Coronavirus

[Count Boso]

An app to help scientists track the spread. Download and report (to King's College, London) if you develop symptoms - and if you're well!

https://covid.joinzoe.com/

[Cockney Sparrow]

This article seems to suggest that shedding may be more widespread than has been assumed. I have long thought that coughs and sneezes alone cannot account for the wide and fast transmission. It seems that expelling of droplets of saliva during speech may contribute.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/01/all-uk-hospital-staff-and-patients-should-wear-masks-says-doctors-group

Could it be the case that normal outbreaths carry sufficient virus to be contagious?

Isn't it astounding that this suggested benefit of face masks hasn't been studied in detail - conclusively - for the flu virus? For some years now listed as the most likely, severe threat to health worldwide, when a highly transmissable mutation (bird flu, etc) occurs.

[Pianorak]

BBC website doesn't list the Coronavirus Daily Update for today. Has it been dropped?

Edit: No, it hasn't been dropped - it's now on the website.

[LHC]

Some interesting statistics from an enlightening article by Private Eye's resident doctor, Phil Hammond(M.D.) in the current issue(3 Apr-23 April):

"So far this year, as the Eye went to press 159,987 people have died in the UK, 1228(and counting) with coronavirus, and 158,759 of things that don't make the news.
Assorted Imperial College professors predict that if we continue lockdown until June and turn the NHS into a Covid-19 service, deaths with coronavirus could be restricted to 5,700 - 20,000. Roughly out of every 10,000 people in the UK, 9996 - 9999 would not die with coronavirus."

JR

A lot of these attempts to put Coronavirus deaths into context miss the point of the current restrictions. These are in place not just to reduce potential deaths from around 500,000 (if no action was taken at all) to around 20,000, but also to stop the NHS being overwhelmed by having to treat people with Covid19. The restrictions are intended to slow and reduce the infection rate and thereby to keep the numbers of hospital admissions at a manageable level; it is not just about how many people will die.

[Dave2002]

Some interesting statistics from an enlightening article by Private Eye's resident doctor, Phil Hammond(M.D.) in the current issue(3 Apr-23 April):

"So far this year, as the Eye went to press 159,987 people have died in the UK, 1228(and counting) with coronavirus, and 158,759 of things that don't make the news.
Assorted Imperial College professors predict that if we continue lockdown until June and turn the NHS into a Covid-19 service, deaths with coronavirus could be restricted to 5,700 - 20,000. Roughly out of every 10,000 people in the UK, 9996 - 9999 would not die with coronavirus."

Often Phil Hammond talks sense, but in this case he is wrong - or at least sending out the wrong message. The issue, as is pointed out in LHC's msg 1216, is the need to keep the NHS service going, appropriate equipment, facilities, and medicines available, and also to minimise illness and deaths amongst medical staff. This, as has been noted in other countries, is a major problem, and will be in the UK too. One other thing which some people seem to be overlooking is that by flattening the peak it will also spread it out in time. I know that not everyone misses this, but as the infections rise, and then the deaths follow the curve a week or more later, and then start to diminish again (hopefully) many people will relax, and become careless. It does make sense to maintain protection measures as long as reasonable. Eventually some judgement will be made about economic and system damage, which have largely been unanticipated.

We also have to beware of a second bounce back by the virus - which the data from China does show to a slight extent, and a recurrence in subsequent years, which seems likely given the type of virus it is.

Some lessons may be learnt by this, and if there is a second wave or an annual recurrence, countries may be better prepared, though unfortunately I have learnt lessons too, and suggest that often the lessons from history will not have had much effect at all. Still, I shouldn't be too pessimistic - not right now, anyway.

[Serial_Apologist]

Some lessons may be learnt by this, and if there is a second wave or an annual recurrence, countries may be better prepared, though unfortunately I have learnt lessons too, and suggest that often the lessons from history will not have had much effect at all. Still, I shouldn't be too pessimistic - not right now, anyway.

Well many who will have had Coronavirus while hardly having known it will thereafter (hopefully) be immune. Each wave of infection will have protected many who would or will be getting it this time around. Also there's hope that treatment and a vaccine will be available, should there be a "next time".

There was a lot of talk on the radio this morning about suggestions that the two metre gap should be extended much further, it being thought that sneeze droplets eject much further - I think 18 metres was even being suggested! But medical representatives asked early on in this outbreak about any sneezling danger were insistent that sneezing is not a symptom of Coronavirus.

[Dave2002]

Well many who will have had Coronavirus while hardly having known it will thereafter (hopefully) be immune. Each wave of infection will have protected many who would or will be getting it this time around. Also there's hope that treatment and a vaccine will be available, should there be a "next time".

There speaks a voice of true optimism. We need to know more about it, otherwise both optimistic and pessimistic views are merely pure speculation. We do, however, pretty much know about the here and now. This disease is nasty, and can overwhelm health services. That's most of what we know at presesnt.

[Old Grumpy]

Every press conference is less convincing than the previous one. I'm afraid I have no confidence in the figures or in those presenting them.

Can't say I've watched any of them. I continue to get all the news and information I need from R3 bulletins and the i newspaper.

OG

[Once Was 4]

There speaks a voice of true optimism. We need to know more about it, otherwise both optimistic and pessimistic views are merely pure speculation. We do, however, pretty much know about the here and now. This disease is nasty, and can overwhelm health services. That's most of what we know at presesnt.

