Coronavirus Thread

[yorkie1999]

6 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

And how long to do we have to wait to see if there ar elong term effects?  Is it really a viable option to keep things as we are, giving children half an education, for say 20 years?  If not, how long?  There is little evidence of long term effects of coronavirus.  Therefore we do not need to take precautions against it.  If there is proper evidence that long term effects are likely, it can be factored into the equation.

Only time will tell

[RowlattsFox]

If we do end up in a serious lockdown again, I think you'll struggle to convince people to have the vaccine again if needed. You'll get lots of "what's the point, we ended up in lockdown again anyway" sorts of attitude. 

 

I don't think the euros have helped, not just the big numbers going to Wembley but all the other uncontrolled gatherings that have happened. 

 

Just going around in circles. My life don't change on Monday, I won't have to sign in every time I go for a quick pint in my local which will be handy. The bus is probably the only place where I would think I 'must' wear a mask, but even then I'm more concerned about touching rails etc more than breathing it in. 

[HighPeakFox]

18 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

There is little evidence of long term effects of coronavirus.  Therefore we do not need to take precautions against it. 

Please think hard about this. 

[Samilktray]

What are the rules on isolation if you’ve had both vaccines but someone you live with tests positive? I’m sure this has been asked a thousand times but from googling I can’t seem to find a definitive answer for the rules currently 

[dsr-burnley]

12 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Please think hard about this. 

I've thought carefully.  Let me rephrase it - there is lots of evidence that coronavirus hardly affects under 30's at all, and that it does not produce long term effects in under thirties to a greater degree than we already find acceptable with other infectious diseases, There is little or no evidence that it is any worse than other infectious diseases in the under 30's.

[Unabomber]

15 minutes ago, Samilktray said:

What are the rules on isolation if you’ve had both vaccines but someone you live with tests positive? I’m sure this has been asked a thousand times but from googling I can’t seem to find a definitive answer for the rules currently 

Pretty sure both have to isolate for 10 days. I’m positive yet somehow my missus isn’t but she is isolating too.

[The People's Hero]

4 minutes ago, Unabomber said:

Pretty sure both have to isolate for 10 days. I’m positive yet somehow my missus isn’t but she is isolating too.

Correct; if you or anyone you live with has tested positive (LFT or PCR) you have to isolate, regardless of if you test negative or have symptoms.

 

 

[Unabomber]

Also how can someone who I live with be negative if I’m positive. 

[UniFox21]

23 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

there is lots of evidence that coronavirus hardly affects under 30's at all, and that it does not produce long term effects in under thirties

But we can't analyse long term effects off of 12-18months. Your "long term" impacts are off of a couple of months, which is still short term before chronic impacts come to light. 

Edited 16 July 2021 by UniFox21

[UniFox21]

Just now, Unabomber said:

Also how can someone who I live with be negative if I’m positive. 

As transmission isn't 100%, there's a very high risk, but no necessity. 

[dsr-burnley]

9 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

But we can't analyse long term effects off of 12-18months. Your "long term" impacts are off of a couple of months, which is still short term before chronic impacts come to light. 

I'm not saying it isn't.  What I am saying is that in the absence of evidence that there are long term impacts, we do not need to act as if there are long term impacts.

 

They have over half a million confirmed positive cases from 2020, which is between 7 months and 16 months ago.  They can investigate those for medium term effects, at least.  As for the possibility that there may be few medium term effects but there may be significant effects in 10 years time, there's not a lot we can do about that.  We can't lock down for 10 (or any other number you care to name) years "just in case".

[UniFox21]

2 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

I'm not saying it isn't.  What I am saying is that in the absence of evidence that there are long term impacts, we do not need to act as if there are long term impacts.

 

They have over half a million confirmed positive cases from 2020, which is between 7 months and 16 months ago.  They can investigate those for medium term effects, at least.  As for the possibility that there may be few medium term effects but there may be significant effects in 10 years time, there's not a lot we can do about that.  We can't lock down for 10 (or any other number you care to name) years "just in case".

However, we acted like there were no long term effects of not locking down initially for Covid, and that's hardly left us well? 

 

Not suggesting we lockdown forever, as we do need to lift restrictions and allow normal life to return, my issue is completely ripping off the restrictions in one go is naïve and could end badly. 

[dsr-burnley]

4 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

However, we acted like there were no long term effects of not locking down initially for Covid, and that's hardly left us well? 

 

Not suggesting we lockdown forever, as we do need to lift restrictions and allow normal life to return, my issue is completely ripping off the restrictions in one go is naïve and could end badly. 

I doubt that July 19th will feel like normal life.  Restrictions will remain, including masks in supermarkets and at football matches.  

 

If we delay the release of restrictions, is the aim to delay the spread of coronavirus, or to make it go away altogether?  A decision has been made on the best way forward.  There is no point in cancelling that decision unless the alternative plan is expected to have a better result.  As far as I can see, the alternative plan is for more of the same like we have had for 16 months while we wait - but what are we waiting for?  Are we waiting for another vaccine?  Are we waiting till vaccinations are 100%, with ir without vaccination of children?  Are we waiting till coronavirus has vanished from the face of the earth?  Are we waiting till next summer?  Are we waiting till there is no possibility of further mutations?  Are we waiting till number of cases is a specific number per day?

 

If they want to tell us we need to wait, then I want them to tell us what we are waiting for.

[HighPeakFox]

I think the stark truth is that the big mistakes have already been made, and everything is now face saving and arse covering. 

[FoxesDeb]

2 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Why don't we?  There were over half a million positive tests of under thirties before Christmas.  There have been millions more since.  235 of them have died, so surely they have been looking at the long term health of the survivors?

 

There is very little hard evidence that there is a long term effect on a significant number of under 30's.  There is a shedload of evidence that it doesn't kill them, and little reason to suspect it has a disproportionate long term effect on the survivors.  Find the evidence first before taking precautions against it.

BBC News - Covid: Younger adults still at risk of serious organ damage - study

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57840825

[foxile5]

21 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

I think the stark truth is that the big mistakes have already been made, and everything is now face saving and arse covering. 

Certainly the refusal to close borders at the beginning of the first wave was baffling and definitely cost lives and money. 

[SpacedX]

Interesting how this so called "freedom day" conveniently dovetails into parliamentary recess on 22nd July.

Edited 16 July 2021 by Line-X

[foxile5]

2 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Interesting how this so called "freedom day" conveniently dovetails into parliamentary recess on 22nd July.

Oh yeah. They've dodged going into work but insisted the workers of Britain are idle for not rushing back to offices. 

[VLC86]

1 hour ago, Unabomber said:

Also how can someone who I live with be negative if I’m positive. 

Strange one isn’t it, seen a lot of this and I really don’t understand it. I suspect over time we will find out that some people are much more susceptible to it.

 

Thought I had it from Wembley as I feel rough and have a cough but somehow it’s come back as negative.

[The People's Hero]

8 minutes ago, Costock_Fox said:

Strange one isn’t it, seen a lot of this and I really don’t understand it. I suspect over time we will find out that some people are much more susceptible to it.

 

Thought I had it from Wembley as I feel rough and have a cough but somehow it’s come back as negative.

One daughter has it and the rest of the 4 of us who live here, don't have it.

 

I think perhaps the other 4 of us have had it previously and so have some immunity; but why Elsie didn't get it then is a mystery to me.

 

 

[Leicester_Loyal]

My old man had it and slept in the same bed as my mum for a few days and she never caught it. Think it's just some people will get it, some won't, luck of the draw slightly and then  our immune systems play a part as well.

 

I highly doubt we'll have no restrictions for long, things will be put back into place in a few weeks before harsher measures begin again in a couple of months. I think they're worried about us not mixing again for another 9/10 months, which could mean our immune systems do a lot worse against our regular flu etc. But that's complete guesswork from me and probably wrong.

 

Seems unreal the amount of people who I know who have COVID atm, alot seems to stem from the Euros.

[yorkie1999]

1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

I'm not saying it isn't.  What I am saying is that in the absence of evidence that there are long term impacts, we do not need to act as if there are long term impacts.

 

They have over half a million confirmed positive cases from 2020, which is between 7 months and 16 months ago.  They can investigate those for medium term effects, at least.  As for the possibility that there may be few medium term effects but there may be significant effects in 10 years time, there's not a lot we can do about that.  We can't lock down for 10 (or any other number you care to name) years "just in case".

Surely, where the health of the nation is at risk and the time lag of being able to register long covid, evidence needs to show there arn't any long term effects, not the other way round as you are suggesting.

[VLC86]

4 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Surely, where the health of the nation is at risk and the time lag of being able to register long covid, evidence needs to show there arn't any long term effects, not the other way round as you are suggesting.

What is your suggestion? Lock down for 10 years?

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, FoxesDeb said:

BBC News - Covid: Younger adults still at risk of serious organ damage - study

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57840825

It's certainly good news that younger people are perhaps only one-thirtieth as likely to suffer long term organ damage as older people, which is what that study implies. 

 

What that study says is that of people who go to hospital with coroanvirus, older people are about half as likely again to suffer complications.  What it does not say, and this is what the reporter hasn't chosen to emphasise, is that older peole are twenty times more likely to need to go to hospital in the first place.  So the proportion of younger people who catch coronavirus and go on to develop complications, is only one thirtieth (approx,) of the proportion of older people.

Edited 16 July 2021 by dsr-burnley

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

I doubt that July 19th will feel like normal life.  Restrictions will remain, including masks in supermarkets and at football matches.  

 

If we delay the release of restrictions, is the aim to delay the spread of coronavirus, or to make it go away altogether?  A decision has been made on the best way forward.  There is no point in cancelling that decision unless the alternative plan is expected to have a better result.  As far as I can see, the alternative plan is for more of the same like we have had for 16 months while we wait - but what are we waiting for?  Are we waiting for another vaccine?  Are we waiting till vaccinations are 100%, with ir without vaccination of children?  Are we waiting till coronavirus has vanished from the face of the earth?  Are we waiting till next summer?  Are we waiting till there is no possibility of further mutations?  Are we waiting till number of cases is a specific number per day?

 

If they want to tell us we need to wait, then I want them to tell us what we are waiting for.

Almost totally agree with this. What is the endgame? Initially it was stay at home for 3 weeks, and it's just spiralled since then, do this, then this, then this and after each step it's meant to be back to normality. The latest of which was wait for more people to get the double dose of the vaccine and then we'll definitely, irreversibly get back to normal. I totally understand it's unprecedented and there is no easy solutions but the amount of times it's been do this and we'll all be alright from the government is just so tiresome now. These restrictions were meant to be irreversible.

 

Seems to be we've developed a bunch of half arsed vaccines that maybe work just a little bit for most people but not much for others when the best thing to have done imo is shut the country off from the rest of the world when all this started, ala Australasia, and have the patience for a proper and effective vaccine to be developed. Obviously it's not perfect but there are plenty of people screaming from both sides of the argument pretty vociferously. We surely have to get to a point where we just open up and get on with it, we can't stay locked down indefinitely and if the vaccines haven't had the desired effect then what is the next step in all this? It's just getting beyond frustrating now.