Coronavirus - the killer flu that will wipe us out? (Vol. 8)
Discussion
isaldiri said:
grumbledoak said:
BigMacDaddy said:
768 said:
Will be interesting to see if anything more is reported on this, but I do seem to remember stories breaking earlier in the year of CV or a derivative being spread by domestic cats, dogs, and at one point even tigers? 
Prof Francois Balloux said:
There are thousands of mutations in #SARSCoV2 arising constantly. The fact that a few have been observed in minks will not change the strains in circulation in humans.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/132408576144930...
ked....... Lockdown or no lockdown, one has to believe that the increasing numbers of cases and hospitalisation is real and that trend certainly could cause NHS problems if unabated.
There are only so many beds, so many clinicians etc. How dire it is at the minute, well I hope it is not as bad as they make out, but it may be.
Fwiw I don’t think the lockdown will work ast they want it to, but I hope I am wrong, otherwise, they won’t just allow the HNS to get the potential to be overwhelmed, so whatever we have to endure now will be worse going forward if the trend does not reverse.
For the cases and hospitalisation to be going up this rapidly, something is not working so something will have to be done. Will the current lockdown with so many exceptions work, who knows. But I would be surprised if it would work as well as a 2 week full lockdown, no one goes out or does anything scenario, if that were even vaguely possible to arrange, which I doubt.
Few things will tank a western economy quicker than the collapse of its health infrastructure.
And politically is it bad news too, so I can see there is genuine reasoning behind the Govts wish to act. Shame they did not do it a month back when we had some of the existing furlough scheme left, kids about to go on half term and about 250k less cases out there. I think the effect would have been far greater had we been coming out of lockdown now, not starting it.
There are only so many beds, so many clinicians etc. How dire it is at the minute, well I hope it is not as bad as they make out, but it may be.
Fwiw I don’t think the lockdown will work ast they want it to, but I hope I am wrong, otherwise, they won’t just allow the HNS to get the potential to be overwhelmed, so whatever we have to endure now will be worse going forward if the trend does not reverse.
For the cases and hospitalisation to be going up this rapidly, something is not working so something will have to be done. Will the current lockdown with so many exceptions work, who knows. But I would be surprised if it would work as well as a 2 week full lockdown, no one goes out or does anything scenario, if that were even vaguely possible to arrange, which I doubt.
Few things will tank a western economy quicker than the collapse of its health infrastructure.
And politically is it bad news too, so I can see there is genuine reasoning behind the Govts wish to act. Shame they did not do it a month back when we had some of the existing furlough scheme left, kids about to go on half term and about 250k less cases out there. I think the effect would have been far greater had we been coming out of lockdown now, not starting it.
poo at Paul's said:
Lockdown or no lockdown, one has to believe that the increasing numbers of cases and hospitalisation is real and that trend certainly could cause NHS problems if unabated.
There are only so many beds, so many clinicians etc. How dire it is at the minute, well I hope it is not as bad as they make out, but it may be.
Fwiw I don’t think the lockdown will work ast they want it to, but I hope I am wrong, otherwise, they won’t just allow the HNS to get the potential to be overwhelmed, so whatever we have to endure now will be worse going forward if the trend does not reverse.
For the cases and hospitalisation to be going up this rapidly, something is not working so something will have to be done. Will the current lockdown with so many exceptions work, who knows. But I would be surprised if it would work as well as a 2 week full lockdown, no one goes out or does anything scenario, if that were even vaguely possible to arrange, which I doubt.
Few things will tank a western economy quicker than the collapse of its health infrastructure.
And politically is it bad news too, so I can see there is genuine reasoning behind the Govts wish to act. Shame they did not do it a month back when we had some of the existing furlough scheme left, kids about to go on half term and about 250k less cases out there. I think the effect would have been far greater had we been coming out of lockdown now, not starting it.
If the vaccine doesn't work, what do you suggest we do and how long do you think we should pursue with this plan. 1 year, 3 years or 5. There are only so many beds, so many clinicians etc. How dire it is at the minute, well I hope it is not as bad as they make out, but it may be.
Fwiw I don’t think the lockdown will work ast they want it to, but I hope I am wrong, otherwise, they won’t just allow the HNS to get the potential to be overwhelmed, so whatever we have to endure now will be worse going forward if the trend does not reverse.
For the cases and hospitalisation to be going up this rapidly, something is not working so something will have to be done. Will the current lockdown with so many exceptions work, who knows. But I would be surprised if it would work as well as a 2 week full lockdown, no one goes out or does anything scenario, if that were even vaguely possible to arrange, which I doubt.
Few things will tank a western economy quicker than the collapse of its health infrastructure.
And politically is it bad news too, so I can see there is genuine reasoning behind the Govts wish to act. Shame they did not do it a month back when we had some of the existing furlough scheme left, kids about to go on half term and about 250k less cases out there. I think the effect would have been far greater had we been coming out of lockdown now, not starting it.
If its 3 or 5 years what do you think will be left to save?
Without wealth there is no health.
Pocty
poo at Paul's said:
Lockdown or no lockdown, one has to believe that the increasing numbers of cases and hospitalisation is real and that trend certainly could cause NHS problems if unabated.
There are only so many beds, so many clinicians etc. How dire it is at the minute, well I hope it is not as bad as they make out, but it may be.
Fwiw I don’t think the lockdown will work ast they want it to, but I hope I am wrong, otherwise, they won’t just allow the HNS to get the potential to be overwhelmed, so whatever we have to endure now will be worse going forward if the trend does not reverse.
For the cases and hospitalisation to be going up this rapidly, something is not working so something will have to be done. Will the current lockdown with so many exceptions work, who knows. But I would be surprised if it would work as well as a 2 week full lockdown, no one goes out or does anything scenario, if that were even vaguely possible to arrange, which I doubt.
Few things will tank a western economy quicker than the collapse of its health infrastructure.
And politically is it bad news too, so I can see there is genuine reasoning behind the Govts wish to act. Shame they did not do it a month back when we had some of the existing furlough scheme left, kids about to go on half term and about 250k less cases out there. I think the effect would have been far greater had we been coming out of lockdown now, not starting it.
A lockdown where no-one goes out There are only so many beds, so many clinicians etc. How dire it is at the minute, well I hope it is not as bad as they make out, but it may be.
Fwiw I don’t think the lockdown will work ast they want it to, but I hope I am wrong, otherwise, they won’t just allow the HNS to get the potential to be overwhelmed, so whatever we have to endure now will be worse going forward if the trend does not reverse.
For the cases and hospitalisation to be going up this rapidly, something is not working so something will have to be done. Will the current lockdown with so many exceptions work, who knows. But I would be surprised if it would work as well as a 2 week full lockdown, no one goes out or does anything scenario, if that were even vaguely possible to arrange, which I doubt.
Few things will tank a western economy quicker than the collapse of its health infrastructure.
And politically is it bad news too, so I can see there is genuine reasoning behind the Govts wish to act. Shame they did not do it a month back when we had some of the existing furlough scheme left, kids about to go on half term and about 250k less cases out there. I think the effect would have been far greater had we been coming out of lockdown now, not starting it.
Going to sit in the dark are you?
poo at Paul's said:
Lockdown or no lockdown, one has to believe that the increasing numbers of cases and hospitalisation is real and that trend certainly could cause NHS problems if unabated.
There are only so many beds, so many clinicians etc. How dire it is at the minute, well I hope it is not as bad as they make out, but it may be.
Fwiw I don’t think the lockdown will work ast they want it to, but I hope I am wrong, otherwise, they won’t just allow the HNS to get the potential to be overwhelmed, so whatever we have to endure now will be worse going forward if the trend does not reverse.
For the cases and hospitalisation to be going up this rapidly, something is not working so something will have to be done. Will the current lockdown with so many exceptions work, who knows. But I would be surprised if it would work as well as a 2 week full lockdown, no one goes out or does anything scenario, if that were even vaguely possible to arrange, which I doubt.
Few things will tank a western economy quicker than the collapse of its health infrastructure.
And politically is it bad news too, so I can see there is genuine reasoning behind the Govts wish to act. Shame they did not do it a month back when we had some of the existing furlough scheme left, kids about to go on half term and about 250k less cases out there. I think the effect would have been far greater had we been coming out of lockdown now, not starting it.
We didn't need a full lockdown six weeks ago, we just needed an actual lockdown in the areas with growth rather than tickling it.There are only so many beds, so many clinicians etc. How dire it is at the minute, well I hope it is not as bad as they make out, but it may be.
Fwiw I don’t think the lockdown will work ast they want it to, but I hope I am wrong, otherwise, they won’t just allow the HNS to get the potential to be overwhelmed, so whatever we have to endure now will be worse going forward if the trend does not reverse.
For the cases and hospitalisation to be going up this rapidly, something is not working so something will have to be done. Will the current lockdown with so many exceptions work, who knows. But I would be surprised if it would work as well as a 2 week full lockdown, no one goes out or does anything scenario, if that were even vaguely possible to arrange, which I doubt.
Few things will tank a western economy quicker than the collapse of its health infrastructure.
And politically is it bad news too, so I can see there is genuine reasoning behind the Govts wish to act. Shame they did not do it a month back when we had some of the existing furlough scheme left, kids about to go on half term and about 250k less cases out there. I think the effect would have been far greater had we been coming out of lockdown now, not starting it.
If we had not allowed it to radiate out across the country the rule of six may well have been enough for most areas to not have risen the way they have and those original areas would be back out of trouble as well.
pocty said:
If the vaccine doesn't work, what do you suggest we do and how long do you think we should pursue with this plan. 1 year, 3 years or 5.
If its 3 or 5 years what do you think will be left to save?
Without wealth there is no health.
Pocty
It depends what you mean by ‘if the vaccine doesn’t work’? It almost certainly willl work to some degree, how long for, I suspect we will need 2 or 3 jabs per year. I think the more important thing will be getting effective treatments so that if one catches this, or catches it again, the effects in all but very rare cases will be mild. Only then will people who catch it be allowed to isolate for shorter periods or not at all. Common cold used to kill people, but we don’t have millions of years to get on top of COVID so treatments like cheap, effective antivirals are key, I think. If its 3 or 5 years what do you think will be left to save?
Without wealth there is no health.
Pocty
In 5 years, COVID will still be here and most of us will be too. But life will be different to what it is now, same as it is different to how it was 12 m ago and 20 years ago.. We will have to adapt to whatever happens and how the disease or scientific findings change.
It sucks. I said at the beginning this will be 10 to 15 years, and I still stand by that. But in the same way people are adapting to things now better than they were at the beginning of lockdown 1, people will get used to it.
Some of us have lived through wars, illnesses, other diseases, redundancies, death of our communities, loss of incomes, industries, loved ones etc etc. And we are still here!
I see life and being quite different going forward, I really do, but I think most people in the uk will keep their jobs, (jobs will change a bit though), keep our homes, and not starve to death. I don’t look toward those changes happily, already miss some things that I fear we will never get back, or never get back the same as they were. , I do believe that the sooner we face up to this and how it may end up changing all our lives for a very long time, the better and quicker any such changes will be. The problem is, it is so new, so infectious and makes too many seriously ill or dead, that you cannot just face up to it and let it run amok. It has to be managed until we have treatment options, facilities, staffing etc up to a level that can cope with large numbers catching this throughout the year. At the minute, we can’t, but give it a few years...
The lockdown ideas are to buy time to develop treatments not just vaccines and keep the health service going as it itself will need time to adapt. Will things be “better” in 5 years? Who knows. Much of that will depend on how we in UK do, but also how rest of the world does.
