Coronavirus

It sounded blooming ace mind!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Derby Tup

I think the 12 was Donnie not Anthony Travs ;)

---

Travs is so used to threads going off topic on this Forum, it never occurred to him that I might still be referring to the subject raised by the OP. :)

Especially confusing when the posts were about actual running, in mountains, rather than the much more interesting topics often discussed on here ;)

In an attempt to get the virus thread back on track, what about this for an idea.

Ok so let me get this right! Boris & his clan are considering a lock down of all (vulnerable people) between the age of 50 - 70 should there be a threat of a second wave of the virus. Here’s the thing BoJo, who exactly are you shielding us from? Could it be the hundreds of young people gathering at illegal raves, having house parties, going to pubs where after a few pints of Stella social distancing goes right out the window. Teenagers basking in the sunshine in the centre of town drinking copious amounts of alcohol ( Fact)!!! Parliament decided that a few years ago that I’m fit enough to work until I’m 67 before I can retire. Also I think you’ll find that the majority of people in their 50’s & 60’s have adhered to all the rules concerning the lockdown in the hope that the day would come sooner rather than later for them to be with their families again. So here’s a suggestion for you, how about a full lock down for the majority of people under the age of 30 who believe they are immune to this virus. You might just get a result.

Has another post just vanished in regards to masks wearing?

I might as well just call it a day Trev.
You can't get more Covid relevant than mask wearing at the moment, but the thought police clearly have an issue.
If you don't have the *right* opinion, you get cancelled.
That's moderation for you.

Pity the moderation police don't tell you who has deleted it and under what grounds.

I read the post about masks for victims and spoke with my partner who is a highly trained psychotherapist. She agreed with the post that it would be massively detrimental to the wearer.

Come on moderation hold your hand up?

Freeing the under 45's from restriction and applying increasing restriction the older or iller you are is the only way out of this. The old folks need to get over their resentment of the young ones having fun and realise that they have to look after their own safety.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

Freeing the under 45's from restriction and applying increasing restriction the older or iller you are is the only way out of this. The old folks need to get over their resentment of the young ones having fun and realise that they have to look after their own safety.

---

everyone has to look after their own safety. open up, let people get on with it as they see fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

everyone has to look after their own safety. open up, let people get on with it as they see fit.

---

And while they’re at it potentially spread the disease to others!

We’re this far in and still people don’t comprehend the very basics - this is as much about not passing covid on as it’s about not catching it,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fellbeast

And while they’re at it potentially spread the disease to others!

We’re this far in and still people don’t comprehend the very basics - this is as much about not passing covid on as it’s about not catching it,

---

Surely, this at least we can all agree on.

Nope. Not the case. The number of fit under 45's dying is less than the number of accidental drownings in a year and similar to death rate from flu. So the very basics of this informed by analysis of who died in the first wave is that the older and iller you are, the more risk you are in. Those people need to continue practising protective behaviours. For the rest of the (mainly productive)population let it run free and get passed around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

Nope. Not the case. The number of fit under 45's dying is less than the number of accidental drownings in a year and similar to death rate from flu. So the very basics of this informed by analysis of who died in the first wave is that the older and iller you are, the more risk you are in. Those people need to continue practising protective behaviours. For the rest of the (mainly productive)population let it run free and get passed around.

---

And they’ll be able to control who they pass it on to then???? New born babies? Grandparents? Work colleagues? Health workers? Shop employees? What are you talking about? Jesus wept

Correct, they wont be able to control it. The responsibility lies with the vulnerable to shield themselves appropriately. The risk to working age healthy others is much the same as influenza. We don't shut down the economy for that. Think about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

The risk to working age healthy others is much the same as influenza...

---

No. It. Isn’t

According to this article in the national geographic it’s between 50 to 100 times more deadly https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nat...an-the-flu/amp

I think suppression of the virus only works if you can guarantee that there will be an effective vaccine arriving imminently. But there is no guarantee - we still don't have one for HIV nearly 40 years later. So if we don't get a vaccine for Covid, then a large section of the population will get it eventually (even if many don't realise they've had it.) Lockdown can only delay the inevitable as we have seen with spikes in countries around the world who were originally lauded for seemingly having controlled the virus. Meanwhile economies are wrecked with all that means for people's lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever

I think suppression of the virus only works if you can guarantee that there will be an effective vaccine arriving imminently. But there is no guarantee - we still don't have one for HIV nearly 40 years later. So if we don't get a vaccine for Covid, then a large section of the population will get it eventually (even if many don't realise they've had it.) Lockdown can only delay the inevitable as we have seen with spikes in countries around the world who were originally lauded for seemingly having controlled the virus. Meanwhile economies are wrecked with all that means for people's lives.

---

I take your point but the current position of keeping your distance, wearing masks with remote working where possible is sort of working. Shops are opening, pubs, restaurants and gyms and whatnot. Theres even been a covid secure fell face. With the authorities able to apply the brakes every now and then - local tighter temporary lockdowns as and when required.

