Coronavirus Outbreak [COVID-19]

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
43,503
20,511
Almost 20K new cases today in the UK which is shocking. Based on population difference that's like the US having 95K cases in one day which they haven't gotten close to yet. Well done Boris you've once again surpassed the US in how badly you've handled this pandemic. No doubt it's only a matter of time before we surpass the US again for deaths per capita.

Americans feel free to gloat at our abject incompetence, what a fricken shit show.
Why have you guys not put your foremost expert Jack, who has had all the correct answers from the start, at the top of the corona response? He knows exactly what everybody else has said and done wrong at every step of the way, how come your country isn't utilising all of his tremendous experience and education?

:hat
 
Aug 6, 2020
605
550
"I found out earlier this afternoon that I had tested positive for COVID-19," Saban said in a statement. "I immediately left work and isolated at home. At this time, I do not have any symptoms relative to COVID, and I have taken another PCR test to confirm my diagnosis."


Shocking "pandemic". You have to pass a test to even know you've got it.
There are hospital beds full of people who didn't need a test to know they have it.
 
Aug 6, 2020
605
550

"Long COVID" could be a combination of four different syndromes affecting the body at the same time, new research suggests.

Coronavirus patients still suffering debilitating symptoms after seven months may be experiencing a mixture of post-viral fatigue syndrome, post-intensive care syndrome, permanent organ damage and long-term COVID syndrome.

Children and less vulnerable groups could still be at risk of long-term symptoms, researchers claim.
 
May 21, 2013
4,332
3,088
There are hospital beds full of people who didn't need a test to know they have it.
Yes, and again, we need to protect those vulnerable. But the facts are this virus is next to harmless to the vast majority of the population. It shouldn't even be contraversial to say so.

The virus is not the only factor here. Economy, jobs, mental health... The right balance needs to be achieved. Nuisanced policies have to be the long term strategy.
 
Dec 13, 2013
2,719
617
Yes, and again, we need to protect those vulnerable. But the facts are this virus is next to harmless to the vast majority of the population. It shouldn't even be contraversial to say so.

The virus is not the only factor here. Economy, jobs, mental health... The right balance needs to be achieved. Nuisanced policies have to be the long term strategy.
How do you protect the vulnerable though?
 
Aug 6, 2020
605
550
Yes, and again, we need to protect those vulnerable. But the facts are this virus is next to harmless to the vast majority of the population. It shouldn't even be contraversial to say so.

The virus is not the only factor here. Economy, jobs, mental health... The right balance needs to be achieved. Nuisanced policies have to be the long term strategy.
Is not being able to work for a while worse than dying?

Also 'children and less vulnerable groups could still be at risk of long-term symptoms.'
 

DB Cooper

peel me a grape
May 17, 2013
23,132
10,160
So close to zero today for Victoria with only 2 new COVID cases.

No deaths again too.

Recent daily numbers 5, 10, 13, 15, 7, 15, 12, 9, 15, 6, 11, 11, 14, 12, 15, 12, 7, 6 and now 2.

Just need another low number tomorrow and the pressure is on Daniel Andrews to open some doors again.
 
Reactions: on the hook

DB Cooper

peel me a grape
May 17, 2013
23,132
10,160
Peter Fury is the latest boxing identity to test positive for COVID.

As a result of this Saturday’s WBO women's world middleweight title fight has been called off.
 
May 21, 2013
4,332
3,088
How do you protect the vulnerable though?
Governments need to get onto it, that's what they are employed to do. By and large, they are currently using a "one size fits all" policy. It's a short term strategy which essentially hinges on a vaccine/miracle cure emerging in the very near future, which will allow a sudden miracle bounce back of the economy.

A better strategy would be to assume there will be no cure and strategize on this assumption.

Lockdown/ bubbles/ for aged care. i.e more localised policies, contact tracing, qr code checking in etc. More of the same but with less restrictions on the general population in day to day life.

It won't be easy, and there will always be people affected by the virus on the smaller edges of the bell curve, but the bottom line is, moving forward, governments should stragegise on four principles imo: 1, most people are unaffected, 2, there will be no cure. 3, decreasing death rates. 4. Failing economies.