But things are going to change from what we have now, for sure and in 5 years let’s hope it is better! 👍
Zoobeef said:
A lockdown where no-one goes out
Going to sit in the dark are you?
What are you talking about? Going to sit in the dark are you?
This ‘lockdown’ is stopping me doing precisely nothing.
If you refer to the idea of everyone staying at home for 2 weeks, I clearly state they could not do that, we are not China. But it would have a bigger effect on numbers that 4 weeks of most of use doing exactly what we do everyday anyway. Will lockdown 2 be enough to get on top of the numbers, I hope so but fear not. So who knows maybe a draconian 2 week stay at home order is next,,,,?
Btw, if you catch COVID or close to someone who has, , you have to stay home for 2 weeks from symptoms or 10 days from test, ie no going out?
Most seem to survive it, imagine how easy it would be if you were not sick to start with?
poo at Paul's said:
pocty said:
If the vaccine doesn't work, what do you suggest we do and how long do you think we should pursue with this plan. 1 year, 3 years or 5.
If its 3 or 5 years what do you think will be left to save?
Without wealth there is no health.
Pocty
It depends what you mean by ‘if the vaccine doesn’t work’? It almost certainly willl work to some degree, how long for, I suspect we will need 2 or 3 jabs per year. I think the more important thing will be getting effective treatments so that if one catches this, or catches it again, the effects in all but very rare cases will be mild. Only then will people who catch it be allowed to isolate for shorter periods or not at all. Common cold used to kill people, but we don’t have millions of years to get on top of COVID so treatments like cheap, effective antivirals are key, I think. If its 3 or 5 years what do you think will be left to save?
Without wealth there is no health.
Pocty
In 5 years, COVID will still be here and most of us will be too. But life will be different to what it is now, same as it is different to how it was 12 m ago and 20 years ago.. We will have to adapt to whatever happens and how the disease or scientific findings change.
It sucks. I said at the beginning this will be 10 to 15 years, and I still stand by that. But in the same way people are adapting to things now better than they were at the beginning of lockdown 1, people will get used to it.
Some of us have lived through wars, illnesses, other diseases, redundancies, death of our communities, loss of incomes, industries, loved ones etc etc. And we are still here!
I see life and being quite different going forward, I really do, but I think most people in the uk will keep their jobs, (jobs will change a bit though), keep our homes, and not starve to death. I don’t look toward those changes happily, already miss some things that I fear we will never get back, or never get back the same as they were. , I do believe that the sooner we face up to this and how it may end up changing all our lives for a very long time, the better and quicker any such changes will be. The problem is, it is so new, so infectious and makes too many seriously ill or dead, that you cannot just face up to it and let it run amok. It has to be managed until we have treatment options, facilities, staffing etc up to a level that can cope with large numbers catching this throughout the year. At the minute, we can’t, but give it a few years...
The lockdown ideas are to buy time to develop treatments not just vaccines and keep the health service going as it itself will need time to adapt. Will things be “better” in 5 years? Who knows. Much of that will depend on how we in UK do, but also how rest of the world does.
But things are going to change from what we have now, for sure and in 5 years let’s hope it is better! ??
Its really healthy to get some balance even though I don't agree with your views.
Most people wont still keep their jobs
When you say we have to learn to live with this...I dont see lockdown as living with this.
We don't know if the vaccine will work, if you agree that if we still have 200 people dying of Covid a week with the vaccine, will the lockdowns and tanking the economy not to mention the deaths that lockdown has caused be worth it
I'm old enough to remember Polio at school and some of my mates had to wear leg irons. So yes I have lived through quite a lot but nothing like what is happening now. I remember going to the doctors as a kid and seeing posters on the walls saying this year will be a really bad year for flu so be careful.
It's clear to see that with social media the world is in hysterics and has sensationalised corona. No doubt covid is real but I think we have had wore than this before and coped without lockdowns.
Re your point on staffing levels: how long does it take to train a nurse and to promote from within the NHS, surely if our problem is hospital capacity then this would be more cost effective than to lockdown and kill the country from within.
In fact I would argue if we had treated this like any other virus rather than something from out of space we would of saved many more lives.
Pocty
pocty said:
poo at Paul's said:
The lockdown ideas are to buy time to develop treatments not just vaccines and keep the health service going as it itself will need time to adapt. Will things be “better” in 5 years?
Its really healthy to get some balance even though I don't agree with your views.Most people wont still keep their jobs
When you say we have to learn to live with this...I dont see lockdown as living with this.
Lockdowns might buy time to develop treatments but at what cost. The lockdown loons never answer that. The estimated gdp cost of this little 4 week mess is about 3-4%. In previous times that would be viewed as a bloody great big recession even if we have become rather inured to large numbers because the Q2 hit was absolutely whopping. It still means a whole heap of people get quite a bloody lot poorer!
poo at Paul's said:
Zoobeef said:
A lockdown where no-one goes out
Going to sit in the dark are you?
What are you talking about? Going to sit in the dark are you?
This ‘lockdown’ is stopping me doing precisely nothing.
If you refer to the idea of everyone staying at home for 2 weeks, I clearly state they could not do that, we are not China. But it would have a bigger effect on numbers that 4 weeks of most of use doing exactly what we do everyday anyway. Will lockdown 2 be enough to get on top of the numbers, I hope so but fear not. So who knows maybe a draconian 2 week stay at home order is next,,,,?
Btw, if you catch COVID or close to someone who has, , you have to stay home for 2 weeks from symptoms or 10 days from test, ie no going out?
Most seem to survive it, imagine how easy it would be if you were not sick to start with?
If you go as draconian as you would love lockdowns to be but still allow ~15 million essential people to work then it makes what you want pointless.
pocty said:
Thank you your views.
Its really healthy to get some balance even though I don't agree with your views.
Most people wont still keep their jobs
Pocty
I appreciate your opinion and view too, but i cant see how you think that "most people" will not keep their jobs. I am not saying millions of people wont lose them, or need to change them... they will. Its really healthy to get some balance even though I don't agree with your views.
Most people wont still keep their jobs
Pocty
But there would have to be about 17million additional people unemployed, on top of the 2million we have at the moment for that to be true, ie more than half the employed people in this country losing their jobs?
There's about 33million employed people in UK ie of employable age and working.
Ive not seen any estimate higher than 7 million becoming unemployed, and there is what, 1.5 million out of work at the moment?
Its a massive increase, ie another 5.5 million, but it still means 28million will be working.
Dont get me wrong, it will be very difficult if we get near to that, but the fact remains, most people who currently work, will continue to do so. Most people with mortgages, will keep their houses. Not all, but most.
The largest demographic of working people in UK is the 35 to 49 age group. That may change a bit, certainly i can see fewer people in the next category up working in a few years, due to Covid issues.
isaldiri said:
pocty said:
poo at Paul's said:
The lockdown ideas are to buy time to develop treatments not just vaccines and keep the health service going as it itself will need time to adapt. Will things be “better” in 5 years?
Its really healthy to get some balance even though I don't agree with your views.Most people wont still keep their jobs
When you say we have to learn to live with this...I dont see lockdown as living with this.
Lockdowns might buy time to develop treatments but at what cost. The lockdown loons never answer that. The estimated gdp cost of this little 4 week mess is about 3-4%. In previous times that would be viewed as a bloody great big recession even if we have become rather inured to large numbers because the Q2 hit was absolutely whopping. It still means a whole heap of people get quite a bloody lot poorer!
Plus they don't have a timescale for lockdown. This could go on and on.
When this is all over we will be on the right side of history because the economic fallout from this will last and affect people for generations, plus lets not forget this is causing deaths.
People will ask how did a normal society kill itself for the indefinite future for such a event.
Pocty
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff