Jump to content

Coronavirus

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Waldo said:

Personally, I can’t see many downside to wearing a face mask.

 

I have no problem with anyone who wears one, I don’t think they look stupid, I just think they’re taking their own, and other’s, well-being seriously. Good on them.

 

I did a little research in to N95 masks (with a view to getting some myself). There are some problems with them you need to consider; I think the main one is where the virus can land on the outside of the mask, and you can be exposed to it when removing (or reusing) the mask.

A paper (doubtless one out of many) on the effectiveness of different masks, including homemade ones, is under the 'Download full-text PDF' button here:

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258525804_Testing_the_Efficacy_of_Homemade_Masks_Would_They_Protect_in_an_Influenza_Pandemic

 

To me, their conclusions are a lot more pessimistic than their data, which seem to show that even the improvised ones are of some benefit, provided you don't leave gaps round the side.

 

The virus seems to survive for at most a few days on most surfaces:

 

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/03/19/how-long-can-the-novel-coronavirus-survive-on-surfaces-and-in-the-air

 

so maybe you could make or buy a small collection of masks and cycle through them?

Edited by CaptainSwing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, CaptainSwing said:

The FT article is behind a paywall, but the research on which it's presumably based is available for free, by clicking on the dropbox link in the following tweet:

 

https://twitter.com/EEID_oxford/status/1242402762283012096

 

I can help interpret that if anyone wants.  One thing to note is that they apply their model to Italy as well as to the UK.  The Italian health service is getting swamped even if it is 'one in a thousand'.  On the other hand, using that assumption something like 80% of the Italian population will already have been exposed/infected (grey curve in Figure 2B, which shows the proportion not yet exposed), which would be good news on the herd immunity front.

 

[Their corresponding figure for the UK is 68% by 19th March, but, to repeat, that is based on the assumption that 0.1% of the population will get seriously ill when infected.  But that assumption is supported by the fact that if they assume a bigger number, say 1%, they get counterintuitive results like the first cases being reported before the virus got into the country (for the UK, Figure 1E; they don't get that for Italy, Figure 2E).]

 

Is their model right?  Time will tell.  Or, as they say, a proper randomised survey of the population, using antibody tests, would settle the question more quickly.

What we can be reasonably certain of is the 1% average death rate is way over the top, it's probably 0.1% *, based purely on the fact the authorities have no idea whatsoever how many people have (or have had) this virus. The figures for "confirmed cases" are a complete waste of time reading because, as I said in an earlier post, anyone who thinks they might have had it is not (repeat not) required to contact the NHS, or anyone else, much less actually be tested. On the subject of which, I think all health workers are regularly getting tested, therefore their infection rates will come up as artificially high in comparison to the rest of the population ?

 

* I'd have thought the death rate for those without underlying health issues would be significantly lower than even that figure. So, isolate and support the vulnerable groups till a vaccine comes out, or, probably rather sooner, a drug regime is proven to work well enough in minimising the death rate. Surely this seems a far more practical way forward ? What is the point of all these draconian isolation steps if half the population already have it ?

Edited by Justin Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Baron99 said:

ITN news have just announced the death of the UK's youngest victim of COVID-19.  

 

21 year old with no underlying health problems.  

 

 

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-03-25/daughter-21-believed-to-be-youngest-in-uk-to-die-from-coronavirus/

 

Wise words from the victim's mother; "Her mother, Diane, wrote on Facebook: “To all the people out there that thinks it's just a virus please think again."

Unfortunately until an autopsy is carried out to determine the cause of death for the moment it is a maybe that her death was caused by coronavirus. But it is still sad and my condolences to the family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Justin Smith said:

What we can be reasonably certain of is the 1% average death rate is way over the top, it's probably 0.1% *, based purely on the fact the authorities have no idea whatsoever how many people have (or have had) this virus. The figures for "confirmed cases" are a complete waste of time reading because, as I said in an earlier post, anyone who thinks they might have had it is not (repeat not) required to contact the NHS, or anyone else, much less actually be tested. On the subject of which, I think all health workers are regularly getting tested, therefore their infection rates will come up as artificially high in comparison to the rest of the population ?

 

* I'd have thought the death rate for those without underlying health issues would be significantly lower than even that figure. So, isolate and support the vulnerable groups till a vaccine comes out, or, probably rather sooner, a drug regime is proven to work well enough in minimising the death rate. Surely this seems a far more practical way forward ? What is the point of all these draconian isolation steps if half the population already have it ?

To clarify / repeat, the '0.1% to 1%' figure in the quoted report is the fraction of people who would get seriously ill if infected, which would include (some) old people, people with existing conditions, healthy young people who might suffer a cytokine storm, etc.  The figure they use for the proportion of these people who die is about 14%.  Multiply those together and you get an even tinier number.  The point of the draconian steps is that even with these tiny fractions you can still end up with an Italy-like situation in which the health service is swamped, due I guess to the virus being unusually contagious, so that the outbreak explodes.  And even tiny fractions add up to a large absolute number of deaths.  Plus there's the consideration of long-term lung damage to some of the people who survive.

 

Your suggestion of isolating vulnerable people until vaccines or treatments become available sounds like a good one.  It would have its disadvantages (stigmatization of the isolated and their families, can't be sure who is vulnerable, slowness, administrative difficulty and leakiness of implementation), but as you say the current strategy has its disadvantages too.

 

It's very true that the case fatality rate (no. of deaths divided by no. of confirmed cases) isn't particularly meaningful [that kind of bias is the bane of retrospective studies in particular], but it's all we've got in the absence of (as I say) a proper randomised survey of the population, so it's not surprising that people latch onto it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 24/03/2020 at 08:30, DerbyTup said:

I think you need to educate yourself a bit further on the use of gloves and masks.  For a start, there is no reason why healthy people should be wearing them.  And if they are worn then other hygiene conditions need to be met.

