Coronavirus - Overall
-
According to the GP, no-one really knows. Can happen with any virus apparently but seems more common with Covid.
There are indications some people's immune system reacts slightly differently with Covid and doesn't switch off when it should. This produce an excess of a chemical (cytotine?) which takes a good few weeks to flush out.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@pakman said in Coronavirus - Overall:
My take is that Covid just isn't that dangerous, at least for healthy people under 70.
Not dangerous but can be debilitating.
Both me and the missus have had it in late March. Didn't affect us much at all - bit like a cold was starting and that was it.
However.....4 -6 weeks later I started feeling weak, listless with mild 'flu like symptoms almost every other day. I was diagnosed as having Post Viral Fatigue Syndrome which has taken me 3 months to get over. Can happen with any virus, according to the Doctor, but seems much more common with Covid for some reason.
It strikes me as quite like the flu. Many experience cold-like symptoms, but can be a lot more serious and kills the weak.
-
-
Dr Zac Turner: 'I believe a person who refuses to be vaccinated should not be allowed to travel interstate or overseas, nor be allowed to travel on public transport without a face mask. And when it comes to the private sector, businesses could refuse these anti-vaxxers from visiting their retail outlets, gyms, movie cinemas, restaurants, bars or nightclubs.'
Fuck off fluffybunny.
-
@pakman said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Rapido There seems a plausible argument that Covid mainly takes out the vulnerable and thus tends only to bring forward their death by as little as a few months. Such people are also the vulnerable for flu/pneumonia.
So excess deaths overall down because of deaths eralier in year, which would apply to flu.
Excess death graphs for UK regions suggest that the worse the excess owing to Covid in Q2 the futher below five year average now, at least in hospitals and care homes.
What I haven't seen reported is that excess deaths at home are still right up, and not decreasing much, if at all.
Yeah. Maybe, maybe not.
No doubt. Some of the weak who might have died of influenza or pneumonia in the middle of a UK summer have already been knocked off in the spring by coronavirus. But that is the froth at the top of the pint.
Looking at excess mortality. Up to 10 days ago:
It looks good. A negative Z score of -2.44.
But look at Spain. They were also down below average at -2.85 at one stage after the first wave. But are back to +7.79
But. It's not inevitable that they have to go in the same directions.
But at this stage, I'm not seeing anything to sway my thinking from initial surge curbed, summer, then .... ?I read yesterday, but can't remember where, was mainstream like BBC, that theory is that covid (in Europe) has mutated to weaker but more infectious. Which is promising - and eventually probably inevitable.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Coronavirus - Overall:
So what’s the deal with France? They lifted hard restrictions a while back, and overnight had 2500+ new cases. Haven’t been following closely but they have been on a steep incline for the past two weeks going from around 500 to north of 2500.
So it’s been rising every day since. Yesterday 3,700 a new peak post their hard lockdown. And given the Tour is just around the corner and the world will be watching it will be interesting the news coming out.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@ACT-Crusader said in Coronavirus - Overall:
So what’s the deal with France? They lifted hard restrictions a while back, and overnight had 2500+ new cases. Haven’t been following closely but they have been on a steep incline for the past two weeks going from around 500 to north of 2500.
So it’s been rising every day since. Yesterday 3,700 a new peak post their hard lockdown. And given the Tour is just around the corner and the world will be watching it will be interesting the news coming out.
Deaths are running pretty flat though
-
@MiketheSnow said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@ACT-Crusader said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@ACT-Crusader said in Coronavirus - Overall:
So what’s the deal with France? They lifted hard restrictions a while back, and overnight had 2500+ new cases. Haven’t been following closely but they have been on a steep incline for the past two weeks going from around 500 to north of 2500.
So it’s been rising every day since. Yesterday 3,700 a new peak post their hard lockdown. And given the Tour is just around the corner and the world will be watching it will be interesting the news coming out.
Deaths are running pretty flat though
It would be interesting to see the cases graph overlaid, you would expect the deaths to spike after the cases spike but by how long would be illuminating.
