Coronavirus - worldwide spread and control

Status
Not open for further replies.
Invisible Woman said:
I struggle to understand why agencies worldwide have allowed the idea that only certain groups are vulnerable and the rest won't be affected - the influence of behaviourists possibly?

Sure in these days of social media influence it wouldn't have been such a terrible challenge to make putting yourself and others at risk of infection socially unacceptable?
Click to expand...

Indeed. Instead, it's full of tin-hat conspiracy theories.

Perhaps if we didn't have leaders whose actions and decision-making have left the satirists struggling for material, the rest of us might be able to behave more rationally...
 
Andy said:
Mask wearing and social distancing for Covid-19 has all but cut influenza cases in New Zealand this year, with only six flu isolates detected in this country from April to August.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/prog...fluenza-in-nz-as-numbers-drop-due-to-lockdown
Click to expand...
Haven't bookmarked but I saw a report, maybe NZ actually, that quantified the drop as something like 99.8% reduction. That's incredible.

Maybe it will lead to a recognition of the need to actually track and control infectious diseases, even minor ones, instead of letting them run amok and sending people home to deal with symptoms, entirely depriving medicine of experience dealing with those symptoms.
 
Leila said:
In Germany, many labs send positive results to local health departments (that do the contact tracing) per fax..Hence, lots of delay in Corona hotspots.

Not so much due to stupidity but due to data security laws.

Still, you'd think there would be better preparation for a pandemic.
Click to expand...

You'd need to check the data security laws; also typically there are emergency powers i.e. to do what is necessary ---- sometimes proposed barriers are just convenient excuses for sitting on your ---
 
More proof,in my opinion, that the UK is losing whatever amount of control that it had on Covid-19.

Covid: Sage scientists called for short lockdown weeks ago
The government's scientific advisers called for a short lockdown in England to halt the spread of Covid-19 last month, newly released documents show.

The experts said an immediate "circuit breaker" was the best way to control cases, at a meeting on 21 September.

Labour said the advice was ignored but No 10 said it took "robust" action.
Click to expand...

The PM added the alert system for England could succeed in driving cases down if it was implemented "very effectively", and he rejected the "extreme route" of a full nationwide lockdown "right now".

But at the same press conference, England's chief medical officer, Prof Chris Whitty, voiced concerns over the impact of the new rules, saying he was not confident the highest tier measures "would be enough to get on top of" the virus without further local restrictions.
Click to expand...

Released shortly after the press conference, minutes from the meeting of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) - which feeds into UK government decision making - stated the advisers had called for the immediate introduction of a short national lockdown three weeks ago.

The papers also showed the scientists suggested:

  • banning all contact inside homes with members of other households
  • closing all bars, restaurants, cafes, indoor gyms and hairdressers
  • requiring all university and college teaching to take place online
Of all the measures proposed by the advisory group, just one - advising those who can work from home to do so - was implemented by the government at the time.
Click to expand...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54518002
 
It seems that the rule of six, and the fact that some people wear masks occasionally, is so much more effective at preventing the spread of covid, than lockdown (where the 'most clinically vulnerable' were told/asked to 'shield') that there is no need for them to do so.

I'm not sure, but which way should the case numbers be going if the rule of six is more effective than lockdown? So much more effective that those who were deemed at increased risk of requiring hospital treatment, during a lockdown, are no longer at risk.

By which I mean I am sure, but that our leaders seem to think the opposite, so I must be mistaken, somehow.
 
Wits_End said:
Going back to Florida, I hear there's going to be a Trump rally there shortly. And it's expected that most of the participants won't be wearing masks :(
Click to expand...
Unfortunately it went about as predicted. Dr. Fauci has warned that these are likely to become super-spreader events, like that ceremony in the Rose Garden that seems to have infected 34, only much larger. It seems that science, expertise and facts have no particular effect on this campaign. The question now is if the consequences will become apparent before the election.

Today's Florida COVID-19 numbers are not encouraging: 2,725 new cases and 119 deaths. If this rate went on for a year, we would have over 40,000 deaths in this state alone. This is not normal.
 
