Coronavirus - Part Two.

[Mister M 1,609]

1 hour ago, Anna B said:

IMO Herd immunity is the way forward.

Life should carry on as normal. Let the young catch it as most will have only mild symptoms, and shield the elderly and vulnerable. I am in the elderly group so I would not be happy about this, but we cannot sacrifice the economy, the young, and our way of life because of this group.

Except that it's being reported that many of the younger population who do get the virus, and survive it have a much reduced quality of health and life. 

I was listening to LBC only yesterday of a woman in her 30s who contracted the virus in March and now is severely restricted in what she can do, her life now sounds awful.

 

[onewheeldave 22]

17 minutes ago, Mister M said:

Except that it's being reported that many of the younger population who do get the virus, and survive it have a much reduced quality of health and life. 

I was listening to LBC only yesterday of a woman in her 30s who contracted the virus in March and now is severely restricted in what she can do, her life now sounds awful.

 

Really? Do you have a link to anything showing that many of the younger population who do get the virus, and survive it have a much reduced quality of health and life [as opposed to a small minority].

[Mister M 1,609]

This young woman was speaking from her own experience on the radio yesterday, so I can't download that.

However there are many first hand stories from people at the sharp end, just check today's Daily Mirror. This from a consultant rheumatologist who is still suffering 6 months later https://www.bma.org.uk/news-and-opinion/doctors-with-long-covid

An epidemiologist, who has researched 'long Covid', found that around 300,000 people had reported symptoms lasting for more than a month. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/sep/08/60000-may-have-long-covid-for-more-than-three-months-uk-study

I will also add that more information is available via the usual search engine, if you'd like to read more about the condition.

Edited October 9, 2020 by Mister M

[onewheeldave 22]

13 minutes ago, Mister M said:

This young woman was speaking from her own experience on the radio yesterday, so I can't download that.

However there are many first hand stories from people at the sharp end, just check today's Daily Mirror. This from a consultant rheumatologist who is still suffering 6 months later https://www.bma.org.uk/news-and-opinion/doctors-with-long-covid

An epidemiologist, who has researched 'long Covid', found that around 300,000 people had reported symptoms lasting for more than a month. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/sep/08/60000-may-have-long-covid-for-more-than-three-months-uk-study

I will also add that more information is available via the usual search engine, if you'd like to read more about the condition.

I'm not questioning the condition, just the use of the word 'many'. What is relevant is the proportion of young people who get severe long term consequences, compared to the huge numbers of young people who get mild symptoms and recover quickly, or are totally asymptomatic.

 

 

[Litotes 63]

2 hours ago, onewheeldave said:

But when looked at in hindsight, taking into account those who will die as a result of unemployment, destroyed industries, mental health and lack of access to medical treatment, isn't it fairly obvious that those numbers could well exceed any saved by the measures?

 

This "many many many more dead" is nothing other than a tired, knee-jerk mantra that is only remotely plausible in conjunction with a head-in-the-sand disregard for those unfortunates who will die, not of covid, but of the covid measures.

And how will you take into account "those who will die of unemployment" - this is pure speculation about something that might or might not happen.

 

The "isn't is fairly obvious statement", is also yet another unsubstantiated claim gazing into a crystal ball.

 

Your whole argument is unsubstantiated as opposed to the very real fact that people are dying of Covid-19 now.

 

1 hour ago, apelike said:

I notice the emotive language, people still die regardless. I have had a break recently from SF because a best friend of mine died and so did a family member and both deaths had nothing to do with corona virus. The impact of that and not being able to go to their funerals and support others was very hard to deal with and I know I am not alone.

I am sorry for your loss, but if it were I, and I had gone to a funeral, and Covid 19 had been transmitted through the congregation and others died because of attendance at the funeral, I am sure (and yes, this is a personal opinion - you might be different) that I would have wished that the congregation had never happened.

 

1 hour ago, Easy livin said:

There are as many professional epidemiologists and virologists  who are disagreeing,  yet the guv are choosing to ignore those  voices.
what if they are  right?  
have you not considered that?

 

And what if they are wrong?

Shouldn't you err on the side of caution?

22 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

I'm not questioning the condition, just the use of the word 'many'. What is relevant is the proportion of young people who get severe long term consequences, compared to the huge numbers of young people who get mild symptoms and recover quickly, or are totally asymptomatic.

I question the use of the phrase "huge numbers" - without proper testing we won't know how many that is - so saying it is 'huge' is misleading.

[RiffRaff 10]

Visited a care home thsi morning, and used the NHS app to scan the QR code inside the entrance. My phone instantly confirmed where I was, so at least that bit of the operation is working.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to have more types of location having these QRs to scan?

