Chat about Novel Coronavirus - 2019-nCoV - COVID-19

Posted on
Page
of 925
  • I’ve got severe asthma, been hospitalised a couple of times (though not for about 4 years - currently controlled with inhaled steroids) and attend the asthma clinic at GSTT. I had the vaccine a few weeks ago - though unclear whether they were applying criteria or just working their way down the asthma clinic’s patient list to try and fill gaps as it sounded like there were lots of no shows. I was asked if I wanted a shielding letter ... I declined.

  • Especially as the outdoors sports club he wants to go to is 0830...on a Saturday

    FFS we don't all live next to the school :)

  • Does the message get further reach if Sturgeon (or Boris) delivers the message?

    Yes. Especially in Scotland I'd say, to be fair. It's a lot easier to take advice from someone who communicates well and has a certain level of competence than Boris.

    It's fairly clear that a minister is allowed to discharge their current duties without modification as long as they adhere to certain standards around sticking to specific issues and keeping things factual.

    I'd say advantage Sturgeon on this one too given Johnson's rambling nature and capacity for porkies.

    I understand why the fuss now but I think it's quite telling that it's only the Express and the Telegraph that seem to be making a fuss about this.

    Neil Oliver isn't very happy about it in the Times either:
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/neil-­oliver-scotland-is-making-me-sick-and-it­s-not-covid-to-blame-05vjqsf2w

    Any independent team travelling the world to monitor the safety, legality and fairness of elections would surely witness such an egregious imbalance and be on the first plane out of the country to raise the alarm. In Scotland hardly a soul is moved to bat so much as an eyelid. Much more of this and Scotland will be the sort of place the Foreign Office tells travellers to steer clear of. Is that the tinpot clang of a dictatorship? Do I detect the scent of bananas?

  • Could well see it ending in court. It's definitely a popcorn story for media correspondents and media lawyers.

  • Dom's mates?

  • Or will just so many people get the virus the tiny percentage of young/healthy people that die will become significant?

    This. Currently still about 50 million unvaccinated so even though this group is much less vulnerable, there are still loads of them + vaccine efficacy after one dose (most people so far) is lower, so increases the small % who still get ill after the vaccine + new variants possibly having more resistance to vaccines.

  • The new variants part is the scary one for me. Christina Pagel, who has been pretty on the money with this so far, is basically saying if you open up this summer you create the perfect breeding ground for a vaccine resistant strain.

    This monster thread also touches on all the other risks with opening up including vaccine disparity in deprived communities and long covid and how that is emerging as a concern in children.

    I'm glad I'm not making the decisions, but I'd rather be safer than sorry with the opening up.

  • Any independent team travelling the world to monitor the safety, legality and fairness of elections would surely witness such an egregious imbalance and be on the first plane out of the country to raise the alarm. In Scotland hardly a soul is moved to bat so much as an eyelid. Much more of this and Scotland will be the sort of place the Foreign Office tells travellers to steer clear of. Is that the tinpot clang of a dictatorship? Do I detect the scent of bananas?

    Bloody hell. This reads like a Daily Mail Oped. What has happened to The Times?

  • Again the problem of hunkering down too long to be "better safe than sorry" will likely cause more deaths due to the ongoing detrimental effects on mental and physical health, and (more specifically) the austerity it creates than are saved due to avoiding Covid-19 deaths. Especially now that the groups responsible for 99% of Covid-19 deaths are long on their way to as good a vaccination status as we can expect.

    If the recent decisions are being science/data led then hopefully the consensus agreement behind it factors this in to how long they think they can reasonable keep the lockdown in place.

    I'm sure there will be dissenting views in SAGE and iSAGE, it's obviously not a decision that is going to be unanimous or clearly defined by "Science", otherwise the decision would be obvious to all. And I expect that the dissenting views will get more air time and twitter time than the majority of the SAGE/iSAGE members that do agree. Such is life.

    The other problem is that even in a mostly vaccinated population (e.g. if they have offered all adults at least the first dose of the vaccine by 21st June) there will still be deaths from Covid-19 much like there are usually 20,000 deaths from flu each year. The vaccine isn't 100% effective, nor is it going to have 100% coverage, plus there are even more unknowns. But, the key difference between Influenza and Covid-19 is the possibility of large number of cases of severe "Long Covid".

    I also suspect that by June there will be a plan (or a plan for a plan) for childhood immunisiation, probably in the form of an intranasal spray like the Flu vaccine that school kids are offered each year. There must be hundreds of trials of vaccines for children underway in the UK and abroad.

  • What has happened to The Times?

    They have been like this for the last several years.

  • Millions of people shedding virus loads they personally have immunity to all over people who have refused vaccines = awkward

  • Long covid is quite a serious condition, some people are unable to work for months afterwards. It seems to affect 1/20 to 1/5 depending on who you ask.

    Austerity is a political choice. Enormous amounts of cash pissed away on Brexit, if the government uses that as an argument "we have to reopen cos economy" pfff really.

    They pissed away millions on their mates on crappy PPE mates contracts.

    It is all really hard to weigh up, how to do you calculate death rates due to covid lockdown which are NOT part of their political choices AND which they can fix short-term if they want to VS long term problems with long covid which can also cause depression/leave people on permanent PIP which is...not great.

    I'd be happy if they could do something like give vaccines first to very affected areas and let those kids / workers go back to school / work first, we can hold out another 2 months if we have to.

  • Again the problem of hunkering down too long to be "better safe than sorry" will likely cause more deaths due to the ongoing detrimental effects on mental and physical health, and (more specifically) the austerity it creates than are saved due to avoiding Covid-19 deaths.

    I see a lot of people say this but is there any data/studies to suggest it's true? I feel like a lot of people (Telegraph types) repeat this as gospel but are not actually informed in any way

    Edit: I mean obviously it is true by default that at some point lockdown is worse than COVID. But I'm interested to know where that point is, because I don't think we're even close to it yet (lockdown would have to be pretty bad to be worse than 100,000s dead)

  • Austerity causes deaths. There are some links to non-pandemic specific research from here:-

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kin­gdom_government_austerity_programme#Mort­ality

    "
    In 2017, the Royal Society of Medicine said that government austerity decisions in health and social care were likely to have resulted in 30,000 deaths in England and Wales in 2015.
    "

    Those were funding/policy decisions not in a time of a pandemic. Do you think it's better or worse during a pandemic? How many excess/preventable deaths have there been and will there be due to much of the healthcare system being shutdown?

  • I understand the reasoning. I'm just wondering if there's any data/cost-benefit analysis on the subject yet.

    Suicides are often quoted as a consequence of lockdown, for example, but it seems to be the case that the suicide rate actually went down around the start of the pandemic. But this doesn't seem to stop Tories from using as an excuse to call for opening up ASAP.

  • How many excess/preventable deaths have there been and will there be due to much of the healthcare system being shutdown?

    In theory if you keep the rest of society shutdown then healthcare might do better. When there are fewer Covid patients hospitals will be able to get back to the usual heart disease and cancer treatment.

    One measure for a successful relaxing of lockdown is hospitals are busy with Covid patients but not swamped. In that situation regular healthcare suffers again.

    It seems likely that we have a new endemic disease. Perhaps we need to increase the number of hospitals/beds/doctors/nurses/etc so we can do the pre-Covid healthcare as well? It will of course take lots of money and a decade to do that.

  • I understand the reasoning. I'm just wondering if there's any data/cost-benefit analysis on the subject yet.

    I think the obvious answer is that it is impossible to measure/predict/model, otherwise it would exist and be driving the decision making.

    The only answer you can derive is a retrospective estimate, and that may just show that the guess at the time was dreadful but won't provide any context as to where it stood against the other possibilities.

    Unless you have a time machine to be able to try every possibility out, and see how it plays out in the end, it is mostly guesswork.

  • It does a bit, but, to be fair, Neil Oliver is not a radical - he's an archaeologist / conservationist / author / TV presenter (and former President of the National Trust for Scotland) who just happens to not agree with Scottish nationalism.

    When he was appointed to the National Trust position cybernats tried to chase him from the job in a pretty hateful way despite him being eminently well-qualified for it:
    https://tfn.scot/news/charity-faces-fury­-as-indy-bashing-historian-given-top-job­

    So I can understand why he's angry. Unfortunately this isn't a one off - it's what happens in Scotland at the moment. I know a high profile unionist journalist who found it impossible to get a job in Scotland: he now lives and works in London (in Westminster, ironically) because he was effectively backlisted for being opposed to independence.

    This is the context within which Sturgeon's ambition to continue her briefings within purdah should be viewed.

  • Austerity was a political choice...it still is.

    I appreciate lockdown cannot go on forever and there are economic trade offs.

    But the UK low UC benefits, total disregard for disabled people, mental health care and council cuts when there was money again are all due to the Tories.

    Not seeing much of a change there, of course we are stuck with that lot, but easy for them to make those calls as they all WFH (so do I, and while I rather NOT pay more tax you could argue a temp tax on me is more than fair) and I understand due to check and balances... wait what I am saying, the Belfast City Council has to audit every small charity grant while these feckers pissed hundreds of millions up the wall to their mates.

    /rant but would be nice to see some alternative models rather than "austerity is just a fact of life" models...

  • while I rather NOT pay more tax

    I'd rather pay more tax. Great public services cost money to deliver.

  • Indeed. I'd rather pay more tax and would vote for a (non-right) party who had this in their manifesto.

  • While I wholeheartedly agree, currently I'd rather not line the pockets of tory donors with my taxes...

    Paying more when 22bn is being pissed away on a failed system while I still have to donate to food charities to prevent ignored folk from starving stings a touch.

  • I always vote left, but if I am perfectly honest it is nice to keep the £ myself. Especially with that awful pension system, the non existing benefits... if the tax rate would increase but health/benefits/pension would improve and bottom incomes would be raised, totally go for it!

    I think higher taxes should happen, but a big problem is that people don't trust the government not to waste it. Not sure I do.

    The alternative though is clearly that people just keep the money completely for themselves, so perhaps paying tax to a "wasteful" government is still better.

    And of course people could give it all away, but in reality that means me donating more and others just buying a bigger house :)

  • Christina Pagel, who has been pretty on the money with this so far, is basically saying if you open up this summer you create the perfect breeding ground for a vaccine resistant strain.

    I don't mean this in a snarky way, but not sure how to word it in a none snarky tone: What's the other option? Give millions of people a vaccine and tell them to stay indoors over the summer?

    The lockdown has to end at some point, and as the weather improves it will end, legally or not.

  • as the weather improves it will end, legally or not

    It hit 17 degrees here in Amsterdam last weekend and the rules went out the window.

  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview
About

Chat about Novel Coronavirus - 2019-nCoV - COVID-19

Posted by Avatar for deleted @deleted

Actions