724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jul 28, 2020 10:14:55 GMT
Anyone see Panorama report about the initial outbreak in China last night. Fairly damming? Yes. |
|
4,030 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Jul 28, 2020 12:14:13 GMT
Giving a new meaning to "your money or your life"! I'll be staying at home. I'd rather cough up money than the contents of pneumonia-infected lungs. I know you know that you have a heightened sense of vulnerability due to your OCD; it's not fair to imply that the rest of us are being reckless by doing normal reasonable things that are now extremely low risk given the low level of transmission of this virus. I was commenting on (possible future) government policy & how it would affect my own behaviour. I did not say anything about other people's behaviour. |
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jul 28, 2020 14:07:20 GMT
I know you know that you have a heightened sense of vulnerability due to your OCD; it's not fair to imply that the rest of us are being reckless by doing normal reasonable things that are now extremely low risk given the low level of transmission of this virus. I was commenting on (possible future) government policy & how it would affect my own behaviour. I did not say anything about other people's behaviour. In many areas it will be harder to get home deliveries due to an increase in car free streets. |
|
170 posts
|
Post by jess173 on Jul 28, 2020 16:13:59 GMT
When I'm in London I pay by cash only to avoid transaction fees with a foreign card. Not realistic to pay 3 pounds in Tesco with a card, fees would be much higher than that. What kind of card do you use? I mostly use American Express and their transaction fees are just a couple of cents. Not really noticeable... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2020 21:47:25 GMT
If that's your judgement, no one is telling you you're wrong to stay at home. You've no right to cast aspersions on those of us who carefully and sensibly follow govt and scientific guidance. I'm not sure it's possible at the moment to follow government and scientific advice. It's a good line but not true. You can look at a variety of data from ONS, NHSE and even PHE (though that is a rather discredited source currently); then you can make your own risk/benefit analyse taking local data and current government advice into consideration. You can look at the stats for your area, you can consider your own vulnerability and you can make a considered judgement. What you can't reasonably do is suggest that anyone going out to eat or drink in line with current regulations is asking for or imposing a death sentence on themselves or others. The local data is now published. People need to evaluate their own understanding of risk and we all need to respect the choices other people make based on that. I don't judge you for staying home; don't judge me for giving money to the local Italian that is desperate for my custom. |
|
724 posts
|
Post by basdfg on Jul 29, 2020 0:35:11 GMT
Shocking comments from Andrea Boceli saying the pandemic is overblown and encouraging others to break lockdown rules, his Clarification knows it will harm his career,
|
|
4,993 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Jul 29, 2020 6:28:11 GMT
Quite a few of todays papers are talking about the second wave that is going on in mainland Europe at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2020 9:15:06 GMT
When did the first "wave" end??
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2020 11:07:21 GMT
Quite a few of todays papers are talking about the second wave that is going on in mainland Europe at the moment. Technically it looks like a rebound of the first wave. I’ve been led to believe that a true second wave is a result of the nature of a virus (with the post WW1 flu outbreak it lay dormant over summer, for example). What we’ve done is suppress the first wave through human intervention and that relaxation of intervention releases that suppression. There are some European countries that don’t have this at the moment, such as Scandinavian countries, Ireland and Scotland. They would be best advised to close their borders pronto (and, yes, think of what that would do to split the UK, but it’s becoming inevitable anyway). |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2020 11:12:34 GMT
It's not much of a wave. Spain is climbing disturbingly fast but if they manage to get it under control with local restrictions it'll fade away.
|
|
2,342 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jul 29, 2020 11:12:41 GMT
When did the first "wave" end?? 113 UK deaths yesterday. Not sure it has for us yes |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2020 11:12:58 GMT
Waves tend to refer to viruses that are seasonal, which this one doesn't seem to be; might be easier/harder to transmit depending on time of year, but not to an extent that makes it go away completely.
