Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Granny Danger]

11 minutes ago, SlipperyP said:

Good to agree.

Yes, I knew you’d come round to my way of thinking.  

[Todd_is_God]

4 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Genuine answer - I would at least be in the same building as my sister - it might be through glass that we could see each other but, with what she's going through, I think her mood might just improve slightly. She is not in a situation which anyone should have to undergo alone.

My grandkids? Absolutely. They've all got their heads round the new rules (except the three-year-old, but she's getting there), and there are plenty of open spaces around us (not generally "destinations" for the general public) where we can enjoy family time together while maintaing safe distancing.

So you'd be happy enough to risk assess and adapt your life to 'safely' do the things you wanted to do, but feel others should not be allowed to do the same.

[SlipperyP]

5 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Yes, I knew you’d come round to my way of thinking.  

no chance.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

59 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

I'm sure the answer is "No"...

Not sure if you're whooshing me here, JG, but I'm not the kind of person to put anyone at unnecessary risk, let alone my nearest and dearest. I'm not talking about close, even physical, contact - simply the opportunity to share an open space and see the little buggers playing around.

[renton]

26 minutes ago, bendan said:

R depends on what people do. The number of cases doesn't drive R - it's the other way around. We've got where we are because we didn't do enough to suppress R early on.

Do you have any source for the claim that R peaked after the lockdown? I assume you mean March 23. That's not what groups like Imperial or LSHTM think.

R depends on both. It's a probability function that is at least in part a product of both physical ease of transmission and the number of infections within a population. Physically easy transmission on a small scale creates new vectors which drives up the R value as there is an increased probability of infection due to the larger number of vectors available.

Likewise, R didnt plummet to below one just because of lockdown alone. Even with social distancing there is a non zero probability of transmission to create new vectors. The less vectors in the population the less likely that transmission becomes. Driving the transmission rate down is therefore both a function of physical distance and number of cases.

It'd be easier to control a disease in a group of 10 people where only 1 person is infected in a common environment with no social distancing than in a group where 7 out of ten in the same environment are infected - simply because the vastly greater viral load in the group in the second case increases the probability of a minimum amount of that virus reaching the uninfected persons. TTI is pretty much useless in the latter case because if you dont have prior information that 7 people are already infected, you have no means of tracing the virus backwards indeed, it's pretty pointless once most people have it, if one of the 3 uninfected catches it. You just run into a lot of infections and no means of protecting the 3 poor uninfected. 

So the R number will fall as existing vectors, given a degree of social distancing, become uninfectious via either immune system response, or death. That reduces the probability of any other person coming into contact with the virus. The less cases in a population, the less the R value is.

[Granny Danger]

5 minutes ago, renton said:

R depends on both. It's a probability function that is at least in part a product of both physical ease of transmission and the number of infections within a population. Physically easy transmission on a small scale creates new vectors which drives up the R value as there is an increased probability of infection due to the larger number of vectors available.

Likewise, R didnt plummet to below one just because of lockdown alone. Even with social distancing there is a non zero probability of transmission to create new vectors. The less vectors in the population the less likely that transmission becomes. Driving the transmission rate down is therefore both a function of physical distance and number of cases.

It'd be easier to control a disease in a group of 10 people where only 1 person is infected in a common environment with no social distancing than in a group where 7 out of ten in the same environment are infected - simply because the vastly greater viral load in the group in the second case increases the probability of a minimum amount of that virus reaching the uninfected persons. TTI is pretty much useless in the latter case because if you dont have prior information that 7 people are already infected, you have no means of tracing the virus backwards indeed, it's pretty pointless once most people have it, if one of the 3 uninfected catches it. You just run into a lot of infections and no means of protecting the 3 poor uninfected. 

So the R number will fall as existing vectors, given a degree of social distancing, become uninfectious via either immune system response, or death. That reduces the probability of any other person coming into contact with the virus. The less cases in a population, the less the R value is.

