Dunno mate, I had doubts when they sent me a massive email with a list of do's and dont's.
Takes all the fun out of whats meant to be a nice relaxing weekend.
Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!
- Thread starter bullybeef
- Start date
- Status
Dunno mate, I had doubts when they sent me a massive email with a list of do's and dont's.
Takes all the fun out of whats meant to be a nice relaxing weekend.
Extent of India’s COVID nudge campaign revealed
The Government of India’s use of nudge theory in the first three months of the pandemic helped to tackle the virus on numerous fronts, a new study suggests.
The binman chronicles
Player Valuation: £80m
Classic moving the goalposts. They said the same about the summer. Unless they lockdown now until Christmas Eve there is no guarantees it will be OK then.
I went to Sainsburys the other day for one of their in "made in store" Ham and Mushroom pizzas. None around, and at checkout was told they couldnt do them "cos of covid"
In there today, and back making them now.
They have all had specialist covid training to re-open: 'Don't cough on the pizza...cough around the pizza.'
I was in Morrisons the other day and some half wit was wearing a mask but was more around his neck than face, he did a massive sneeze, the kind of one that you are bound to get stuff everywhere. I just despair honestly.
They'd have been better moving up to Scotland if they want to win a few games lol
Disgruntledgoat
Player Valuation: £50m
These is a village called Sunderland there. Just outside Cockermouth. Population is about 150.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
One for those who think their age means they'll get off scot-free;
Why the “low-risk population” could be the care homes scandal of the new Covid outbreak
Young people may be cavalier about coronavirus, but long Covid, a chronic, ongoing form of the disease, doesn’t discriminate by age. Dr Phil Whitaker.
The second wave of Covid-19 appears to be underway. Infection rates are rising in numerous countries that had achieved impressive control of the pandemic. France and Spain are experiencing rapid growth, with around 7,000 new cases being identified each day. The UK is more akin to Italy at the moment, with a less steep rise – although on 6 September it reported nearly 3,000 confirmed infections, the first time daily positive tests had exceeded 2,000 since the decline of the first wave in May.
Yet things also seem different this time around. Hospitalisation and death rates are beginning to nudge up in France, but nothing like what one might expect, and in the UK there has, as yet, been no impact on admissions or mortality. The explanation is both simple and complex. The simple part is that the demographics of those infected is very different. According to Tim Spector of King’s College London, at the height of the peak in early April, 60 per cent of proven cases were in people over 60. Today that higher-risk age group accounts for only 12 per cent of patients; the clear majority are under 40 years old. The complex bit is why the demographics are so different.
To get a Covid-19 test in April you had to be in hospital, so only the most severely unwell were being identified. Nowadays, anyone with grounds to suspect they’re infected can access testing, so the national figures are capturing large numbers of individuals with milder disease who went undetected before. One possibility is that, because of this entirely different testing environment, we are merely picking up the early stages of what will prove to be a comparably substantial wave. It is likely that if there had been this level of community testing in February, the rates and patterns of infection would have been similar to what we’re seeing today.
Most of the nationwide seeding that went unnoticed then will have been from families returning from half-term holidays, and working-age people travelling from regions not considered a risk. When these folk became unwell it was typically with mild symptoms, and transmission to peers will have gone unchecked. Even in those who got much sicker, there was no “relevant” travel or contact history, so Covid-19 didn’t enter anyone’s mind. The spread of coronavirus into sufficient numbers of higher risk individuals to make the problem apparent probably took well over a month.
Another explanation for the current demographics might lie in different lessons certain subsets of the population have drawn about Covid-19. Younger people generally perceive themselves to be at low risk, and many have become bored of, and cavalier about, observing social distancing. At the same time, older people remain – in my experience – highly wary of the risk. I have many patients over 70 who are continuing fairly stringent self-isolation; some are effectively continuing to shield. And care homes, now routinely resourced with PPE, remain hyper-vigilant in their infection control measures. Although the virus is spreading ever more swiftly among the young and middle-aged, many of those at highest risk are staying out of harm’s way, which was not the case in February.
This scenario – where coronavirus moves through the younger, healthier majority, while the aged and those with co-morbidities remain sequestered – recalls the controversial herd immunity strategy. This suggests that once enough of the low-risk population has been infected, and has in theory acquired immunity, society becomes a far safer place for at-risk people to rejoin, as the ranks of low-risk people who are no longer susceptible act as firebreaks to obstruct the virus’s progress.
