who are on death's door might be more willing to put forward themselves.

 

If I ended up in such a critical state that I was dwindling away with not much time left, I'd want a last shot at some new treatment and if I die anyway then at least something worthy to medical research came out of my last breath.

 

Obviously it is down to the individual who would put themselves forward but I don't think there'd be a shortage of people willing.

 

I know how they are tested and it is a long and laborious process. What is being suggested is short of this by a long way and should not be permitted. Would you accept 1 success and 9 deaths or 2 and 8.

 

What happens if after trying drug and it failing causing some deaths, a newer treatment is found that would have saved these people. Do we just write them off and say never mind, we just took a chance?

 

CV19 is a killer virus, but not nearly justifying this. This is the kind of thing Trump would advocate. Test on those we can afford to test on and you can be sure it wouldn't be him or his kind.

 

 

[DarthVodka]

8 minutes ago, kila said:

 

How do you think new drugs are tested? Volunteers will be needed, and those who are on death's door might be more willing to put forward themselves.

 

If I ended up in such a critical state that I was dwindling away with not much time left, I'd want a last shot at some new treatment and if I die anyway then at least something worthy to medical research came out of my last breath.

 

Obviously it is down to the individual who would put themselves forward but I don't think there'd be a shortage of people willing.

 

we have a lot of ethical laws including ability to consent but in rare cases his happens but if it’s a new drug preclinical Data is needed.

 

if it’s a already approved for market drug, off label can be done at a physicians digression but unless there is background data then most are reluctant. Though in desperate times....  

[Sooperstar]

1 hour ago, whodanny said:

And why not ☺️ I've already cracked a beer, Arran Blonde since you asked. Cheers ! 

Opened the champers at 4. Going through the Tennents and Stella now before we resort to Unicum.

[Victorian]

C4 news have a doctor from Royal Gwent Hospital who says they are almost at the point of going beyond their IC capacity.      A very different position to that claimed by the DCMO at the briefing,   who suggested the overall position is nowhere near capacity.

Edited April 3, 2020 by Victorian

[kila]

2 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

I know how they are tested and it is a long and laborious process. What is being suggested is short of this by a long way and should not be permitted. Would you accept 1 success and 9 deaths or 2 and 8.

 

What happens if after trying drug and it failing causing some deaths, a newer treatment is found that would have saved these people. Do we just write them off and say never mind, we just took a chance?

 

CV19 is a killer virus, but not nearly justifying this. This is the kind of thing Trump would advocate. Test on those we can afford to test on and you can be sure it wouldn't be him or his kind.

 

Is that not how medicine works? It is all a chance, unfortunately. No guarantees any treatment will work on a particular individual.

 

I'm not in disagreement about the laboratory testing phase before it reaches humans, but if a drug is already approved for other treatments shows some promise, then those are the things to be trying now as it is less of an unknown.

 

[Francis Albert]

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

C4 news have a doctor from Royal Gwent Hospital who says they are almost at the point of going beyond their IC capacity.      A very different position to that claimed by the DCMO at the briefing,   who suggested the overall position is nowhere near capacity.

Was he speaking about Gwent? The word overall suggests not.

[Taffin]

12 minutes ago, DarthVodka said:

I really can’t see how this virus could in anyway be man made for a few reasons

 

the science involved would be very high tech, it would need precision RNA design to create the kind of proteins that are exactly needed for this virus’s properties. Not saying it can’t be done

 

Why would anyone want to create something like this - yes there are total nutters in this world but surely if it was a weapon then it would be selective to certain demographics and not to spread across everyone.  If someone created this then they would make the death % a lot higher.

this is an unfortunate result of mutation from an existing virus and a chance sequence of events allowing it to jump species with an infectious ability in humans like never seen before 

 

 

 

 

I agree with your post and don't for a second believe there's some big conspiracy going here but regards the bit in bold, the only reason I can think of as a motivating factor for someone would be the protection of the earth. Less travel, less people, less industry...it could potentially prolong the human species rather than exterminate it.

 

I should add, that would also class them as a total nutter!

Edited April 3, 2020 by Taffin

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

Was he speaking about Gwent? The word overall suggests not.

 

No,  in the context of what was being discussed,   his comments suggested a position of capacity not being pushed across the board.

 

The fact there might be spare capacity in Aberdeen does not really cancel out Gwent being in a critical position.

 

 

[BlackJAC?]

Anyone an ex smoker?  If so, maybe it's time to start again 😂:

 

[Taffin]

2 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

No,  in the context of what was being discussed,   his comments suggested a position of capacity not being pushed across the board.

 

The fact there might be spare capacity in Aberdeen does not really cancel out Gwent being in a critical position.

 

 

 

Is capacity being pushed across the board?