-
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@MiketheSnow said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@ACT-Crusader said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@ACT-Crusader said in Coronavirus - Overall:
So what’s the deal with France? They lifted hard restrictions a while back, and overnight had 2500+ new cases. Haven’t been following closely but they have been on a steep incline for the past two weeks going from around 500 to north of 2500.
So it’s been rising every day since. Yesterday 3,700 a new peak post their hard lockdown. And given the Tour is just around the corner and the world will be watching it will be interesting the news coming out.
Deaths are running pretty flat though
It would be interesting to see the cases graph overlaid, you would expect the deaths to spike after the cases spike but by how long would be illuminating.
It's quite complicated. A lot of those ignoring social distancing and testing positive are young, say under 50. But the number of such getting seriously ill is very low.
I saw somewhere that cases in the over [60]s were actually falling, even when there was a spike.
-
@Rapido said in Coronavirus - Overall:
I read yesterday, but can't remember where, was mainstream like BBC, that theory is that covid (in Europe) has mutated to weaker but more infectious. Which is promising - and eventually probably inevitable.
Another theory is that the virus generally impacts mostly those who are susceptible. It causes serious sypmptons in lots of these to start with, but as the number of uninfected susceptible types diminishes the levels of serious cases quickly fall. The theory goes on to posit that herd immunity could be achieved with around 20% of the population infected.
-
@pakman said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@MiketheSnow said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@ACT-Crusader said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@ACT-Crusader said in Coronavirus - Overall:
So what’s the deal with France? They lifted hard restrictions a while back, and overnight had 2500+ new cases. Haven’t been following closely but they have been on a steep incline for the past two weeks going from around 500 to north of 2500.
So it’s been rising every day since. Yesterday 3,700 a new peak post their hard lockdown. And given the Tour is just around the corner and the world will be watching it will be interesting the news coming out.
Deaths are running pretty flat though
It would be interesting to see the cases graph overlaid, you would expect the deaths to spike after the cases spike but by how long would be illuminating.
It's quite complicated. A lot of those ignoring social distancing and testing positive are young, say under 50. But the number of such getting seriously ill is very low.
I saw somewhere that cases in the over [60]s were actually falling, even when there was a spike.
Interesting thought and feasible. So many variables must make planning a lottery.
-
This article today summed up my general feelings about the 'open society while protecting the vulnerable' option:
Some journalists and politicians have been saying that we just need to let the virus run and only worry about protecting the elderly or vulnerable. Given that would mean a lot more community infections – limited, it is hoped, to those at lower risk of death or severe infection – let’s look at what it would take to try to protect those who need protecting. The residents of aged care facilities have been hit particularly hard, so we would obviously have to focus a lot of energy on trying to stop COVID-19 from getting into their facilities. That would mean anyone working there would have to do everything possible to avoid taking COVID-19 to work, given that they could spread it when they are in an asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic phase of the infection. They would need to avoid public places such as supermarkets, shopping centres, parties, restaurants, bars or cinemas. And if they have children who are back at school, they would have to avoid all contact with them too. In fact, they would have to avoid contact with anyone who is going out into public areas that would lead to potential exposure. Perhaps it would be necessary for them to live on-site at the aged care facility to minimise the danger of the virus being introduced. Possibly a bit too much to ask, even for these amazingly dedicated workers. Who else would this sort of issue apply to? Pretty much all healthcare workers would be exposed to vulnerable people at work, and so those healthcare workers would also have to avoid going out in public or meeting up with anyone who is at risk of having COVID-19. They would also have to avoid contact with their own school-aged children if applicable or do home schooling, leaving their children alone if they are a single parent or if both parents have to work. We have about 300,000 nurses, 25,000 physios and 88,000 doctors in Australia. Add to those numbers all the social workers, occupational therapists, speech therapists, hospital cleaners, clerical staff and volunteers. The vast majority of healthcare workers who look after the vulnerable would have to stop having any type of social life for as long as there is circulating virus. Particularly in the Victorian hospitals that have been dealing with this, many healthcare workers are already exhausted, made worse by having colleagues on enforced leave because of either being infected or needing to be in quarantine after being exposed. If we enforced this extreme social isolation on them, enough would probably leave that we would struggle to have a functioning healthcare system. Other people who might be classed as vulnerable are those who have health conditions associated with a worse outcome from COVID-19. Some common examples would be chronic diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (affecting about 5 per cent of the population), asthma (affecting about 11 per cent), and diabetes mellitus (affecting about 5 per cent). There are also many Australians with heart problems, cancers, kidney failure, or weakened immune systems. And roughly one in five of the population is over the age of 70. All these people and anyone in regular contact with them would need to isolate from the rest of society. This suggestion to protect the vulnerable is very easy to say, but the specifics are a lot more challenging. In fact, they are impossible. We cannot just live with this virus like this and not expect disasters on a scale that would make our current situation look mild.
