Coronavirus Thread

[Robo61]

13 hours ago, pazzerfox said:

 

Only watched the first five minutes,  but in that time the claim seems to be that the Government were secretly preparing for a pandemic,  that never happened.  Mr Looney by name Mr Looney by nature.

[filbertway]

I take it as good news that the only stuff coming out of the news is theories, maybes and possibles. If Omicron was gonna be causing us some problems I think there'd be reports coming out on an hourly basis. Signs so far seem to point to the strain being much more virulent but much less dangerous. I guess it's a case of sitting on that for 3 or 4 weeks and see where we're at.

[Free Falling Foxes]

15 minutes ago, Munshi said:

Exactly the way it started last time, it ended in being fined for having a picnic in an empty park with your family. 

And so they should be.

Sends a message to everyone else, otherwise that empty park won't be empty for long.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, filbertway said:

I take it as good news that the only stuff coming out of the news is theories, maybes and possibles. If Omicron was gonna be causing us some problems I think there'd be reports coming out on an hourly basis. Signs so far seem to point to the strain being much more virulent but much less dangerous. I guess it's a case of sitting on that for 3 or 4 weeks and see where we're at.

Here's hoping, because that would be the panacea that we're looking for.

 

It's also the way that viral events have largely ended in the past.

[st albans fox]

34 minutes ago, filbertway said:

I take it as good news that the only stuff coming out of the news is theories, maybes and possibles. If Omicron was gonna be causing us some problems I think there'd be reports coming out on an hourly basis. Signs so far seem to point to the strain being much more virulent but much less dangerous. I guess it's a case of sitting on that for 3 or 4 weeks and see where we're at.

 

24 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Here's hoping, because that would be the panacea that we're looking for.

 

It's also the way that viral events have largely ended in the past.

Can we define virulence ?  I thought virulence referred to the damage a virus can do.  Surely we want it to more transmissible but less virulent?.

 

 

[filbertway]

2 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

 

Can we define virulence ?  I thought virulence referred to the damage a virus can do.  Surely we want it to more transmissible but less virulent?.

I probably used the wrong word and @leicsmac probably chose not to correct me

 

 

[String fellow]

On 08/12/2021 at 12:35, String fellow said:

Imo, what the world needs is a highly contagious variant that produces only very mild symptoms and drives away all other more dangerous variants. Could it be that omicron fits that charaterisation?

Some South African experts.are quite upbeat about Omicron. If it's not 'nature's vaccine', perhaps it's a significant step towards one.  

[Farrington fox]

1 hour ago, FoxesDeb said:

I've asked several times here for that to be explained, but nobody ever has... 

Give Susan Michie a 'nudge', she'll explain it for you.

[Farrington fox]

46 minutes ago, Free Falling Foxes said:

And so they should be.

Sends a message to everyone else, otherwise that empty park won't be empty for long.

Serious?

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, filbertway said:

I probably used the wrong word and @leicsmac probably chose not to correct me

 

 

TBH I didn't actually notice, it's been a long day

 

2 minutes ago, Farrington fox said:

Give Susan Michie a 'nudge', she'll explain it for you.

Speaking personally, I'd rather hear it from the good people on this thread.

[FoxesDeb]

16 minutes ago, Farrington fox said:

Give Susan Michie a 'nudge', she'll explain it for you.

Isn't she an advisor for Sage? How is she influencing, say, Pedro Sanchez here in Spain, the person deciding upon the restrictions where I live? And all the other countries with similar restrictions but led by different individuals, from different political parties, with different ideals? 

 

I'd rather you explained it to me, I'm clearly missing something 

[James.]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

It's also the way that viral events have largely ended in the past.

I was going to ask abut this... I seem to recall that viruses typically weaken over time and there was even talk of this happening across a 2 year period typically. Have I made that up? Is Omicron actually the beginning of the end?

[Trumpet]

26 minutes ago, Farrington fox said:

Serious?

 

 

[Farrington fox]

 

https://twitter.com/CGreenUK/status/1469285530508664839?s=20

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, James. said:

I was going to ask abut this... I seem to recall that viruses typically weaken over time and there was even talk of this happening across a 2 year period typically. Have I made that up? Is Omicron actually the beginning of the end?

The 1918 Kansas (not Spanish) Flu pandemic ended that way and within that approximate timeframe. Ditto with other, smaller influenza-style epidemics since.

[leicsmac]

Just now, Farrington fox said:

 

https://twitter.com/CGreenUK/status/1469285530508664839?s=20

 

10 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Isn't she an advisor for Sage? How is she influencing, say, Pedro Sanchez here in Spain, the person deciding upon the restrictions where I live? And all the other countries with similar restrictions but led by different individuals, from different political parties, with different ideals? 

 

I'd rather you explained it to me, I'm clearly missing something 

Kindly answer this request.

[st albans fox]

12 minutes ago, James. said:

I was going to ask abut this... I seem to recall that viruses typically weaken over time and there was even talk of this happening across a 2 year period typically. Have I made that up? Is Omicron actually the beginning of the end?

it really could be but we simply don't know and wont know for a while yet. just keep everything crossed for everyone on here who seem to think we've irreversibly entered an orwellian world ......... i still maintain that brexit has done more damage to our rights than covid ever will (ref the govt enormous majority)

[yorkie1999]

18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The 1918 Kansas (not Spanish) Flu pandemic ended that way and within that approximate timeframe. Ditto with other, smaller influenza-style epidemics since.

Yes, but the bubonic plague only ended when it ran out of hosts.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, yorkie1999 said:

Yes, but the bubonic plague only ended when it ran out of hosts.

Indeed it did.

 

However, the bacterium Yersinia pestis and the family of coronaviruses are thankfully rather different to each other in that the latter is much simpler in terms of genetic structure and much more susceptible to mutations than the former.

[adam]

2 hours ago, FoxesDeb said:

What restrictions are you under? Popping a mask on in the shops and working from home if you can aren't restrictions, so what can't you do? What exactly is being restricted? 

The ability to go into work?  Is that not a restriction?  You answered your own question. 

[SpacedX]

1 hour ago, Munshi said:

There’s no evidence this new variant kills anyone so far? most cases have only been mild? talks of us going into a full lockdown over a few mild cases of a new variant,

To reiterate. There are thirty identified changes to the spike protein, double the mutations of Delta - we don't yet know what that involves in the long-term - and indications show it has three times the infection rate. That alone places an unsustainable clinical burden upon our healthcare services and staff at the most demanding time of year in terms of referrals. The scant real world data that we have is coming from the summer hemisphere, where it is currently summer and a younger demographic in terms of infections. Very simply again - we...just...don't...know. Therefore precautionary measures have been put in place. Granted, some of which are self-defeating and some are contradictory and illogical accompanied by the usual infuriating mixed messaging.

 

The best approach is to do whatever practically that you can to limit spread to reduce the chances of hospitalisations and therefore the further restrictions that you are complaining about. Why wouldn't you?

 

1 hour ago, Munshi said:

so we’ll be going into full lockdowns forever then?

Ultimately since you keep mentioning it, this would seem to be your only real concern. Nothing indicates that this will be the case although a firebreaker is possible, whilst a national lockdown will only be mandated if our health services are being overwhelmed. Doing everything to avoid this scenario in terms of limiting the spread of infection would be a prudent response don't you think?

 

2 hours ago, Munshi said:

I know it’s disappointing for people like you who would love endless restrictions and our economy to crash altogether 

And there's the standard ad hominem rebuke that we see from the same people on this thread and had been levelled at me in the past. How do you know that he would "love endless restrictions"? - He's not even arguing for that. Why would he "love" our economy to crash? Control your emotions man, you're being childlike, illogical and irrational and humiliating yourself in the process. A virus couldn't give a toss about our economy...neither does nature. 

 

2 hours ago, Munshi said:

but the rest of us would prefer for the people making decisions to not send us into full lockdowns every time a new variant comes about. Not a single death or severe case and the countries on its arse ffs.

There it is again - "full lockdown". That's your only concern isn't it? Contrary to your deluded claims, no one actually wants "endless restrictions" or "full lockdowns". Throughout this, I despairingly watched my cousin's business being decimated resulting in his wife taking her own life, along with many others that have succumbed close to home - and only narrowly escaped with my job due to the relaxation this summer. The enemy is not restrictions, but a global healthcare crisis and an enduring, evolving virus that has claimed millions of lives in its wake along with businesses, economies and livelihoods. Not to mention the long-term toll that it has exacted upon the infected which in many cases has lead to life-long conditions and comorbidities. 

 

It may very well be that the effects of Omicron are substantially less severe than Delta, that in spite of its high rate of infection, that the increased transmissibility results in it becoming endemic and as a less severe strain presents a way out of this. It may be a good thing - but we must ensure that we can manage and absorb the first wave. Despite this, as I have repeatedly warned on this thread, this was not over last summer. Why? because it is a global crisis and whilst people continue to infect others, it will lead to more variants and mutations arriving on these shores. In the case of Omicron, it may not require lockdown measures, again - we simply don't know yet. Forget the nonsensical covid-passes/passports, whilst people scorn and refuse to comply with basic preventative measures, favour popular opinion over fact, allow their emotions to obscure logic, reject the science and deny the dangers, then to a degree, they invite this upon themselves. The virus doesn't give a flying **** about you or your circumstances. 

 

Given that you have previously shown yourself to be completely ignorant about the actual purpose of lockdown, your obsessive fixation with it is all the more puzzling. 

[leicsmac]

To add to the above, I'm going to repeat that I simply don't get how people fear people and what they can do more than nature and what it can do when all empirical evidence suggests it is much crueller and more efficient at killing than the very worst excesses of humans could ever aspire to be.

 

I'm still looking for an explanation on that one, if anyone might oblige.

[Alf Bentley]

52 minutes ago, James. said:

I was going to ask abut this... I seem to recall that viruses typically weaken over time and there was even talk of this happening across a 2 year period typically. Have I made that up? Is Omicron actually the beginning of the end?

 

I'm no scientist and a lot of factors are still unclear but......

 

My understanding is that Omicron might be simultaneously very BAD news in the short-term and very GOOD news in the long-term.

 

- Bad news in the short-term because, even if Omicron is much less deadly than Delta, if it's much more transmissible and millions get it within weeks, then we'll have a big spike in hospitalisations, ICU cases and deaths. The proportion of infections leading to hospitalisation or death might be much lower than with Delta, but if the absolute number of infections is much higher then the NHS could still be swamped. In turn, that could disrupt healthcare & the economy, cause another lockdown etc.

 

- Good news in the long-term because herd immunity would be greatly boosted without risking illness and death on the scale that would be caused by a more lethal variant. And, more importantly, Omicron would remain the dominant variant unless another mutation created an even more infectious variant.....which would only be bad news if it was also more lethal (our luck isn't going to get that bad, is it? ).

 

 Of course, we don't yet know that Omicron is going to be less lethal and many other factors affect outcomes. But if it is more transmissible and less lethal (the likely situation?), this bad-but-good-news scenario is a logical outcome, isn't it?

 

I appreciate that we can't make direct comparisons between outcomes in S. Africa and the UK, due to differences in average age, vaccination rate, climate/society etc.

But figures for serious illness and death in S. Africa in the next 2-3 weeks will be some sort of indicator of what to expect in the UK, won't they? 

Case numbers in S. Africa are rocketing, hospitalisations are sharply up - and we know there's a time lag before any increase in deaths, but if deaths in S. Africa do NOT increase sharply within 3 weeks, that'll be rather good news....

 

(Scientists, please correct any bollocks I've spouted there! )

[Farrington fox]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

 

Kindly answer this request.

Don't Sage influence government decision making!

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Farrington fox said:

Don't Sage influence government decision making!

 

1 hour ago, FoxesDeb said:

Isn't she an advisor for Sage? How is she influencing, say, Pedro Sanchez here in Spain, the person deciding upon the restrictions where I live? And all the other countries with similar restrictions but led by different individuals, from different political parties, with different ideals? 

 

I'd rather you explained it to me, I'm clearly missing something 

...world government decision making?

 

I think more explanation might be required.