Covid-19 Discussion

[markjay]

New York state Governor Andrew Cuomo has urged New Yorkers taking part in protests against the killing of George Floyd to get tested for the coronavirus.

"Please go get a test. It's free, it's available," Cuomo said.

As New York city began reopening 100 days after the lockdown, Cuomo warned residents to "stay smart" to avoid the resurgence of coronavirus cases being seen in other US states.

"New Yorkers did what many experts told me wasn't possible in 100 days," Cuomo said. "I don't think I've had a good night's sleep in 100 days knowing some of things they told me. New Yorkers bent the curve by being smart. We're celebrating, we're reopening, we're excited. Our mojo's back, our energy's back, stay smart."



Home Secretary Pritti Patel stated on Monday that there had been 137,500 protestors in the UK at various locations against the death of George Floyd.

So far there have been no calls for them to be tested.

George Floyd: Boris Johnson urges peaceful struggle against racism

The prime minister says the death of George Floyd awakened an anger and an "undeniable feeling of injustice".

www.bbc.co.uk

Eye, this is not America, you know? For good or bad.

 

[ChipChop]

For those who have wondered how many of the published death figures from C-19 were people who did not have pre existing medical conditions this NHS data is illuminating.

The data is only for hospital patients so does not include care homes.

Headline figures are...

Total deaths in hospital up to 2nd June 2020 - 27,045
Total deaths with pre-existing condition 25,727
Total deaths with NO pre existing condition 1,318

So 1,318 people in total have died in hospital of coronavirus in the UK with no pre existing medical condition.

Statistics » COVID-19 Daily Deaths

Health and high quality care for all, <br />now and for future generations

www.england.nhs.uk

 

[markjay]

This will be very good news for those who have no underlying health issues, especially to the young and healthy.

Sadly most people over 60 (myself included) have managed to contract one or two preexisting medical conditions... which is one reason why we are more vulnerable, and also explains why we are keen not to contract COVID-19.

So we would appreciate it very much if the young and healthy will take more care in not spreading the virus around.

Thank you.

 

[Steveml63]

For those who have wondered how many of the published death figures from C-19 were people who did not have pre existing medical conditions this NHS data is illuminating.

The data is only for hospital patients so does not include care homes.

Headline figures are...

Total deaths in hospital up to 2nd June 2020 - 27,045
Total deaths with pre-existing condition 25,727
Total deaths with NO pre existing condition 1,318

So 1,318 people in total have died in hospital of coronavirus in the UK with no pre existing medical condition.

Statistics » COVID-19 Daily Deaths

Health and high quality care for all, <br />now and for future generations

www.england.nhs.uk

Hi,
I am not convinced that even these figures are correct.
I believe the 2nd line should really say :-
“Total deaths with NO KNOWN pre-existing medical condition 1,318“

I strongly suspect there are many people with undiagnosed medical conditions that have died from COVID - most notably hypertension or type-2 diabetes.
If medics looked up the patients history or spoke with relatives and read or were told that Johnny was “very fit before they got COVID” then this does mean that they did not actually have an undiagnosed problem beforehand.

Cheers
Steve

 

[ChipChop]

Hi,
I am not convinced that even these figures are correct.
I believe the 2nd line should really say :-
“Total deaths with NO KNOWN pre-existing medical condition 1,318“

I strongly suspect there are many people with undiagnosed medical conditions that have died from COVID - most notably hypertension or type-2 diabetes.
If medics looked up the patients history or spoke with relatives and read or were told that Johnny was “very fit before they got COVID” then this does mean that they did not actually have an undiagnosed problem beforehand.

Cheers
Steve

Hi Steve,
The question is did they die from C-19 or with c-19. The NHS statistics show over 95% of all deaths were WITH c-19 not FROM c-19. Undiagnosed problems are of course possible which would mean that 95% figure would be even higher.

Headline figures are...

Total deaths in hospital up to 2nd June 2020 - 27,045
Total deaths with pre-existing condition 25,727
Total deaths with NO pre existing condition 1,318

 

[markjay]

Hi,
I am not convinced that even these figures are correct.
I believe the 2nd line should really say :-
“Total deaths with NO KNOWN pre-existing medical condition 1,318“

I strongly suspect there are many people with undiagnosed medical conditions that have died from COVID - most notably hypertension or type-2 diabetes.
If medics looked up the patients history or spoke with relatives and read or were told that Johnny was “very fit before they got COVID” then this does mean that they did not actually have an undiagnosed problem beforehand.

Cheers
Steve

That's even better news for those who are lucky enough to be young and healthy! To them I say: please please stay home and do not spread it around - thank you.

 

[markjay]

Hi Steve,
The question is did they die from C-19 or with c-19. The NHS statistics show over 95% of all deaths were WITH c-19 not FROM c-19. Undiagnosed problems are of course possible which would mean that 95% figure would be even higher.

Headline figures are...

Total deaths in hospital up to 2nd June 2020 - 27,045
Total deaths with pre-existing condition 25,727
Total deaths with NO pre existing condition 1,318

Correct, it is currently very difficult to be sure what percentage of the massive increase in excess deaths during March-April-May is directly attributed to COVID-19, and what percentage is only indirectly attributed to COVID-19. After the pandemic is over, we will be able to look at the "all-cause excess mortality" figures for the year and try and analyse the data in a more meaningful way. Until then, all we can say with certainty is that COVID-19 kills, but how exactly it does that and how many people have died of it directly is not yet clear. And, as per my previous post - the lucky ones are the young and healthy, who have only a very small chance of dying of COVID-19.

 

[C240Sport97]

That's even better news for those who are lucky enough to be young and healthy! To them I say: please please stay home and do not spread it around - thank you.

Those who are risk should stay at home. Why lock up perfectly healthy and fit young people who are not at material risk from CV19?

 

[markjay]

Those who are risk should stay at home. Why lock up perfectly healthy and fit young people who are not at material risk from CV19?

I don't think you are missing the big picture here.

Staying at home palys only a small part in protecting the elderly - it is the last defence in a multi-layer strategy.

Old people can not be locked-up in solitary confinement - many need assistance from carers, cleaners, nurses etc. These people who come in daily contact with the elderly do go home after work, travel on public transport, and have their own families, and kids who will soon be going to school again, etc.

Others do not live on their own - elderly parents living with their children, and grandchildren, for example.

This is why it is crucial that the disease is suppressed in the community - i.e. that it not allowed to keep spreading, and instead the virus is made less and less present out there.

If we make sure that there is much less of virus out there - and we try and minimise contact of elderly people with the outer world as much we can - only then we stand a chance of protecting them.

But allowing the virus to spread freely in the community and then somehow expect the elderly to manage and avoid contact with it, isn't realistic.

That said, to those who are in favour of the 'culling of the elderly' tactics (I am not - I will be one of the 'culled' ones) - I would say that I disagree with this view on moral grounds, but factually yes it will help 'resolve' the COVID-19 issue and allow us to release the lockdown.

But there is no easy option here - having everyone go about their daily lives as if nothing happened and at the same time believing that the elderly will still somehow be protected by 'isolating themselves' if akin to a work of fiction.

 

[ChipChop]

I don't think you are missing the big picture here.

Staying at home palys only a small part in protecting the elderly - it is the last defence in a multi-layer strategy.

Old people can not be locked-up in solitary confinement - many need assistance from carers, cleaners, nurses etc. These people who come in daily contact with the elderly do go home after work, travel on public transport, and have their own families, and kids who will soon be going to school again, etc.

Others do not live on their own - elderly parents living with their children, and grandchildren, for example.

This is why it is crucial that the disease is suppressed in the community - i.e. that it not allowed to keep spreading, and instead the virus is made less and less present out there.

If we make sure that there is much less of virus out there - and we try and minimise contact of elderly people with the outer world as much we can - only then we stand a chance of protecting them.

But allowing the virus to spread freely in the community and then somehow expect the elderly to manage and avoid contact with it, isn't realistic.

That said, to those who are in favour of the 'culling of the elderly' tactics (I am not - I will be one of the 'culled' ones) - I would say that I disagree with this view on moral grounds, but factually yes it will help 'resolve' the COVID-19 issue and allow us to release the lockdown.

But there is no easy option here - having everyone go about their daily lives as if nothing happened and at the same time believing that the elderly will still somehow be protected by 'isolating themselves' if akin to a work of fiction.

I agree with you MJ that the elderly or at risk groups and their carers need special consideration.

They need to protect themselves from the rest of society as their role does present risks.

Other members of society in at risk roles also need to do the same. A lot of the actual role of carer is one that requires thought about the circumstances of the patient or relative.

However the official NHS figures present a very stark picture.

The numbers are so small that the risk does not warrant society as a whole being dismantled.

65,000,000 people in the UK and 1,318 have died from coronavirus. What percentage is that?

 

[markjay]

I agree with you MJ that the elderly or at risk groups and their carers need special consideration.

They need to protect themselves from the rest of society as their role does present risks.

Other members of society in at risk roles also need to do the same. A lot of the actual role of carer is one that requires thought about the circumstances of the patient or relative.

This is where it becomes impractical.

What should carers and other staff who regularly work with the elderly do - abandon their own families and move to live in hostels? Or force isolation on their family members? Not permit their spouses to go to work? Not permit their children to go to school or play with other kids? etc. If we make this a job requirement for all medical staff and care homes staff etc , there will be no one to look after the elderly.

However the official NHS figures present a very stark picture.

The numbers are so small that the risk does not warrant society as a whole being dismantled.

65,000,000 people in the UK and 1,318 have died from coronavirus. What percentage is that?

The figure of 1,318 deaths that you also quoted in a previous post refers to people who died from COVID-19 and had no other health issues.

But the majority of over-60s will have at least some health issues, and many will have significant health issues.

So are you suggesting that because 'only' 1,318 of those who died are in the 'young and healthy' category, then we shouldn't care about all those other people who died of COVID-19? If so then this is the 'culling of the elderly' approach, which makes a lot of sense in terms of Darwinian evolution, but this is not something that I would support, because - as they say - 'Turkeys don't voter for Christmas'.

Or are you suggesting that COVID-19 isn't a serious disease, and doesn't really kill anyone, not in any meaningful numbers anyway? If so, then this is contradicted by the first part of your post - why would the elderly need to isolate themselves from a disease that (according to you) isn't really dangerous in the first place?

The answer is, most likely, that this sort of fragmented and incoherent argumentation is simplify the result of having an opinion first, and only then trying to find some logical explanation for it (and in this case, there isn't one). Or in other words the old tactics of shooting the arrow first, then painting the bullseye around it later.

In short - no, we cannot protect the elderly while everyone else go around their business as if nothing happened. We can either protect the elderly by having people maintain a lockdown to some degree, or we can give-up on the lockdown altogether and also give-up on the elderly at the same time. These are really the only two options. My view, of course.

 

[ChipChop]

You talk of impracticality. Many will find it highly impractical that they have been imprisoned in their own homes for the last 100 days. Many will have no jobs to go back to. All their local shops will have closed never to reopen. The vast sums of money being given away by our government is OUR money. It comes from only one source us.

And now the media are trying to convince the world that we should all have a race war as well.

If you want a practical solution to the issues of care what about the Hazmat suit. Total protection for the wearer. Solved.

What is your practical solution to the destruction of society?

 

[markjay]

You talk of impracticality. Many will find it highly impractical that they have been imprisoned in their own homes for the last 100 days. Many will have no jobs to go back to. All their local shops will have closed never to reopen. The vast sums of money being given away by our government is OUR money. It comes from only one source us.

And now the media are trying to convince the world that we should all have a race war as well.

If you want a practical solution to the issues of care what about the Hazmat suit. Total protection for the wearer. Solved.

What is your practical solution to the destruction of society?

I said that protecting the elderly by isolating them isn't a practical solution, because it will require us to also isolate everyone who comes into contact with them. I should have said that it is not possible to implement this suggestion, rather than calling it 'impractical' - because carers and medical staff will refuse to isolate themselves from their own families. In addition, some elderly people live with their families, so what do we do for them? Build huge isolation centres and move them all out of their own homes?

Maintaining some lockdown restrictions in order to protect the elderly will obviously work very well, because it will dramatically reduce the spread of the virus in the community, which will mean that elderly people will now have a much reduced risk of contracting it in the first place. You say that this is impractical as well, because of the cost to the economy and people's livelihoods, as well as people's mental health etc.

So in short, the conclusion is that there's nothing we can practically do to protect the elderly. But in this case let's look them (me included) in the eye and say it to their face, instead of floating all sorts of sugar-coated stories about how they will be perfectly protected at home, treated by cares wearing astronaut space suits, while Coronavirus is raging out there.

 

[Dryce]

This is where it becomes impractical.

It's impractical to have the economy screwed over paying people to stay idle and watching supply chains for basics dwindle.

So you are at risk . the point of shielding is that you are protected. The rest of the econmy functionign whle you shield is not a bad ting and ultimately protects you.

My only demand on youngsters or those less vulnerable is that they stick to reasonable guidance to stop unecessary spread and risk.

I'm watching relatives who are shielding adapt - and I think the consensus is that for most they feel they can understand and manage the risks with some freedoms but need a bit of consideration. They'd like to see the lockdown ease - and also want some sensible freedoms.

