Coronavirus outbreak

[MrGrumpy]

The difference is minor and basically irrelevant while there's no limit on how many sixes you can meet each day, week or even hour.

it makes a big difference if one of those 6 has the infection ?? Surely !? Just proves the point that the rule of 6 does not go far enough .

 

[tom73]

ONS report death rate now doubling every 2 weeks.

 

[matticus]

We need probably 70% infection.

So that's everyone, literally everyone under the age of, say, 60.

To be compulsarily (I don't think you'll get many volunteers for this) infected with a potentially deadly virus and locked up for a fortnight.

Indeed, I think it's incredibly unlikely! I was responding to this suggestion:

"Milzy said:
Fat old unfit folk are making swift recoveries.
Why can’t just the vulnerable shield?
Wouldn’t it be best to catch it and move forwards?
"

If we *could* do it in a controlled way, then even well below the 70% figure it would be beneficial to infect+isolate people. (I think your later post backs this up

For instance, in the UK 600,000 people have tested positive (about 300,000 from the first wave). If reinfection were anything other than vanishingly rare, I think you'd expect many hundreds of second positives here by now, if second infections were symptomatic.

But more importantly, let's look at this:

Luck.

This pandemic may bring the end of the world, but could we please maintain proper english, with complete sentences??

 

[roubaixtuesday]

This pandemic may bring the end of the world, but could we please maintain proper english, with complete sentences??

I can only offer my most profuse apologies. In mitigation, I listened to the Prime Minister earlier in the evening, which I fear may have blown several key synapses in my grammar cortex.

I would also respectfully not that the convention in English is that a single question mark suffices, and discourage your tautologous use of the second in future correspondence.

 

[icowden]

There is an interesting write up in this week's Private Eye from MD, their medical correspondent. He/she has repeatedly suggested (and indeed is a signatory on a letter from more than 60 GPs to Matt Hancock) that the Government need to start taking a more nuanced approach to Covid19 taking into account risks from all sources rather than just those around Covid.

He/she makes the point that for example, students aged 18-24 being locked in their halls of residence are more likely to die from being struck by lightning than from Covid19 based on current knowledge of the virus, and that the effects of isolation far from home in terms of depression and suicide are likely to be far more devastating than catching Covid for this age group. Of course there may be some students who are more vulnerable and for whom alternative arrangements might be needed, but constantly treating everyone the same way has bigger health repercussions further down the line.

 

[matticus]

I would also respectfully not that the convention in English is that a single question mark suffices, and discourage your tautologous use of the second in future correspondence.

Internet, innit.

(I'll write in green ink next time.)

 

[tom73]

New guidance for shielding and only for clinically extremely vulnerable. Not clinically vulnerable which is everyone over 70.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ng-extremely-vulnerable-persons-from-covid-19

 

[qigong chimp]

I would also respectfully not that the convention etc..

Why wouldn't you?

 

[mjr]

[...], and that the effects of isolation far from home in terms of depression and suicide are likely to be far more devastating than catching Covid for this age group.

And what about the danger they pose through infecting others?

We've already got a confusing and arbitrary-looking set of restrictions which vary by location that the government is failing to communicate. The few person categories like vulnerable and extremely vulnerable have been communicated terribly, with some older people being berated in the streets for daring to go buy food. How would adding even more variation by personal attributes going to improve clarity, compliance, case numbers or anything much?

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Internet, innit.

(I'll write in green ink next time.)

It's a plan!

 

[Rusty Nails]

This pandemic may bring the end of the world, but could we please maintain proper english, with complete sentences??

And correct capitalisation of proper nouns.

 

[mjr]

And correct capitalisation of proper nouns.

And not having a conjunction starting a post, or using one to end a post with.

 

[Milzy]

About 10-20% of those infected end up with "long Covid", with symptoms and chronic tiredness extending over many months. This includes slim young fit folk. Ignoring the fact that what you suggest will kill 250,000 people (at least) (!) it means we'll have at least 6 million people who'll be unable to work or earn for a significant length of time. But they'll still need to be fed, housed and treated. The economic consequences of that alone are severe. Plus there will be hundreds of thousands of people left with long term, possibly lifelong, health issues, who'll need expensive medical treatment, along with having their lives blighted.

I get that but we have no clue about long Covid or how it would be in reality yet.

 

[Milzy]

Are all fat, old and unfit people recovering swiftly? Is the % of such people recovering higher or lower than thinner, younger and fitter people, and do you have the data, or are you just making stuff up to suit your opinions? You cannot base your views on the swift recovery of the old, fat, unfit idiot, who had fantastically expensive, immediate treatment, currently in charge of the US.

And some vulnerable people are recovering, so why bother shielding them?

Maybe the wotsit idiot had a vaccine?

 

[Rusty Nails]

Maybe the wotsit idiot had a vaccine?

If he had he couldn't have resisted announcing on Twitter, probably with him claiming he was instrumental in discovering it.