If that approach ever did have a place in the population management of this pandemic, it certainly should not now. If the neglect of care homes was the scandal of the first wave, the second wave scandal may prove to be the concept of “low-risk” people. We now possess a much deeper understanding of Covid-19 as a disease. In the first wave, it was thought to be a respiratory infection from which most patients recovered fairly swiftly, while a small minority would succumb or require intensive care to pull through.
We now know that for anywhere between 5 and 10 per cent of patients, Covid-19 becomes a chronic disease, relapsing and remitting for months on end. There are ongoing respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms, and profound fatigue, heart rhythm disturbances, life-threatening blood clot formation, and debilitating abnormalities of the nervous system. While some “long Covid” patients do recover, many have not as yet. Most are frightened about the future, and enervated by being a “medical mystery” for whom no one can give definitive explanations, advice or prognosis.
The demographics of “long Covid” are very different from those for hospitalisation and mortality; if anything, younger people appear disproportionately affected. And instances of relapsing-remitting disease are independent of severity – the majority of sufferers were never unwell enough to be admitted to hospital at any stage.
Research into this variant is in its infancy – trying to define how many people develop it, to understand what factors make the illness chronic, and to discover effective treatments. Nonetheless, long Covid is now an accepted phenomenon. The puzzle is why government pronouncements and statistics continue to suggest that death rates are the only meaningful outcome.
It is uncertain how much a communications strategy raising awareness of long Covid might modify risky behaviour among the young. But we had no idea about it in the first wave. The second-wave of coronavirus patients who develop this disease may legitimately ask why no one warned them this might come.
www.newstatesman.com
Why the “low-risk population” could be the care homes scandal of the new Covid outbreak
Young people may be cavalier about coronavirus, but long Covid, a chronic, ongoing form of the disease, doesn’t discriminate by age. Dr Phil Whitaker.
The second wave of Covid-19 appears to be underway. Infection rates are rising in numerous countries that had achieved impressive control of the pandemic. France and Spain are experiencing rapid growth, with around 7,000 new cases being identified each day. The UK is more akin to Italy at the moment, with a less steep rise – although on 6 September it reported nearly 3,000 confirmed infections, the first time daily positive tests had exceeded 2,000 since the decline of the first wave in May.
Yet things also seem different this time around. Hospitalisation and death rates are beginning to nudge up in France, but nothing like what one might expect, and in the UK there has, as yet, been no impact on admissions or mortality. The explanation is both simple and complex. The simple part is that the demographics of those infected is very different. According to Tim Spector of King’s College London, at the height of the peak in early April, 60 per cent of proven cases were in people over 60. Today that higher-risk age group accounts for only 12 per cent of patients; the clear majority are under 40 years old. The complex bit is why the demographics are so different.
To get a Covid-19 test in April you had to be in hospital, so only the most severely unwell were being identified. Nowadays, anyone with grounds to suspect they’re infected can access testing, so the national figures are capturing large numbers of individuals with milder disease who went undetected before. One possibility is that, because of this entirely different testing environment, we are merely picking up the early stages of what will prove to be a comparably substantial wave. It is likely that if there had been this level of community testing in February, the rates and patterns of infection would have been similar to what we’re seeing today.
Most of the nationwide seeding that went unnoticed then will have been from families returning from half-term holidays, and working-age people travelling from regions not considered a risk. When these folk became unwell it was typically with mild symptoms, and transmission to peers will have gone unchecked. Even in those who got much sicker, there was no “relevant” travel or contact history, so Covid-19 didn’t enter anyone’s mind. The spread of coronavirus into sufficient numbers of higher risk individuals to make the problem apparent probably took well over a month.
Another explanation for the current demographics might lie in different lessons certain subsets of the population have drawn about Covid-19. Younger people generally perceive themselves to be at low risk, and many have become bored of, and cavalier about, observing social distancing. At the same time, older people remain – in my experience – highly wary of the risk. I have many patients over 70 who are continuing fairly stringent self-isolation; some are effectively continuing to shield. And care homes, now routinely resourced with PPE, remain hyper-vigilant in their infection control measures. Although the virus is spreading ever more swiftly among the young and middle-aged, many of those at highest risk are staying out of harm’s way, which was not the case in February.
This scenario – where coronavirus moves through the younger, healthier majority, while the aged and those with co-morbidities remain sequestered – recalls the controversial herd immunity strategy. This suggests that once enough of the low-risk population has been infected, and has in theory acquired immunity, society becomes a far safer place for at-risk people to rejoin, as the ranks of low-risk people who are no longer susceptible act as firebreaks to obstruct the virus’s progress.
If that approach ever did have a place in the population management of this pandemic, it certainly should not now. If the neglect of care homes was the scandal of the first wave, the second wave scandal may prove to be the concept of “low-risk” people. We now possess a much deeper understanding of Covid-19 as a disease. In the first wave, it was thought to be a respiratory infection from which most patients recovered fairly swiftly, while a small minority would succumb or require intensive care to pull through.
We now know that for anywhere between 5 and 10 per cent of patients, Covid-19 becomes a chronic disease, relapsing and remitting for months on end. There are ongoing respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms, and profound fatigue, heart rhythm disturbances, life-threatening blood clot formation, and debilitating abnormalities of the nervous system. While some “long Covid” patients do recover, many have not as yet. Most are frightened about the future, and enervated by being a “medical mystery” for whom no one can give definitive explanations, advice or prognosis.
The demographics of “long Covid” are very different from those for hospitalisation and mortality; if anything, younger people appear disproportionately affected. And instances of relapsing-remitting disease are independent of severity – the majority of sufferers were never unwell enough to be admitted to hospital at any stage.
Research into this variant is in its infancy – trying to define how many people develop it, to understand what factors make the illness chronic, and to discover effective treatments. Nonetheless, long Covid is now an accepted phenomenon. The puzzle is why government pronouncements and statistics continue to suggest that death rates are the only meaningful outcome.
It is uncertain how much a communications strategy raising awareness of long Covid might modify risky behaviour among the young. But we had no idea about it in the first wave. The second-wave of coronavirus patients who develop this disease may legitimately ask why no one warned them this might come.
Why the “low-risk population” could be the care homes scandal of the new Covid outbreak
Young people may be cavalier about coronavirus, but long Covid, a chronic, ongoing form of the disease, doesn't discriminate by age.
www.newstatesman.com
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
That's for starters.
The lockdown restrictions will get much tighter as this autumn and winter proceeds.
Expect us to be back in national lockdown in all but name by November.
One for those who think their age means they'll get off scot-free;
Why the “low-risk population” could be the care homes scandal of the new Covid outbreak
Young people may be cavalier about coronavirus, but long Covid, a chronic, ongoing form of the disease, doesn’t discriminate by age. Dr Phil Whitaker.
The second wave of Covid-19 appears to be underway. Infection rates are rising in numerous countries that had achieved impressive control of the pandemic. France and Spain are experiencing rapid growth, with around 7,000 new cases being identified each day. The UK is more akin to Italy at the moment, with a less steep rise – although on 6 September it reported nearly 3,000 confirmed infections, the first time daily positive tests had exceeded 2,000 since the decline of the first wave in May.
Yet things also seem different this time around. Hospitalisation and death rates are beginning to nudge up in France, but nothing like what one might expect, and in the UK there has, as yet, been no impact on admissions or mortality. The explanation is both simple and complex. The simple part is that the demographics of those infected is very different. According to Tim Spector of King’s College London, at the height of the peak in early April, 60 per cent of proven cases were in people over 60. Today that higher-risk age group accounts for only 12 per cent of patients; the clear majority are under 40 years old. The complex bit is why the demographics are so different.
To get a Covid-19 test in April you had to be in hospital, so only the most severely unwell were being identified. Nowadays, anyone with grounds to suspect they’re infected can access testing, so the national figures are capturing large numbers of individuals with milder disease who went undetected before. One possibility is that, because of this entirely different testing environment, we are merely picking up the early stages of what will prove to be a comparably substantial wave. It is likely that if there had been this level of community testing in February, the rates and patterns of infection would have been similar to what we’re seeing today.
Most of the nationwide seeding that went unnoticed then will have been from families returning from half-term holidays, and working-age people travelling from regions not considered a risk. When these folk became unwell it was typically with mild symptoms, and transmission to peers will have gone unchecked. Even in those who got much sicker, there was no “relevant” travel or contact history, so Covid-19 didn’t enter anyone’s mind. The spread of coronavirus into sufficient numbers of higher risk individuals to make the problem apparent probably took well over a month.
Another explanation for the current demographics might lie in different lessons certain subsets of the population have drawn about Covid-19. Younger people generally perceive themselves to be at low risk, and many have become bored of, and cavalier about, observing social distancing. At the same time, older people remain – in my experience – highly wary of the risk. I have many patients over 70 who are continuing fairly stringent self-isolation; some are effectively continuing to shield. And care homes, now routinely resourced with PPE, remain hyper-vigilant in their infection control measures. Although the virus is spreading ever more swiftly among the young and middle-aged, many of those at highest risk are staying out of harm’s way, which was not the case in February.
This scenario – where coronavirus moves through the younger, healthier majority, while the aged and those with co-morbidities remain sequestered – recalls the controversial herd immunity strategy. This suggests that once enough of the low-risk population has been infected, and has in theory acquired immunity, society becomes a far safer place for at-risk people to rejoin, as the ranks of low-risk people who are no longer susceptible act as firebreaks to obstruct the virus’s progress.
If that approach ever did have a place in the population management of this pandemic, it certainly should not now. If the neglect of care homes was the scandal of the first wave, the second wave scandal may prove to be the concept of “low-risk” people. We now possess a much deeper understanding of Covid-19 as a disease. In the first wave, it was thought to be a respiratory infection from which most patients recovered fairly swiftly, while a small minority would succumb or require intensive care to pull through.
We now know that for anywhere between 5 and 10 per cent of patients, Covid-19 becomes a chronic disease, relapsing and remitting for months on end. There are ongoing respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms, and profound fatigue, heart rhythm disturbances, life-threatening blood clot formation, and debilitating abnormalities of the nervous system. While some “long Covid” patients do recover, many have not as yet. Most are frightened about the future, and enervated by being a “medical mystery” for whom no one can give definitive explanations, advice or prognosis.
The demographics of “long Covid” are very different from those for hospitalisation and mortality; if anything, younger people appear disproportionately affected. And instances of relapsing-remitting disease are independent of severity – the majority of sufferers were never unwell enough to be admitted to hospital at any stage.
Research into this variant is in its infancy – trying to define how many people develop it, to understand what factors make the illness chronic, and to discover effective treatments. Nonetheless, long Covid is now an accepted phenomenon. The puzzle is why government pronouncements and statistics continue to suggest that death rates are the only meaningful outcome.
It is uncertain how much a communications strategy raising awareness of long Covid might modify risky behaviour among the young. But we had no idea about it in the first wave. The second-wave of coronavirus patients who develop this disease may legitimately ask why no one warned them this might come.
Why the “low-risk population” could be the care homes scandal of the new Covid outbreak
Young people may be cavalier about coronavirus, but long Covid, a chronic, ongoing form of the disease, doesn't discriminate by age.
My daughter has had some of her hours cut cos her home doesn't have many people left, not all of them have died, but new intakes are really low due to people holding off currently.
You know what mate, it may sound like they`re being over the top and it`s going to be a nightmare when you`re there, but the reality is that you get used to it pretty soon once your there and relax.
The way to look at it, is that they can not afford to be shut down under circs, as that`s possibly the end of their business and so are real sticklers for making sure everything is spot on. It`ll actually help you relax, rather than staying somewhere that`s a bit loose with the rules.
Honestly I'm not having a pop at them, I know why they are doing it and I understand, but we picked a nice hotel with a sauna, pool and a gym, none of which we can use now. Dunno, the missus has said its up to me, but I suspect we go into a local lockdown and I really don't think its "right" that I leave during that.
We shall see what happens.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
if anyone can keep their older relatives in their own homes or their homes that would be advisable. Those staff in the care homes, I believe, will come under massive pressure again on the PPE issue, and testing is a joke.
These murdering Tory scum have wasted the summer months just as they wasted January and February earlier this year - they couldn't give a flying one and they'd be facing the 'kin gallows if I had my way.
- Status