COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[SWP's back]

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 work on the already sick.

 

[mancitymick]

3 down now. Fooks me i should have had a bet as i called the first 3!

 

[ell]

When will be it be safe (From panic buyers rather than COVID) for normal people to go to the supermarket again? Still seeing images of people queuing to get in this morning

 

[cibaman]

Roads were noticeably quieter this morning, little miss Gaz's class at school only has 13 children in instead of the normal 31 today, I'd be absolutely amazed if the schools arent shut by weekend and full lockdown very soon after that.

I have it on good authority that the school’s will close on Friday. My 6 year old grandson’s teacher told him as he was putting his coat on at the end of classes yesterday!

 

[Chippy_boy]

This will all change by the weekend imo.

I hope so. It's really pointless allowing the few people who want to carry as normal, to do so. It's to the detriment not only of themselves, but also to everyone else and all it does is makes this go on longer and be marginally worse in terms of outcomes. There's no mileage in not *requiring* and enforcing a shut down, IMO.

 

[Elbow beards]

I have it on good authority that the school’s will close on Friday. My 6 year old grandson’s teacher told him as he was putting his coat on at the end of classes yesterday!

It's pretty obvious their waiting to tag it onto Easter hols, so I reckon a week before and a week after

 

[Academica]

I have it on good authority that the school’s will close on Friday. My 6 year old grandson’s teacher told him as he was putting his coat on at the end of classes yesterday!

My lads school closed yesterday, should imagine about 90% will be closed by the time the government announces they are closing schools.

 

[fulabeer]

I've just heard that schools shut from Friday. A mates daughter was sent home today due to illness, and this is what the school nurse told her.
However, my wife is a teacher and she hasn't heard anything official from her school yet.

 

[George Hannah]

I hope so. It's really pointless allowing the few people who want to carry as normal, to do so. It's to the detriment not only of themselves, but also to everyone else and all it does is makes this go on longer and be marginally worse in terms of outcomes. There's no mileage in not *requiring* and enforcing a shut down, IMO.

It's a cultural thing CB, a question of tone. Hopefully, exactly the same outcome in terms of separation can be achieved here by the current strengthening of advice as the dictats accepted without question in more repressive countries.

 

[twosips]

Fantastic news if true! Vaccine might be available in 6 months.

That's not even possible is it? I thought all clinical trials had to last at least a year?

 

[KS55]

One thing I read which was concerning was that, given lockdowns will prevent herd immunity growing, the disease will reappear when the lockdown is lifted. Consequently, the lockdown may last 18 months, at least for the most vulnerable

 

[sir baconface]

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

I think there was a rider to that statement: claims would be honoured where pandemics are covered by the policy.

 

[Chippy_boy]

doesn’t it help the young to get infected with this virus and be immune to it. I can see why they are drip feeding full lock down

No. We've moved away from this strategy (I hope!) It is a flawed idea.

To have any sort of herd immunity, we need 60%+ infected (and recovered) and that would mean 40m people, the effect of which would be catastrophic in terms of NHS overload and thousands of needless deaths due to lack of capacity.

So the only viable option is complete supression, as per China. The more people out there who are infected, the more difficult that becomes, so it make no sense to allow younger people to get infected. They will spread it more than if we keep everyone shut in, and simply make the peak bigger, the clamp down longer, more businesses bust, more people inconvenienced for longer and more people dead. It is a duff strategy.

 

[Marvin]

Suppression relates to suppressing viral peak, it is the same as mitigation.

Suppression is aimed at eliminating the virus by reducing R to below 1, whereas mitigation aims at reducing the effects of the virus but maintaining R above 1 so that society takes on immunity.

See the Imperial College document for discussion of suppression v mitigation https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/im...-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf It's possible the terms have been used in different senses elsewhere.

 

[Chippy_boy]

It's a cultural thing CB, a question of tone. Hopefully, exactly the same outcome in terms of separation can be achieved here by the current strengthening of advice as the dictats accepted without question in more repressive countries.

I hope so George, but my concern is that there will be a percentage of tossers who think they know better (see the video of the tossers in Spain a few pages back) and also some very well intentioned people who just make the wrong decisions. "It's a lovely old pub and I like the landlord, so I think we will go for a meal there tonight to help support him - I am sure it will be alright if we are careful". etc.

 

[twosips]

One thing I read which was concerning was that, given lockdowns will prevent herd immunity growing, the disease will reappear when the lockdown is lifted. Consequently, the lockdown may last 18 months, at least for the most vulnerable

The idea is that once we emerge back after the first lock down, if it flairs again we can quickly isolate outbreaks then and try and control it. All the while, naturally some people will pick up immunity having recovered, treatments would have improved due to knowledge rising, NHS will get the equipment it needs, and importantly we get one day closer to an inevitable vaccine next year. Biding time is a good thing. It helps informs strategies etc. Yes, it will come back every now and then, but each time it does we'll know better how to deal with it so it shouldnt be as dramatic each time in theory.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

I think there was a rider to that statement: claims would be honoured where pandemics are covered by the policy.

Yes, you need that obviously, I don't know if they're standard features of policies though, maybe some insurance experts
on here may know.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Suppression is aimed at eliminating the virus by reducing R to below 1, whereas mitigation aims at reducing the effects of the virus but maintaining R above 1 so that society takes on immunity.

See the Imperial College document for discussion of suppression v mitigation https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/im...-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf It's possible the terms have been used in different senses elsewhere.

Correct.

Suppression can potentially eliminate the virus well before everyone is infected. And if not eliminate it, keep new infection rates so low that we can contact trace, isolate and contain any new infections, as China has been doing. And potentially we will have a vaccine by the end of the year - I am hearing accelerated progress - and then we are in the clear. Having avoided the 40m or 50m infected and resulting tens or hundreds of thousands dead.

Mitigation assumes widespread infection, and tries to minimise the damage. Supression seeks to avoid it altogether.

 

[SWP's back]

That thought crosses my mind every day.

Which is why you’re looking at a PhD and not an MD.

 

[sir baconface]

Yes, you need that obviously, I don't know if they're standard features of policies though, maybe some insurance experts
on here may know.

My belief is that a number of policies exclude it. The one policy I’ve looked at certainly does.

You know what insurers are like. Punters think they’re protected against unforeseen eventualities but the underwriters’ art is to foresee what they can get away with In their exclusion clauses.