Surely we can agree mass lockdowns every 4 -5 months for a virus that only affects a minority is not a viable long term strategy?

Do you have any ideas apart mass lockdowns? Do you think there's a bottomless pit of money bailing people out?
 
Reactions: beat down

DB Cooper

peel me a grape
May 17, 2013
23,132
10,160
Is it the countries employing lockdowns who are most in need of a vaccine or the countries throwing caution to the wind with COVID?

The countries most needing a vaccine are surely the ones with the biggest COVID problems?

What is the worst that can happen to Australia for instance? The virus takes off and we get high COVID numbers like everybody else already has.

What is the USA's future without a vaccine? Or India? Or France? Or any other place clearly losing the battle with COVID?
 

Jack

P4P Star
Jul 29, 2012
9,702
4,357
That's where testing and contact tracing are vital. Lockdown when required should be used to reduced cases to a manageable level where effective contact tracing and testing should be able to contain any outbreak. It's what they've done successfully in countries like Korea, Taiwan etc. There of course will still be spikes but they should be minimised and eventually dealt with by contact tracing and testing alone.
The problem with contact tracing isn't the app, it's the will of the people which isn't going to change. Sadiq Khan and said that we need to learn from Japan, South Korea etc., but it's not their better technology which makes a significant difference, it's the inclination to use apps that people deem to be an invasion of their privacy. It's not something I agree with, I know you don't, but it's the reality. We can't just copy these nations because their population has a vastly different mentality than we do, and no matter how good the technology is, the success or failure is down to the people. British people, for whatever reason, won't ever get on board so this idea that some politicians - like Khan - have called for a "circuit breaker" to allow us to then improve contact trasing is purely fantasy, it'll never happen because people don't want to.

I assume you don't have much knowledge in regards to care homes like me who has first hand experience. I can tell you right now there simply isn't the capacity in the care home system right now or likely ever to put many people into care homes short term. The system has been underfunded for a long time, it's common for an elderly patient to be stuck in hospital for weeks while waiting for a space to free up and you can't just open up new places, it's not that easy, you'd need appropriately equipped building, properly trained staff in a industry that has been desperately under staffed due to nobody wanting to do these jobs, as well as medical staff, namely nurses which again another profession where there simply are not enough trained members.
Without wanting to sound too callous, there have been tens of thousands of care home patients who have recently died, so whilst there aren't a huge number of available beds, it's a start. That's the sort of thing we should be looking at, and you're right, there's lot of issues with that, it's not an easy thing to undertake, but it's a drastically better option than the alternative. You're going to have crowding, overworked staff, frantic conditions etc. that aren't ideal but even if this can't be perfect, it's the right sacrifice to make.

As for testing every carer, nurse, doctor daily that again isn't physically possible. Current UK PCR testing capacity is 344K and as I mentioned before there are 841K carers and 41 nurses working in the community. UK simply does not have enough labs or trained people to work in those labs to do what you suggest. While your points are logical they are not based on what is actually possible. They are nice ideas in theory but only work in theory not in the real world.
The only reason testing is where it's at now is because of funding, so everything can be scaled up when you look at the billions we've spent on furlough and loss of income through lockdowns. If we'd have set out in April to have 700,000 tests a day and dedicated massive funding to that instead of furlough, it would have been viable by now, so whilst you're right to point out we currently don't have the resources for it, that wouldn't necessarily have been the case had things been done differently. Furlough stretched the economy but without it, that massive effort could have been diverted to directly fighting the virus rather than paying people to stay at home, so the problem here isn't an impossible lack of resources, it's the incorrect allocation of the resources which have limited what we can achieve.