Petrol stations? Supermarkets? Bus terminals? Post offices?

[Baron99 779]

8 hours ago, RiffRaff said:

Visited a care home thsi morning, and used the NHS app to scan the QR code inside the entrance. My phone instantly confirmed where I was, so at least that bit of the operation is working.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to have more types of location having these QRs to scan?

Petrol stations? Supermarkets? Bus terminals? Post offices?

Had a chuckle at the story a bloke told on Radio Sheffield, Friday morning. 

 

He's downloaded the Track & Trace app & he said it goes off on a regular basis in the early hours, to tell him that he's just been in contact with someone with COVID-19?  

 

Problem is, he's in his bed & he's blaming students walking past his house in the early hours? 

[nikki-red 307]

13 hours ago, Baron99 said:

Had a chuckle at the story a bloke told on Radio Sheffield, Friday morning. 

 

He's downloaded the Track & Trace app & he said it goes off on a regular basis in the early hours, to tell him that he's just been in contact with someone with COVID-19?  

 

Problem is, he's in his bed & he's blaming students walking past his house in the early hours? 

That’s not how it works at all tho. If you have a positive test you then have to tell Test and Trace who you’ve been in contact with. 

Those people (plus any people that have checked in at the same places as you using the app) will then get a text, email or phone call. The app doesn’t ‘go off’ because there’s someone close to you.
 

Edited October 10, 2020 by nikki-red

[Tomm06 12]

14 hours ago, Litotes said:

And how will you take into account "those who will die of unemployment" - this is pure speculation about something that might or might not happen.

 

The "isn't is fairly obvious statement", is also yet another unsubstantiated claim gazing into a crystal ball.

 

Your whole argument is unsubstantiated as opposed to the very real fact that people are dying of Covid-19 now.

 

I am sorry for your loss, but if it were I, and I had gone to a funeral, and Covid 19 had been transmitted through the congregation and others died because of attendance at the funeral, I am sure (and yes, this is a personal opinion - you might be different) that I would have wished that the congregation had never happened.

 

And what if they are wrong?

Shouldn't you err on the side of caution?

I question the use of the phrase "huge numbers" - without proper testing we won't know how many that is - so saying it is 'huge' is misleading.

Suicide rates are already up, many of which attributed to the current situation. It's not a case of "might or might not"

[Rockers rule 673]

2 hours ago, Tomm06 said:

Suicide rates are already up, many of which attributed to the current situation. It's not a case of "might or might not"

Unfortunately suicides, marriage break ups and mental health problems have always been a part of any redundancy.

Throw in this totally new and very worrying world wide pandemic and yes there will be more of the above,

So what do we do about it?

Look after your loved ones, have a look around your workmates or friends, is there someone or something you can do to help?

Talking, keeping in touch are all minor things that can help.

The first time any one has to deal with redundancy is a definite shock to the system as I'm sure many of you out there will have gone through.

2nd and 3rd get's easier and there is already an acceptance there is no working for the same company for 40 years any more.

 

I'm no expert and don't purport to be but those who have had to deal with being made redundant on large can cope better when it happens again much as we are learning how to deal with this unseen Virus and its consequences.

 

Keep safe - look after each other.  

[petemcewan 27]

To the Forum.

Quote

 

” Sack agrees: “We say in general that young people don’t get as sick, but we also know that some young people die.” 

There’s also the risk that surviving participants could suffer long-term consequences, says Monica McArthur, a physician-scientist in the Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. “While I’m a proponent of challenge models, I think there are some ethical requirements, and those include having a significant knowledge of the long-term effects of the infection.”

 

 

The quote is from The Scientist. It addresses the ethics of challenge vaccination and the seriousness of Cov-19.

But I'm using it to support the argument that dumping suppression measures in favour of Herd Immunity,

is unethical.

Recognising that Cov-19 behaves in a disproportionate  way between the young,elderly and BAME populations. Is not a sufficiently ethical argument for chucking the vulnerable under the bus and letting Cov-19 run rampant -because -for some- to continue with suppression measures  is inconvenient.

Every life is of equal value. And we do not trade off the lives of the vulnerable for the convenience

of those who do not fit the vulnerable profile.

We have to search for a way out of this paradox that embraces and protects all of us.

 

Mitigation ultimately means abandoning the vulnerable. Herd Immunity protocols are the last resort of scoundrel governments.

 

 

Quote

Look after your loved ones, have a look around your workmates or friends, is there someone or something you can do to help?

I personally agree complete with the sentiments expressed  in the quote above

Edited October 10, 2020 by petemcewan

[northernboy 13]

The app does “go off” occasionally with a pop up notification to say you’ve been in contact with someone with symptoms, but the notification then vanishes into thin air.  
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54389083