Government offices and other large offices are preparing to make a start at going back to work. Distancing measures (reducing occupation density, one way systems, restrictions on bathroom use, canteen changes) are being put in place. At the moment it's easy - numbers are low. Members of my team are in higher risk groups (age and health issues) - the general consensus is that we want to try and get back to work. For those visiting large offices at the moment the situation is surreal because the numbers present are so low - and those I have spoken to are comfortable with arrangements. The assumption is that numbers will ramp up next month - and that in some locations the occupancy wil stay low - 30 to 50% for the forseeable future - people workign at home and staggered shifts.

We need a change in attitude. Staying at home indefinitely isn't an option.

Equally we need some effective leadership - the travel quarantine seems to be yet another inneffectual joke. The airlines are in a bnad way but rankly if they think they can difctateto the government then Mr Walsh and Mr O' Leary need to be firmly put in their place with o quarter - their companies *profited* from delivering this disease to us. If they bring in more then they need to know that they will be held liable. NHS track and trace seems to be another half hearted an inneffectual policy - it needs to be robust and people need to understand their obligations to it.

 

[Dryce]

I said that protecting the elderly by isolating them isn't a practical solution, because it will require us to also isolate everyone who comes into contact with them. I should have said that it is not possible to implement this suggestion, rather than calling it 'impractical' - because carers and medical staff will refuse to isolate themselves from their own families.

Somehow a lot seem to be isolating at the moment.

You don't need to absolutely isolate. You need to reduce tangible risks. That doesn't require hazmat suits. It requires distance or basic dilligence and basic PPE.

If the disease is kept locked down then even if it is present then it becomes manageable.

 

[markjay]

My only demand on youngsters or those less vulnerable is that they stick to reasonable guidance to stop unecessary spread and risk.

 

[C240Sport97]

the care home point is well made but the vulnerable are not all in care homes ..

I wonder what % of those deemed vulnerable are in care homes or need carers

 

[ChipChop]

How much coronavirus transmission comes from people with no symptoms is still a "big unknown", a World Health Organization scientist has clarified.

Dr Maria Van Kerkhove said on Monday it was "very rare" for asymptomatic people to pass the disease on.

But she has now stressed this observation was based on a relatively small set of studies.

Evidence suggests people with symptoms are most infectious, but the disease can be passed on before they develop.

Although a proportion of people test positive with no symptoms, it is not known how many of these people go on to infect others.

Dr Van Kerkhove said the evidence she had been discussing came from countries that had carried out "detailed contact tracing"



Donald Trump was SO right to stop the funding of the muppetts at The World Health Organisation.

Their sole role in this whole sorry saga appears to be to obfuscate any actual fact.

Coronavirus: Asymptomatic transmission still an 'open question'

The WHO's head of emerging diseases said evidence from 'two or three' studies suggested people with symptoms should be the main focus.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[markjay]

Some interesting reading re lockdown and social distancing:

Lockdowns reduced infection rate by 81%, research shows – As it happened

Lockdowns reduced infection rate by 81%, study finds

'Lockdowns had a dramatic impact on the spread of coronavirus in Europe with strict controls on people’s movements preventing an estimated 3.1m deaths by the beginning of May, with 470,000 deaths averted in the UK alone, researchers say.

Outbreak modellers at Imperial College London said that lockdown slashed the average number of people that contagious individuals infected by 81% and lowered the reproduction number, R, of the epidemic below 1 in all countries they observed.'

Effects of Proactive Social Distancing on COVID-19 Outbreaks in 58 Cities, China

Cities across China implemented stringent social distancing measures in early 2020 to curb coronavirus disease outbreaks. We estimated the speed with ...

wwwnc.cdc.gov

'Cities across China implemented stringent social distancing measures in early 2020 to curb coronavirus disease outbreaks. We estimated the speed with which these measures contained transmission in cities. A 1-day delay in implementing social distancing resulted in a containment delay of 2.41 (95% CI 0.97–3.86) days.'

The last one is an official report from China CDC.

 

[Dryce]

Outbreak modellers at Imperial College London said that lockdown slashed the average number of people that contagious individuals infected by 81% and lowered the reproduction number, R, of the epidemic below 1 in all countries they observed.'

Which maybe comes as "By following our advice you benefitted by X%"

And there was anarticle pubilsed a few days ago that suggseted the peak in infections actually occured just *prior* to the formal lockdown because the public were already doing enough. In which case it's plausible that 'R' was pushed below 1 in the week or two before the lockdown as the public got down to the business of redcing it.

Of course if the public did manage that with a bit of advice - where does that leave the the ICL and other advisors with regards to the harder lockdown measures and the associated bill?

While we don't know enough about how this has all played out - I would be concerned that ICL and others are maybe buildign their case as early as possible - just in case.