You seem to have a handle on this.  Is the r value likely to be significantly different in different parts of the country?  

Also is the r value within a defined place, such as a care home, likely to be significantly different from that in the general population.

[Jacksgranda]

12 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Not sure if you're whooshing me here, JG, but I'm not the kind of person to put anyone at unnecessary risk, let alone my nearest and dearest. I'm not talking about close, even physical, contact - simply the opportunity to share an open space and see the little buggers playing around.

Of course it was a "whoosh"! 

I'm sure you would take the opportunity to see your sister - if only from a distance - and your grandchildren.

As I posted yesterday we saw our newest grandchild for the first time yesterday from a safe distance.

[madwullie]

1 hour ago, Bairnardo said:

Theres a lot of "as long as neccessary" chat around here, but we dont hold the strings for furlough, and if no vaccine is shortcoming in a record breaking short time, then the current model is not sustainable.

"As long as possible" is more realistic, and it wont be possible for long not to change it.

Failure to create a vaccine surely forces us further and further down the road of having to try for herd immunity?

One of the reasons for lockdown was to buy time - either for vaccine, anti virals, or to plan and build infrastructure to control further spread once we start to loosen up. Hopefully we've been doing that, but the signs aren't particarly great, given Johnston's idea about not having child care if your work opens again is to have a chat with your boss. 

[WhiteRoseKillie]

21 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

"Far greater numbers than average" Average of what? Do we have stats for deaths per occupation for every occupation in every city? You are also making the huge assumption here that they caught it at work which is not a given.

If you are one of the minority who fall in to a vulnerable group the onus is on *you* to make a personal risk assessment and either accept the risk or adapt your lifestyle accordingly. Just like it would be during a particularly bad flu season, like 3 years ago.

I'm going to rashly assume that you would define yourself as a young healthy adult. Allow me, from the middle of my sixth decade on this earth, to give you some advice.

Don't get Old

Don't get Poor

Don't get Sick

Don't get Unemployed.

There actually have been figures released (ONS?) which have been discussed on BBC and LBC over the last few days, regarding the number of deaths in various different occupations. PT and Taxi drivers are only outdone by Security guards in this particular league table. I'm not making any assumption about where they may have been infected - I'm saying that these occupations have seen a higher death rate than average. Age, ethnicity and other factors taken into account, its not been a good outcome for these workers.

 

The onus absolutely is not on any individual to make a personal risk assessment - thatt is why we have people like me and, on a wider scale, the HSE. If someone's going to tell me I'm vulnerable, they'd damn well have good evidence to do so, and to suggest ways to ameliorate the risk.

[madwullie]

An interesting thread looking at how ready we are to loosen restrictions, by a group of scientists set up to be more independent than sage. Looks at specific who guidelines. 

 

 

[WhiteRoseKillie]

22 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

So you'd be happy enough to risk assess and adapt your life to 'safely' do the things you wanted to do, but feel others should not be allowed to do the same.

(Hang on while I just remove these words you've attempted to put into my mouth)

Not at all. You really will come out with some bollox in your desire to "win P&B".

How's about you explain how I can work (with SD) among over a thousand people each and every day, none of whom I can rely on to take preautions, yet cannot be in the same space, outdoors, with members of my immediate family who I believe have been following guidelines since day one? A tad inconsistent, non?

And, to point out how stupid you are being, replace "I" and "my" with "anyone" and "their". That, my young, healthy adult, is my point. I am not exceptional. I have never claimed to be. I and mine have spent this lockdown observing precautions and guidelines whether they appear to us to be sensible or nonsense, because the more people who complied the better the medium to long term outcome. I am now beginning to lose patience with the guidelines which veer towards the "nonsense" end of the scale. Go to the park with the rest of your household, but run away if you see more than one other family member approaching? Really?

