Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[Billy Dean]

More evidence that no governments (regional or national) have a clue.

Especially as the council has indicated where the recent spike in infections has come from - a big homeless shelter, returning travellers, sports clubs. So the measures in no way address those. I guess it's just a case of generalised risk mitigation. Banning outdoor alcohol consumption will just push more people indoors.

 

[Goat]

 

[Deleted member 48881]

Italy prepares to make masks outdoors mandatory

Italy is considering making the use of masks outdoors mandatory nationwide to fight the coronavirus, health minister Roberto Speranza has said.

Infections in Italy have risen steadily over the past two months and two regions, Lazio around Rome and Campania around Naples, have already made mask wearing mandatory outside. “We are working on a proposal to make the use of masks compulsory,” Speranza told the Chamber of Deputies.

On Saturday, Italy reported 2,844 new cases, its highest daily count since April, but still far below the numbers being recorded in France, Spain and Britain. The daily death toll is normally below 30, a far cry from the tallies of close to 1,000 it suffered at the peak of its epidemic in late March, but prime minister Giuseppe Conte said on Tuesday there was no room for complacency.

“The battle is not won, and we will need to remain on maximum alert during the weeks and months to come,” he said at a conference in Rome.

Italy has had 36,000 deaths, the second highest official toll in Europe after Britain.

Conte said last week he would ask parliament to extend the country’s Covid-19 state of emergency to the end of January and the cabinet is due to meet late on Tuesday to formalise the decision. The state of emergency, due to expire in mid-October, gives greater powers to central government, making it easier for officials to bypass the bureaucracy that smothers much decision-making in Italy.

 

[Woolly Blue]

So its announced less than half of the UK population will be offered the vaccine and only those over 50 or with serious health complications.

So in other words stuff the younger ones who you are happy to see lose their jobs so they can "keep safe and socially distance".

What a crock - you either vaccinate anyone over 18 or let people get on with their business and shield the most at risk.

It's risk management mate

There's a risk, all be it, a small one, that people might have a negative reaction to a vaccine.

For someone who's vulnerable to COVID, so basically anyone over 60 or with an underlying health condition, they're making a judgement that the risk of getting the disease for those people outweighs the risk of having the vaccine.

For anyone 40 or under with no underlying health conditions, the risk of having a bad reaction to COVID is so small, that they're saying the risk of having the vaccine outweighs that, so don't ( initially anyway ), vaccinate those people.

People between 40 and 60 sit in a ( quite aptly really ), grey area, which is presumably where the "50 year old" rule kicks in.

Once the vulnerable have been vaccinated, they'll review any possible reactions to the vaccine and decide whether or not to vaccinate everyone else. If the number of people who have a reaction to the vaccine is tiny, then they'll likely vaccinate everyone else.

I'm 58, with an underlying health condition ( typing bollocks on the internet doesn't count as one, so it's not that ), so, all things being equal, I'll take the vaccination.

 

[davek]

It's risk management mate There's a risk, all be it, a small one, that people might have a negative reaction to a vaccine.
For someone who's vulnerable to COVID, so basically anyone over 60 or with an underlying health condition, they're making a judgement that the risk of getting the disease for those people outweighs the risk of having the vaccine.

For anyone 40 or under with no underlying health conditions, the risk of having a bad reaction to COVID is so small, that they're saying the risk of having the vaccine outweighs that, so don't ( initially anyway ), vaccinate those people.

People between 40 and 60 sit in a ( quite aptly really ), grey area, which is presumably where the "50 year old" rule kicks in.

Once the vulnerable have been vaccinated, they'll review any possible reactions to the vaccine and decide whether or not to vaccinate everyone else. If the number of people who have a reaction to the vaccine is tiny, then they'll likely vaccinate everyone else.

I'm 58, with an underlying health condition ( typing bollocks on the internet doesn't count as one, so it's not that ), so, all things being equal, I'll take the vaccination.

Agree with your post, but not sure about that bit in bold. About 500 under 40s have died since the start of the pandemic in England and Wales alone (20% falling outside the 'underlying health condition', so 100). Would there be anything approaching that with side effects from a vaccine for that group? Add the effects of Long Covid for this hughly infected group and it is worth getting a vaccination.

 

[kenada_blue]

The stats between North and South are ridiculous in how different they are.

Talking 500+ cases per 100k in Manchester compared to 40 per 100k in Bristol.

What we saying? More deprived areas in the north? More people not sticking to the rules? More people socialising?