Experimenting with the alternative (and using the population as guinea pigs in that experiment) could lead to getting on for 500,000 deaths! I doubt even Boris could get the electorate to forget that by the next election

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fellbeast

According to this article in the national geographic it’s between 50 to 100 times more deadly https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nat...an-the-flu/amp

---

That study is saying the IFR is 1.46%, which seems to be an outlier. Most studies estimate is to be much lower than that. Last month, the chief scientist of the WHO said it was about 0.6%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever

That study is saying the IFR is 1.46%, which seems to be an outlier. Most studies estimate is to be much lower than that. Last month, the chief scientist of the WHO said it was about 0.6%.

---

But 163,000 deaths so far in the US says you’re wrong. That’s more than 3 times the total deaths in the Vietnam war

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fellbeast

According to this article in the national geographic it’s between 50 to 100 times more deadly https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nat...an-the-flu/amp

---

Absolutely its more deadly....to the vulnerable groups. Thats the whole point. The deadliness is not transferable across all age and health ranges. So yes, if you're 80 your risk of dying from Covid 19 may well be 100 times greater than for flu. But the same is not true for a healthy 45 year old. Then its about the same as influenza.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fellbeast

I take your point but the current position of keeping your distance, wearing masks with remote working where possible is sort of working. Shops are opening, pubs, restaurants and gyms and whatnot. Theres even been a covid secure fell face. With the authorities able to apply the brakes every now and then - local tighter temporary lockdowns as and when required.

Experimenting with the alternative (and using the population as guinea pigs in that experiment) could lead to getting on for 500,000 deaths! I doubt even Boris could get the electorate to forget that by the next election

---

If it did get to 500,000 then I imagine you would be right. This was the prediction of professor Neil Ferguson. But his model also predicted 40,000 deaths by the start of the May for Sweden (which didn't lockdown) and 96,000 by the start of June. I think their actual death figures currently stand at 5,766.

However, I agree on the need to act reasonably cautiously. I don't think we can just open it all up immediately to pre-virus levels as it will make it impossible to protect the vulnerable.

I think the local lockdowns are a blunt instrument at the moment. Instead of whole districts, it would be better if they could narrow it down to to the actual areas where the clusters are. I suspect that leafy Ilkley and Menston do not have the rates of the worst affected parts of Bradford.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fellbeast

But 163,000 deaths so far in the US says you’re wrong. That’s more than 3 times the total deaths in the Vietnam war

---

I'm not wrong, it's not me that made the estimate. 163,000 deaths in the US, but you don't know how many have had the virus.

Let's take New York state. It has a population of 19.45 million and deaths of 32,847. Back in April antibody tests suggested 15% of the state had antibodies (21% for New York City). So that would mean 2,917,500 people having had the virus, making a death rate of 1.1%. But of course that is an overstatement since I am applying the death figure now to the numbers who had had the virus back in April. More have had it since. Not only that but studies have shown that not all people infected with the virus develop antibodies. Some have T cells to fight it off. so the actual IFR could be much lower.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fellbeast

Theres even been a covid secure fell face...

---

Mine's not that secure at the mo...it's cracking up ;):cool:;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever

If it did get to 500,000 then I imagine you would be right. This was the prediction of professor Neil Ferguson. But his model also predicted 40,000 deaths by the start of the May for Sweden (which didn't lockdown) and 96,000 by the start of June. I think their actual death figures currently stand at 5,766.

However, I agree on the need to act reasonably cautiously. I don't think we can just open it all up immediately to pre-virus levels as it will make it impossible to protect the vulnerable.

I think the local lockdowns are a blunt instrument at the moment. Instead of whole districts, it would be better if they could narrow it down to to the actual areas were the clusters are. I suspect that leafy Ilkley and Menston do not have the rates of the worst affected parts of Bradford.

---

Still too blunt Muddy. Lock down by vulnerability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

everyone has to look after their own safety. open up, let people get on with it as they see fit.

---

Gets my vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

Still too blunt Muddy. Lock down by vulnerability.

---

Think about it. That’s impossible.

So a fit, non-fat, non-diabetic, non-other known illness or immunity issues, sensible drinker and quite fit 35 year old can go out with his mates, do what ever he likes and get covid. And hopefully survive unscathed.

What about the doctors surgeries, hospitals, super markets, shops, pubs, cafes, travel hubs, buses, trains and whatnot this self same super spreader in waiting comes in contact with?? Bonkers

Masks 100% of time unless eating? Or exceptions.

With extra stiff penalty for non conformance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fellbeast

And while they’re at it potentially spread the disease to others!

We’re this far in and still people don’t comprehend the very basics - this is as much about not passing covid on as it’s about not catching it,

---

We're this far in and still people don't comprehend there isn't any evidence that hiding away has achieved anything except a huge economic collapse

SAGE has assessed last month that there were 16,000 deaths caused by missed medical care up to 1st May - I wonder what that figure is now.