As for the number of carers, that's just something which would have to be worked around. Even if you couldn't solve it by offering short term contracts, moving NHS workers around, offering big wages etc., and no matter what you do, it wouldn't be enough...unfortunately, that might just have to be taken on the chin. Even if in the worst case scenario - which I think could be avoided - you had people who need carers and were struggling, not seeing them frequently enough, then that's no different to people with cancer growing inside them not being able to get an early diagnosis. Yeah, it's shit, but it's not like there's an alternative without many of the same dire consequences. That's just the nature of living with a pandemic that's draining our resources. We can't fight and win every battle, we have to choose where the losses come from, which is why I advocate fiercely protecting the vulnerable whilst allowing the rest of society to function as normal as posisble. It's not perfect, it'd require massive funding and a reallocation of resources, but whilst it's not a silver bullet, it's a better alternative that the absolute farce that national lockdowns have been.
 
Reactions: all at sea
May 21, 2013
4,332
3,088
Is it the countries employing lockdowns who are most in need of a vaccine or the countries throwing caution to the wind with COVID?

The countries most needing a vaccine are surely the ones with the biggest COVID problems?

What is the worst that can happen to Australia for instance? The virus takes off and we have high COVID numbers like everybody else has.

What is the USA's future without a vaccine? Or India? Or France? Or any other place clearly losing the battle with COVID?
All data is helpful and needs to be collected, but as has been mentioned, i feel the "case" numbers statistic is being over used as the main one. Hospitalization rates and death rates, hospitalisation and deaths per population maybe more morbid, but moving forward may provide a better stat to keep track of how the virus affects our lives.

What good is coming from saying were several thousand new "cases " today, when the vast majority are no more than sniffles? It creates a false narrative.
 

Jack

P4P Star
Jul 29, 2012
9,702
4,357
Governments need to get onto it, that's what they are employed to do. By and large, they are currently using a "one size fits all" policy. It's a short term strategy which essentially hinges on a vaccine/miracle cure emerging in the very near future, which will allow a sudden miracle bounce back of the economy.

A better strategy would be to assume there will be no cure and strategize on this assumption.

Lockdown/ bubbles/ for aged care. i.e more localised policies, contact tracing, qr code checking in etc. More of the same but with less restrictions on the general population in day to day life.

It won't be easy, and there will always be people affected by the virus on the smaller edges of the bell curve, but the bottom line is, moving forward, governments should stragegise on four principles imo: 1, most people are unaffected, 2, there will be no cure. 3, decreasing death rates. 4. Failing economies.

Surely we can agree mass lockdowns every 4 -5 months for a virus that only affects a minority is not a viable long term strategy?

Do you have any ideas apart mass lockdowns? Do you think there's a bottomless pit of money bailing people out?
Spot on.

What people need to accept is that there is no perfect answer. It'd be easy to nitpick your argument and say "this, this and this can't happen" but then what's the alternative? Because if the only other solution is a national lockdown then you don't have to nitpick with that, you have the crippling impact on the economy, the masses who will die from preventable diseases, the massive surge in depression and so on, so it's not like that alternative is spotless.

There are three options; everything carries on like normal, national lockdowns or we open everything after protecting the vulnerable. None are perfect, all have some merit but the best option of the three, by far, is to attempt to reopen whilst protecting the people actually at risk. There would still be some Covid deaths, there'd be the odd outbreak and odd young person who gets it, but in the grand scheme of things, it'd be the right option. There is no perfect answer but it's the best we could go with.
 
Reactions: all at sea

DB Cooper

peel me a grape
May 17, 2013
23,132
10,160
All data is helpful and needs to be collected, but as has been mentioned, i feel the "case" numbers statistic is being over used as the main one. Hospitalization rates and death rates, hospitalisation and deaths per population maybe more morbid, but moving forward may provide a better stat to keep track of how the virus affects our lives.
Deaths and avoiding them should always be the first priority.

It seems in the UK the main trigger for Johnson calling for lockdowns was the diminishing number of available hospital beds. Once your problem has outgrown your infrastructure you are in the sort of deep shit that is best avoided.
 
Reactions: all at sea

kf3

Jul 17, 2012
7,415
4,135
South London
Deaths and avoiding them should always be the first priority.

It seems in the UK the main trigger for Johnson calling for lockdowns was the diminishing number of available hospital beds. Once your problem has outgrown your infrastructure you are in the sort of deep shit that is best avoided.
if that was gonna happen it would have during the first major wave. numbers atm are way lower than they were then.