Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

bimble said:
Somebody I know is getting a test today and says he thinks it’s because he reported feeling a bit unwell on that app day before yesterday. Says he’s been told to expect the result in ‘between 48 hours and 5 days”. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I read somewhere that some tests have to go to the USA to be processed.
 
www.theguardian.com

Unless the government changes tack, the UK's lockdown will have been for nothing | Devi Sridhar

Easing social distancing without a proper programme of testing, contact tracing and isolating will lead to a second wave of coronavirus, asks Devi Sridhar, chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Governments have three choices in how they respond. The first and most difficult path is to contain the virus through a programme of mass testing, contact tracing and isolating. This requires a huge effort: building a large infrastructure to monitor cases of the virus and identify hotspots, ensuring this system runs efficiently, providing adequate PPE to everyone who needs it, and deploying border controls to vet who is entering the country. The second path is far simpler. It involves slowing the spread of the virus by using timed cycles of lockdown and release, with the government issuing guidance on how much social distancing is required. But the side effects of this path are very costly: it risks wrecking the economy, straining health and social care systems, and creating social unrest. The third and easiest path available to governments is simply to do nothing. The virus sweeps across the population, the economy remains open and whoever makes it through is lucky to still be alive. It’s almost impossible to decipher which path the UK government has chosen.
Click to expand...
 
killer b said:
My scottish dad says that's bullshit.
Click to expand...
When you and your clueless mate are talking about a twitter account that doesn't exist...I'm the one calling bullshit son.

Many Scots, including me, want a border with you lot just now. Spitfire flying, vera lynne singing, union jack waving, conga dancing, lockdown breaking fuckwits. Ask your dad if that's bullshit.
 
killer b said:
What, there's racists in england too? My mind is blown.
Click to expand...
No you were calling me racist. My mind is same as always.

Just give your dad a thumbs up, tell him I wish him the best, look after him...just a pity he's a house jock.

But remember...you're a clueless twat...there is no Wings twitter account. Better to shut your mouth and not show your ignorance, I'd suggest. In fact if a wings twitter account annoyed you...lol just wait and see what happens soon.
 
Very sad:

Station ticket office worker dies with Covid-19 after being spat at

28294938-8310965-image-a-29_1589276290526.jpg


The Late Belly Mujinga

Anyone who saw Ms Mujinga being spat on at London's Victoria Station on 22 March 2020 can contact British Transport Police by texting 61016 or calling 0800 40 50 40 quoting reference 359 of 11/05/20.​
 
DexterTCN said:
Then it wouldn't be a scientific study. (I'm not arguing with you frog, it's the bbc reporting I have problems with)

In Scotland corona is noted when someone has/had had it when they die, just the same as with any drugs/alcohol etc. found in the system when you die - it doesn't mean death by drugs/booze or corona, it's recording the patient's situation for more accurate long-term information.

The bbc regularly use this difference in recording methods to try and make Scotland look worse statistacally. England doesn't use this method afaik and only records offical cause of death.
Click to expand...

The world of science does not limit itself to one form of measuring deaths. It does not require a positive test, or for everyone with an opinion to be satisfied that the deaths were all 100% caused by Covid-19 as opposed to Covid-19 being somewhat involved.

There are a bunch of different versions of the death stats, and Scotland is no exception. Experts will look at both deaths where Covid-19 is mentioned on a death certificate, but also total excess mortality. Total excess mortality is not some weird unscientific bullshit, it is a well established thing that countries look at every winter to get a measure of the impact of things like influenza or a really bad winter.

In this case I do not even have to resort to total excess deaths to get a figure close to 2800. I can just use the data from last Wednesdays National Records of Scotland data.

Deaths involving COVID-19, Week 18 - 27th April to 3rd May | National Records of Scotland

National Records of Scotland
www.nrscotland.gov.uk www.nrscotland.gov.uk

As at 3rd May, 2,795 deaths have been registered in Scotland where COVID-19 was mentioned in the death certificate, according to statistics published by National Records of Scotland (NRS) today.
Click to expand...

I realise you may decide to quibble on about how these arent all Covid-19 deaths, and indeed they choose their language carefully with the 'where COVID-19 was mentioned in the death certificate' bit. Anyway England & Wales do just the same thing, just not necessarily in the daily stats. But daily stats are only good for viewing the death trends with slightly less lag, when it comes to more accurate figures the ONS of England & Wales, NR of Scotland and NISRA of Northern Ireland are the established sources, just with more lag. So I do not intend to spend further time today dealing with your misguided angle.
 
frogwoman said:
elbows littlebabyjesus well the guy i know whose saying this wants to lift the lockdown and that trying to restrict the spread is pointless since 'we're all going to get it anyway'.

But I've read similar stuff saying that 'every government's strategy is herd immunity' and that every government is ultimately aiming for everyone to catch covid in a controlled way, that locking down is ultimately aimed at a controlled number of people to get it rather than stopping the spread of the coronavirus altogether. And that therefore the controversy on herd immunity is misplaced. One person claiming this in an article I saw claims to be a scientist lol.

I don't really know how that can be true because South Korea and China seem to be pouring resources into making sure hardly anyone gets it, and therefore hardly anyone would be immune. Unless there's something I've missed about the argument?
Click to expand...

If I try really hard then I could pull some small grains of truth out of that stuff, but it would still leave them as the ones with the misplaced shit.

It is true that the medical establishment in many countries is not confident that the disease can simply be eradicated, indeed some recent UK documents have gone on about how Smallpox is the only human disease that we've ever managed to eradicate globally so far.

For this and some other reasons, the long term hopes are still vaccination, and if/when vaccination is in the picture as a viable option, then the concept of herd immunity, population immunity or whatever you want to call it will very much be back. But there is a world of difference between the concept of herd immunity without a vaccine, where immunity is driven only by people catching the disease, and being able to do a similar thing via vaccination. And there is also not always that much confidence that we will successfully reach the point of having a great vaccine, and we will sometimes see UK government experts talking about how we could end up with better drug treatment options instead. Thats the backup plan, if there is no complete suppression of the disease or vaccine, then they can at least make a big difference to how many people get severely ill or die when they catch it.

Its also true that a big chunk of the emphasis from many governments during their initial waves of infection has been to slow and reduce the size of those waves, to stop various things getting overwhelmed. But the hospitalisation rates for this illness mean that the extent to which they have to slow the disease in order to cope, is also a rate where population immunity will build much too slowly to be part of an actual solution of some kind. Because immunity to coronaviruses is not thought to last a terribly long time, so by the time the infection at a slow rate of spread got to 'everyone', people who'd had an infection early on would probably start to lose their immunity again.

As I indicated in previous response to this, I do think that many governments would really like it if they had an exit strategy that could come quickly and involved not doing too much. They would love there to be a viable strategy that allows population immunity to increase and much of normal life to return. But it just doesnt add up for them on this front at the moment, so most governments cannot act on these instincts and priorities, they had to embrace something very different. Will some of them jump on the chance if it presents itself in future for some reason? Yes. Do governments treat death as though a certain amount of it is tollerable to their populations? Yes, sort of, under certain conditions. But these arent normal times, people around the world have demonstrated that they will not accept inaction and high levels of death, and unless their attitudes also change on this, some options are just not viable for governments to attempt. But I do have to stay alert for shifts on this front in future.
 
And never forget that a high degree of fatalism in regards 'everyone is going to catch it anyway' was actually one of the concepts that made many government responses pathetic in the first place, and likely also part of the reason they misjudged what the public response to their do little plans would be. Its certainly a primary reason why we have never seriously considered trying to eradicate things like influenza, or try to prevent a new strain of influenza that has really got going in a population somewhere from becoming a global pandemic. Its a reason why the 2009 swine flu influenza response first phase was a delay phase, not a real contain or suppress phase despite the labelling used at the time (they called it contain, but it was actually delay). And on those occasions people accepted that approach, but only because we think of flu as treatable and the seasonal deaths from it so normal.

But this is all part of the old normal, not the new normal. Most people still talking about stuff with no regard for these changed realities and norms have an agenda, usually an anti-lockdown agenda. They are on the margins for now so I wont waste much time on them. But if circumstances and priorities of people or governments change, will need to pay attention to whether their stance is gaining any momentum.
 