-
@barbarian said in Coronavirus - Overall:
This article today summed up my general feelings about the 'open society while protecting the vulnerable' option:
I was thinking about that recently. The whole "let's do Sweden, but protect the elderly/vulnerable" theory... what does that look like? Turn rest-homes into quarantine zones? Force or strongly recommend that all elderly move into rest-homes? And then, as the article focuses on - what to do with the workers in these rest-homes... make their jobs as a mandatory "live-in" role?
It just doesn't work. -
@barbarian said in Coronavirus - Overall:
This suggestion to protect the vulnerable is very easy to say, but the specifics are a lot more challenging. In fact, they are impossible. We cannot just live with this virus like this and not expect disasters on a scale that would make our current situation look mild.
Its got to be done. Otherwise the economy will never recover. As every yearly flu or cold (and this is all this virus is) will be used as an excuse to shut the economy down. Until they release a rushed and untested vaccine for it (that the makers will have no liability for if it does proven harm so no incentive to make it safe)
Re disaster .. Its not true as shown with Sweden. The West can either return to how we use to treat a flu before (with addition sensible measures to protect the vulnerable and others like testing (esp care home workers), temperature readings, maybe masks for short periods, stopping people travelling etc who clearly are sick, working at home and so on. Or accept all our rights and freedoms going out the window. And living standards dropping
-
@Kruse said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@barbarian said in Coronavirus - Overall:
This article today summed up my general feelings about the 'open society while protecting the vulnerable' option:
I was thinking about that recently. The whole "let's do Sweden, but protect the elderly/vulnerable" theory... what does that look like? Turn rest-homes into quarantine zones? Force or strongly recommend that all elderly move into rest-homes? And then, as the article focuses on - what to do with the workers in these rest-homes... make their jobs as a mandatory "live-in" role?
It just doesn't work.Why force the elderly to move into rest homes. They can stay at home and have food etc delivered if needed. As friends (who are not old) whose immune system are shot (one has cancer) have done in the UK. And not all older people are weak and sickly. Some still have a robust immune system and are in good health.
We will never achieve a 100% safe world and its folly to try. There needs to be a sensible risk cost assessment.
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Kruse said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@barbarian said in Coronavirus - Overall:
This article today summed up my general feelings about the 'open society while protecting the vulnerable' option:
I was thinking about that recently. The whole "let's do Sweden, but protect the elderly/vulnerable" theory... what does that look like? Turn rest-homes into quarantine zones? Force or strongly recommend that all elderly move into rest-homes? And then, as the article focuses on - what to do with the workers in these rest-homes... make their jobs as a mandatory "live-in" role?
It just doesn't work.Why force the elderly to move into rest homes. They can stay at home and have food etc delivered if needed. As friends (who are not old) whose immune system are shot (one has cancer) have done in the UK. And not all older people are weak and sickly. Some still have a robust immune system and are in good health.
Ah - cool. I get it. So - home detention then.
I see that "all our rights and freedoms" are only valid if one is healthy enough to deserve them. -
@Kruse said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Kruse said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@barbarian said in Coronavirus - Overall:
This article today summed up my general feelings about the 'open society while protecting the vulnerable' option:
I was thinking about that recently. The whole "let's do Sweden, but protect the elderly/vulnerable" theory... what does that look like? Turn rest-homes into quarantine zones? Force or strongly recommend that all elderly move into rest-homes? And then, as the article focuses on - what to do with the workers in these rest-homes... make their jobs as a mandatory "live-in" role?
It just doesn't work.Why force the elderly to move into rest homes. They can stay at home and have food etc delivered if needed. As friends (who are not old) whose immune system are shot (one has cancer) have done in the UK. And not all older people are weak and sickly. Some still have a robust immune system and are in good health.
Ah - cool. I get it. So - home detention then.
I see that "all our rights and freedoms" are only valid if one is healthy enough to deserve them.So what do you suggest. Removing them from everyone and destroying the economy as well.
My view is healthy law abiding citizens should not have their freedoms removed to MAYBE protect others.
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
As every yearly flu or cold (and this is all this virus is)
Why do you keep saying that? It's SARS if anything. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome which isn't yearly.
"Influenza (Flu) and COVID-19 are both contagious respiratory illnesses, but they are caused by different viruses. COVID-19 is caused by infection with a new coronavirus (called SARS-CoV-2) and flu is caused by infection with influenza viruses."
I guess you won't believe it because that is a quote from the CDC, who are a government agency and therefore corrupt and telling lies.
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Kruse said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Kruse said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@barbarian said in Coronavirus - Overall:
This article today summed up my general feelings about the 'open society while protecting the vulnerable' option:
I was thinking about that recently. The whole "let's do Sweden, but protect the elderly/vulnerable" theory... what does that look like? Turn rest-homes into quarantine zones? Force or strongly recommend that all elderly move into rest-homes? And then, as the article focuses on - what to do with the workers in these rest-homes... make their jobs as a mandatory "live-in" role?
It just doesn't work.Why force the elderly to move into rest homes. They can stay at home and have food etc delivered if needed. As friends (who are not old) whose immune system are shot (one has cancer) have done in the UK. And not all older people are weak and sickly. Some still have a robust immune system and are in good health.
Ah - cool. I get it. So - home detention then.
I see that "all our rights and freedoms" are only valid if one is healthy enough to deserve them.So what do you suggest. Removing them from everyone and destroying the economy as well.
My view is healthy law abiding citizens should not have their freedoms removed to MAYBE protect others.
Just like America, they are the best at covid19 management and maintenance of freedom. Oh wait....
Freedom is a fallacy. There are lots of people trying to lockdown in the US, but without a cohesive strategy they are failing miserably. Trump called our latest leak really bad, at less than 10 cases a day its hardly bad. The US got more new cases in the time I took to type this comment
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Kruse said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@Kruse said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@barbarian said in Coronavirus - Overall:
This article today summed up my general feelings about the 'open society while protecting the vulnerable' option:
I was thinking about that recently. The whole "let's do Sweden, but protect the elderly/vulnerable" theory... what does that look like? Turn rest-homes into quarantine zones? Force or strongly recommend that all elderly move into rest-homes? And then, as the article focuses on - what to do with the workers in these rest-homes... make their jobs as a mandatory "live-in" role?
It just doesn't work.Why force the elderly to move into rest homes. They can stay at home and have food etc delivered if needed. As friends (who are not old) whose immune system are shot (one has cancer) have done in the UK. And not all older people are weak and sickly. Some still have a robust immune system and are in good health.
Ah - cool. I get it. So - home detention then.
I see that "all our rights and freedoms" are only valid if one is healthy enough to deserve them.So what do you suggest. Removing them from everyone and destroying the economy as well.
My view is healthy law abiding citizens should not have their freedoms removed to MAYBE protect others.
One other point. Young people want to be out and about and experiencing life. And working and making their way in life
Sick and older people not so much. So restricting movement of older or sick people is not such a big deal as it is to a young healthy person.