Coronavirus outbreak

[kingrollo]

Matt Hancock today dramatically raised hopes of a Covid-19 vaccine in the new year.
The Health Secretary said it was “looking up” that the vaccine being developed by experts at the University of Oxford and pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca would be granted approval for use soon after trials in several countries, including the UK, US and Brazil.

Great news - Shame about the source - been a bit unreliable in the past though - should work for YODEL !

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Matt Hancock today dramatically raised hopes of a Covid-19 vaccine in the new year.
The Health Secretary said it was “looking up” that the vaccine being developed by experts at the University of Oxford and pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca would be granted approval for use soon after trials in several countries, including the UK, US and Brazil.

Great news - Shame about the source - been a bit unreliable in the past though - should work for YODEL !

There is nothing new here. Phase I results were public weeks ago and the phase 3 trial has been ongoing in South Africa and Brazil for some time.

Hancock cannot have any inside track on how well the trial is going because the people running it will not know either. It's blinded.

Results are "event driven" ie once there are sufficient cases of COVID in the trial, the results will be unblinded and comparison made between placebo and active arms. There is no new data suggesting how positive or otherwise that comparison will be, or on the date it will be available.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

Are you not at all concerned with even taking it back home to your loved one's, older relatives etc.

Yes, there's one elderly relative I'm keeping well away from, as a dose of the virus would probably take them out. I think I've had the coronavirus anyway, but I'm playing it safe just in case what I caught was actually something else. Keep in touch by phone only, haven't seen them in person since March.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

Why should I have to hide just so you can carry on as you see fit? It's an inconvenience, and nothing else to you.

I'm of the opinion that anyone who knows they have it, and ignores the restrictions in place, should be hit the hardest. Along with those who have been told to self isolate, but don't see the point of doing so.

OK, I''ll turn it on it's head; why should I, with a very low risk of serious illness from the virus, be prevented from going about my business, when the high risk people mostly actually know they are high risk and can therefore take action themselves to minimise their own contact with others?. The ones with the highest risks I would have thought would have the most incentive to keep their distance. In any case, the, high risk groups need to hide away, irrespective of whether the low risk population also minimises social contact or not. If you can't risk catching the virus, you can't mix anyway so it makes no difference whatsoever to you if I go about as normal, but it does make a difference to me. And if I'm not out consuming and spending money, it also makes a difference to those whose jobs rely on my spending.
Now, to be clear, I am not condoning anyone who knows or believes they have the virus, continuing to socialise or mix with others until their symptoms have cleared up. If you have got it, you shouldn't knowingly spread it around. In reality if you are unwell with virus symptoms, you are probably not going to want to go out anyway just as you would not go out with the Flu.. It will be mainly asymptomactic infectees who spread the virus, but you can't realistically expect everyone not to do anything remotely normal, just in case there's a tiny chance they might have it. Society and the economy both need to continue to function - virus or no virus.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

OK, I''ll turn it on it's head; why should I, with a very low risk of serious illness from the virus, be prevented from going about my business, when the high risk people mostly actually know they are high risk and can therefore take action themselves to minimise their own contact with others?. The ones with the highest risks I would have thought would have the most incentive to keep their distance. In any case, the, high risk groups need to hide away, irrespective of whether the low risk population also minimises social contact or not. If you can't risk catching the virus, you can't mix anyway so it makes no difference whatsoever to you if I go about as normal, but it does make a difference to me. And if I'm not out consuming and spending money, it also makes a difference to those whose jobs rely on my spending.
Now, to be clear, I am not condoning anyone who knows or believes they have the virus, continuing to socialise or mix with others until their symptoms have cleared up. If you have got it, you shouldn't knowingly spread it around. In reality if you are unwell with virus symptoms, you are probably not going to want to go out anyway just as you would not go out with the Flu.. It will be mainly asymptomactic infectees who spread the virus, but you can't realistically expect everyone not to do anything remotely normal, just in case there's a tiny chance they might have it. Society and the economy both need to continue to function - virus or no virus.

Why should I, as a motorist with very low risk of injury, be prevented from driving just as fast as I damn well please, when the high risk cyclists mostly actually know they are high risk and can therefore take action themselves to minimise their own contact with motorists? The ones with the highest risks I would have thought would have the most incentive to keep their distance.

 

[tom73]

Study of outbreak at a hotel in Switzerland leads to health department warning on face shields.
https://www.insider.com/face-shields-did-not-protect-people-from-coronavirus-swiss-outbreak-2020-7

 

[icowden]

....not sure if serious ?

Why not?

@SkipdiverJohn's position is not an unpopular one. It's also a difficult one to balance. Is it better to be cautious and protect those most as risk, but at the same time create more risk of mental health issues, isolation, and damage to the economy (thus driving people out of jobs, causing further mental health issues, poverty etc), or is it better to protect those most at risk, but tip the seesaw the other way. The original solution of the government paying everyone to stay at home isn't sustainable as soon the government will run out of money. It's only a short term patch.

We have to have economic activity, people need to go back to work etc in order for the country to function and in order to have government money for the less well off. If money stops going into the system, the system will collapse. There is an argument to say that many people shielding would be shielding from *something* even if Covid19 wasn't around.

So then we look at the middle ground. Is there a position where we can reduce the spread of infection but have people working, and doing the things they usually do? That's where we are now. Some things just can't work, or just don't work. Arguably, Pubs don't work as they are high risk for infection spread. Things can be done in summer months such as table service outside for example, but the more people you have inside, and the more drunk they get, the more likely they will spread infection.

Planes are problematic as they enclose air in the cabin for long periods of time. Theatres are problematic as they tend to only be viable to very full houses. More testing will help, better and more effective treatment will help, but there isn't a quick solution. So we are in a place where Covid whackamole is probably the best solution.

 

[Julia9054]

high risk people mostly actually know they are high risk and can therefore take action themselves to minimise their own contact with others?.

You are assuming that everyone has a choice.

 

[matticus]

Let's hear it for the middle-ground! Sadly not a very popular viewpoint for internet ranters and back-slappers.

 

[icowden]

It's very import and that things are either WRONG or RIGHT. Polarisation of viewpoint is essential!

 

[mjr]

OK, I''ll turn it on it's head; why should I, with a very low risk of serious illness from the virus, be prevented from going about my business, when the high risk people mostly actually know they are high risk and can therefore take action themselves to minimise their own contact with others?.

That's a false dilemma, isn't it? It's not a choice between the two and we should do both.

If loads of those who believe themselves very low risk get themselves infected, even the minimised contacts could well infect the high-risk. Plus also, "very low risk" is not risk-free, so that's more unnecessary strain on the NHS and risk to workers in it. I think you have to be almost without empathy to take no precautions against this virus.

It will be mainly asymptomactic infectees who spread the virus, but you can't realistically expect everyone not to do anything remotely normal, just in case there's a tiny chance they might have it. Society and the economy both need to continue to function - virus or no virus.

Another false dilemma! It's not virus precautions or the economy. As we've already seen in the first phase, bad virus handling means worse economic results.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

UK cases are now above the level at which we impose quarantine on other countries.

Schools are only just returning, most Universities yet to return, govt is actively encouraging return to offices and public transport. Testing capacity doesn't seem to be able to cope already.

This could go very wrong, very quickly.

 

[kingrollo]

Why not?

@SkipdiverJohn's position is not an unpopular one. It's also a difficult one to balance. Is it better to be cautious and protect those most as risk, but at the same time create more risk of mental health issues, isolation, and damage to the economy (thus driving people out of jobs, causing further mental health issues, poverty etc), or is it better to protect those most at risk, but tip the seesaw the other way. The original solution of the government paying everyone to stay at home isn't sustainable as soon the government will run out of money. It's only a short term patch.

We have to have economic activity, people need to go back to work etc in order for the country to function and in order to have government money for the less well off. If money stops going into the system, the system will collapse. There is an argument to say that many people shielding would be shielding from *something* even if Covid19 wasn't around.

So then we look at the middle ground. Is there a position where we can reduce the spread of infection but have people working, and doing the things they usually do? That's where we are now. Some things just can't work, or just don't work. Arguably, Pubs don't work as they are high risk for infection spread. Things can be done in summer months such as table service outside for example, but the more people you have inside, and the more drunk they get, the more likely they will spread infection.

Planes are problematic as they enclose air in the cabin for long periods of time. Theatres are problematic as they tend to only be viable to very full houses. More testing will help, better and more effective treatment will help, but there isn't a quick solution. So we are in a place where Covid whackamole is probably the best solution.

1.skipdiver John wants to go the pub - even you have said that's not working.

2.Even Boris has rejected just locking up at risk people

3.youre position is different to skipdvier john

 

[matticus]

It's very import and that things are either WRONG or RIGHT. Polarisation of viewpoint is essential!

Also, I find sarcasm VERY difficult from the middle-ground

 

[mjr]

Arguably, Pubs don't work as they are high risk for infection spread. Things can be done in summer months such as table service outside for example, but the more people you have inside, and the more drunk they get, the more likely they will spread infection.

An elephant in the room (and it's definitely in the room not out in the beer garden) is that it is illegal for pubs to serve alcohol to drunk people (and has been in previous versions of the law).

If the government tackled that, then pubs would probably not be high infection risks - but there would be loads of bankruptcies at the low end of the licensed trade and the government would be very unpopular and either voted out for sure next time or maybe even overthrown!