Coronavirus outbreak

[stowie]

It was a seasonal virus and we were led by weak leaders who blinked whilst others stayed sane and it's being proved the world over.

How is it seasonal? I have close links with Brazil, and some cities (such as Goiania) have had very significant number of COVID cases despite the city's weather being generally above 30 degrees every day and no massive temperature changes over seasons (they only really have two - hot and very dry, or hot and very wet).

I had really hoped COVID was seasonal and at the beginning it seemed like a possibility since it seemed to affect countries with a hot climate less. But the theory that COVID is highly temperature related seems to have been thoroughly debunked by the actual virus spread.

Lockdowns didn't do anything to stop the spread and lifiting restrictions didn't accelerate it. "Second wave" should go the same way as "novel", "lethal", "spike", "asympomatic tranmission" and all the other guff that has had people bedwetting for months. Sweden......USA........all gone quiet......

This is the millenium bug fallacy all over again. If we take precautions and the worst scenario doesn't happen, it doesn't mean those precautions were unnecessary. In the UK we have only lifted restrictions to a limited degree, and despite the government huffing, I know very few companies where employees are all back at the office full time. Underground trains are carrying a fraction of passengers, schools and universities are only just returning and there are still no large organised events with big crowds. People are not travelling anywhere near as much. It seems a little early to start concluding that lockdowns are ineffective or lifting restrictions don't accelerate spread of the virus.

 

[Stephenite]

@MarkF Would you mind sharing where you get your information from?

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

I've got family in Panama, almost on the equator. Population 4 million, deaths 2000. They had a particularly strict lockdown with curfews and people only being allowed out for a couple of hours a day to get supplies.

 

[stowie]

I've got family in Panama, almost on the equator. Population 4 million, deaths 2000. They had a particularly strict lockdown with curfews and people only being allowed out for a couple of hours a day to get supplies.

Manaus is a big city located slap bang in the middle of the Brazilian Amazon*. It never gets cold, average highs are always above 30deg.

It has one of the worst outbreaks of COVID in Brazil, to the point that there is some speculation that the population may have had so many cases that some sort of herd immunity has been acquired. But at a terrible cost. Mass graves were needed for the victims and video shows these new graveyards which look like the WWII graveyards in Europe such is their scale.


* Manaus is an incredible city (if you disregard the environmental cost of developing a city of 2M people slap bang in the Amazon). The Brazil governments of the 60's made it a free trade zone to encourage development in the interior. It has no paved road connecting to the rest of South Brazil - everything going South uses boat or plane. And it is has automotive manufacturing, electronics assembly plants, and a big chemical industry. And an opera house which is considered one of the most beautiful in the world...

 

[classic33]

Latest figures: Covid-19 patients in our hospitals

• Total number tested positive to date – 1,361
• Total number tested negative to date – 17,868
• Confirmed COVID-19 patients currently inpatient Trust-wide – 13
• Confirmed COVID-19 patients discharged (to date) to their usual place of residence or no longer being treated as COVID-19 – 698
• Confirmed COVID-19 patients currently in ICU – 1
• Total COVID-19 deaths to date – 256

https://www.bradfordhospitals.nhs.uk/2020/09/04/information-about-coronavirus/

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

I will continue to take precautions to protect myself and my family I would certainly reject any advice by him and anybodyl like him with the same views.

You have identified that you are at higher risk of being badly affected if you get a dose of the virus, so have sensibly decided to minimise contact in order to try to avoid catching it. That is entirely logical, and one which I would agree with in the circumstances.
What is not logical, is for the large majority of fit & healthy people, who are at little risk from the virus, to risk losing their jobs and have their lives disrupted for months on end - for absolutely no benefit whatsoever.
In fact, from a long term transmission point of view, the more healthy people that catch the virus now and gain immunity to it, the better - as there is then less chance of the sick & elderly catching it from the rest of us as we won't be virus carriers.

 

[raleighnut]

And I take it such an alpha male as yourself has no underlying health conditions ?

Alpha Male my arse.

 

[screenman]

It's political, there can be no other reason.

We've never in history sought out perfectly healthy people from which to produce highly "spurious" cases from which don't correlate into deaths nor even hospital admissions, nor even poorly people. There is no point to this except to fuel the fear narrative. Whilst right now, other respiratory viruses that we don't hide from, kill 30-50x more. It was a seasonal virus and we were led by weak leaders who blinked whilst others stayed sane and it's being proved the world over. Lockdowns didn't do anything to stop the spread and lifiting restrictions didn't accelerate it. "Second wave" should go the same way as "novel", "lethal", "spike", "asympomatic tranmission" and all the other guff that has had people bedwetting for months. Sweden......USA........all gone quiet......

There is nothing to stop us going back to normal tomorrow morning, and if we did we'd stop killing people, quashing youngsters dreams/hope/futures and wrecking childrens lives.

