Jump to content
Fancy running a forum? Sheffield Forum is for sale! Learn more

DerbyTup

Members
  • Content Count

    3,654
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About DerbyTup

  • Rank
    Registered User

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I was providing further information to someone who appeared genuinely interested in knowing more about it and I don't think the information I provided was "stating the obvious" - it's information that the majority of lay people would not be aware of. I'm glad the person who asked the question found it interesting and valuable. I'm sorry you didn't, but then again, no one forced you to read it. 😀 The risk will still exist even if we do have a vaccine, but it will be reduced, providing the vaccine is effective and administered to a significant proportion (80% or more) of the population.
  2. The chances of being infected by touching something are extremely small, especially if you have good hand hygiene. The main route of infection is airborne transmission - that's the reason why millions of people have been infected worldwide.
  3. Pleasure! If nothing else I hope this pandemic has educated the general public and the media a little bit about "viruses". Although I'm not convinced tbh! I still read stuff where people are on about "killing" the virus. You can't kill viruses - they are not alive in the first place - unlike bacteria. The aim of therapy is to prevent them replicating, so that you can slow down the infection, give the body a chance to develop some immunity in the form of antibodies, to help overcome the infection and shorten the period of illness. There is no cure on earth for ANY virus. Whether that be the common cold, flu, herpes, chicken pox, cold sores, hepatitis, HIV. So when people are going on about "having a vaccine for COVID-19" I do hope they realise this isn't a cure? Vaccines reduce the incidence of a disease, IF, enough of the population receive it and build up immunity. They don't cure the disease, they reduce the chances of us getting it and spreading it to others. Viruses replicate by getting inside human cells. It's the only way they can replicate - again, unlike bacteria. They get into the human cells using one of 2 keys. The keys are RNA or DNA. Retroviruses use RNA and something called reverse transcriptase to get inside the human cell. Other viruses use DNA. It doesn't matter how they get in, the fact is, they do and once inside the human cell they start to replicate. If they replicate in sufficient numbers then the person becomes symptomatic and falls ill. The way that viruses spread to others may be by more than one route. At the beginning of this pandemic, it wasn't known how this particular virus, COVID-19, was being transmitted. It appears that the main route of transmission is airborne. It doesn't survive for long outside of the human body and particularly in sunlight. The chances of catching COVID-19 by touching something that someone else with the virus has touched, is extremely small. Yes the COVID-19 virus can remain on some surfaces for a few days, but it's not just the presence of the virus that's the problem, it's the size of the viral load - in other words, how much of it is actually there if you were to touch it on a surface? And the answer to that is, not very much compared to the amount you'd ingest if someone who is infected with the virus coughed or sneezed on you. So, whilst it makes good sense to wash and sanitize hands, people really needn't get so paranoid in supermarkets, when folks like me pick up a tin of beer to see how strong it is, and then put it back on the shelf! I am causing harm and risk to no one by doing that. It would be better if I didn't - but...I'm a human and humans like to pick things up or touch and feel them, it's instinctive and hard to stop oneself from doing it. What I found most interesting, and concerning, about COVID-19 is relating to what we call "Viral Shedding". And this is the ability of the virus to remain infectious to others. It is believed that people infected with COVID-19 are "shedding", i.e. giving off the virus to others, several days before they develop any symptoms at all. It has also been reported that some patients are still "shedding" up to three weeks later, long after the illness and symptoms have passed. This means that this particular virus has the potential to infect a lot more people, and that's what we've seen with this pandemic. Back to the treatments then and next time you hear someone say - "they can't even find a cure for the common cold" - can you tell them that this is because the common cold, just like COVID-19, is a virus and you can't kill viruses. Remember, the virus is sitting inside the human cell, so the aim of treatment is to stop or slow down the virus from replicating. And that's what these antiretroviral and antiviral drugs do. Finally, there is something doing the rounds at the moment, on the internet. I know a few people who have received it and think it's real. It's advice on how to treat COVID-19 and it usually purports to be something that was sent to NHS workers, "official advice", something along those lines. This is a complete fake and it worries me that some people are being taken in by it. It's supposed to be an NHS bulletin for their staff, yet it is not on an NHS template - that should lead folks to be suspicious for a start. Then it talks about "killing" the virus - that's also incorrect and no one in the NHS with knowledge of viruses would use that term, for the reasons I've explained. And then it goes into all kinds of nonsense about the virus symptoms starting in the throat and the need to have hot drinks etc. It appears very convincing - but it's a completely fake document - and following the advice in it can do more harm than good.
  4. Antiretrovirals are medications designed to treat retroviral infections, the most common of which is HIV. Antivirals are medications used to treat viral infections, such as flu, herpes, hepatitis. As I said, "there is no such evidence as yet for COVID-19".
  5. Possibly yes. But the solicitor/conveyancer, imo, should have checked this. It always amazes me why folks go to "solicitors" for house conveyancing, when solicitors are doing all sorts of other things and are not specialised in house sale transactions, unlike conveyancers, and solicitors charge a hell of a lot more for something they are not as expert in as convveyancers.
  6. First of all, I wasn't comparing the lethality of COVID-19 to chicken pox. There is no comparison! I was merely making the point that in the past, it was considered that it was a good thing to increase exposure to the chicken pox virus, because it helped to build immunity. And it did. And I totally agree with you that there is no such evidence, as yet, for COVID-19. But, there is evidence of herd immunity to "coronavirus" which have been around for many years - and so it is reasonable to suppose that exposure to the same may yield herd immunity. No one knows for certain of course - but it would be extremely unusual if it didn't. And there doesn't appear to be an alternative at present. There is no "working vaccine" and that may be many years away. The only way this virus is going to be stopped is by allowing it to infect the whole population ( or most of it) and for some to develop immunity to it, but many others will die from it. Eventually what you end up with is a dead population and a live population with immunity to it. (Or at least to the original strain - maybe not to future mutations). That, at the present time, looks like the only solution. Yes it's reckless, but so is closing down the economy to avoid it, which in turn may lead to a situation worse than the coronavirus itself. Yes I've heard of antiretrovirals. I've worked for 30 years in infectious disease and have published in peer review journals on the same. Over the past few weeks I've Chaired a series of online meetings/seminars on COVID-19 internationally. It's what I do for a living. Ante-retrovirals have been used in the treatment of HIV successfully and I think it's a very interesting idea for the treatment of COVID-19, but the evidence so far is pretty non-existent. That doesn't mean they can't be useful, but we just don't know at present. Your last paragraph completely confuses me. "Why do you find this acceptable?". Where on earth have I stated I find this acceptable? I find it totally deplorable! I totally agree that the this government, and the ones before it, have completely underestimated the serious threat of a pandemic like this and are totally unprepared for it. I didn't come on here to start an argument btw. I was just stating my opinion on things and I'm happy to reflect on that and consider other opinions. Very happy to debate issues with you - but let's try and keep it on a civil level shall we?
  7. The figures that were produced by Ferguson et al from Imperial College were flawed. I said so at the time. Interesting that he's now dropped that estimate by over 200,000! But, the figures served a purpose. They gave sufficient fright to the government to initiate lockdown. You seem to be wanting to make political commentary of this - and I'm not interested in the politics, although inevitably politics are involved. My colleague, who has an advisory role in all this stuff, told me a week before the lock down that it was coming. In his words, "no politician wants to be the one who says we don't need to do it" ("it" being lock down). I'm not sure which disease you are referring to when you say "herd immunity has never been a government strategy before Boris's strategy without the presence of a vaccine"? There have been very few pandemics in recent decades for which we haven't been prepared with a vaccine - we'd probably have to go back to the Spanish Flu of 1918 - is that what you mean, or were you thinking of something more recent than that? The facts are, this is a new virus. "Coronavirus" aren't new btw - we've had many coronavirus before - but this one, "COVID-19" is new. So, we know very little about it. We don't have a vaccine for it. Put bluntly, "herd immunity" isn't a strategy - it's an inevitability. There is no way of stopping it ripping through our society - we can only hope to minimise the effect of it and to slow it down so that it doesn't impact too large a number of people at any one time and overwhelm our ability to respond. Herd immunity is explained very well in the graphic below. People are shown as circles. Infectious agents (germs) spread between the people in orange, although they do not get severe disease. When the infection reaches people who are highly susceptible (red) they get the disease and can be very sick or die. In the lower panel, the people in green have been vaccinated. This now protects those in yellow as well, who had previously got the infection and possibly the disease. Although the figure only shows a few people being vaccinated, in reality many people have to be vaccinated for herd immunity to work. Source: Oxford Vaccine Group You say the "herd immunity" strategy is reckless. I'd like to ask you what other choice we have? When I was a kid there was a virus knocking around called "Chicken Pox". And there used to be "Chicken Pox Parties" - because parents believed that it was better for their kids to have chicken pox whilst they were young and not get it later in life as adults. I think we have to be very careful about taking the results of any one study and extrapolating them like they are facts. The bottom line is, we just don't know if someone will develop immunity to COVID-19 if they have already had it once. There isn't sufficient evidence to judge that. The people I work with believe that most people will develop immunity - this is what we have seen with other coronavirus, so it seems reasonable to believe that we will see the same with this coronavirus - but, we just don't know. This isn't the end of the world btw. But there will need to be an easing of lockdown restrictions sooner rather than later. Not a total removal, but a gradual removal, and that will mean that the infections and the deaths continue for a good while longer yet. But if we don't do that then the economy will be in such a bad way that the country will be on its knees, there will be no food in the shops, people will not have money or jobs and mass civil unrest will ensue. So, it's rather a bit like "Hobson's Choice". We have to relax the lock down or the country will crumble and that will bring more deaths and unhappiness than easing the lock down and risking more deaths to a largely "vulnerable" population. Whilst no politician will want to admit it - Economy will eventually come before Health. And it has to. Because without Economy you don't have Health.
  8. Interesting that you say "in normal life" it wouldn't bother you so much, but "during lockdown it's annoying". I suspect the issue is that you feel that you have been mislead/not fully informed by the estate agent. And I think you've every right to feel upset about that, whether they are obliged to inform you or not is besides the point. A honourable estate agent would have pointed this out. Also, why wasn't this picked up when your solicitor/conveyancer did the property searches? I know my conveyancer would have picked up on that in a flash. Then again, he's been exceptional in terms of details like this - which is why I've used him time and time again. (I nearly bought a barn conversion a few years ago near Ewden Reservoir. The property was stunning, but if'd gone ahead with the purchase, I would also have been liable for having the local lane that led up to the property, "metalled". It was only through his diligence that I avoided what would have been, an additional £40k of expense on top of the house purchase). Coming back to your case though, are you saying that if it wasn't for "lockdown" you'd be quite happy for this elderly person to be regularly wandering through your property to the toilet? I'm not sure I believe you. I grew up in a 2 up 2 down terrace house with no toilet or bathroom. In the row where I lived, most of the houses were the same and a trip to the toilet involved a trip out into the back yard. Some of the houses had longish gardens and the toilet block was situated right at the back of the garden. It was a regular occurrence seeing our neighbours (and them seeing us) wandering up the garden with toilet roll in hand to perform the necessary. It's really not good. We all do it of course, but a public display of "I'm going to empty my bowels" isn't great really! I'd try and spare a thought for your elderly neighbour if you can? Think of it also from her perspective. This is her life. It's probably all she's ever known and is quite happy with it that way. I know from seeing my own mother get older, that they just don't want the upset of having their homes knocked about. My mother, after years of living in the terraced house, eventually moved into a council house, with magical things, like hot water on tap and an indoor toilet and bathroom. When she was in her 70's the council came round doing "renovations" to the houses and it really upset her. I think they were there about a week, but it was such an intrusion on her life and such a mess, it's not far short of the mark to call it "traumatic". You sound to me like you have very poor appreciation of how some others live their lives, when you question "why in 2020 she wouldn't have a bathroom?" The answer to that is, she doesn't - and that's all there is to it. She might never have had one. She might have never wanted one. Then again, maybe she'd love to be able to afford to have one? Why don't you ask her? Instead you prefer to come at it from the angle of "why on earth hasn't she got one?" like there must be something wrong with her. I don't see how the "lockdown" has much to do with this tbh. This lady is presenting no threat to you and your family whatsoever. I think you are frustrated that you/your estate agent/your solicitor didn't pick up on this before. Just try not to take that frustration out on this old lady and try and understand that this is her life - so put your frustrations aside and deal with her sensitively would be my advice.
  9. B&Q DO sell it - they've got tons and tons of it - and they ARE open. Today, Sunday, they open 10 till 4pm, Weekdays they are open from 8am but close earlier than normal, last entry to the store is at 4.30 and they close at 5pm. I was in there on Friday and again on Saturday. If you go down there, you'll know why they call it B & Queue! Took me about 40 minutes to get in on Friday. Fortunately, it only took me 5 minutes to get in yesterday (because I was just taking something back). You could click and collect, or even arrange delivery, from some places - although I think they'd be quite a hefty delivery charge to Cromwell Street, Gloucester.