 

If so, that's really worrying.

[Francis Albert]

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

 

No,  in the context of what was being discussed,   his comments suggested a position of capacity not being pushed across the board.

 

The fact there might be spare capacity in Aberdeen does not really cancel out Gwent being in a critical position.

 

 

Of course. But there is nothing inconsistent as you claimed between the DCMO statement and this hospital in Gwent getting close to capacity.

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Is capacity being pushed across the board?

 

If so, that's really worrying.

 

No.  But it seems to be bad at Gwent.

[Jambof3tornado]

4 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

No,  in the context of what was being discussed,   his comments suggested a position of capacity not being pushed across the board.

 

The fact there might be spare capacity in Aberdeen does not really cancel out Gwent being in a critical position.

 

 

If gwent is critcal they will shuffle patients around. They may even punt to the nightingale.

 

Its how it works.

[Ehllhayapeh]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

Sweden are trying that same "herd immunity" bollocks as the UK tried and abandoned.

All the other nations around them are on full lockdown.

 

They seem to have become the guinea pigs in a weird experiment of whether stupidity increases a diseases death rate or not.

 

A few "this was all to implement tighter controls and martial law" types will be watch what happens there. It will be interesting (in a macabre kind of way) to see if Bojos plan A wouldve been the disaster every other nation thinks it will.

 

Be hard to maintain lockdowns elsewhere if swedes have it easier.

[Taffin]

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

 

No.  But it seems to be bad at Gwent.

 

Ah okay, sorry I thought you were saying what he said wasn't true and Gwent was reflective across the board.

 

Awful for Gwent, but slightly less alarming if it's still in pockets.

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

Of course. But there is nothing inconsistent as you claimed between the DCMO statement and this hospital in Gwent getting close to capacity.

 

His comments conveyed the impression that there was headroom across the board.    He mentioned no areas of more critical concern.    The picture should not be aggregated as it creates the wrong impression. 

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, Jambof3tornado said:

If gwent is critcal they will shuffle patients around. They may even punt to the nightingale.

 

Its how it works.

 

Hopefully.    It would be sad to see any geographical lottery compounding things.

[GinRummy]

9 minutes ago, BlackJAC? said:

Anyone an ex smoker?  If so, maybe it's time to start again 😂:

 

As someone who has chronic kidney disease that’s equally worrying and needlessly alarming. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

6 minutes ago, kila said:

 

How do you think new drugs are tested? Volunteers will be needed, and those who are on death's door might be more willing to put forward themselves.

 

If I ended up in such a critical state that I was dwindling away with not much time left, I'd want a last shot at some new treatment and if I die anyway then at least something worthy to medical research came out of my last breath.

 

Obviously it is down to the individual who would put themselves forward but I don't think there'd be a shortage of people willing.

 

 

IIRC that's exactly what John Wayne did when he knew there was no hope of beating his cancer, he allowed doctors to trial different drugs on him.

 

If I were in the same position I'd do the same, without hesitation, it might not save me, but the doctors might learn something which could save somebody else in the future.

 

Not quite the same situation of life & death, but I've already taken part in a 5 year phase III clinical trial for a new cholesterol/heart drug which was called Anacetrapib, it didn't have the results they were looking for and never made it to market.  https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01252953  

 

Without volunteers there'd be no drugs.

 

[Taffin]

14 minutes ago, BlackJAC? said:

Anyone an ex smoker?  If so, maybe it's time to start again 😂:

 

 

The outcome is worse for current smokers no?

 

I'm assuming those that don't fall into those categories are sadly, dead?

[GinRummy]

1 minute ago, Taffin said:

 

The outcome is worse for current smokers no?

 

I'm assuming those that don't fall into those categories are sadly, dead?

Maybe but what does the status unknown bit mean. 

[Taffin]

Just now, GinRummy said:

Maybe but what does the status unknown bit mean. 

 

Not sure, I hadn't even noticed that in fairness.

 

I was assuming it meant 92% of smokers who contract it are either not hospitalised, hospitalised non ICU or ICU and 8% dead compared to 95% and 5% for ex smokers

[GinRummy]

Just now, Taffin said:

 

Not sure, I hadn't even noticed that in fairness.

 

I was assuming it meant 92% of smokers who contract it are either not hospitalised, hospitalised non ICU or ICU and 8% dead compared to 95% and 5% for ex smokers

Maybe but percentage wise it’s academic. The only people who are likely to be included are people deemed ill enough to be tested or people in hospital anyway or people with money that can pay for a private test. The majority of people who have covid 19 are not tested so the figures are not worth a carrot, other than to identify certain illnesses lead to greater risk, which was known already. The percentages are a pile of shite. 

