Coronavirus Super Thread ( merged )

[davemclaren]

13 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

What people tend to forget on here, and in the wider population,  is that if you stand and pontificate every lunchtime and read stats about any illness at all, people will be scared and brow beaten. 

There are 1.2million over 65s in Scotland and we have suffered 4.5k deaths of all age groups. That is 0.075 % of the population,  many of whom would, unfortunately, be included in the 60k who die each year in Scotland.  Most of the deaths occurred in care homes, pattly because of the catastrophic political decision to empty hospitals and the virus into the homes. That decision was made on the back of the flawed scientific modelling that both govts were in thrall to at the time. We now know, instead of 80% of the population being infected, around 1% have been. The human immune system of course will fight off infections in the vast majority of cases.  Unfortunately,  those with comorbidities were most vulnerable, as they are to all colds, flus etc.  

With all the hysteria surrounding Covid, the one thing that has been lacking through all the flawed, modelling, scaremongering about 2nd waves etc is a bit of perspective. There are many more dangerous illnesses out there than Covid and the figures in any country, continent or worldwide reflect a tiny proportion of the number of people on the planet. 

The data in Scotland and the UK does not support the idea that the increased cases will follow through in to hospital admissions and deaths. Hopefully that continues and, indeed, once the overstated hospital figures, are reduced accordingly, the picture will be even clearer.. 

I don’t agree with your conclusions but I hope you are right. 

[davemclaren]

2 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

A dose of the virus would make it difficult to laugh. 

I think it would. 

[Enzo Chiefo]

2 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

A dose of the virus would make it difficult to laugh. 

That the virus that 80% of the people who have it, don't have any symptoms at all?

[davemclaren]

Just now, Enzo Chiefo said:

That the virus that 80% of the people who have it, don't have any symptoms at all?

Where’s the evidence for that percentage?

[Victorian]

11 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

What people tend to forget on here, and in the wider population,  is that if you stand and pontificate every lunchtime and read stats about any illness at all, people will be scared and brow beaten. 

There are 1.2million over 65s in Scotland and we have suffered 4.5k deaths of all age groups. That is 0.075 % of the population,  many of whom would, unfortunately, be included in the 60k who die each year in Scotland.  Most of the deaths occurred in care homes, pattly because of the catastrophic political decision to empty hospitals and the virus into the homes. That decision was made on the back of the flawed scientific modelling that both govts were in thrall to at the time. We now know, instead of 80% of the population being infected, around 1% have been. The human immune system of course will fight off infections in the vast majority of cases.  Unfortunately,  those with comorbidities were most vulnerable, as they are to all colds, flus etc.  

With all the hysteria surrounding Covid, the one thing that has been lacking through all the flawed, modelling, scaremongering about 2nd waves etc is a bit of perspective. There are many more dangerous illnesses out there than Covid and the figures in any country, continent or worldwide reflect a tiny proportion of the number of people on the planet. 

The data in Scotland and the UK does not support the idea that the increased cases will follow through in to hospital admissions and deaths. Hopefully that continues and, indeed, once the overstated hospital figures, are reduced accordingly, the picture will be even clearer.. 

 

Bit of a misrepresentation this.   80% was a prediction in terms of the percentage who would be infected over the course of the entire pandemic,   not a percentage infected as of Tuesday 9th September 2020.    The ONS surveillance antibody survery consistently shows about 7% as a good estimate of those throughout the UK having produced an antibody response.    1% is a mysterious,  made up figure.

[Enzo Chiefo]

1 minute ago, davemclaren said:

I don’t agree with your conclusions but I hope you are right. 

Hope so Dave

[davemclaren]

Just now, Victorian said:

 

Bit of a misrepresentation this.   80% was a prediction in terms of the percentage who would be infected over the course of the entire pandemic,   not a percentage infected as of Tuesday 9th September 2020.    The ONS surveillance antibody survery consistently shows about 7% as a good estimate of those throughout the UK having produced an antibody response.    1% is a mysterious,  made up figure.

Especially so if 80% are asymptomatic, as claimed. 

[Enzo Chiefo]

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

 

Bit of a misrepresentation this.   80% was a prediction in terms of the percentage who would be infected over the course of the entire pandemic,   not a percentage infected as of Tuesday 9th September 2020.    The ONS surveillance antibody survery consistently shows about 7% as a good estimate of those throughout the UK having produced an antibody response.    1% is a mysterious,  made up figure.

I'm going by reported figures. Those in Scotland represent about 0.36%. If another 6.64 % have had it and don't know then that's probably a good sign. The 80% figure is a meaningless, theoretical figure that was trotted out with Swine flu, SARS etc. Unfortunately,  it's a dangerous figure to rely on when formulating govt policy, which, incidentally,  led to hospitals being emptied with deadly consequences. Jean Jeanie also predicted 25% of the population being off sick from work...she was talking short term not through the life of a pandemic which will not  obviously, last for years and years.

[Samuel Camazzola]

1 hour ago, Back to 2005 said:

What do you mean false information......she is a despot.

😄

[Ray Gin]

3 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

Do not think that because you are under 70 that this virus poses no threat to you.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/27/covid19-concerns-about-lasting-heart-damage/

 

"Two new studies from Germany paint a sobering picture of the toll that Covid-19 takes on the heart, raising the specter of long-term damage after people recover, even if their illness was not severe enough to require hospitalization.

 

One study examined the cardiac MRIs of 100 people who had recovered from Covid-19 and compared them to heart images from 100 people who were similar but not infected with the virus. Their average age was 49 and two-thirds of the patients had recovered at home.

 

More than two months later, infected patients were more likely to have troubling cardiac signs than people in the control group: 78 patients showed structural changes to their hearts, 76 had evidence of a biomarker signaling cardiac injury typically found after a heart attack, and 60 had signs of inflammation."

 

 

https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/12/after-covid19-mental-neurological-effects-smolder/

 

 

Even people who were never sick enough to go to a hospital, much less lie in an ICU bed with a ventilator, report feeling something as ill-defined as “Covid fog” or as frightening as numbed limbs. They’re unable to carry on with their lives, exhausted by crossing the street, fumbling for words, or laid low by depression, anxiety, or PTSD.

 

As many as 1 in 3 patients recovering from Covid-19 could experience neurological or psychological after-effects of their infections, experts told STAT, reflecting a growing consensus that the disease can have lasting impact on the brain. Beyond the fatigue felt by “long haulers” as they heal post-Covid, these neuropsychological problems range from headache, dizziness, and lingering loss of smell or taste to mood disorders and deeper cognitive impairment. Dating to early reports from China and Europe, clinicians have seen people suffer from depression and anxiety. Muscle weakness and nerve damage sometimes mean they can’t walk.

 

1 hour ago, DETTY29 said:

Interesting article on longer term impacts on a 30 year old.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/what-young-healthy-people-have-fear-covid-19/616087/

 

These posts are being conveniently ignored by the 'let us loose' brigade. 

[Victorian]

5 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

Especially so if 80% are asymptomatic, as claimed. 

 

There's varying estimates regarding a rate of asymptomatic infections.   There was an early forecast that 80% would be infected by the virus,   whether that be showing symptoms or not.   This would undoubtedly have been a rather tenuous estimate based on a number of assumed factors and without any vaccines added into the equation.

 

If there are no vaccines available then 80% or more is entirely possible over the course of however long the various 'waves' of this pandemic takes.   It could be around in some form for 20 or more years.

 

At least 7% of people in the UK have produced an antibody response,   as proven by the ONS surveillance work.

 

[Victorian]

5 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

I'm going by reported figures. Those in Scotland represent about 0.36%. If another 6.64 % have had it and don't know then that's probably a good sign. The 80% figure is a meaningless, theoretical figure that was trotted out with Swine flu, SARS etc. Unfortunately,  it's a dangerous figure to rely on when formulating govt policy, which, incidentally,  led to hospitals being emptied with deadly consequences. Jean Jeanie also predicted 25% of the population being off sick from work...she was talking short term not through the life of a pandemic which will not  obviously, last for years and years.

 

Spot on re the early 80% figure.  Utterly meaningless guess from a ropey model.

[The Real Maroonblood]

7 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

 

These posts are being conveniently ignored by the 'let us loose' screw brigade. 

FTFY.

[Shanks]

Better tell all those football players that have fully recovered from Covid that their hearts are actually destroyed

[TheOak88]

11 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

 

These posts are being conveniently ignored by the 'let us loose' brigade. 

 

I read the Atlantic article. It didn’t really seem to say anything other than it’s possible CV has long term health implications but we don’t actually know.

 

Difficult to get particularly worried about TBH. 

[jack D and coke]

10 minutes ago, Shanks said:

Better tell all those football players that have fully recovered from Covid that their hearts are actually destroyed

I know what a load of absolute shite. 

[Ray Gin]

13 minutes ago, Shanks said:

Better tell all those football players that have fully recovered from Covid that their hearts are actually destroyed

 

Where does it say 100% of people get destroyed hearts? 

[Jambo 4 Ever]

18 minutes ago, Shanks said:

Better tell all those football players that have fully recovered from Covid that their hearts are actually destroyed

What are you on about 

 

where does it say 100% of cases?

[The Internet]

16 minutes ago, TheOak88 said:

 

I read the Atlantic article. It didn’t really seem to say anything other than it’s possible CV has long term health implications but we don’t actually know.

 

Difficult to get particularly worried about TBH. 

 

Was thinking the same. Still too many ifs buts and maybes for me, studies aren't conclusive and won't be for some time. 

[Back to 2005]

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/500000-covid19-math-mistake-panic/

 

 

[Shanks]

6 minutes ago, Natural Orders said:

What are you on about 

 

where does it say 100% of cases?

Yea it says 78 out of 100 cases

 

 

[AlphonseCapone]

Some people suffer from long term effects after many diseases and viruses that the vast majority don't. It's far too early to say whether it's a specific Covid-19 risk or not. Studies have so far been small and not longitudinal obviously. Not sure how well they've controlled for confounders either. Not dismissing it, just pointing out we don't know much on it yet. 

 

But given over 4 million people in the UK are estimated to have antibodies therefore suggesting they've been exposed at some point I'd have expected long term effects to have been more obvious by now. 

 

 

[Ray Gin]

1 minute ago, Shanks said:

Yea it says 78 out of 100 cases

 

 

 

Does it say 78 out of 100 have 'destroyed hearts' ? 

 

Even if it did, uber fit athletes would seem an obvious type of person to fall into the group who make a full recovery. 

[Ray Gin]

2 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

Some people suffer from long term effects after many diseases and viruses that the vast majority don't. It's far too early to say whether it's a specific Covid-19 risk or not. Studies have so far been small and not longitudinal obviously. Not sure how well they've controlled for confounders either. Not dismissing it, just pointing out we don't know much on it yet. 

 

But given over 4 million people in the UK are estimated to have antibodies therefore suggesting they've been exposed at some point I'd have expected long term effects to have been more obvious by now. 

 

 

 

Obvious enough for the government to produce this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-long-term-health-effects

[Don Dan]

30 deaths today is not what we want as we try and get back to work and kick start the economy. 

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

Some people suffer from long term effects after many diseases and viruses that the vast majority don't. It's far too early to say whether it's a specific Covid-19 risk or not. Studies have so far been small and not longitudinal obviously. Not sure how well they've controlled for confounders either. Not dismissing it, just pointing out we don't know much on it yet. 

 

But given over 4 million people in the UK are estimated to have antibodies therefore suggesting they've been exposed at some point I'd have expected long term effects to have been more obvious by now. 

 

 

 

Would one not have to wait until a 'long' period of time has elapsed before establishing whether or not long term effects occur?

 

Current or ongoing effects are in evidence.   We wont know about long term effects until a later time.

[Taffin]

There's a lot of bickering going on, understandably due to it being an emotive topic.

 

I'm all for Natural Orders following his 'FACTS' and I'm all for others who are happy exposing themselves to some risk doing so 👍

 

If you're worried, stay indoors. If you're not, crack on imo.

[Shanks]

1 minute ago, AlphonseCapone said:

Some people suffer from long term effects after many diseases and viruses that the vast majority don't. It's far too early to say whether it's a specific Covid-19 risk or not. Studies have so far been small and not longitudinal obviously. Not sure how well they've controlled for confounders either. Not dismissing it, just pointing out we don't know much on it yet. 

 

But given over 4 million people in the UK are estimated to have antibodies therefore suggesting they've been exposed at some point I'd have expected long term effects to have been more obvious by now. 

 

 

One of the posts above says 1 in 3 recoveries may get neurological or psychological after effects.

 

That’s over one million people currently in the UK still suffering the after effects of covid 

[Don Dan]

2 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Obvious enough for the government to produce this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-long-term-health-effects

They have already set up clinics to deal with people still battling the after effects of this virus. 

[DB-14]

1 hour ago, Natural Orders said:

 

Not when it comes to the seriousness of the virus.

 

this is very irresponsible behaviour and expected better from you aswell 

You need to get out more. Crackpot.

[Back to 2005]

The 1968 Hong Kong flu killed about four times as many as covid 19. It is still with us. You do not beat a virus by wearing a mask or avoiding other human contact. 

You carry on regardless and get to the other side. 

The government has always done this until now. What are they not telling us? 

[jack D and coke]

2 minutes ago, Taffin said:

There's a lot of bickering going on, understandably due to it being an emotive topic.

 

I'm all for Natural Orders following his 'FACTS' and I'm all for others who are happy exposing themselves to some risk doing so 👍

 

If you're worried, stay indoors. If you're not, crack on imo.

Yep👍🏼

[Jambo 4 Ever]

1 minute ago, SteauaNeedarest said:

You need to get out more. Crackpot.

Um no need in personal insults 

 

and what part of this being a serious deadly virus don’t you understand?

[Back to 2005]

9 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said:

30 deaths today is not what we want as we try and get back to work and kick start the economy. 

Are you piers Morgan?

[Back to 2005]

Any chance someone can post FACTS? 

[Back to 2005]

11 minutes ago, Taffin said:

There's a lot of bickering going on, understandably due to it being an emotive topic.

 

I'm all for Natural Orders following his 'FACTS' and I'm all for others who are happy exposing themselves to some risk doing so 👍

 

If you're worried, stay indoors. If you're not, crack on imo.

Pretty much where I am. Just hate this nanny state that some find acceptable.

[Nucky Thompson]

5 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said:

30 deaths today is not what we want as we try and get back to work and kick start the economy. 

What do you want to do, stop everything in it's tracks because 0.00004% of the UK population has died  

[Jambo 4 Ever]

2 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

What do you want to do, stop everything in it's tracks because 0.00004% of the UK population has died  

As Nicola said, doing nothing simply isn’t an option either 

[Ray Gin]

15 minutes ago, Taffin said:

There's a lot of bickering going on, understandably due to it being an emotive topic.

 

I'm all for Natural Orders following his 'FACTS' and I'm all for others who are happy exposing themselves to some risk doing so 👍

 

If you're worried, stay indoors. If you're not, crack on imo.

 

Or we can all just stick to the guidelines and all be able to go outdoors.

 

[Jambo 4 Ever]

Just now, Ray Gin said:

 

Or we can all just stick to the guidelines and all be able to go outdoors.

 

This 

[Nucky Thompson]

6 minutes ago, Natural Orders said:

As Nicola said, doing nothing simply isn’t an option either 

Nicola can kiss my arse

[Ray Gin]

1 minute ago, Nucky Thompson said:

Nicola can kiss my arse

 

Perhaps you'd prefer Boris' stricter restrictions?

[Captain Canada]

This is a highly emotive topic and I've been caught up in that with some of my posts, as others have.

 

I care about people's health and while the SG has conducted over 1 million flawed PCR tests at a cost of tens of millions, the vast majority of those were negative or didn't need hospital treatment.

 

One of my main concerns is that there will be very little or no money allocated to mental health, clearing hospital waiting lists, new job creation, treating addictions etc. that have arisen out of the lockdown. 

 

Everyone in society is important and should have access to healthcare when they need it. It shouldn't be just turned on and off, regardless of what else is going on.

 

The virus related deaths came down to a very low level in June and we're now heading towards October with people needing treatment for lots of other conditions and not knowing when they can get it. 

[Victorian]

One thing that keeps being ignored is that,  as well as having to do whatever is possible to allow as much of the economy to return to normality as is possible,  it's almost just as important to provide as much confidence as is possible to the public in order that they get on with normal activities and to spend money in the economy.

 

Governments could do nothing.   Ignore rises in infections.   Tell people there's nothing to worry about.   Tell people to go back to workplaces.   Open everything with no restrictions.   But if half the public have no confidence that they can go about their activities in relative co-operative safety or comfort,   then they wont participate in economic activity to the degree being encouraged.

 

The two are co-dependant.    The freedom to do things + the confidence to do them.    

[Jambo 4 Ever]

9 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

Nicola can kiss my arse

How mature 

[AlphonseCapone]

24 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Obvious enough for the government to produce this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-long-term-health-effects

 

The Government aren't arbitrarors of scientific evidence which changes all the time. It's too early to say anything definitive. 

 

23 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Would one not have to wait until a 'long' period of time has elapsed before establishing whether or not long term effects occur?

 

Current or ongoing effects are in evidence.   We wont know about long term effects until a later time.

 

Absolutely. Which is why the term long covid is a misnomer. I've never heard of long shingles yet it can take months to properly recover from after the initial symptoms go away. 

 

Potentially in evidence, based on initial studies with small samples. I'll say it again, Covid-19 might have horrendous long term effects that should worry everyone. I'm not saying it doesn't. Equally, it might be similar to the effect of the shingles virus. We simply don't know. 

[William H. Bonney]

2 minutes ago, Natural Orders said:

How mature 

Ridiculous isn’t it? 
 

Keep up the good work mate. 

[Back to 2005]

15 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Perhaps you'd prefer Boris' stricter restrictions?

No fan of Boris either but I'm not seeing his restrictions as being stricter? 

[Ray Gin]

11 minutes ago, Captain Canada said:

 

One of my main concerns is that there will be very little or no money allocated to mental health, clearing hospital waiting lists, new job creation, treating addictions etc. that have arisen out of the lockdown. 

 

 

£2.6 million has been invested to expand the NHS 24 Mental Health Hub and Breathing Space.

 

[Jambo 4 Ever]

4 minutes ago, Furious Styles said:

Ridiculous isn’t it? 
 

Keep up the good work mate. 

Thanks