Edited May 12, 2020 by WhiteRoseKillie

[madwullie]

Also a thread looking at the common sense / personal responsibility arguments 

 

[ICTChris]

Northern Ireland prioritise opening churches for private prayer alongside loosening restrictions on exercise

[Todd_is_God]

4 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Don't get Poor

Don't get Unemployed.

I'd be at less risk of both if I was allowed to go to work tbh

[ayrmad]

37 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

"Far greater numbers than average" Average of what? Do we have stats for deaths per occupation for every occupation in every city? You are also making the huge assumption here that they caught it at work which is not a given.

If you are one of the minority who fall in to a vulnerable group the onus is on *you* to make a personal risk assessment and either accept the risk or adapt your lifestyle accordingly. Just like it would be during a particularly bad flu season, like 3 years ago.

I thought 'a bad flu season' had been safely put to bed, as far as I'm concerned this is not a bad flu season, there's no way I'd be locked away if I thought this was just a bad flu season, nowt Sturgeon or Johnson could say would keep me in if I thought it was just like a bad flu season. 

[Todd_is_God]

6 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

The onus absolutely is not on any individual to make a personal risk assessment

For anything, ever? Absolute bollocks.

[Todd_is_God]

7 minutes ago, ayrmad said:

I thought 'a bad flu season' had been safely put to bed, as far as I'm concerned this is not a bad flu season, there's no way I'd be locked away if I thought this was just a bad flu season, nowt Sturgeon or Johnson could say would keep me in if I thought it was just like a bad flu season. 

There are less excess deaths currently during this epidemic than in at least 2 bad flu seasons in the last 40 odd years. You can read about them in the article i posted earlier.

You are 'locked away' because of a combination of panic over a new virus that little was understood about, and nonsense models from the likes of Neil Ferguson.

Edited May 12, 2020 by Todd_is_God

[beefybake]

Well, the 'guidance' now is to wear masks in certain circumstances.

Just to recap somewhat....

On 12 th March, the government decided against tracking and tracing. They'd been asleep

at the wheel, and it was too late for that.  In addition, there ideology had spent years chipping away at, and privatising

public services, so there were no resources immediately available to them anyway.

Me ? As soon as the lockdown was announced, I looked at what I had.

My hobby is messing around with cars, so I had some disposable gloves that mechanics use. Typically these

cost £5 at most, for a box of 50 pairs. I also had a couple of face masks that I use, with protective glasses, when

I'm scraping around under a car. 

So  I had some kit , and wore them for shopping right from the get go.

Couple of weeks in, time to get some more. 

With health workers crying out for PPE, where to find some ?

Only place I could see was eBay.  

Ordered a pack of 10 masks from an eBay seller that seemed to have better feedback rating than others.

That's the light blue coloured ones that you see around. Price £11.45. 

8 days later the gloves arrived. Package fitted in 'Large Letter' envelope,

so postage relatively small.  The 'real' price' of these masks in normal circumstances, retail, I'd guestimate to be about £2, £3 max.

The first one I tried , the elastic earband separated from the main mask as I put it on.

Gloves....   The best I could find on eBay was a box of 50 pairs.  £11.99.

Gloves arrived within 3 or 4 days. Quality OK.  I go for Nitrile gloves, non allergenic.

 

My question is...., if guidance now is to wear masks, are we supposed to buy everything

from eBay profiteers ?    Where are we supposed to obtain the things ?

Edited May 12, 2020 by beefybake

[throbber]

PARKLIFE!

[WhiteRoseKillie]

8 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

For anything, ever? Absolute bollocks.

Oh, silly me. That must be the dementia kicking in - I'm a bit old, and not perfectly healthy you see.

Of course not for anything, you are now playing the reductio ad absurdum  card. Not quite as obvious as picking up your ball and scampering home, but a de facto  admission of having lost the argument.

Words to ponder, kiddo. Yer standard human comes with two ears and one mouth. Maybe there's a reason for that.