[Taffin]

1 minute ago, GinRummy said:

Maybe but percentage wise it’s academic. The only people who are likely to be included are people deemed ill enough to be tested or people in hospital anyway or people with money that can pay for a private test. The majority of people who have covid 19 are not tested so the figures are not worth a carrot, other than to identify certain illnesses lead to greater risk, which was known already. The percentages are a pile of shite. 

 

Yeh, don't disagree. Was just suggesting that the graph if taken at face value actually seemed to suggest it was better to be an ex smokers than a smoker (if I understand it correctly).

[Francis Albert]

12 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

His comments conveyed the impression that there was headroom across the board.    He mentioned no areas of more critical concern.    The picture should not be aggregated as it creates the wrong impression. 

Not  to labour the point he referred to the overall position clearly meaning it was not uniformly the case everywhere. Italy France and Spain have had to move patients sometimes a long way because of mismatches between supply and demand for ICUs. The UK will not be any different. The overall position matters though so of course do localised shortages. Suggesting as you did that the latter is necessarily  indicative of the overall picture is... well scaremongering.

[JudyJudyJudy]

I actually read that smoking has no real impact on the mortality rates of those who died of CV.   Also sadly for some reason kidney issues do seem to be an issue if you catch CV.  The figures on the graph are kinda bizarre though. 

[GinRummy]

Just now, Taffin said:

 

Yeh, don't disagree. Was just suggesting that the graph if taken at face value actually seemed to suggest it was better to be an ex smokers than a smoker (if I understand it correctly).

Yeah it does, was just using the opportunity during our chat to point out the big data flaw. It is strange but if you consider how prevelant smoking used to be there are probably an awful lot of elderly people who are ex smokers, maybe way more ex smokers among the elderly than people who currently smoke at the same age. Might be wide of the mark there but that might be it. 

[Bongo 1874]

28 minutes ago, BlackJAC? said:

Anyone an ex smoker?  If so, maybe it's time to start again 😂:

 

No way that can be true, correct me if I'm wrong does that give smokers a bigger percent of surviving?. 

 

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Not  to labour the point he referred to the overall position clearly meaning it was not uniformly the case everywhere. Italy France and Spain have had to move patients sometimes a long way because of mismatches between supply and demand for ICUs. The UK will not be any different. The overall position matters though so of course do localised shortages. Suggesting as you did that the latter is necessarily  indicative of the overall picture is... well scaremongering.

 

It's not really scaremongering when you see an obviously distressed doctor laying it bare in an interview.   The point is that it's a bit misleading of an official to create a false impression when there are stress points.    That's all really.

[GinRummy]

2 minutes ago, JamesM48 said:

I actually read that smoking has no real impact on the mortality rates of those who died of CV.   Also sadly for some reason kidney issues do seem to be an issue if you catch CV.  The figures on the graph are kinda bizarre though. 

Kidney issues increase the risk of all sorts of problems. The fact chronic lung disease looks less concerning than kidney disease seems odd but so little is known about this that it could well be correct. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

2 minutes ago, Bongo 1874 said:

No way that can be true, correct me if I'm wrong does that give smokers a bigger percent of surviving?. 

 

 

That's the way I'm reading that as well.

 

Current smoker has only a 5% chance of being in ICU, whilst a former smoker has a 20% chance.

 

No way can those stats be correct.

[Taffin]

4 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

Yeah it does, was just using the opportunity during our chat to point out the big data flaw. It is strange but if you consider how prevelant smoking used to be there are probably an awful lot of elderly people who are ex smokers, maybe way more ex smokers among the elderly than people who currently smoke at the same age. Might be wide of the mark there but that might be it. 

 

Yeh that's a really good point. I wasn't meaning to shut the conversation down by the way. Your points were/are really interesting. I love data when it's explained to me but I'm not particularly good at drawing things out of it myself.

[Taffin]

1 minute ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

That's the way I'm reading that as well.

 

Current smoker has only a 5% chance of being in ICU, whilst a former smoker has a 20% chance.

 

No way can those stats be correct.

 

What about the % that's not included though? I assumed that meant they'd died. In which case it's worse to be a current smoker.

[GinRummy]

7 minutes ago, Bongo 1874 said:

No way that can be true, correct me if I'm wrong does that give smokers a bigger percent of surviving?. 

 

 More alarming is that of you have one or more of the listed conditions you’ve got a better chance of doing well. If you have chronic liver disease you’re best starting smoking to lower your risk. 😂

Edited April 3, 2020 by GinRummy

[GinRummy]

2 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Yeh that's a really good point. I wasn't meaning to shut the conversation down by the way. Your points were/are really interesting. I love data when it's explained to me but I'm not particularly good at drawing things out of it myself.

👍