 

We've got a situation currently where these items are needed in hospital by NHS staff, but are in short supply because Joe Public is wearing them, for no good reason.  What a ridiculous state of affairs! 

 

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks  

 

 

If you feel that being at work is putting your own health, or those of others, at risk, you shouldn't go to work.  

 

Your employer, rightly or wrongly, has decided that production can carry on as normal without putting staff at risk.  That's his/her call.  By continuing working and "making profits" your employer will be able to stay in business and pay you and others a wage.  Have you thought of it that way?  

1 )First of all, nobody knows if they are healthy or not even if the feel well The symptoms don't show themselves until day 5 or 6 by which time you coukd have infected a lot of people.That's why testing people is so mportant, but even health workers haven't had the test.

 

2) Watched Prime Ministers Questions this morning, MPs of both parties reporting many problems with employers who are flouting the rules and insisting workers work in unsafe conditions (eg unable to maintain a safe distance etc.  and threatening their employees with dismissal if they don't comply.)

Also people trying to claim Universal Credit has rocketed, and they are unable to cope. It never was good at coping in the first place with the 5 week wait being something of a myth. Many people already have to wait longer than 2 months. 

As with the self employed, many of the new claimants have no savings to fall back on.

 

So the 'idiots' have a choice, work or starve.

 

Edited by Anna B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work in a shop that sells food and I can tell you that a bit of disquiet is brewing amongst staff, not only where I work but in other shops too. Being a shelf stacker has always been a job that has rubbish working conditions, strict supervision, and pays peanuts, but now suddenly we are important "key workers". What makes it worse is that other people who work in shops that have been forced to shut, like Primark and Argos etc, are sat at home with their feet up, not being exposed to corona virus, and on 80% pay if you please!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ruddy76 said:

I work in a shop that sells food and I can tell you that a bit of disquiet is brewing amongst staff, not only where I work but in other shops too. Being a shelf stacker has always been a job that has rubbish working conditions, strict supervision, and pays peanuts, but now suddenly we are important "key workers". What makes it worse is that other people who work in shops that have been forced to shut, like Primark and Argos etc, are sat at home with their feet up, not being exposed to corona virus, and on 80% pay if you please!

when all this is over the you are pretty much guaranteed to keep your job. no one else is, especially those who are doing nothing.

 

even those of us who are actually working at home are not entirely confident of the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

There is a lot of debate about face masks.

 

IMO the reasons for this argument about NHS wearing facemaks or general public, is because NHS are trained in PPE. They know how to use them in other words.

 

If someone wears one, coughs in it, with virus, then removes it, and doesn't follow a procedure, then could be leaving viruses all over surfaces etc.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing a bit more advice or film on it from experts to determine whether I'm on the right lines...

 

-

 

however, this is MY opinion.

 

As a taxi driver (using PHV at moment), in recent weeks, when I get to pick up point, and there are 2 options:

 

4 people not wearing masks

4 people wearing masks

 

If you were a driver, which would you prefer?

 

I preferred the latter personally. Whether any difference or not,  but I felt better. Especially if someone sneezed! (especially a child, who may not have known to shield the sneeze)

 

 

 

 

Edited by *_ash_*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Justin Smith said:

What we can be reasonably certain of is the 1% average death rate is way over the top, it's probably 0.1% *, based purely on the fact the authorities have no idea whatsoever how many people have (or have had) this virus. The figures for "confirmed cases" are a complete waste of time reading because, as I said in an earlier post, anyone who thinks they might have had it is not (repeat not) required to contact the NHS, or anyone else, much less actually be tested. On the subject of which, I think all health workers are regularly getting tested, therefore their infection rates will come up as artificially high in comparison to the rest of the population ?

 

* I'd have thought the death rate for those without underlying health issues would be significantly lower than even that figure. So, isolate and support the vulnerable groups till a vaccine comes out, or, probably rather sooner, a drug regime is proven to work well enough in minimising the death rate. Surely this seems a far more practical way forward ? What is the point of all these draconian isolation steps if half the population already have it ?

Ok that was at best tenuous or at worst total garbage. 

 

The Oxford report is speculation based on epidemiology models. The only true way to get a reliable mortality statistic is by widespread testing, tracing and follow ups on closed cases. South Korea probably has the most reliable numbers and they are sitting at 3% across all groups. 

Edited by Albert the Cat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Justin Smith said:

 On the subject of which, I think all health workers are regularly getting tested, therefore their infection rates will come up as artificially high in comparison to the rest of the population ?

 

 

Only symptomatic NHS staff are being tested, in a bid to get them back to work ASAP if the tests are negative.

Testing everyone would be pointless, the results can take over 24 hours. You could catch the virus straight after your swabs were sent off, then get a negative result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, nikki-red said:

Only symptomatic NHS staff are being tested, in a bid to get them back to work ASAP if the tests are negative.

Testing everyone would be pointless, the results can take over 24 hours. You could catch the virus straight after your swabs were sent off, then get a negative result.

horray for sense.

 

However, definitely more can be done. i.e in this scenario, if a staff (any staff) finishing shift and thinks may have symptoms. Test them on the way out carefully, wait 24 hours for result , then staff knows, and can continue/ or not.

 

-

 

Main priority now looks like getting more PPE gear. I know people are criticising the government over this (and rightly) but I can't imagine where they're getting them from, as world stocks must be low. A larger version of the toilet roll issue for small time people! It's not as easy as people say: ''We'll, why don't they get more?''

 

Some factories must be in overdrive.

Edited by *_ash_*
clarity and typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • 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.