And sadly the message is not always getting through even to people who should know better. I have seen one or two Facebook posts from people of high intelligence whom I respect speaking of "restriction of liberties" etc. Personally, having to stand in an orderly queue and a safe distance apart from others outside the Co-op is a small price to pay for not either catching or passing on the virus.

And as for not going out into the wilds: this is one of my big pleasures and, like most people who share this activity, I have had my fair share of slips and falls, always getting up and walking on. Twice in 20 years I have been in parties where somebody has fallen and not got up. Both times the ambulance service was needed and once the police also. Can we really put these services to further pressure at the moment?

[teamsaint]

And sadly the message is not always getting through even to people who should know better. I have seen one or two Facebook posts from people of high intelligence whom I respect speaking of "restriction of liberties" etc. Personally, having to stand in an orderly queue and a safe distance apart from others outside the Co-op is a small price to pay for not either catching or passing on the virus.

And as for not going out into the wilds: this is one of my big pleasures and, like most people who share this activity, I have had my fair share of slips and falls, always getting up and walking on. Twice in 20 years I have been in parties where somebody has fallen and not got up. Both times the ambulance service was needed and once the police also. Can we really put these services to further pressure at the moment?

Governments are quite capable of passing laws that enable them to restrict freedoms in ways that are unnecessary both now and in normal times, under cover of the health emergency. That is a different matter to falling in line with the current rules/ laws/ restrictions/ whatever they are, as part of a communal effort to deal with the current issue.

[Serial_Apologist]

And sadly the message is not always getting through even to people who should know better. I have seen one or two Facebook posts from people of high intelligence whom I respect speaking of "restriction of liberties" etc. Personally, having to stand in an orderly queue and a safe distance apart from others outside the Co-op is a small price to pay for not either catching or passing on the virus.

And as for not going out into the wilds: this is one of my big pleasures and, like most people who share this activity, I have had my fair share of slips and falls, always getting up and walking on. Twice in 20 years I have been in parties where somebody has fallen and not got up. Both times the ambulance service was needed and once the police also. Can we really put these services to further pressure at the moment?

Capitalism isn't set up to meet basic primary needs; it seldom was - although in pre-Thatcher times its automatic tendencies were reined in to some extent - and we've always known this by the system's perennial failure in "good times" to solve poverty and homelessness. But we don't have the power to do anything about that right now - or about political or organisational incompetence. These political matters will have to wait to be dealt with. The nature of this emergency, it's obliviousness to background, intelligence or wealth, is such as to throw everyone into the same pot - in which respect the lessons to be learned are the same as those from WW2.

[Bryn]

And sadly the message is not always getting through even to people who should know better. I have seen one or two Facebook posts from people of high intelligence whom I respect speaking of "restriction of liberties" etc. Personally, having to stand in an orderly queue and a safe distance apart from others outside the Co-op is a small price to pay for not either catching or passing on the virus.

And as for not going out into the wilds: this is one of my big pleasures and, like most people who share this activity, I have had my fair share of slips and falls, always getting up and walking on. Twice in 20 years I have been in parties where somebody has fallen and not got up. Both times the ambulance service was needed and once the police also. Can we really put these services to further pressure at the moment?

Indeed and unless I have quite misread the sequence of events, the government has been following the lead of much of the populace, rather than taking a bold lead.

As to your second paragraph, while I would not go rock-hopping (and chimneying down between a couple of large rocks at one point) between high tides, from Shaldon to Maidencombe (a favourite 'stroll' when visiting the area), I do boot up and take in the boggy sections of my daily exercise here in east Berkshire. That way I stay very well distanced from other walkers.

[MrGongGong]

Governments are quite capable of passing laws that enable them to restrict freedoms in ways that are unnecessary both now and in normal times, under cover of the health emergency. That is a different matter to falling in line with the current rules/ laws/ restrictions/ whatever they are, as part of a communal effort to deal with the current issue.

And we do need scrutiny

The plod turned up at our allotments (well 6 small plots at the edge of a large playing field in a small village in rural Lincolnshire)
and tried to tell someone that they shouldn't be there, after being told that was nonsense they went on to stop someone who was exercising by hitting a golf ball across 2 empty football pitches.... some folks are far too "enthusiastic" in the interpretation of "rules".

Given that those in power are able to simply ignore the "rules" that don't suit them and there is a tradition of governments using the police as their own private security (miners strike, climate protests etc) not to mention the recent history of the law enforcers being able to "get away" with things (shooting people on the tube, Hilsborough etc). I would think that the "consent" that exists is rather more fragile than some would us believe.

Which is NOT to say that we shouldn't keep distance and work to protect the NHS and vulnerable. BUT, more that many of us are doing this because we know it's the right cause of action and NOT because a government (headed up by someone who got himself infected by ignoring the medical advice) tells us to.

[Once Was 4]

I am related to a couple of police officers and object to your tone.

I will no longer take part in this group.

Good ridance!

[Joseph K]

Which is NOT to say that we shouldn't keep distance and work to protect the NHS and vulnerable. BUT, more that many of us are doing this because we know it's the right cause of action and NOT because a government (headed up by someone who got himself infected by ignoring the medical advice) tells us to.