Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
The first analysis of the new antibody tests have shown that up to 70% of those testing positive show no symptoms at all and are completely asymptomatic for the week before taking the test and the week after according to the office for national statistics (ONS).

The clamour to get the new track and trace system working efficiently and ensuring limits on new outbreaks could well be a forlorn one, as now there must be serious doubts on just how effective any system relying on those displaying symptoms taking a test can be, that is if most who have the virus and would test positive don't show any symptoms at all?

The prevelence of cases where no symptoms are shown, even if it falls short of 70%, may mean that most who may have it just won't know or have any particular reason to suspect they might.
 
JEBUS_LIVES said:
Not really arsed speculating about what they may or may not do in different positions. But 'objection' doesn't really happen in UK courts.
Click to expand...
Fair dos

On a different note, why don't you think you learn more on here than in the pressers?

You always find out what happens in the pressers, plus some of the stuff you and others post is really informative.
 
Tipp blue said:
I do believe that future generations will look at what we have done and are doing and use it as a blue print on how not to deal with a pandemic. Future deaths for other reasons but due to our actions now, will be multiples of what corona even unchecked would have caused.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there will be many lessons to take from the affair across society. I've said a few times, if you're able to get through it relatively intact, it's a fascinating period. Obviously if it bites you, either in terms of health or wealth, then it's far harder to take such a view.
 
Tipp blue said:
I do believe that future generations will look at what we have done and are doing and use it as a blue print on how not to deal with a pandemic. Future deaths for other reasons but due to our actions now, will be multiples of what corona even unchecked would have caused.
Click to expand...


I think there will be increasing criticism of lockdown as time passes, but its easy to be critical with hindsight. Lockdown is a very legitimate initial response to a public health emergency on this scale in the face of a new disease, principally to give healthcare provision space to cope.

The critical issue is how to ease lockdown with risk mitigation. As a generalisation, I don't think it is surprising that western society is finding this more difficult than our Asian counterparts.

The failure to have PPE stockpiles. lack of clear messaging, and a very awkward and sluggish adaptation of technology as a vital tool in hunting the virus are things that have and will continue to let us down over the coming months. That inevitably means that a return to reliance on conventional lockdown, as now understood, is far more likely in this part of the world.

In the digital age, and one where people have become used to living with a threat of terrorism, it is hard to reconcile the general level of poor preparedness for a pandemic, given that it must have been seen as a distinct possibility, even if not on this scale.
 
I make nice enough food in the kitchen or from takeaways to have any desire for that shielded restaurant dining.

"How's your pasta, love?"

"WHAT? CAN'T HEAR YOU"

"HOW'S YOUR PASTA LOVE"

"WHAT!"
 
Nymzee said:
If you had COVID you wouldn't be in the restaurant anyway so nice attempt at humour but fail.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
brieverton said:
it is hard to reconcile the general level of poor preparedness for a pandemic, given that it must have been seen as a distinct possibility, even if not on this scale.
Click to expand...


Fully agree with your post hence only including the last bit, here the chances of a pandemic were taken seriously but unfortunately all the preparations were for by far the most likely culprit, a new extremely virulent strain of influenza.

Without going into too much detail typically flu strains mode of transmision is different and not usually at such a high reinfection rate so while such preparations may well have proved far more effective for flu they weren't at all appropriate here.

The question then is why not cover all possibilities including far less likely culprits so we're ready for any eventuality?

Usually, and in this case, it comes down to pragmatism and best use of the money allocated. Obviously you may take a blanket approach and broad measures but may end up being spread so thin you're actually covering nothing effectively. If flu was deemed, and tbf by a long, long way the other risks weren't even statistically close, the most likely enemy to Europe then making a decision to adequately protect against it possibly made sense.

Obviously bigger budgets would mean more could be covered but decisions on the best way to spend money are taken with consultation very regularly. There were warnings after SARS and MERS and the possibility was increasing but still nowhere near the flu strain risk.

Hindsight makes all decisions look far worse but it's far harder (without hindsight) if in real time you target your perceived main enemy and the attack comes from a different quarter
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top