I talk to a lot of people in the USA every day, it has certainly not gone quiet over there.

 

[screenman]

You have identified that you are at higher risk of being badly affected if you get a dose of the virus, so have sensibly decided to minimise contact in order to try to avoid catching it. That is entirely logical, and one which I would agree with in the circumstances.
What is not logical, is for the large majority of fit & healthy people, who are at little risk from the virus, to risk losing their jobs and have their lives disrupted for months on end - for absolutely no benefit whatsoever.
In fact, from a long term transmission point of view, the more healthy people that catch the virus now and gain immunity to it, the better - as there is then less chance of the sick & elderly catching it from the rest of us as we won't be virus carriers.

Is there not a chance that the fit and healthy who get it will pass it on to those less so. For me wearing a mask is showing I care about others, I guess many do not.

 

[IaninSheffield]

the more healthy people that catch the virus now and gain immunity to it, the better - as there is then less chance of the sick & elderly catching it from the rest of us as we won't be virus carriers.

"It is still early days when it comes to understanding immunity for COVID-19" British Society for Immunology
"there is still a lot we don’t know about SARS-CoV-2 and about the mark that it leaves on our immune system" Gavi

 

[Kajjal]

"It is still early days when it comes to understanding immunity for COVID-19" British Society for Immunology
"there is still a lot we don’t know about SARS-CoV-2 and about the mark that it leaves on our immune system" Gavi

Worth reading the history of “Spanish Flu” across the globe, after the first wave people assumed it was fine, the second wave was brutal. Also it had a significant impact on people’s life expectancy. The key is to understand and take reasonable precautions during a pandemic. 100% lockdown is not worth the cost in the same way as having no precautions leads to significant damage. Simply assuming you will be alright ignores the impact generally on others.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

Is there not a chance that the fit and healthy who get it will pass it on to those less so.

Absolutely, the virus doesn't care who it infects. If I'm in the pub with the virus, and you are a few feet away and high risk, you might well cop a dose of it from me. However, I don't see why I should not go about my business as normal, because a small minority of people might react badly to the virus. The sick minority are the ones who need to take the necessary steps to keep away from the rest of the population, not the other way round. The sooner the majority of the healthy population have caught it and become immune, the safer it will be for those in high risk groups to intermingle normally as the virus will have burned itself out in the general population and won't be circulating freely.
Many of those in high risk groups are economically inactive, and them isolating to keep themselves away from everyone else would be far less disruptive and economically damaging, than having destructive lockdowns and restrictions on doing business which affect everyone.

 

[kingrollo]

Absolutely, the virus doesn't care who it infects. If I'm in the pub with the virus, and you are a few feet away and high risk, you might well cop a dose of it from me. However, I don't see why I should not go about my business as normal, because a small minority of people might react badly to the virus. The sick minority are the ones who need to take the necessary steps to keep away from the rest of the population, not the other way round. The sooner the majority of the healthy population have caught it and become immune, the safer it will be for those in high risk groups to intermingle normally as the virus will have burned itself out in the general population and won't be circulating freely.
Many of those in high risk groups are economically inactive, and them isolating to keep themselves away from everyone else would be far less disruptive and economically damaging, than having destructive lockdowns and restrictions on doing business which affect everyone.

I would argue that lockdown for every asthmatic, diabetic, heart , COPD, cancer, lupus, MS , and over 50 would be almost as disruptive as the lockdown we have. In my household of 4 adults - only 1 would not be under lockdown.

Plus there is still a high hospitalastion rate amongst the healthy ....the NHS wouldn't cope with that all at once.

 

[MrGrumpy]

Many of those in high risk groups are economically inactive, and them isolating to keep themselves away from everyone else would be far less disruptive and economically damaging, than having destructive lockdowns and restrictions on doing business which affect everyone.

And that’s not harmful either what an existence ?. Or we could all take the precautions asked and don’t be dicks .

 

[screenman]

Absolutely, the virus doesn't care who it infects. If I'm in the pub with the virus, and you are a few feet away and high risk, you might well cop a dose of it from me. However, I don't see why I should not go about my business as normal, because a small minority of people might react badly to the virus. The sick minority are the ones who need to take the necessary steps to keep away from the rest of the population, not the other way round. The sooner the majority of the healthy population have caught it and become immune, the safer it will be for those in high risk groups to intermingle normally as the virus will have burned itself out in the general population and won't be circulating freely.
Many of those in high risk groups are economically inactive, and them isolating to keep themselves away from everyone else would be far less disruptive and economically damaging, than having destructive lockdowns and restrictions on doing business which affect everyone.

Generous as always, I feel that is not the attitude I could adopt, but there you go. Are you not at all concerned with even taking it back home to your loved one's, older relatives etc.