I have watched short interviews with some of the supporters attending the rally in Florida, many don't have any issues with contracting the virus and referring to it as the 'flu'. They don't trust Dr. Fauci.

One women said if Trump told them to wear masks then they would wear them.

One male supporter said that wearing a mask is more dangerous than the virus, and that it can cause carbon dioxide poisoning.
 
Oregon to change how it reports COVID-19 recoveries

The Oregon Health Authority Friday announced it plans to again change the way it reports recovered cases of COVID-19. The agency will temporarily stop reporting recoveries until a new plan is in place...

The agency said Friday that way of reporting recovered cases did not factor in people who experience “prolonged illness or lasting effects from COVID-19.” For that reason, the agency said, the count of recovered cases after May 1 will no longer be reported on its website.
Click to expand...
 
Florida's disputes about COVID-19 deaths just got uglier. The departing state speaker of the house just wrote a memo blaming overworked medical examiners for upping the count of deaths. Medical examiners have fired back. There is no question that the people are dead, or that they died while infected with SARS-CoV-2. Medical examiners are following standards set by the CDC. They do not automatically blame the virus as the cause of death in every case. The problem is that some people wish the numbers were smaller. Our total is now over 15,700. (Would it be okay if it were *only* 10,000?) I can't yet show you the original news item itself.

Here's another account you may be able to access.
 
Surely one of the countries that pioneered the use of microfiche should be able to make the numbers smaller if they wanted to.

Sounds an ideal solution, publish all of the information, but put it in a form that no one, other than government and the odd university, has readers for any more.

Granted, not as desirable as having smaller numbers of people dying, but smaller numbers, could help with the public image.

I can just imagine how this could be spun;

Interviewer : How many people died this week?

Spokesperson : Really, really small numbers compared with last week, practically invisible, you'd hardly notice them.

Interviewer : So many less people died?

Spokesperson : Really small numbers, vanishingly small. Much smaller numbers than we have ever recorded before. Much smaller numbers than anyone has ever seen before. We are the best at making really small numbers. We're doing it better than any other country.
 
Last edited:
Coronavirus: Teenager infects 11 relatives with Covid-19 during family holiday

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...ly-holiday/ar-BB19Zwhg?li=AAnZ9Ug&ocid=ASUDHP

A teenager infected 11 relatives from four different states with Covid-19 during a three week family holiday, health officials have revealed.

The 13-year-old girl transmitted the virus to family members during the summer vacation in June and July, despite the youngster only showing very mild symptoms.
Click to expand...

Remind me up to what age it's believed that children don't transmit the virus to adults?
 
Although this is inevitably political, it focusses strongly on the scientific and ethical implications for virus spread.
Proposal to hasten herd immunity grabs White House attention, appalls top scientists
...

The authors contend that permitting the virus to spread naturally among young people - who are much less likely than their elders to have a severe outcome - will shorten the pandemic by hastening the arrival of herd immunity, the point at which there’s enough immunity in the general population to prevent the virus from spreading at epidemic rates.

...

Critics of focused protection say the idea is impractical, unethical and potentially deadly. There is no way, they say, to segregate society neatly by levels of vulnerability. Many vulnerable people live in multigenerational households. And although it is true that younger people are unlikely to die of covid-19, they can still become sick, potentially with chronic lung damage or other long-duration symptoms known as “long covid.”
Click to expand...

https://www.adn.com/nation-world/20...white-house-attention-appalls-top-scientists/
 
:banghead:

Again with the idea that everyone who is "young" is healthy. What about all those who are in age terms low risk but live with long term health condtions?
Diabetes, asthma and so on.

Several of my husband's work colleagues who are only in the 40s have heart conditions, one guy had a stroke. Or they live in a household where someone has a health problem that makes them more vulnerable to problems if they contract covid.

Isn't is interesting when it's a pandemic the "others" who live with long term health problems should stay at home? As far as the DWP is concerned thise same people should be perfectly capable of living normal lives and holding down jobs despite health problems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom