Coronavirus Super Thread ( merged )

[Herbert.]

2 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

It takes time for the virus to kill someone. Therefore deaths now are more likely linked to cases around a week ago rather than today. So comparing today's cases and deaths doesn't make sense. 

 

Yeah it takes time for people to die, They usually spend a few days in hospital before they die, Hows the ICU numbers looking btw?

[Enzo Chiefo]

30 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

Scotland or England?

The Scottish Stasi might be on your tail 

Scotland NT...I'm sure I was followed home by some guys in a Trabant  now you mention it. I had a mask on though so hopefully I won't be recognised.😁

[Nucky Thompson]

9 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

Nottingham teenager fined £10,000 for hosting house party

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/covid-fine-house-party-nottingham-police-lenton-coronavirus-b431569.html

 

“This party was a clear example of a householder who deliberately flouted the rules without a care for anyone else and as a result we have used the full powers we have to deal with this.

“Under current rules we can issue fines to anyone hosting gatherings of more than 30 people which can result in fines of up to £10,000. And now we are on the eve of rules becoming even tighter so there can be gatherings of no more than six.

“I want to send out a clear message to anyone who is thinking of deliberately hosting parties tonight or tomorrow night ahead of the rules changing to please not do this.

"As we have demonstrated here we are not afraid to use the full powers we have and we will not tolerate those who are deliberately put other people’s lives in danger.”

 

 

 

 

 

Well done Boris. His rules are working

[Victorian]

I'm stuck in a young *****.    I'm now an ex-chain of a virus.

 

This is not a thing.   

[AlphonseCapone]

1 minute ago, Herbert said:

 

Yeah it takes time for people to die, They usually spend a few days in hospital before they die, Hows the ICU numbers looking btw?

 

Look them up. I'm not your PA. 

[Herbert.]

Just now, Victorian said:

 

I quoted what you said about young people.   You said it.    

 

I reiterate.    The virus moves on to othee hosts.    It cannot quarantine in the young.   Parents and other family members,   older colleagues,  community transmission.    Those arw the next links in the chains.    

 

That's how a virus really works.

 

I actually said in the post just before that and you can look it up. People that need to shield should do so. If the weak are shielded and stick to the guidelines then they wont come into contact with people that may have it.

[Herbert.]

Just now, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Look them up. I'm not your PA. 

 

 

I know they are low. So in a week we may have a few more deaths but treatment has come on a fair bit so most probably the numbers in ICU will be a few down due to them starting to recover.

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Herbert said:

 

I actually said in the post just before that and you can look it up. People that need to shield should do so. If the weak are shielded and stick to the guidelines then they wont come into contact with people that may have it.

 

For the umpteenth time.   Others have also pointed out...

 

PARENTS.  OTHER FAMILY.  WORK COLLEAGUES.  COMMUNITY TRANSMISSION.

 

 

[Herbert.]

53 minutes ago, Herbert said:

 

The correct thing to do is tell those that had to shield to do so and let the rest of us get on with it. I've not work a mask at work and none of my customers have worn a mask and I'm in close proximity to them and guess what, I don't have covid.

 

We've gone from around 1k deaths a day to 80odd since the start of the month, I dont think that's premature claims that the death rates are a fraction of what they were during the peak. You should maybe look at the numbers and stop pissing your pants over this.

 

 

This is what I said Victorian.

[Jambo 4 Ever]

1 hour ago, Nucky Thompson said:

Lol  neither it was. 

Apologies, I've visited 2 licensed premises this afternoon 

You should be ashamed 

[Herbert.]

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

 

For the umpteenth time.   Others have also pointed out...

 

PARENTS.  OTHER FAMILY.  WORK COLLEAGUES.  COMMUNITY TRANSMISSION.

 

 

 

The ones that arent as at risk?

[graygo]

40 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Theoretically, probably...............meaning they don't know either, for sure, just like you, just like me, that's why I said "'I'd guess if your a carrier then you could have it for months, years" 

 

I'm pretty sure that Dr. David Ellis, Chief Medical Officer for Pardee UNC Health Care has got a better guess than you, I'll go with his theory thanks.

[graygo]

6 minutes ago, Natural Orders said:

You should be ashamed 

 

Oh FFS.

[Victorian]

9 minutes ago, Herbert said:

 

The ones that arent as at risk?

 

What?

 

Young people will pass it on to their parents (not young people).   Aunts,  uncles and grandparents (not young people).   Older colleagues (older therefore not young.  The opposite of young).   Older people within community transmission (older than young).

 

You're now in a scenario of not-young people being infected.   Some of whom will be more susceptible to serious illness and death.   All of those next links in the chains will in turn transmit to other people.

 

Ergo... the current low deaths/hospital figures could well be a false dawn.

 

Virus does not down tools in the young.

 

Do you understand now?

Edited September 12, 2020 by Victorian

[Herbert.]

Just now, Victorian said:

 

What?

 

Young people will pass it on to their parents (not young people).   Aunts,  uncles and grandparents (not young people).   Older colleagues (older therefore not young.  The opposite of young).   Older people within community transmission (older than young).

 

You're now in a scenario of not-young people being infected.   Some of whom will be more susceptible to serious illness and death.   All of those next links in the chains will in turn trasmit to other people.

 

Ergo... the current low deaths/hospital figures could well be a false dawn.

 

Virus does not down tools in the young.

 

Do you understand now?

 

 

So these old people the ones that were originally told to shield, why are they mixing with people when they have been told not to?

[Jambo 4 Ever]

3 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Oh FFS.

Umm it’s been advised to stay in one place only 

[Whatever]

22 minutes ago, Herbert said:

 

So you can only compare death to infection rates when the death rate is higher?

Ffs.

 

People don’t become infected and die the same day.

 

For reference, check the stats 2 weeks before August 24th.

[frankblack]

2 minutes ago, Herbert said:

 

 

So these old people the ones that were originally told to shield, why are they mixing with people when they have been told not to?

 

I've got a mate who has a school age daughter and his wife has a lung condition so had to shield.   Do they keep their daughter off school and break the law?

 

Another friend has a school age kid and has M.S.

 

You really don't have a clue what you are talking about, and your ideas are uneducated and recklessly naive.

[Herbert.]

3 minutes ago, Whatever said:

Ffs.

 

People don’t become infected and die the same day.

 

For reference, check the stats 2 weeks before August 24th.

 

I know that, I literally just said that to another poster.

[Herbert.]

3 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

I've got a mate who has a school age daughter and his wife has a lung condition so had to shield.   Do they keep their daughter off school and break the law?

 

Another friend has a school age kid and has M.S.

 

You really don't have a clue what you are talking about, and your ideas are uneducated and recklessly naive.

 

 

Was it breaking the law when the kids had 14weeks off school? 

 

I dont think wrecking thousands of people's lives is worth prolonging a few.

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Herbert said:

 

 

So these old people the ones that were originally told to shield, why are they mixing with people when they have been told not to?

 

Well,   infection levels were very low.   Things were beginning to look pretty good.   More and more people began getting back out and doing more things.   The economy and education needed to be looked after so restrictions were relaxed.   Now we can see that infection rates are climbing.   We are told it's largely because of more younger people becoming infected.   Hospital and death figures are not rising and the some people seem to think this means proof that the virus is no longer as dangerous.   The debate is that it's a premature claim because the young are less susceptible.    But the virus does not enter the young and become an ex-virus.    What us being said is that older people than the young are the next people likely to be infected.    We do not know how this will translate into hospital and death rates.

 

 

[Whatever]

[frankblack]

3 minutes ago, Herbert said:

 

 

Was it breaking the law when the kids had 14weeks off school? 

 

I dont think wrecking thousands of people's lives is worth prolonging a few.

 

You think killing off everyone with health conditions (many tens of thousands) is better than a few people losing their jobs?

 

You would be better moving to North Korea where your views are better aligned.

[Herbert.]

5 minutes ago, Brian Dundas said:

Never mind them, do you know the number of people who have died that were under 65, with no underlying health conditions?

 

do you know how many people had COVID in March when the deaths started happening?

 

we can’t make conclusions about the current situation without all the data nor all the expertise 

 

 

How many is that?

 

 

Less that 0.5% of deaths maybe?

[Enzo Chiefo]

2 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Well,   infection levels were very low.   Things were beginning to look pretty good.   More and more people began getting back out and doing more things.   The economy and education needed to be looked after so restrictions were relaxed.   Now we can see that infection rates are climbing.   We are told it's largely because of more younger people becoming infected.   Hospital and death figures are not rising and the some people seem to think this means proof that the virus is no longer as dangerous.   The debate is that it's a premature claim because the young are less susceptible.    But the virus does not enter the young and become an ex-virus.    What us being said is that older people than the young are the next people likely to be infected.    We do not know how this will translate into hospital and death rates.

 

 

Pubs and restaurants have been open for fully 2 months now and hospital numbers, even the overstated figures, are lower now than then. We keep hearing that only younger people are becoming infected. If true, and it's spreading, old people will also be infected. Stands to reason.  

Politicians and scientists will never admit that the virus is weakening, or that public health is less threatened than it was. Public policy needs to be informed by hospital admissions and death rates  rather than by infection rates. 

[frankblack]

50 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

Why is this thread seperate from the main cornavirus thread? Let's bring all the stupidity together into one big thread. 

 

I agree.  Both are complete car crashes.

[Herbert.]

7 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

You think killing off everyone with health conditions (many tens of thousands) is better than a few people losing their jobs?

 

You would be better moving to North Korea where your views are better aligned.

 

 

You know people can shield in the same house as people that aren't, do you not remember the guidelines for people that were told to stay at home that had the virus?

 

People are gonna lose more than their job, how will they pay the Bill's? People are gonna end up homeless, suicide rates are gonna go up, people are gonna be suffering some serious mental health issues, have you ever lived with the constant stress of how will I pay the Bill's, feed and cloth the kids etc. After a few months you crack and for some its just a downward spiral.

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

Pubs and restaurants have been open for fully 2 months now and hospital numbers, even the overstated figures, are lower now than then. We keep hearing that only younger people are becoming infected. If true, and it's spreading, old people will also be infected. Stands to reason.  

Politicians and scientists will never admit that the virus is weakening, or that public health is less threatened than it was. Public policy needs to be informed by hospital admissions and death rates  rather than by infection rates. 

 

I'm really keen to know that the virus has weakened.    Let's see some evidence if you have it.    Evidence,  not theories on the Internet.   Current death rates is not evidence either.    Some kind of study that's been evaluated.    Maybe some virologists have published some scientific data.

[Victorian]

While we're waiting to see some tremendous news on weakening virus,   the French must be spewing 'cos their death rates are starting to climb.    They must not have the shan strain of the virus yet.

[doctor jambo]

1 hour ago, JamesM48 said:

30 deaths.  A long way down from their peak. 

The evidence - not the science , which is a vague And nebulous term- would suggest something has changed

 

[Herbert.]

6 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

I'm really keen to know that the virus has weakened.    Let's see some evidence if you have it.    Evidence,  not theories on the Internet.   Current death rates is not evidence either.    Some kind of study that's been evaluated.    Maybe some virologists have published some scientific data.

 

All the data you need is in the numbers. The combined numbers of hospital admissions, ICU patients and deaths show that even though daily infections are rising steeply these are remaining relatively low.

[Enzo Chiefo]

13 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

I'm really keen to know that the virus has weakened.    Let's see some evidence if you have it.    Evidence,  not theories on the Internet.   Current death rates is not evidence either.    Some kind of study that's been evaluated.    Maybe some virologists have published some scientific data.

Lower hospital admissions and death rates are crucial evidence. Anecdotal evidence from various front line doctors too.  Sometimes evidence, logic and common sense trump evaluated scientific studies. Fwiw, I am satisfied that parachutes are effective, despite the absence of any evaluated scientific study to confirm their efficacy.

Edited September 12, 2020 by Enzo Chiefo

[Nucky Thompson]

4 minutes ago, Victorian said:

While we're waiting to see some tremendous news on weakening virus,   the French must be spewing 'cos their death rates are starting to climb.    They must not have the shan strain of the virus yet.