  10. I went for a walk in Abbeydale woods the other week. It's about 15 mins from my door. It was crowded with other walkers, cyclists etc. If I drive up to Fox House, which is 1.5 miles exactly, and takes about 5 minutes, I can walk in open countryside and hardly see a soul. I think I know which is "safer" and best for everyone. It's also about mental health. And being confined to the same area for any length of time isn't good for that. I admit I have changed my views on this. A few weeks ago I was driving a bit further out, into Derbyshire, to enjoy peace and quiet in the Dales, but I've exercised some restriction on doing that, because I don't feel I can justify it. However I still see nothing wrong in jumping in the car for 5 minutes to be able to walk in an area where I am very unlikely to bump into loads of other people.
  11. It's not that tbh. There are several stages of development that have to be gone through. It takes time. And a vaccine is totally different to other drugs, because with vaccines we are looking to give them to 85% or more of the population for them to work. So we have to be very, very sure, they are safe. Assuming we arrive at a point where we have, (what we think - based on a few hundred or maybe a few thousand subjects in clinical trials) is an effective and "safe" vaccine, we then expose this to millions of the population. This is not like an antibiotic - or other medicines, where a new one might be given to a few hundred, or maybe a thousand or two patients in the first year of availability. We are talking about the majority of the population getting it. So we have to be absolutely as certain as we can that it won't cause harm. The other issue is scaling up production. That takes time as well. The point about adapting and repurposing existing drugs and vaccines is not relevant I'm afraid. This is a new strain of coronavirus - we don't have anything remotely available to re-purpose. And even if we did, you absolutely cannot "cut out" some of the stages of testing when you are planning to give it to the majority of the population. Vaccines are administered by national programmes, not by individual doctor's choice.
  12. If we want to understand the value of testing, look no further than Germany, which has used testing very effectively to prevent further spread of COVID-19 and save lives. This is one of the main reasons why they have handled COVID-19 better than any other country in Europe. If we are waiting for a vaccine to appear as a cure - we will be disappointed. Vaccines are not cures. They are preventatives. It normally takes about 10 years to develop a new vaccine - so I think we should consider the "18 months" that is being talked about, as being rather ambitious. So the ability to test the general population, to see if they have got it or had it, is actually very important. It will mean that we can identify those with the disease and do contact tracing, so we can prevent further spread, whilst allowing those who have already had it, to return to "normal" life. This is what is happening in Germany right now. Of course, the only way to develop "herd immunity" is to allow the majority of the herd to catch it. And the reason why we haven't done that is because the NHS would be overwhelmed if too many people caught it at the same time. But, we should be clear, that without an effective vaccine, the only way herd immunity can build up is by allowing more people to catch it - and all the efforts currently are about doing that, in a controlled way. The next steps are to relax social distancing rules for some and start to re-open businesses. This will happen within the next two weeks - but the problem will still be there and high risk groups will probably still have restrictions on them.
  13. yes I know what you mean. I hope we have the "problem" of playing in Europe next season. To me, that's about squad size and depth (and quality of course). I've heard people say it's the extra games that take it out teams - but Premier League clubs only play 38 league games as opposed to Championship clubs with 46. So I don't think it's a big deal tbh - I suppose the travelling midweek can put extra strain on the squad - but most places in Europe are 2 -3 hours max - so it's not like there's going to be jet lag involved. I think we can take inspiration from the likes of Wolves, Burnley, Bournemouth and several others who've consolidated at the top level and had no problems with the second season. Wilder's got a consistent approach to it and I think we'll get even stronger.
  14. Interesting that it was also a co-op store! Was it "divi day" I wonder?
  15. Ah! the "second season" syndrome eh? I disagree that next season will be the big test. The big test has been this season. The reason I say that is, we came up with a team, still largely made up of players from the past 2 or 3 seasons, from the lower leagues. And we came up without the benefit of over £100m behind us, which is what we will start next season with. We came up with most players having little or no experience of playing at Premier League level. And of course, we were everyone's favourite for relegation. Next season we'll be starting with a more experienced group of players, which we will add further quality players to. We'll have more money behind us. You could argue that we won't "surprise" teams next season, as we'll be more of a known quantity. But I'm not sure that's the case. Teams have had plenty of opportunity this season to "suss us out" - and whilst they may have understood how we would set up against them, not many have been able to do much about it. Add some further dimensions to that squad, in the form of new players who give us even more options to change the game up, and we effectively become even harder to beat, because we become even more of a moving target. I just hope we get to see it live!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.