Coronavirus (2021) thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Healdplace said:
No problem with you disagreeing. So no need for an apology.

My point was that a person who had no idea he had the virus mixed with people who were especially vulnerable.

Yes that was a very dumb thing for the care home to have allowed.

But it will be the situation many young family members were in this Christmas when visiting older relatives over Christmas/ New Year.

No clue they had it. Unlikely to get tested just in case unless they were very wise children or grandchildren looking at it as a necessary precaution and able to get one there and back at the last minute as most expected it to be axed even a few days ahead of Christmas.

Most will thankfully have had no consequences, But only one of those people there for an hour or two needs to have had the asymptomatic stage of the new variant and a week or two on things could unravel very fast. There will inevitably be tragedies like this coming to the fore in the weeks ahead.
Click to expand...
I think my main point is this was easily avoidable. it was gross stupidity that it happened. It is world’s away from a family choosing to have dinner together. To compare the two is OTT.
 
Nick_1985 said:
"Anonymous Virologist"

Crazy Tin Foil Steve in his Grandma's basement.
Click to expand...

Clue - the virologist is the person who posted it, quite obviously - Paul Bieniaz. It's his frustrations aired via gallows humour. He's a very well qualified professor.

Here is a thread on his thoughts by another extremely well qualified professor.

 
GREATER MANCHESTER SCOREBOARD

1193 cases - down from 1418. 29.5% of NW Total 4040. Up 2.5%.

3 wks v 2 wks v last wk v TODAY:- 727 v 594 v 594 v 1193 TODAY



MANCHESTER 235 - down from 284. Total cases 36, 390. Weekly 1578. Pop score up 42 to 6582. Weekly Pop up 22 to 285. Highest Manchester Weekly Pop score since the student reallocation six weeks ago.

WIGAN 182 - up from 159. Total cases 19, 563. Weekly 920. Pop score up 55 to 5952. 6000 club may loom tomorrow Weekly Pop up 35 to 280.

STOCKPORT 150 - up from 112, Total cases 12, 895. Weekly 889. Highest weekly numbers here in a long time. Pop score up 51 to 4395. Weekly Pop up big - 28 - to 303. Another GM borough into the 300s. Gone from 108 to 303 in 20 days. Hence the red flag. Seven weeks since Stockport was up there. This borough is struggling no question.

SALFORD 114 - down from 135. Total cases 15, 686. Weekly 712. Pop score up 44 to 6060. Weekly Pop up 27 to 275.

OLDHAM 108 - down from 111. Total cases 17,001. Weekly 627. Pop score up 45 to 7170. Weekly Pop up 20 to 264.

BOLTON 100 - down from 118. Total cases 17, 367. Weekly 660. Pop score up 35 to 6040. Weekly Pop up 35 to 239.

TAMESIDE 97 - down from 112. Total cases 12, 062. Weekly 597. Pop score up 38 to 5326. Weekly Pop up 17 to 263. Best weekly number in GM but only 20 ahead of Rochdale.

TRAFFORD 81 - down from 153. Total cases 10, 741. Weekly 757. Pop score up 34 to 4525. Weekly Pop DOWN 2 to 319. Only faller week to week. Gained ground on Stockport with overall Pop now just 130 behind.

ROCHDALE 73 - down from 120. Total cases 15, 009. Weekly 617, Pop score up 32 to 6748. Weekly Pop up 9 to 277.

BURY 53 - down from 114. Total cases 11, 895. Weekly 646. Pop score up 28 to 6228, Lowest rise in GM today. Weekly Pop up 15 to 338.
 
So there's not a lot of support for the delayed second dose approach? I must admit I'm confused by it
 
twosips said:
Clue - the virologist is the person who posted it, quite obviously - Paul Bieniaz. It's his frustrations aired via gallows humour. He's a very well qualified professor.

Here is a thread on his thoughts by another extremely well qualified professor.

Click to expand...


I think we've went full circle from people automatically believing everything written down on the internet to people disregarding everything and anything because it doesn't originate from someone they automatically know about. As you say, even if the author of the actual content ISN'T a virologist, it's a virologist who's posted it either for discussion or because he agrees with it.

