Coronavirus - worldwide spread and control

Status
Not open for further replies.
As someone has already pointed out, various things this afternoon made it seem to me that people are taking things into their own hands. The government has been left behind. Care homes are stopping all visits. The insurance industry is shutting down all foreign travel. And so on.
 
Invisible Woman said:
There's a huge issue with this them and us kind of division - it's false.

Many people rely on parents or older relatives for childcare or dropping children off & collecting them from school.

Many people are still in the workforce in their mid 60s and onwards.

Underlying conditions are often invisible. The person sitting next to you in the office might be in an at risk group, but looking at them you would never know.

Not everyone who has an illness or disability can achieve what Steven Hawkins did, but they still quietly contribute in a myriad of ways.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
 
I posted this much earlier but it got held up in moderation.

I think the world needs a plan where when a serious pandemic outbreak occurs, we need t close all our borders. I don't feel our government is taking it as seriously as it should. We have had only 5 reported cases - we have time to stop things exploding.

What would be the costs of closing down all flights into and out of a country except for flights for medical supplies, etc? A lot of businesses would fail?

I read in one of our newspapers this morning that a MP was going to be travelling overseas for a political meeting. I don't understand how this can be allowed when we need to protect this country from increased exposure to this virus.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Very interesting article on why the UK made such different decisions to the rest of the world - Nudge theory. I didn’t know about much of this before so was very interesting but also weird to read. Weird because even for me, from an outside point of view, and with no expertise in the area, I just don’t understand why the govt thought it was relevant at all. And also it doesn’t make sense. And it’s clear proper social isolating measures are needed, not just small “nudges”. It’s all a muddle. I would like to see the govt release their data and modelling.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...relying-on-nudge-theory-to-tackle-coronavirus

 
Jonathan Edwards said:
Worse than childbirth'


Clare Gerada, a London-based family doctor and former chairwoman of the Royal College of General Practitioners, has tweeted that she is now recovering after an "unwelcome visit" from Covid-19.

Dr Gerada described the experience as the "worst case of the flu I have ever had" and it was "worse than child birth".

She added that she is still going to self-isolate for another few days.
Click to expand...
Interesting; thanks. A couple of days ago a doctor wrote in The Atlantic that this is not a 'mild' infection at all, and that the media is spreading falsehoods indicating that the infection is light. His comments seem to be in line with Dr Gerada's. As an aside, I just heard this evening on Radio Canada (the French CBC) an Anthropologist arguing that this is nature's way of dealing with the fact that the planet is overpopulated. He didn't add too much more information to this conjecture of his. But as a further aside, when I was born the population was 2.5 billion and now it is 7.5 billion or so.
 
This Guardian article on the evidence that led the government to be concerned about 'fatiguing' people with stringent action cites a Wessely review of questionnaire scores from other epidemics. The paper itself looks like a bit of a nothing (people don't enjoy being quarantined and tend to fill in questionnaires more negatively when they've had to do something they don't like), but we've previously seen how Wessely can spin nothing research into groundbreaking evidence when he's speaking to policy makers, so I guess it's possible that happened here?:

The government’s new measures, its experts said, took into account these behavioural factors, such as the potential for “fatigue” – the idea that public adherence to quarantines might wane over time.

The implied logic was that asking less of the public this week could buy greater compliance down the line, when it is most crucial. Factors such as the potential for loneliness and stress in isolation were also considered.

The body of research included a rapid review published in the Lancet last month on the psychological impact of quarantine, which found that self-isolation can lead to post-traumatic stress, anxiety, depression and public anger.

Indefinite quarantines with no well-defined end point – such as those imposed in Wuhan – risk having the most negative side-effects, the paper suggested, recommending that quarantines be restricted to the shortest time period possible and that the public be given a clear rationale for such measures.
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-form-new-front-in-battle-against-coronavirus

The Lancet paper: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30460-8/fulltext

It says:

Keep it as short as possible
Longer quarantine is associated with poorer psychological outcomes, perhaps unsurprisingly, as it stands to reason that the stressors reported by participants could have more of an effect the longer they were experienced for. Restricting the length of quarantine to what is scientifically reasonable given the known duration of incubation periods, and not adopting an overly precautionary approach to this, would minimise the effect on people. Evidence from elsewhere also emphasises the importance of authorities adhering to their own recommended length of quarantine, and not extending it. For people already in quarantine, an extension, no matter how small, is likely to exacerbate any sense of frustration or demoralisation.
40
Imposing a cordon indefinitely on whole cities with no clear time limit (such as has been seen in Wuhan, China) might be more detrimental than strictly applied quarantine procedures limited to the period of incubation.
Click to expand...

This is the final sentence, which seems written to catch the eye of politicians:

If the quarantine experience is negative, the results of this Review suggest there can be long-term consequences that affect not just the people quarantined but also the health-care system that administered the quarantine and the politicians and public health officials who mandated it.
Click to expand...
 
I just had a quick look at the other review cited in the Guardian article I posted above:

https://www.esri.ie/system/files/publications/WP656.pdf

The only bit I saw that seemed to support the 'fatigue' notion, was this (which was more about extensions than length):

Extending the isolation period beyond initial suggestions can demoralise people and increase non-compliance.51
Click to expand...

Looks like that is referring to another Wessely questionnaire study, but this one is about service in the military, not even about isolation to restrict the spread of an infection:

[51] Rona, R. J., Fear, N. T., Hull, L., Greenberg, N., Earnshaw, M., Hotopf, M., & Wessely, S. (2007). Mental health consequences of overstretch in the UK armed forces: first phase of a cohort study. Bmj, 335(7620), 603. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39274.585752.BE

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1988977/

I did not read all of that review properly though, so may have missed something.
 
BurnA said:
Do you think a vaccine would be developed before 4 years?
Click to expand...
Multiple vaccines are in the testing phase right now. Vaccine creation is largely automated now, the procedures streamlined. However testing those vaccines is still a long process. One group in the US, I do not recall details, is talking about skipping animal testing and currently recruiting human volunteers, in an effort to cut testing time.

The big issue here is not how long it will take to create the first vaccine, but how long it will take to create an effective vaccine. That is a whole other issue.
 
Radio NZ
As of midnight tomorrow every person arriving in New Zealand apart from those coming from the Pacific islands will have to self- isolate themselves, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says.
Click to expand...
As of midnight Sunday every person arriving will have to isolate themselves for 14 days, Ardern says. That will mean New Zealand will have the strongest restrictions in the world, she said.

She said the measures - in effect as of midnight Sunday - will be reviewed in 16 days and there will be more measures and advice for self isolation next week.

All cruise ships are also being asked to not come to New Zealand until June 30.
Click to expand...
 
lunarainbows said:
I didn’t quite understand though how not bringing in social distancing policies, actually helps with flattening the curve. I understand the flattening the curve in general, but I would have thought that’s what other European countries are doing; not us? Aren’t we instead just .. doing not much at all, ie not making much change to the curve?
Click to expand...

That is what a now large number of medical experts are saying. A few people are supporting the government position and of course there is huge pressure on anyone in a job in the filed to do so, but the majority of opinions agree with what you say.

By Monday I suspect we may be nearly in line with others - just people realising they need to do something. The schools issue is the one thing I am not sure about. Keeping schools open may actually be sensible - just as a way of handling the low risk population sector separately from the high risk.

Edit: five minutes later I see the government are doing a U turn.
 
Last edited:
Jonathan Edwards said:
That is what a now large number of medical experts are saying. A few people are supporting the government position and of course there is huge pressure on anyone in a job in the filed to do so, but the majority of opinions agree with what you say.

By Monday I suspect we may be nearly in line with others - just people realising they need to do something. The schools issue is the one thing I am not sure about. Keeping schools open may actually be sensible - just as a way of handling the low risk population sector separately from the high risk.

Edit: five minutes later I see the government are doing a U turn.
Click to expand...

Yes they’ve done a U turn...

There was an interview on ITV 2 days ago with the Honorary president of the BMA and he was very critical of the govt position, and said more should have been done weeks ago. when asked should schools have been closed, he said yes they should have been, as even if children are not at risk of developing illness themselves, they are a “hub” for infection. They touch lots of surfaces, have contact with lots of other children and people, and so very easily spread it to vulnerable people like elderly and others they live with and are in contact with. This agrees with the link Cheshire and I posted above that school closures can be one of the most important interventions (eg influenza 1918).

I see lots of other countries closing schools too. I saw that the govt could lose 3% of GDP though by closing schools and I imagine that could be a consideration for them. As well as how to actually manage it - what if parents can’t work from home remotely etc. But I do wonder how other countries manage it. There must be a way.
 
Clare Gereda on Radio 5 now.

"it was worse than flu"
"all I could do was sleep"
"it's very frightening being ill"
"it's difficult to be compassionate for others because we are rarely ill"
"let's all be in this together"
"we've all got to pull together behind the government and scientists"
and even brought Churchill into it.

Unsurprisingly, she supports the UK government on coronavirus policy.
 
Andy said:
Clare Gereda on Radio 5 now.

"it was worse than flu"
"all I could do was sleep"
"it's very frightening being ill"
"it's difficult to be compassionate for others because we are rarely ill"
"let's all be in this together"
"we've all got to pull together behind the government and scientists"
and even brought Churchill into it.

Unsurprisingly, she supports the UK government on coronavirus policy.
Click to expand...
Can i roll my eyes? :rolleyes: The irony.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom