COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[denislawsbackheel]

Yeah, there's the very real possibility of them going bust which could see us lose our money anyway. I've had the other half on to me this morning asking if we should check in for our flight (check-in opened this morning for it), and I'm wondering if it's the right or wrong thing to do but guessing it won't make any odds either way in terms of possible refunds etc?

I had checked in for the one I got refunded but I am not bothering with next month’s.

 

[robbieh]

Unrelated to the above, I thought I would post some other thoughts...

We face two possible ways out of this mess right now. (A) A short, sharp shock, or (B) Less severe measures but over a longer period.

It seems clear to me that (A) is the best route forward at this point. If we clamp down *hard* now on unecessary movement, it will more effectively stop the numbers rising, and from a lower peak, they will fall back more quickly. We could be out of this phase and back into "containment" again - with life having a chance of vaguely returning to normal fairly quickly. The minimum numbers of businesses will have gone bust and the maximum numbers of people will be financially OK.

The alternative - the path we are on at the moment - is a mistake. Allowing people to go to pubs and to meet socially if they wish is stupid. It isn't going to keep any significant number of businesses going, because the numbers of people still going out is so low. All it does is means the clamp down will have to go on longer, because the peak numbers of infections (and dead people!) will be higher and reached later, and take longer to reduce back down. More businesses will be in trouble, more people tearing their hair out, feeling unable to go out. More people dead, and for what? So a small minority can act irresponsibly? Why???

We need to lock down HARD, right now. Troops in the streets, the full works. Only trips to supermarket or pharmacy or food drop offs to relatives allowed. If we do this, we can have this under control in only a few weeks. If not, it will drag on for months and months.

That is pretty much it. If the UK continues as it is, it will in a couple of months become the most infected place in Europe.

 

[west didsblue]

If they have already developed a vaccine for COVID19 but are testing it on animals first, couldn't they at least try it on the sickest cases - what is there to lose?

Because a vaccine isn't a cure, it's for prevention.

 

[Coatigan]

A local guy I know who’s 85 and not in the best health is continuing to go to the pub.

There’s three lads at work who are currently at a pub quiz.

The government really needs to close them because people aren’t and won’t listen.

Seemingly, many pubs themselves want closed. if the gov say pubs stay open but dongo to them, they lose business and have losses. If the gov shuts them, reportedly they can claim insurance to cover that period. Acvording to some reports i read.
Agree with your point though, relying on collective sense of society is somewhat a gamble.

 

[Marvin]

It's not utopian. The source is pretty serious. This is the company (CureVac) that Trump is desperate to buy. Obviously, they are pretty close to offering a vaccine.

There's an anti-viral called hydroxychloroquine that the South Koreans use which has been the subject of medical research which you can get on prescription as an arthritis drug. It is not proven and I can understand reluctance by GPs to prescribe it but it warrants investigation. If I was 70 plus, had arthritis and took medication for it, I'd be straight into my GP to see if I should switch to it.

 

[TCIB]

CureVac are a week behind others making similar claims. Until we start getting data back from any type of trial i would take all claims with a pinch of salt.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Seems really utopian but if true, the herd immunity strategy would look more unnecessary.

It will, but that's a bit hindsight-y to consider strategy decisions on that basis.

My expectation would be that at best an initial reasonably effective vaccine might appear, and that this would be superseded in the next couple of years by things that work a lot better.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

If they have already developed a vaccine for COVID19 but are testing it on animals first, couldn't they at least try it on the sickest cases - what is there to lose?

Vaccines don't help ill people, they prevent people getting ill. There are a couple of live tests going on in places, by volunteer.

Treatment is a whole other area.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Seemingly, many pubs themselves want closed. if the gov say pubs stay open but dongo to them, they lose business and have losses. If the gov shuts them, reportedly they can claim insurance to cover that period. Acvording to some reports i read.
Agree with your point though, relying on collective sense of society is somewhat a gamble.

I heard yesterday that insurance claims after the recent announcements will be honoured, even though the
statement by govt was ambiguous.

 

[alexmcity]

There's an anti-viral called hydroxychloroquine that the South Koreans use which has been the subject of medical research which you can get on prescription as an arthritis drug. It is not proven and I can understand reluctance by GPs to prescribe it but it warrants investigation. If I was 70 plus, had arthritis and took medication for it, I'd be straight into my GP to see if I should switch to it.

You are right. I read a tweet by a Haravard professor who on his own has come to the conclusion that chloroquine is likely to be helpful.

 

[M18CTID]

Only one new domestic case in China for the second day in a row.

Who's reporting the figures for China - Peter Swales?

 

[BlueHammer85]

If UK contains this in the forth coming months but other country’s around the world are still spiking out of control , I presume the airline industry would still remain dead over here ?

 

[alexmcity]

CureVac are a week behind others making similar claims. Until we start getting data back from any type of trial i would take all claims with a pinch of salt.

"It's difficult to predict, especially the future." Of course, nothing is guaranteed. There's a cloud of uncertainty around virtually any expectation and prediction.

 

[Marvin]

If they have already developed a vaccine for COVID19 but are testing it on animals first, couldn't they at least try it on the sickest cases - what is there to lose?

That thought crosses my mind every day.

Think of the stuff that soldiers have injected into their bodies in advance of the Iraq war when it was suggested that Saddam had biological weapons.

As societies we implemented legislation governing vaccine production and trials. We could undo them if we wanted. This is a choice we make. I am pretty certain that governments do what they want. For example, the Manhattan Project, secretly and without the knowledge of its citizens, dosed sick patients with plutonium so that they could study its effects on the human body. For years the patients thought they were receiving vital medicine but no they were being poisoned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Plutonium_Files

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Unrelated to the above, I thought I would post some other thoughts...

We face two possible ways out of this mess right now. (A) A short, sharp shock, or (B) Less severe measures but over a longer period.

It seems clear to me that (A) is the best route forward at this point. If we clamp down *hard* now on unecessary movement, it will more effectively stop the numbers rising, and from a lower peak, they will fall back more quickly. We could be out of this phase and back into "containment" again - with life having a chance of vaguely returning to normal fairly quickly. The minimum numbers of businesses will have gone bust and the maximum numbers of people will be financially OK.

The alternative - the path we are on at the moment - is a mistake. Allowing people to go to pubs and to meet socially if they wish is stupid. It isn't going to keep any significant number of businesses going, because the numbers of people still going out is so low. All it does is means the clamp down will have to go on longer, because the peak numbers of infections (and dead people!) will be higher and reached later, and take longer to reduce back down. More businesses will be in trouble, more people tearing their hair out, feeling unable to go out. More people dead, and for what? So a small minority can act irresponsibly? Why???

We need to lock down HARD, right now. Troops in the streets, the full works. Only trips to supermarket or pharmacy or food drop offs to relatives allowed. If we do this, we can have this under control in only a few weeks. If not, it will drag on for months and months.

The path we are on now is to option A. I’m surprised you can’t see that.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I concur with this. Here in Spain they are obviously trying the first option, suppression.
As I understand it in maybe a month the numbers will be exponentially lower due to isolation of the entire population. Those who have had it, will no longer be infectious.

There will of course be some infected still in the community but by following the type of policies that Korea have they can be contained. And isolation will end.

International travel would in my opinion be daft as people coming from countries that have still got the disease could restart it.

Britain's approach seems neither one thing not the other. While people still go into work, go to the pub, schools remain open, infection rates will still be high.

Just seen this. Agree entirely. We've been wishy-washy about this whole thing from the start, with our idiotic allowing of public festivals, sporting events etc and just asking people to wash their hands FFS. Had we acted harder, sooner, we'd be in a much better situation than we are now. We must clamp down now so this can all end sooner.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Who's reporting the figures for China - Peter Swales?

Combover-19

 

[Ardwick Green Blue]

Who's reporting the figures for China - Peter Swales?

I hope you aren't inferring that Saint Peter was a bent ****?

 

[SilverFox2]

The more our neighbours do it the more we will.

I worry about people actually obeying and our police force being able to cope.

Patrolling hasn’t come natural since 1967 and we’ve got a lot of scrotes.

If Spain is an example then very little non compliance here in SE Spain. Yesterday a couple fined 600 euros for 2 in a car and a video of a UK woman being arrested for defiance of pool regulation in Alicante.

I suppose we have cases of idiots somewhere but frankly they will stand out and be dealt with while the rest of us are in our houses.

Perhaps there is a difference in culture in UK but here there is a shrug of the shoulders and videos on facebook of police in front of apartment blocks in Almeria entertaining kids and parents on individual balconies with singing, dancing and music.
What else can you do, very few infections here with only 1 death in the whole of Almeria with Andalucia (which includes Almeria) having just 6 deaths from 437 confirmed cases. The real problem exists around Madrid but the whole of Spain accepts its need to lockdown.

 

[Chippy_boy]

The path we are on now is to option A. I’m surprised you can’t see that.

Not sharp enough Gordon. People are still confused about who should be going out and who shouldn't. I unfortunately heard Piers Morgan (a mistake, I know) saying the same thing this morning.

The government is still not *requiring* people to stay at home unless with valid exceptions. They are not *requiring* pubs to shut, restaurants to close etc. All this does is prolongs things and for no benefit.