I wonder how many deaths will be caused by economic collapse?

These alleged spikes have not produced any increase in hospitalisation, in fact the figures for deaths and those in CV wards has continued to drop, even in the areas that have been identified as having spikes.

Just consider back in April.

Circa 10,000 tests a day early April.
3000 cases a day confirmed.

1st April a total of 29,474 had tested positive for coronavirus across the UK, with more than 150,000 total tests administered.

Yesterday's figures were 311,641 tests and only 816 positive tests.

Perspective is required or we'll never move forward.

Track and trace isn't working, because there's no one to track.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fellbeast

Think about it. That’s impossible.

So a fit, non-fat, non-diabetic, non-other known illness or immunity issues, sensible drinker and quite fit 35 year old can go out with his mates, do what ever he likes and get covid. And hopefully survive unscathed.

What about the doctors surgeries, hospitals, super markets, shops, pubs, cafes, travel hubs, buses, trains and whatnot this self same super spreader in waiting comes in contact with?? Bonkers

---

Its not bonkers if the only others the spreader comes into meaningful contact with are in the same low vulnerability bracket. The vulnerable take responsibility for their own safety. All those places you list need to get back to some semblance of normality for the sake of the greater good.

By the way. I am in the vulnerable group.

So I'm a turkey voting for Christmas!!;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

Its not bonkers if the only others the spreader comes into meaningful contact with are in the same low vulnerability bracket. The vulnerable take responsibility for their own safety. All those places you list need to get back to some semblance of normality for the sake of the greater good.

By the way. I am in the vulnerable group.

---

I’m bangin my head against a brick wall here. It isn’t for the greater good if covid accelerates within the wider community as eventually all of our nurses, doctors and consultants would get it. And the teachers and the civil service. And the police. And all of the shop and hospitality trade. At that point you have a completely uncontrollable spreading virus and huge death numbers. And no choice but to enforce full lockdown again which would completely and utterly crash the economy or go for the false promise of herd immunity.

Remember it’s the vulnerable who most have to use our hospitals because of all of their other ailments, if not covid.

By the way the average age of death in America is lower than here (c age 50) largely because their lockdown has been laxer, their population is younger on average (and I imagine their population is on balance fatter)

The brick wall does not exist. All of the non vulnerable groups may well get it. But the stats from the first wave does not lead to the conclusion of huge death numbers. 95% of the deaths in the first wave were over 80 and the over 60's and the ill accounted for most of the rest.

Before the first wave we had to assume that we had to lock everyone down. Now we know that we only have to lockdown certain groups. Thats the point you're missing. Also, don't forget we now have plague hospitals so we can keep our regular hospitals covid free.

Sod it I’m going for a run in the hills. With you in charge Wheeze, your mad professor’s hunch could lead to hundreds of thousands more deaths. I wonder how you’d feel if one of your loved ones copped it if the government did exactly what youre now advocating 🤔

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fellbeast

Sod it I’m going for a run in the hills. With you in charge Wheeze, your mad professor’s hunch could lead to hundreds of thousands more deaths. I wonder how you’d feel if one of your loved ones copped it if the government did exactly what youre now advocating ��

---

I'm not fully endorsing Wheeze's open it all up for under 45's suggestion (I'm more cautious) but I don't buy your hundreds of thousands more deaths prediction. Why hasn't this happened in Sweden?

If you crunch the numbers given to us by the experts, we probably have a situation where half the country have had it or can't get it.
You do not quarantine those not at risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

Just consider back in April.

Circa 10,000 tests a day early April.
3000 cases a day confirmed.

1st April a total of 29,474 had tested positive for coronavirus across the UK, with more than 150,000 total tests administered.

Yesterday's figures were 311,641 tests and only 816 positive tests.

Perspective is required or we'll never move forward.

Track and trace isn't working, because there's no one to track.

---

I think you're getting confused by the numbers, WP. 311,641 was the total of positive tests up until yesterday. The number of tests processed yesterday was 166,207.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fellbeast

Sod it I’m going for a run in the hills. With you in charge Wheeze, your mad professor’s hunch could lead to hundreds of thousands more deaths. I wonder how you’d feel if one of your loved ones copped it if the government did exactly what youre now advocating ��

---

Going for a run is good. But please consider that this is not a hunch. It is an extrapolation about what we have learnt from the first wave. As for loved ones copping it, please also consider that my daughter and her husband were on the front line all through the first wave. You can imagine how worried we were.

Irrespective of that, we have to have an informed way forwards. Try coming up with something better that will both protect the vulnerable AND get our country going again so that wider hardships do not come home to roost.

I'm trying to keep away from this thread as it seems to bring out the argumentative side of people...

I know this sounds very callous of me (as we lost an elderly relative).... but i'm inclined to be more in agreement with Wheeze that we need to look at getting/keeping things open for as many as possible.

People may suggest that is giving priority to the economy over human life... but sadly it's the economy which is going to drag the country down (all 60-odd million).