Interesting that Sweden has got the virus down to practically nothing now; will be interesting to see whether their strategy was actually most effective in the medium/long term. Because they didn't really lock down, they're less likely to have to worry about the effects of unlocking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2020 11:23:10 GMT
Waves tend to refer to viruses that are seasonal, which this one doesn't seem to be; might be easier/harder to transmit depending on time of year, but not to an extent that makes it go away completely. Interesting that Sweden has got the virus down to practically nothing now; will be interesting to see whether their strategy was actually most effective in the medium/long term. Because they didn't really lock down, they're less likely to have to worry about the effects of unlocking. Sweden closed schools for summer and, lo and behold, case numbers plummeted a week or two later. There is a change in behaviour around that closure, with less mixing and lower mobility, but it’s been a very useful case study. |
|
2,342 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jul 29, 2020 11:39:16 GMT
Waves tend to refer to viruses that are seasonal, which this one doesn't seem to be; might be easier/harder to transmit depending on time of year, but not to an extent that makes it go away completely. Interesting that Sweden has got the virus down to practically nothing now; will be interesting to see whether their strategy was actually most effective in the medium/long term. Because they didn't really lock down, they're less likely to have to worry about the effects of unlocking. Sweden closed schools for summer and, lo and behold, case numbers plummeted a week or two later. There is a change in behaviour around that closure, with less mixing and lower mobility, but it’s been a very useful case study. Their geography, size of the country and population size really helps with 'running it hot' |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2020 11:43:47 GMT
Waves tend to refer to viruses that are seasonal, which this one doesn't seem to be; might be easier/harder to transmit depending on time of year, but not to an extent that makes it go away completely. Interesting that Sweden has got the virus down to practically nothing now; will be interesting to see whether their strategy was actually most effective in the medium/long term. Because they didn't really lock down, they're less likely to have to worry about the effects of unlocking. Sweden closed schools for summer and, lo and behold, case numbers plummeted a week or two later. There is a change in behaviour around that closure, with less mixing and lower mobility, but it’s been a very useful case study. But research now pretty much closes down the idea that schools are a big transmission risk - seems to show that children are far far less likely to transmit the virus as well as be affected by it, so unlikely that schools would make such a difference. Like theglenbucklaird says, probably population, geography, etc is key as well as hitting the circa 20% rate in key areas like Stockholm, which seems to be the point at which transmission drops, regardless of what else you do. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2020 12:14:48 GMT
Sweden closed schools for summer and, lo and behold, case numbers plummeted a week or two later. There is a change in behaviour around that closure, with less mixing and lower mobility, but it’s been a very useful case study. But research now pretty much closes down the idea that schools are a big transmission risk - seems to show that children are far far less likely to transmit the virus as well as be affected by it, so unlikely that schools would make such a difference. Like theglenbucklaird says, probably population, geography, etc is key as well as hitting the circa 20% rate in key areas like Stockholm, which seems to be the point at which transmission drops, regardless of what else you do. I’m afraid you’ve been misinformed on schools. Initially that was the belief but (like aerosol and asymptomatic transmission) that has changed for most who are studying this. The issue was that they weren’t testing children enough and, even when they did, looked for the wrong things or presumed the wrong things. Israel, for example, has seen a massive rise because they reopened schools with reduced distancing, full classes and (when it got hot for a few days), no masks. Remind you of plans for anywhere? Successful reopenings were in areas of near zero transmission plus reduced class sizes, full distancing and/or compulsory masks. Given that children (and this we do know) have a less serious response many are asymptomatic or with negligible symptoms and so transmission is coming into a household via children. What happened in Sweden is another piece in the puzzle. This is a useful summary. |
|
4,810 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Mark on Jul 29, 2020 12:22:12 GMT
So the alternative is to deny children of their education? That is just too big of a sacrifice.
|
|
2,342 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jul 29, 2020 12:26:51 GMT
So the alternative is to deny children of their education? That is just too big of a sacrifice. Or we find other ways, if the situation is more long term |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2020 12:31:59 GMT
So the alternative is to deny children of their education? That is just too big of a sacrifice. Split classes and blended learning, laptops/tablets for every student, compulsory masks for all in schools, HEPA air filters in every room. Harvard have produced an excellent guide as to how to do so safely. Of course there’s still the increased mobility and mixing that schools create but, if the wider community thinks it can cope with that risk, then it’s quite possible. The key, however, is to plan for zerocovid, bash it down as far as you can, not to have consistent low level community transmission. The government made a choice to reopen bars and restaurants, a choice that makes opening other things more difficult (such as theatres). |
|
2,342 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jul 29, 2020 12:33:57 GMT
But research now pretty much closes down the idea that schools are a big transmission risk - seems to show that children are far far less likely to transmit the virus as well as be affected by it, so unlikely that schools would make such a difference. Like theglenbucklaird says, probably population, geography, etc is key as well as hitting the circa 20% rate in key areas like Stockholm, which seems to be the point at which transmission drops, regardless of what else you do. I’m afraid you’ve been misinformed on schools. Initially that was the belief but (like aerosol and asymptomatic transmission) that has changed for most who are studying this. The issue was that they weren’t testing children enough and, even when they did, looked for the wrong things or presumed the wrong things. Israel, for example, has seen a massive rise because they reopened schools with reduced distancing, full classes and (when it got hot for a few days), no masks. Remind you of plans for anywhere? Successful reopenings were in areas of near zero transmission plus reduced class sizes, full distancing and/or compulsory masks. Given that children (and this we do know) have a less serious response many are asymptomatic or with negligible symptoms and so transmission is coming into a household via children. What happened in Sweden is another piece in the puzzle. This is a useful summary. Second time Dr Zoe Hyde tweets have been copied to me in the last week |
|
2,342 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jul 29, 2020 12:35:00 GMT
So the alternative is to deny children of their education? That is just too big of a sacrifice. Split classes and blended learning, laptops/tablets for every student, compulsory masks for all in schools, HEPA air filters in every room. Harvard have produced an excellent guide as to how to do so safely. Of course there’s still the increased mobility and mixing that schools create but, if the wider community thinks it can cope with that risk, then it’s quite possible. The key, however, is to plan for zerocovid, bash it down as far as you can, not to have consistent low level community transmission. The government made a choice to reopen bars and restaurants, a choice that makes opening other things more difficult (such as theatres). Really, really good post that |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2020 12:44:53 GMT
But research now pretty much closes down the idea that schools are a big transmission risk - seems to show that children are far far less likely to transmit the virus as well as be affected by it, so unlikely that schools would make such a difference. Like theglenbucklaird says, probably population, geography, etc is key as well as hitting the circa 20% rate in key areas like Stockholm, which seems to be the point at which transmission drops, regardless of what else you do. I’m afraid you’ve been misinformed on schools. Initially that was the belief but (like aerosol and asymptomatic transmission) that has changed for most who are studying this. The issue was that they weren’t testing children enough and, even when they did, looked for the wrong things or presumed the wrong things. Israel, for example, has seen a massive rise because they reopened schools with reduced distancing, full classes and (when it got hot for a few days), no masks. Remind you of plans for anywhere? Successful reopenings were in areas of near zero transmission plus reduced class sizes, full distancing and/or compulsory masks. Given that children (and this we do know) have a less serious response many are asymptomatic or with negligible symptoms and so transmission is coming into a household via children. What happened in Sweden is another piece in the puzzle. This is a useful summary. It's definitely not as clear cut as you say; I should have said that there is a strong body of evidence against schools as key transmitters that is not outdated (it's coming out all the time) but equally there are other scientists who bring in opposing evidence and hold opposing views. It's not an open and shut case at all. Interestingly, Sweden puts its low death rate now down to the fact that it is shielding care homes far more effectively (which we all should have done from the start); makes sense that if you protect the people who are going to die from the virus, death rates will go down. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2020 12:48:11 GMT
So the alternative is to deny children of their education? That is just too big of a sacrifice. Split classes and blended learning, laptops/tablets for every student, compulsory masks for all in schools, HEPA air filters in every room. Harvard have produced an excellent guide as to how to do so safely. Of course there’s still the increased mobility and mixing that schools create but, if the wider community thinks it can cope with that risk, then it’s quite possible. The key, however, is to plan for zerocovid, bash it down as far as you can, not to have consistent low level community transmission. The government made a choice to reopen bars and restaurants, a choice that makes opening other things more difficult (such as theatres). It's unlikely that we are ever going to be in a position of zero Covid in the remaining history of the world; it's probably going to be endemic. We will be able to manage it better through treatments and vaccines, but no vaccine is 100% effective. You could argue that we should have got transmission lower before we unlocked but staying locked till zero Covid is achieved means likely means staying locked forever. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2020 12:52:42 GMT
It's not much of a wave. Spain is climbing disturbingly fast but if they manage to get it under control with local restrictions it'll fade away. Spain's case numbers had climbed from a few hundred a day to over 2.5k but seem to have stabilized at about 2k. There death numbers are still minute over the last month or so though. The UK's cases have spiked a bit too over the last week but these may be due to local outbreaks in certain demographic areas. We don't really know if cases were always high in these demographics or if anything about how a demographic behaves is causing these spikes. Leicester's case names are still high but with the local lockdown they have more than halved over the last couple of weeks. I think the UK well England at least thinks they can run with a certain amount of cases as they try to balance some economic recovery against NHS resources. Plus with the mass flu vaccination, social distancing, better general hand hygiene and fitness drive - they maybe hope this can reduce other health risks and thus reduce hospital admissions and hopefully mortality rates to balance out the covid cases. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2020 13:02:54 GMT
Split classes and blended learning, laptops/tablets for every student, compulsory masks for all in schools, HEPA air filters in every room. Harvard have produced an excellent guide as to how to do so safely. Of course there’s still the increased mobility and mixing that schools create but, if the wider community thinks it can cope with that risk, then it’s quite possible. The key, however, is to plan for zerocovid, bash it down as far as you can, not to have consistent low level community transmission. The government made a choice to reopen bars and restaurants, a choice that makes opening other things more difficult (such as theatres). It's unlikely that we are ever going to be in a position of zero Covid in the remaining history of the world; it's probably going to be endemic. We will be able to manage it better through treatments and vaccines, but no vaccine is 100% effective. You could argue that we should have got transmission lower before we unlocked but staying locked till zero Covid is achieved means likely means staying locked forever. On the above post, there are still those in the medical community who haven’t yet accepted the cardiovascular nature of the disease or asymptomatic transmission or, such as WHO because they backed themselves into a corner, aerosolisation. This has exposed the sclerotic nature of organisations that, in a pandemic situation, are too slow to react, We saw it with SAGE early on and not acting on emerging evidence was our downfall. In any case, when you don’t have to run controlled testing, the moral choice is to act where it is safe to do so, as it is with this. As for zerocovid it is the goal rather than the expectation. Aim for 1000 cases a day, as appears to be the English plan, and you get that. Aim for zero, as Scotland has done, and you are going to get much, much closer. Scotland is a great example, if they didn’t have a porous border they’d be well away and capable of reopening much of society safely. Schools in Scotland should be fine if they keep numbers this low, they are effectively in Harvard’s green zone. England? Yellow zone and whack a mole in that zone is a poor option, leading to local lockdowns and rising community transmission. There is a very good reason why the UK outside England have much better polling figures regarding confidence in their governments. |
|
