Corona Virus: How Are We Doing?

[lane]

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...id19englandandwales/deathsoccurringinjune2020

My reading of the above link in detail suggests that anything someone had wrong with them including hypertension is regarded as a pre existing condition for the purpose of the

Were in tier 3 here in Blackpool yet the Pleasure Beach,Tower,Arcades still open.The goverment only "advise" against travel I think.

Why are the arcades open when they have closed bingo and soft play makes no sense at all.

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

Well, two week self isolation done after coming back from Spain. No symptoms, no issues so back at work today Thought I might have at least got a phone call from the authorities checking up on me but no, nothing.

 

[Unkraut]

Who are the minority who should not "return to a more normal way of life"?

You haven't read what I said very carefully. The virus is lethal as a rule to those who are elderly and have pre-existing conditions. It follows it is not lethal to everybody else. It does mean though that measures to contain it can be targeted to protect those who are vulnerable, but apart from these is it right to create an atmosphere of living in fear and dread? The first signs of the damage this can do to the young are starting to emerge. There is as very difficult trade off to be had here.

Where will they be incarcerated whilst the pandemic rages?

A sober assessment of the danger of the virus doesn't lead to talk of incarceration. I get it that there is anger in Britain over Johnson's disastrous handing of the virus and the chronic lack of preparation. Whilst the German govt has shown more grip and was somewhat better prepared, I don't think they should be too proud of their achievement because the infection rate was brought down to 1 before govt measures took effect due to hygiene and distancing being followed out of fear that what was happening in Italy would happen here. It's not far away.

How old are you?

Old enough to be a some risk. Cycling and diet have made me fitter than ever but in two weeks this could go, either temporarily or permanently should I get infected, and depending on how it works out. Could die of it. My better half is probably at more risk. She could be badly affected by it or even die.

Who is the oldest person you know whose life is worthwhile?

Where are you getting the idea that because the high risk are elderly and already ill that their life isn't worthwhile? Haven't even hinted at this. It's still a tragedy for their families.

Are you really, really sure you've thought this through?

Yes. I'm looking for a sober and realistic assessment of what is going on, the risks that need to be faced and not avoided, but also avoid particularly the young from being put into a state of unnecessary fear and angst.

I have no time for pig ignorant conspiracy theorists nor media seeking circulation and clicks, but am also wary of some politicians for whom the pandemic seems to have taken on a life of its own.

 

[fossyant]

Well, two week self isolation done after coming back from Spain. No symptoms, no issues so back at work today Thought I might have at least got a phone call from the authorities checking up on me but no, nothing.

Were you OK to WFH, or did you have to take extra hols. My employer is WFH if you can, if you can't then take leave or unpaid hols.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Yes. I'm looking for a sober and realistic assessment

OK, here goes.

If your strategy, as it seems to be, is to protect the vulnerable and let everyone else get back to normal. let's examine what that would actually mean for the UK.

First of all, how many old and otherwise vulnerable are there? Let's take a conservative estimate - 10 million.

Now, how many people live with, or look after them? Again, let's be conservative, 5 million.

Next, how long will these 15 million people need to be "protected"? Difficult to say. 6 months perhaps?

OK, so we've let the virus burn through the rest of the populace. Hospitals have been full for a few months and the economy has been devastated by the absence of millions of people from their jobs. We open up. What happens next?

Well, those vulnerable people are still susceptible to infection, the virus is still circulating, albeit at a lower level, and we can expect outbreaks through that unexposed population which will still end up killing hundreds of thousands of people.

Have you thought this through?

Sober enough?

 

[C R]

OK, here goes.

If your strategy, as it seems to be, is to protect the vulnerable and let everyone else get back to normal. let's examine what that would actually mean for the UK.

First of all, how many old and otherwise vulnerable are there? Let's take a conservative estimate - 10 million.

Now, how many people live with, or look after them? Again, let's be conservative, 5 million.

Next, how long will these 15 million people need to be "protected"? Difficult to say. 6 months perhaps?

OK, so we've let the virus burn through the rest of the populace. Hospitals have been full for a few months and the economy has been devastated by the absence of millions of people from their jobs. We open up. What happens next?

Well, those vulnerable people are still susceptible to infection, the virus is still circulating, albeit at a lower level, and we can expect outbreaks through that unexposed population which will still end up killing hundreds of thousands of people.

Have you thought this through?

Sober enough?

The vulnerable assessment is even more complex than that. I am 48, reasonably fit and healthy, but type 1 diabetic, so not at higher risk of catching covid, but at higher risk if I were to catch it. In normal circumstances I would not fall in the "would have died in a few months anyway" group. But by the Hamburg professor accounting method I would not have died of COVID if I were to catch it and die of it. Like me many others with other chronic non evident conditions.

We have three school age children, and my wife can't work from home. How do I protect myself. Find a spot in the woods to pitch a tent and use our cat to shuttle food parcels to me?

 

[Unkraut]

If your strategy, as it seems to be, is to protect the vulnerable

Precisely.

and let everyone else get back to normal.

That's not what I said. I said more normality. I'm not saying go back to how is was when it broke out and let it run riot. But you cannot close down whole sectors of the economy indefinitely. The 'new normal' for the foreseeable future is going to have to have restrictions on liberty, but these should be kept to the minimum necessary to avoid economic and social damage. These latter reasons are why I don't think a repeat of the total lockdown in April could be repeated.

Let as much normal life continue as you dare (restaurants, theatres) even if this means the infection rate goes up amongst the younger end of the population providing it doesn't start to threaten the healthcare system and those most vulnerable.

This balance is never going to be easy. Should grandma in the nursing home be allowed to hug her grandchildren if she is happy with the risk of infection for her personally, rather than banning all visits? Should she be allowed to make that decision to avoid being lonely and miserable? But what if she does get infected and in turn infects others including the staff?

 

[roubaixtuesday]

I'm not saying go back to how is was when it broke out and let it run riot

OK, so what, exactly, are you saying?

What does "more normality " actually mean? Be specific please.

providing it doesn't start to threaten the healthcare system and those most vulnerable.

It *will* threaten the most vulnerable. That's inevitable.

So how, exactly will this threat be controlled in your future scenario? Be specific.

It strikes me that whilst these are lovely sentiments, there is no practical thinking behind them.

The expert consensus on these issues was set out recently in the Jon Snow memo. It's well worth a read.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32153-X/fulltext

 

[Andy in Germany]

OK, so what, exactly, are you saying?

What does "more normality " actually mean? Be specific please.

One example could be the workshop I'm working at: we have to balance the risks of C-19 affecting people in a higher risk category against the need for our clients with Psychological disabilities to have some "normality" in their lives. If we don't open as "normal" many would have a major crisis (we have to nag them to take holidays) and some would be at a very high risk of suicide.

So we check everyone for symptoms when they come in, and we have a set of questions if someone was on holiday for more than a couple of days. If they've been in a "high risk" area we have to get clearance from the main office in Freiburg. I'm not sure what they would know that we don't but then it's their responsibility and they're insured...
Anyone with symptoms (and we have to tell some people the important symptoms every day) is told to get a test before they come into the building. If someone tests positive in protected accommodation the whole building is put in lockdown, and we don't let clients from the same accommodation into the workshop for 2 weeks, with or without symptoms, unless they've been tested and cleared.
We have clearly marked "social distancing" points on the floor where people queue to wait for lunch, and separate the groups so people are at least 1.5m apart when eating. People can't take their own cutlery any more: it's handed out by someone wearing gloves.
All handles are disinfected twice a day.
And I still have to nag people to wear masks and keep their distance...

I'm not sure if it's the best solution, or simply the lesser of two evils. I am glad it's not me taking responsibility for the decision.

 

[kingrollo]

The vulnerable assessment is even more complex than that. I am 48, reasonably fit and healthy, but type 1 diabetic, so not at higher risk of catching covid, but at higher risk if I were to catch it. In normal circumstances I would not fall in the "would have died in a few months anyway" group. But by the Hamburg professor accounting method I would not have died of COVID if I were to catch it and die of it. Like me many others with other chronic non evident conditions.

We have three school age children, and my wife can't work from home. How do I protect myself. Find a spot in the woods to pitch a tent and use our cat to shuttle food parcels to me?

Thats an excellent phrase - I wish the media and scientists etc - would pick up on that. It seems a massive flaw have a group of people lumped in with "Underlying Health conditions" - When despite those conditions we are not in any way ill and lead active lives ....where are the stats for those people ? - what is the prognosis for me and many others with UHC that are well managed ? ......nowhere ! informally we are thought of as "Would have died anyway"

 

[kingrollo]

I think if you are over 50 and have a UHC - the gov't should give you a free Suzuki 750, and a Bat out Hell CD - on the condition you undertake no training and don't wear any safety gear.

 

[raleighnut]

I think if you are over 50 and have a UHC - the gov't should give you a free Suzuki 750, and a Bat out Hell CD - on the condition you undertake no training and don't wear any safety gear.

Can I have one of the new 350 Jawa cafe racers instead,

 

[Andy in Germany]

I think if you are over 50 and have a UHC - the gov't should give you a free Suzuki 750, and a Bat out Hell CD - on the condition you undertake no training and don't wear any safety gear.

I wasn't aware you need training and safety gear to listen to a Bat out of Hell CD... Doesn't surprise me, mind.

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

Were you OK to WFH, or did you have to take extra hols. My employer is WFH if you can, if you can't then take leave or unpaid hols.

I was ok to WFH although I still have holidays left over

 

[Flick of the Elbow]

Does anyone know how the signing in thing works in Scotland ? eg some of the Edinburgh libraries have started to reopen but they are insisting on you signing in as you enter. So does that mean that during the time of your visit if anyone anywhere in the building subsequently tests positive then everyone in the building at the time will need to isolate for 2 weeks ? Even though most people in the building will not have been within 2m of the positive case for even a second never mind 15 minutes.