Getting some concerning stuff doing the rounds at the moment, this was posted by someone I know as a sensible thing they've seen recently:

Some Rando said:
“Flattening the curve didn’t mean stop the infection, but spread it out so that the system could handle it. I am seeing so much anxiety about resuming business, and so much anger about continued regulations. People are feeling the need to catapult to one side or the other, then fight the opposition.

Here’s my perspective, from a mainstream medical model. I think a lot of folks have fallen into the idea that social distancing was meant to stop the viral spread. It wasn’t. It was meant to SLOW it while we put medical infrastructure in place. It’s not perfect, but it’s much better than it was seven weeks ago.

A vaccine is a long way off. At some point, people have to be systematically exposed to begin the building of (hopeful) herd immunity. We will likely begin to experience a real increase in cases after reopening. Ideally, that exposure is controlled and calculated, in phases, to allow our medical community to respond adequately, and reduce the number of severe or fatal cases. That’s where we are.

Whether you feel like things will be opening too soon, or not soon enough, we were never going to social distance this thing into nonexistence. You now need to proceed as your health, wallet, and conscience allow.

If you are medically vulnerable, you do not need to be a part of what is about to happen. Stay home if you can. If you’re not, or if your financial vulnerability trumps your health concerns, you need to proceed in ways that continue to protect yourself, and the elderly and medically vulnerable around you.

All of us need to calm down. Quit telling people who are financially struggling that they don’t care about human lives. Quit telling people who are truly at risk of dying from this virus that they are cowering in fear. Remember that until you’ve walked in someone else’s shoes, you should probably be careful in your judgements and subsequent harsh words.

We don’t HAVE to choose an either/or proposition and fight. We could choose other ways to be. Examples include but are not limited to:

“I think this may be too soon, so I will continue to shelter myself, and pray/make masks/ check on those who can’t.”

“I really need to go back to work, so I will do so, but I will be careful and try to protect myself, my family, and those around me with healthy strategies.”

See how those positions allow each of us to do what we need to, and also respect those who are choosing differently?

One thing that allows us to do this is humility. I can acknowledge that I am not an epidemiologist/economist/whatever, that I am making decisions based on my understanding of complex subjects and my own personal health and financial situation, that I am not all knowing, always right, and an expert in all fields, and that each person around me is doing their best too. We can make different choices and still be a supportive community. We can learn and evolve in our understanding of these issues."
Click to expand...

I have a few responses to make to stuff like that, though tbh at the moment I'm starting to suffer from the same kind of 'looking at charts etc' fatigue that elbows has had for a while. Actually pretty empty in Sheffield today, so despite this and the fact some of my colleagues no longer seem to give a shit, I'm not entirely pessimistic.
 
Those attitudes have always been there, its just as time goes on more of them will feel like it is safe to have another go at peddling that shit.

There are so many flaws to the thinking that I will not try to deal with them all. The most obvious one, from the fools who still think a 'shield the vulnerable' approach is viable, is that there is no way to actually shield vulnerable groups that live in institutions from the 'at much lower risk' population. The Queen had the luxury of HMS Bubble, staff kept in isolation with her so that they cannot bring the infection into her protective cocoon. The care sector does not have that luxury, hospitals do not have that luxury. Many families do not have that luxury.

Johnson getting really ill from Covid-19 did not help the cause of these people either. It made it much harder to draw neat, hideously oversimplified lines between those who should be safe to return to normal life and those for whom the implications of the illness are much more severe.

Its a bit like listening to libertarian scum who seem to have no idea how human societies actually function. Atlas coughed. Atlas laid prone in the ICU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

elbows
UK Inquiry Module 3: Impact on UK Healthcare Systems
2
Replies
37
Views
613
InArduisFouette
I
elbows
UK Inquiry Module 1: Resilience and preparedness
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
165
Views
5K
elbows
elbows
elbows
UK Inquiry Module 2: Decision-making & political governance
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
173
Views
4K
elbows
elbows
frogwoman
Shanghai lockdown
2
Replies
55
Views
2K
skyscraper101
skyscraper101
editor
Professional football and coronavirus
Replies
6
Views
526
elbows
elbows
Back
Top Bottom