I guess the point is, it's better to read these things first and if we disagree then fine, but it's dangerous just to disregard it because you don't know exactly who's saying it.
 
squirtyflower said:
I think my main point is this was easily avoidable. it was gross stupidity that it happened. It is world’s away from a family choosing to have dinner together. To compare the two is OTT.
Click to expand...
I disagree because the vast majority who will have 'chosen' to meet up will have balanced risks as I expect happened here. Though I admit I do not know the full details and I expect they will emerge on investigation.

But with care homes and family members they risk this being the last Christmas they have because you met up or the last one if you did not because of age or other illness. It is no easy either/or.

The folly was in not MANDATING rules by the government to prevent there even being the kind of impossible choice families were faced with. At home or in care homes.

Was it right that it WAS their choice? Quite possibly.

But you cannot really say if a care home makes a risky choice for what they perceive as the best welfare of their residents it is entirely different from a family making the same balance of risk decision over Christmas.

I do not know how easy it was to have tested Santa. And I would have not allowed them to go without that. But that is just my view and even with a negative test they could have still been infectious anyway. Failed test. Or between taking the test and getting the results catching this thing.

So in reality both situations revolve around similar arguments to the lives versus livelihood ones of a lockdown.

Balancing both on a pin is all but impossible. No exactly right answers. Compromises have to happen and it is in that middle bit where the balance is struck that fortune and misfortune decide who did right and who did wrong.

For me the error is in leaving the impossible choice to others to make not - as the 'commander in chief' - president, prime minister or whatever - in taking that burden so others do not have to.

Certainly not issue vague advice like 'have a merry LITTLE Christmas' so if it all goes wrong you can just say they made the error to ignore that advice so its their fault not yours.

We need bold leaders with firm guidance in a pandemic. Nobody will get everything right. But people follow who they believe is in control and willing to direct. But if you leave it up to individuals to interpret what is right or wrong then it will end badly for some because they do what THEY think is right and it may not be what others know from the data was actually wrong.
 
This is why I said long before Christmas I would have gone into lockdown, effectively stopped Christmas mixing. And told the nation that once we have vaccinated the most vulnerable in early Spring we would create a new long Bank Holiday weekend - THANKSGIVING - and you can do all you were going to do this Christmas then.

I think a lot of people who made the impossible choice of risking Christmas with elderly relatives would have accepted the risk of waiting three or four months not 12 months.
 
Seems the reports from ICU doctors indicate a lower age of patients with more children and young adults. Seems to me this variant may be more dangerous than they're letting on.
 
PannickAtTheDisco said:
Seems the reports from ICU doctors indicate a lower age of patients with more children and young adults. Seems to me this variant may be more dangerous than they're letting on.
Click to expand...
Nope, there was one woman on the radio I believe but most doctors have said it’s not what they’re experiencing. Also this has just been released in the last half hour.

www.bbc.co.uk

Coronavirus: No increase in severe child cases, paediatricians say

"Covid is rife in hospitals, but not among children," consultant paediatrician Dr Ronny Cheung said.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
Claytop said:
Nope, there was one woman on the radio I believe but most doctors have said it’s not what they’re experiencing. Also this has just been released in the last half hour.

www.bbc.co.uk

Coronavirus: No increase in severe child cases, paediatricians say

"Covid is rife in hospitals, but not among children," consultant paediatrician Dr Ronny Cheung said.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

ok good, I'd just seen some "ICU doctors" (they have names but I cba finding the tweets) saying their ICU wards were mostly under 60s with a lot more younger people, so I hope they're just isolated settings.
 
PannickAtTheDisco said:
ok good, I'd just seen some "ICU doctors" (they have names but I cba finding the tweets) saying their ICU wards were mostly under 60s with a lot more younger people, so I hope they're just isolated settings.
Click to expand...
Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see :-)
 
PannickAtTheDisco said:
ok good, I'd just seen some "ICU doctors" (they have names but I cba finding the tweets) saying their ICU wards were mostly under 60s with a lot more younger people, so I hope they're just isolated settings.
Click to expand...

I think there's no current belief that the clinical manifestation is changed by the new variant.

I think it's possible that clinical practice has changed since 1st wave - many older and frail patients are not being taken to ICU as it was found intubation was actually overall detrimental.

So older, frailer pts die outside of ICU, which has lower occupancy and lower average age as a result.

But that's just my reading, could be hopelessly wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top