phillm
Trolling through Life (TM)
Come on Prince Philip - earn your keep. Captain Tom has shown the way ...get walking...
General Coronavirus (COVID-19) chat
- Thread starter phillm
- Start date
Coronavirus: English care homes policy 'reckless', MPs say
Report criticises ‘appalling’ error of discharging untested patients from hospitals
Bring on the court cases in their thousands whilst nobody in the disgraced government loses their jobs or even accepts/apologises for the horror they have caused
It was not our governments fault, it was the EU countries!
metro.co.uk
Matt Hancock confirms there IS a second wave 'rolling across Europe'
The Health Secretary said 'it's not just Spain'.
metro.co.uk
Last edited:
The question for me is what evidence there is that people stop being infectious after 10 days, or after two weeks or whatever. Is this based on science or political expediency? Does the risk of being infectious really go away or is it just a judgement that the risk is low enough relative to the disruption and economic costs of people having to self-isolate?
elbows
Well-Known Member
The dreaded 'value judgement' according to Nick Triggle BBC analysis:
Coronavirus: Virus isolation period extended from seven to 10 days
The change for those who test positive, or show symptoms, comes amid fears of a resurgence.
www.bbc.co.uk
I understand the reasons why various stuff was compromised in order to be achievable with the shit resources and planning of the time, but waiting till late July to change it to a more appropriate timescale is so bloody late! But then they have felt the need to change the mood music again in the last few weeks, to a more alarming tune, so maybe that is part of the 'value judgement'.
I’m now in week 7 of being ill. It isn’t actually that bad now, mostly tiredness, a blocked up nose, sneezing occasionally, sometimes a bit of shortness of breath. It comes and goes and some of the time I feel pretty much OK. I’m working on the assumption that I shouldn’t be infectious any more but I’m still not absolutely certain about this, and I’m not sure what the evidence behind it is.
Interesting piece in yesterday's Guardian about how the 'second wave; concept is probably misleading.
Not sure at all how sound it is scientifically, but I thought it was worth sharing.....
Other scientists also quoted .......
Not sure at all how sound it is scientifically, but I thought it was worth sharing.....
Guardian headline said:
Peter Beaumont and Emma Graham-Harrison said:
Other scientists also quoted .......
Last edited:
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
Did you get a test, I can't recall if you've said that already somewhere?
Yu_Gi_Oh
天天好心情
I thought they had a cheek publishing that, since they liberally and breathlessly use the phrase "has sparked fears of a second wave" in their live blog at least once a day. They never say who's fearing the second wave either.
elbows
Well-Known Member
My personal stance on this is that its largely quibbling over semantics, but thats mostly because the stakes are high with this pandemic and people and the media are paying attention in ways they usually dont, and some of the language and concepts are overused and then found to be quite inadequate.
I dont agree with those in the article that say this second wave thinking is faulty simply because we are applying the rules of flu to a new virus. Because some of the faulty thinking or inappropriate concepts are just as faulty when applied to flu pandemics too! As I've sid before, the first UK swine flu wave peak happened in July 2009, so where there is faulty thinking along seasonal lines with this coronavirus, the same faults would also have applied if they'd been said in regards to the flu in 2009. But back then the stakes were not so high, peoples interest waned, and those reporting on the ongoing pandemic waves were able to do so without much in the way of any controversary about whether subsequent peaks were really their own distinct waves.
Of course there has also been many decades of focus on the 1918 flu pandemic, a horrific example of a pandemic which has tended to dominate the popular impression of what a bad pandemic is like, but also gave birth to various pandemic cliches, partial truths and oversimplifications. And this very much applies to talk of a second wave, because the simple version of the 1918 pandemic includes rather prominently the idea that is that the 2nd wave was deadlier than the first. But this doesnt necessarily have any relevance for this current pandemic, and I would rather focus on the other reasons why a possible 2nd wave in this one is a big deal - the obvious stuff, the implications of having to bring back restrictions, the deaths, the healthcare system strains.
For those interested in more about past controversies about flu wave severity assumptions and the supposed lessons of 1918, this fairly short NHS piece from 2009 covers a paper from back then that was not impressed by some of the pandemic cliches that 1918 gave birth to:
Pandemic waves
An article in the Journal of the American Medical Association has questioned whether the prevailing belief that the current pandemic flu will return in a more dangerous
And heres a paper looking at 2009 in the UK and concluding that the 2nd wae of swine flu was deadlier, but thinks that this was because of changes in behaviour that followed after the 'initial high-profile period' ended. Back then they were entirely comfortable describing the two waves in very broad terms with a somewhat arbitrary utoff point between them:
Its still inevitable I will end up talking in terms of a second wave at times because that is the language so many others are using, but I should try harder to speak a little differently on this when I can. I'd rather talk about specific peaks - eg another rise and peak in cases, deaths, hospital admissions etc. Thats what I think matters, thats why the stakes are high, not whether something technically counts as a new wave in epidemiological terms. As someone in the article mentions, our perception of what viruses are doing is not the whole and accurate story of the virus, its a story of the viruses implications for humanity at various times and places.
The UK government certainly experimented with terminology a bit on this front in the recent past. For a while a month or 3 ago they were using 'second spike'. And I did find myself using the term resurgence the other day, and I now note that some experts are going with that one too.
If we stick to and grasp the underlying details then limitations and flaws with this basic terminology dont really matter so much, its a bit of a side-show.
Numbers
an ting!
Exemplar.
I thought they had a cheek publishing that, since they liberally and breathlessly use the phrase "has sparked fears of a second wave" in their live blog at least once a day. They never say who's fearing the second wave either.
Fair enough-- I do agree that The Guardian (and almost all other media!) has banged on about 'second wave' too much at the expense of being all that informative when they do talk like that.
But the particular article I quoted was at least thought-provoking on its own, surely?
elbows : Thank you very much for your post -- I was hoping you might respond, because I simply had no idea how useful or not was that ultra-brief Guardian piece that I linked to .....
Will check the links you posted when I have more time, but getting educated is always good
It seems dogs can get it.
www.nationalgeographic.com
Exclusive: Buddy, first dog to test positive for COVID-19 in the U.S., has died
Even though the German shepherd likely had cancer, his health records show how little we know about animals and the coronavirus.
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
It seems dogs can get it.
Exclusive: Buddy, first dog to test positive for COVID-19 in the U.S., has died
Even though the German shepherd likely had cancer, his health records show how little we know about animals and the coronavirus.
So, that's dogs, cats & mink.
A million mink culled in Netherlands and Spain amid Covid-19 fur farming havoc
Agriculture minister says origins of outbreak unclear after seven farm workers – and 87% of the mink – test positive
You can continue going to the pub, and into your workplace on a bus, but you can’t have one mate round to yours for the cup final on Saturday.
You can go out for tea with them though. Be sure to use the ‘eat out to help out’ scheme. But also, remember you’re all still obese so cycle to McDonald's.
You can go out for tea with them though. Be sure to use the ‘eat out to help out’ scheme. But also, remember you’re all still obese so cycle to McDonald's.
Numbers
an ting!
One of our family are having a BBQ tomorrow to celebrate our nieces graduation.
Problem is it’s 4 households between 10/12 people. We bubbled up with 1 of our family households, have seen them 3 times now. I’m not happy about the plan for tomorrow so am probably gonna give it a swerve.
It’d probably be safe but personally not comfortable with it and if I understand the guidelines it’s not technically allowed?
Problem is it’s 4 households between 10/12 people. We bubbled up with 1 of our family households, have seen them 3 times now. I’m not happy about the plan for tomorrow so am probably gonna give it a swerve.
It’d probably be safe but personally not comfortable with it and if I understand the guidelines it’s not technically allowed?
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
Looks like you are right.
National lockdown: Stay at Home
Coronavirus cases are rising rapidly across the country. Find out what you can and cannot do.
Ridiculous is a polite way of describing this situation
Whilst some of the rules seem absurd I can see what the Government is trying to with regard to the new regulations in the North and limiting people in the home. Estimates I've seen is something like 60% to 70% of transmissions are familial (in the home). If you have a lot of people living in few houses and then more people are coming round for socialising they than take that back to their homes etc. You can see how it will spread like a wild fire.
I'm not saying pubs & gyms etc should have been opened the way they have but the fact that the rise in cases is not being mirrored across England clearly suggests there is something else going on as well.
I'm not saying pubs & gyms etc should have been opened the way they have but the fact that the rise in cases is not being mirrored across England clearly suggests there is something else going on as well.
It seems dogs can get it.
Exclusive: Buddy, first dog to test positive for COVID-19 in the U.S., has died
Even though the German shepherd likely had cancer, his health records show how little we know about animals and the coronavirus.
cupid_stunt said:So, that's dogs, cats & mink.
Are not these cat and dog** stories highly exceptional though?
**Don't know about mink!
My impression was that they were stand-out rare and exceptional cases?
Are not these cat and dog** stories highly exceptional though?
**Don't know about mink!
My impression was that they were stand-out rare and exceptional cases?
Yes, I think they are highly exceptional then again who's actually testing pets? Its been hard enough for humans to get a test let alone one for Fido.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
So a couple of weeks ago it was Leicester and the general view seemed to be that the culprit was poor working conditions in some very sketchy workplaces. And where there have been specific outbreaks identified these have often also been workplace related. I wonder then how they're apparently so convinced the issue here is transmission in the home?
Similar threads
