Current Affairs

[Stephen]

[Onelife]

Gill is right to a degree however, and please bear in mind I’m no scientist, that due to social distancing, some of those catching the virus more recently are less severely sick due to ingesting a smaller dose.
Jon

Hi jonty…you are presenting something along the lines of what I was suggesting a few months back… in that I was wondering if a minute amount of the covid virus (administered) would give one’s own immune system time to build up antibodies…I guess not because I’m sure this will have been looked into by now, therefore I can only presume your exposure theory wouldn’t work either?

[oldbluefox]

I think I am looking at the situation from a different angle.The number of deaths at the moment is a bit of a mixed bag. Some of those who die may have contracted the illness months ago only to die now or they may be included as dieing of a pre-existing condition but where Covid may be present which has little bearing of how the virus is spreading or moving.
I am tending to look at the number of new cases being reported. This may be particularly alarming depending on how many tests are being carried out but will be a more accurate pointer towards where we are at the moment.
If everybody sticks to the guidelines I see no reason why we cannot get the economy moving again. We cannot stay in lockdown forever but it's a major concern seeing the protests, the football celebrations and the block parties taking place which may set it all back.
Seems an irony to me that the two groups most vulnerable to the virus are BAME and the less privileged and unless those celebrating Liverpool's win are the more privileged it would appear both groups are well represented. As one supporter with his young daughter put it "We have waited 30 years for this and I don't want my daughter to miss it. It's bigger than the virus!" Words escape me.

[david63]

I’ve always been of the opinion that percentages can disguise the true figures

Actually, in most cases, the opposite is true.

For example if one person is infected and they die (no matter what the circumstances) then that is 100% death rate whereas if 100 people are infected and one dies then that is a 1% death rate. It does not alter the fact that one person has died but the significance is less by using percentages.

As to why the percentage is falling is, I would suggest, due to many factors. One being that treatments are being tries and tested and will be having an impact. Another theory is that in the early stages there were more at risk/vulnerable people contracting the virus than there are now. Probably more awareness of the virus so people are seeking treatment sooner than they did at the start.

[Manoverboard]

When patient numbers rise, the staff are much more stretched, and although they do everything humanly possible to care for their patients, they inevitably can’t give the same level of individual care, so the percentage of their patients that unfortunately die will be that much higher.

My thoughts are that ' caring ' for a patient is certainly a comfort but it is the ability to offer oxygen, suitable drugs and a respirator that makes the real difference to a person’s chance of survival. I am not aware that there is a shortage of such items presently.

Perhaps that is what you were also saying ?

ps ... if so our responses were simply a matter of differing translation

[david63]

I am tending to look at the number of new cases being reported. This may be particularly alarming depending on how many tests are being carried out but will be a more accurate pointer towards where we are at the moment.

Perhaps we should adopt the Trump idea and reduce testing so that we will have less new confirmed cases

[CaroleF]

I've just caught up with yesterday's and today's postings and I think Mervyn's post is excellent. John and I are both over 70, he is in the Vulnerable group, I am not. He is because of the immunosuppressive drugs he's having to take because of the Vasculitis from which he is suffering. No-one I think has mentioned the letter being sent out to the Shielding Group from Matt Hancock. John received his earlier in the week. The first part of the letter explains why Shielding advice was given in the first place and then goes on to say that from June 1st it was slightly relaxed to enable those on the list to spend some time outside their home. It also stresses that "Like all our guidance to those who are clinically extremely vulnerable this was advisory." It then goes on to speak of future changes, from 6 July it lists being able to meet up to 6 people outdoors including from different households, then support bubbles with one other household, being able to spend time together inside each other's houses, including overnight, without needing to socially distance. Again it speaks of this advice being 'advisory.'

Then on 1 August the advice to 'shield' will be paused so people can go to work as long as the business is COVID safe, can go to shops to buy food, places of worship and for exercise but maintain social distancing and then remain cautious so stay at home where possible and when going out maintain social distancing. The letter goes on to say that the person's name will remain on the Shielding List and if necessary in the future they will receive further advice if necessary. The rest of the letter concerns the extra support that's been provided and how much of it will continue.

I think that this all underlines that what's given is 'advice' and it's up to each person to decide what's right for them. That's what we've been doing. On Wednesday we went to friends who live just down our lane, entered through the garden gate and sat with them and one other friend in the garden, under an umbrella on a beautifully sunny afternoon and had a glass of wine and some sandwiches. We were all 2 metres apart, well apart from the two lots of husband and wives who could sit nearer. It was an incredibly pleasant couple of hours and both John and I felt all the better for it. It almost felt like normality - not quite as we were all careful to keep a sensible distance - all of us over 70, only one other on the Shielding List. Now some people will say we were wrong to even go to that small gathering but we took the decision, we had a wonderful few hours and certainly had a good effect on our mental health. Last Sunday we went over to our eldest daughter's house who lives about 25 minutes from us for a BBQ and our younger daughter also came. Again distancing was observed and although our 3 grandchildren were there they didn't come near us and we chatted from afar. Our daughter had arranged all the seating so we were 2 metres apart and when food was put out John and I went and helped ourselves first with our own serving forks/spoons. We had decided that, for us, this amount of risk was acceptable and again I know not everyone in our position would take the same decision.

I don't think we'll be going away this summer - depending on John's treatment and success of same, maybe we might consider something in September/October in this country, if things have not changed as far as COVID is concerned. I think what I'm trying to say is that the Government is giving advice, unless there's a Lockdown, it's up to each individual to decide what's sensible for them. I also know that whatever the Government decide there will be a section of the population who will criticise it, say it's wrong. I think they have an awful, unenviable task.

Carole

[Onelife]

I’ve always been of the opinion that percentages can disguise the true figures

Actually, in most cases, the opposite is true.

For example if one person is infected and they die (no matter what the circumstances) then that is 100% death rate whereas if 100 people are infected and one dies then that is a 1% death rate. It does not alter the fact that one person has died but the significance is less by using percentages.

As to why the percentage is falling is, I would suggest, due to many factors. One being that treatments are being tries and tested and will be having an impact. Another theory is that in the early stages there were more at risk/vulnerable people contracting the virus than there are now. Probably more awareness of the virus so people are seeking treatment sooner than they did at the start.

My comment wasn’t specific to that of covid deaths but more as a generally observation of how percentages are reported by those with a vested interest that they should read well.

[david63]

I think that part of the problem, for some, is the ability is differentiate between "advice" and "regulation".

The regulation state two metres social distancing for everybody, everywhere (well almost everywhere) but the advice is to not go out unless necessary

[david63]

My comment wasn’t specific to that of covid deaths but more as a generally observation of how percentages are reported by those with a vested interest that they should read well.

The same applies no matter what the circumstances - but as we all know statistics can portray the same data in many ways - there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

[Onelife]

When patient numbers rise, the staff are much more stretched, and although they do everything humanly possible to care for their patients, they inevitably can’t give the same level of individual care, so the percentage of their patients that unfortunately die will be that much higher.

My thoughts are that ' caring ' for a patient is certainly a comfort but it is the ability to offer oxygen, suitable drugs and a respirator that makes the real difference to a person’s chance of survival. I am not aware that there is a shortage of such items presently.

Perhaps that is what you were also saying ?

ps ... if so our responses were simply a matter of differing translation

It’s not just about the oxygen, suitable drugs and a respirator its about the one to six ratios of highly trained doctors and nurses that are required to look after each individual patient. albeit on a rotational basis.

[Manoverboard]

It’s not just about the oxygen, suitable drugs and a respirator its about the one to six ratios of highly trained doctors and nurses that are required to look after each individual patient. albeit on a rotational basis.

I wasn't meaning to suggest that ' Doctors and Nurses ' didn't play an important role but without the items I mentioned their efforts would be entirely fruitless ... surely.
.

[Onelife]

It’s not just about the oxygen, suitable drugs and a respirator its about the one to six ratios of highly trained doctors and nurses that are required to look after each individual patient. albeit on a rotational basis.

I wasn't meaning to suggest that ' Doctors and Nurses ' didn't play an important role but without the items I mentioned their efforts would be entirely fruitless ... surely.
.

I think our responses were simply a matter of differing translation

[Mervyn and Trish]

The latest from the research from the Covid 19 app is that the number of new cases is levelling out and not falling as it has been. Alongside that of course we also have to consider the number of active cases recovering, a more difficult number to find. However, it is the difference between the two that gives an indication of the amount of the disease in circulation. The latest reports seem to be the net number of active cases in the population is falling by around 2%-4% per day, or around 25% per week. Which in turn means the chances of coming across an infected person is falling. Which is good news. I'm still not going to Bournemouth.

[Manoverboard]

I think our responses were simply a matter of differing translation

Most likely OL chap

I'm still not going to Bournemouth.

Nor me in spite of it being a fairly short journey ... parking could of course be a tad tedious

[david63]

the number of new cases is levelling out and not falling as it has been

That is probably to be expected as lockdown is eased. I don't think that anyone has denied that as the lockdown is eased the level of new cases will rise - it is all dependant on the rate of that rise (which is not helped by the idiots, who will be the fist to complain when we go backwards!)

[screwy]

Corbyn-19. One disease we successfully prevented.

[Gill W]

Gill is right to a degree however, and please bear in mind I’m no scientist, that due to social distancing, some of those catching the virus more recently are less severely sick due to ingesting a smaller dose.
Jon

A couple of months ago I read something that suggested that the lower the viral load, there was less chance of developing a severe case of Covid 19. It seems feasible to me (I'm no scientist either)

[anniec]

A couple of months ago I read something that suggested that the lower the viral load, there was less chance of developing a severe case of Covid 19. It seems feasible to me (I'm no scientist either)

And I'm no scientist but my mother was. She was very interested in viral load and did some work for the Common Cold Research Unit - can't remember the detail, but the prevailing view then was that viral load made a big difference to the severity of illness. She died almost two years ago and would have found Covid-10 absolutely fascinating - unlike most with very elderly parents, I'm sorry she missed it.

[oldbluefox]

Meanwhile Singapore doesn't mess around.

[Onelife]

Meanwhile Singapore doesn't mess around.

Makes our £100 fines look like chicken feed

[Gill W]

A couple of months ago I read something that suggested that the lower the viral load, there was less chance of developing a severe case of Covid 19. It seems feasible to me (I'm no scientist either)

And I'm no scientist but my mother was. She was very interested in viral load and did some work for the Common Cold Research Unit - can't remember the detail, but the prevailing view then was that viral load made a big difference to the severity of illness. She died almost two years ago and would have found Covid-10 absolutely fascinating - unlike most with very elderly parents, I'm sorry she missed it.

That is really interesting. I’ve noticed, since I have finished work, my husband and myself have only had colds when we have been on winter cruises. They have been very bad colds too, which could suggest that we had a greater exposure to the virus in the closed community of the cruise ship. That could help us gauge our perceived risk for various situations - although it doesn’t encourage me to get back on a cruise ship.

[anniec]

That is really interesting. I’ve noticed, since I have finished work, my husband and myself have only had colds when we have been on winter cruises. They have been very bad colds too, which could suggest that we had a greater exposure to the virus in the closed community of the cruise ship. That could help us gauge our perceived risk for various situations - although it doesn’t encourage me to get back on a cruise ship.

My late husband and I used to get absolute snorters 3 days after returning from almost every cruise (better than getting them during, which never happened), doubtless picked up whilst waiting for an hour or two in close proximity to many others in the allocated departure lounge. Haven't cruised for over a year and haven't had a cold in that time either. Fascinating things, viruses.

I'm sure you all know about it, but highly recommend Boots anti-viral foam, back in stock when I ordered some a couple of weeks ago - I'm convinced it got us through a pretty bad Noro outbreak on Balmoral 18 months ago. As an aside, a few years ago I listed the ingredients from Cunard's hand sanitisers and checked with my mother if they worked against Noro - they don't (or didn't) and pretty sure P&O use the same stuff.

[Gill W]

Thanks for the tip about the Boots foam

I’ve just checked the website and it’s out of stock again, but I will keep checking back, as it looks a good size for carrying around. When I eventually emerge back into the world, I want to protect myself as much as possible

[Onelife]

https://www.thejakartapost.com/life/202 ... d-use.html