10/000 cases and only 17 deaths.. Really, get a grip 

[Victorian]

Just now, Herbert said:

 

All the data you need is in the numbers. The combined numbers of hospital admissions, ICU patients and deaths show that even though daily infections are rising steeply these are remaining relatively low.

 

Ffs.    You must be on the troll.     That fails to take into account the granularity of the age make up contained in the figures when compared to the peak.

 

If and when these better rates continue to exist when Mr Virus hops out of the young team and on to everyone else,   that will show some evidence and good news.

[Herbert.]

7 minutes ago, jonesy said:

 

I know more people who have died from Covid measures than from Covid. I spoke to a Polish woman today who was in the same situation. And that's six months in. It's only going to get worse once Christmas comes along and hundreds of thousands are skint. The politicians have those people's blood on their hands with their 'measures', 'guidelines' and 'rules'.

 

Well aware that others will have had a different experience, and have lost loved ones - this is not to dilute or disparage their experiences. Rather, we need to see the impact of a pandemic and the response to it in a holistic way. Folk who obsess over stats, tests, admissions, death rates etc are missing the point. You simply cannot measure the destruction caused by something like this.

 

I don't know anyone that's died from it but I know alot of people that have lost their job. One of my old colleagues told me he was on a packet of noodles a day after we got laid off. That was actually heartbreaking to have him tell me how bad it was for him. Lucky it wasnt winter or he would have frozen to death. 

[graygo]

47 minutes ago, Natural Orders said:

Umm it’s been advised to stay in one place only 

 

Like you say, it's advice not law. No rules are broken yet he should be "ashamed"?

[Jambo 4 Ever]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/face-masks-could-giving-people-covid-19-immunity-researchers/

[Herbert.]

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

 

Ffs.    You must be on the troll.     That fails to take into account the granularity of the age make up contained in the figures when compared to the peak.

 

If and when these better rates continue to exist when Mr Virus hops out of the young team and on to everyone else,   that will show some evidence and good news.

 

 

 

You keep grasping onto that I think it's only young people that are getting it now. I know it's in all age groups but facts numbers are rising quickly in the younger age bracket I'm talking up to the age of 50 but hospital admissions are right down. Are you going to wait until were back at 10k-20k new cases a day before you take into account death rates and hospital admissions?

[Enzo Chiefo]

4 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Ffs.    You must be on the troll.     That fails to take into account the granularity of the age make up contained in the figures when compared to the peak.

 

If and when these better rates continue to exist when Mr Virus hops out of the young team and on to everyone else,   that will show some evidence and good news.

The original death rates are looking like the outlier due to the care home effect. Catastrophic decision making caused more than half of the deaths back then. I would be interested to see any evidence you have that indicates that only young people are becoming infected and that this clever virus will, all of a sudden "hop out" and infect older people too??  The majority of people,  of any age, will have an immune system that deals with Covid or any other virus. People with underlying health issues will be susceptible to any virus. That is nothing new.

[Victorian]

4 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

Lower hospital admissions and death rates are crucial evidence. Anecdotal evidence from various front line doctors too.  Sometimes evidence, logic and common sense trump evaluated scientific studies. Fwiw, I am satisfied that parachutes are effective, despite the absence of any evaluated scientific study to confirm their efficacy.

 

They will be anyway.   But the early indications that people are relying quite heavily on still need to sustain for a period yet.     Actual virological data / evidence doesn't seem to be available.   Anecdotal evidence from doctors does carry weight to an extent.   If there is a substantial amount of that then great.   Looking forward to seeing some articles and info supporting that.

[JudyJudyJudy]

41 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

You think killing off everyone with health conditions (many tens of thousands) is better than a few people losing their jobs?

 

You would be better moving to North Korea where your views are better aligned.

Hardly a “ few thousand “ losing their jobs , we have yet to see the real job losses once furlough ends and how it will devastate those who it will effect in every way . I assume your “ I’m all right jack “ attitude is due to the fact you won’t be Losing your job ? 

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

 

You might be better to spend a bit of time researching the full details of what's going on instead of cherry picking fragments of information that loosely suit your already preset conclusions.

 

Yes,  it's said that it is less harmful to the young.   What you've failed to grasp is that the young is not some kind of quarantined group,  incapable of infecting the old.    The virus doesn't say "well that's me now in a young *****,  end of the line for me then".

 

Can you understand the concept?   The young may well begin to transmit it on to their parents,  aunts and uncles and grandparents.   Older work colleagues.   Around in community transmission.

 

 

In fact there isn't a lot of evidence of much transmission from the young and particularly the very young to the old.

 

Of course they "may well". On the other hand they  "may not".

 

Can you understand that concept?

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

The original death rates are looking like the outlier due to the care home effect. Catastrophic decision making caused more than half of the deaths back then. I would be interested to see any evidence you have that indicates that only young people are becoming infected and that this clever virus will, all of a sudden "hop out" and infect older people too??  The majority of people,  of any age, will have an immune system that deals with Covid or any other virus. People with underlying health issues will be susceptible to any virus. That is nothing new.

 

You want to see evidence that the virus will transmit from a young person to an older person?    Are you really asking me that?

 

There's definitely merit in the theory that the early rates will eventually prove to be the outlier.   Time will tell but that's a reasonable point.

[Bull's-eye]

4 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

You want to see evidence that the virus will transmit from a young person to an older person?    Are you really asking me that?

 

There's definitely merit in the theory that the early rates will eventually prove to be the outlier.   Time will tell but that's a reasonable point.

You need to get out more, socially distancing of course.

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

In fact there isn't a lot of evidence of much transmission from the young and particularly the very young to the old.

 

Of course they "may well". On the other hand they  "may not".

 

Can you understand that concept?

 

That's why I said "may well".    Because I think it's foolish to state things as fact when they're not proved.    It pretty much follows that when someone decides to use a phrase like "may well" that they understand that "may well not" is another possibility.    You really are a master at twisting peoples' words.

 

The virus is being shown to be transmitted AMONGST the young.   The conclusion can only then be that those young people are TRANSMISSIBLE.   If they are transmitting virus to another young person,   are you seriously suggesting they wont transmit to other people?

[Francis Albert]

55 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

You think killing off everyone with health conditions (many tens of thousands) is better than a few people losing their jobs?

 

You would be better moving to North Korea where your views are better aligned.

A few people losing their jobs?

Killing off everyone with health conditions?

 

You would do well in the North Korean Ministry of Truth.

[Enzo Chiefo]

14 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

They will be anyway.   But the early indications that people are relying quite heavily on still need to sustain for a period yet.     Actual virological data / evidence doesn't seem to be available.   Anecdotal evidence from doctors does carry weight to an extent.   If there is a substantial amount of that then great.   Looking forward to seeing some articles and info supporting that.

Yes, fair point. I agree, the figures need to be sustained for a longer period and, hopefully they will be. Just my opinion but I'm not sure there will be a great appetite in the scientific world to prove that the virus is weakening though.

[frankblack]

14 minutes ago, JamesM48 said:

Hardly a “ few thousand “ losing their jobs , we have yet to see the real job losses once furlough ends and how it will devastate those who it will effect in every way . I assume your “ I’m all right jack “ attitude is due to the fact you won’t be Losing your job ? 

 

My reply was in context of the poster wanting to sacrifice people to save a few jobs.

 

As for my situation, I'm having to work 9-10 hour days, 5 days a week without overtime.  There are job losses coming but its not clear if it will affect my section.

[frankblack]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

A few people losing their jobs?

Killing off everyone with health conditions?

 

You would do well in the North Korean Ministry of Truth.

 

You have had a shocker tonight.

 

If you are going to jump onto a reply, try and follow the previous posts in the chain.

[Francis Albert]

3 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

That's why I said "may well".    Because I think it's foolish to state things as fact when they're not proved.    It pretty much follows that when someone decides to use a phrase like "may well" that they understand that "may well not" is another possibility.    You really are a master at twisting peoples' words.

 

The virus is being shown to be transmitted AMONGST the young.   The conclusion can only then be that those young people are TRANSMISSIBLE.   If they are transmitting virus to another young person,   are you seriously suggesting they wont transmit to other people?

Evidence of transmission from young to old particularly young to very old?

Not a may be or may not be question.