It's interesting to me to know why.

 

[Billy Dean]

Agree with your post, but not sure about that bit in bold. About 500 under 40s have died since the start of the pandemic in England and Wales alone (20% falling outside the 'underlying health condition', so 100). Would there be anything approaching that with side effects from a vaccine for that group? Add the effects of Long Covid for this hughly infected group and it is worth getting a vaccination.

Do you know what the numbers of long covid are for that group?

 

[davek]

Do you know what the numbers of long covid are for that group?

I dont. But there's about 60,000 recorded cases in the UK and I'd expect the people able to distinguish between good health and long covid health would be from a non-aged grouping such as the U-40s.

It's a big issue, but one blithely relegated by people arguing we can have a tiered approach to this virus in terms of demographics.

 

[Kenshin]

So its announced less than half of the UK population will be offered the vaccine and only those over 50 or with serious health complications.

So in other words stuff the younger ones who you are happy to see lose their jobs so they can "keep safe and socially distance".

What a crock - you either vaccinate anyone over 18 or let people get on with their business and shield the most at risk.

You mean like the virus is only really deadly to the old and the sick?

Who would have thought?!

Also just like something else that we aren't allowed to mention.

 

[Woolly Blue]

Agree with your post, but not sure about that bit in bold. About 500 under 40s have died since the start of the pandemic in England and Wales alone (20% falling outside the 'underlying health condition', so 100). Would there be anything approaching that with side effects from a vaccine for that group? Add the effects of Long Covid for this hughly infected group and it is worth getting a vaccination.

Hard to say mate, at the moment, there just won't be enough data to make a judgement on it at that sort of level, so I'd guess they'll work on data from other vaccination programmes, and then err on the side of caution.

Purely from a primary public health point of view, it might make sense to vaccinate everyone, but, if a few people, who aren't really at risk, have a bad reaction, then the anti-vaxers and other knobheads will latch onto that, which could effect a significant minority of the whole vaccination programme.

 

[roydo]

The stats between North and South are ridiculous in how different they are.

Talking 500+ cases per 100k in Manchester compared to 40 per 100k in Bristol.

What we saying? More deprived areas in the north? More people not sticking to the rules? More people socialising?

It's interesting to me to know why.

As someone who lives near Bristol, my experience has been this. Everyone had adhered to all the rules, quite cheerfully in my experience. My eldest lives in Bristol, and he tells me the same in town. There have been a few raves and large gatherings, (that slave statue, remember), but either by luck or good judgement, this thing has largely passed us by. Compared to other places anyrate.

Bristol has a similar population and ethnic mix to Liverpool; weather has been similar; so it can only be personal choices as far as I can tell.

 

[Nymzee]

The stats between North and South are ridiculous in how different they are.

Talking 500+ cases per 100k in Manchester compared to 40 per 100k in Bristol.

What we saying? More deprived areas in the north? More people not sticking to the rules? More people socialising?

It's interesting to me to know why.

Do we know how much testing is down in the North vs South too?

 

[roydo]

Do we know how much testing is down in the North vs South too?

Well the NW, NE and parts of the Midlands have been spiky places for a while, so I would assume that means more tests.

Like a few weeks ago, the area of North Somerset I live in was classed as having the highest number of deaths over 4 months or sommet.

It was 15. The average age of residents must be 70 to 80.

As far as I am aware, the only death in Portishead, (30000 pop), was Eddie Large. A Waitrose worker got it, so they closed it, and cleaned it. Straight away.

 

[The binman chronicles]

My daughter's school has just had a positive case confirmed, so they have stopped a whole year from coming into school. Sensible you think as the years are in separate bubbles. However as I was picking her up a flapping mother obviously running late shouted across she was busy looking after her son who was one of those now excluded as she went to collect her daughter who is in the same class as mine.

Genius levels of stupidity in the interpretation of who should be isolated. This is why we are in the trouble we are.

 

[ForeverBlue92]

You mean like the virus is only really deadly to the old and the sick?

Who would have thought?!

Also just like something else that we aren't allowed to mention.

If the Government isnt planning to give vaccines to anyone under 50 who hasn't health complications I can't see how they can continue to expect said under 50's to continue to stick by the rules that ultimately do nothing for them long term.

If the virus is as deadly as they say why should some 45 yr old bloke socially distance for 18 months, potentially lose his job/livelihood in the process amongst the strain on his mental health and relationships only for him to be told in 18 months time to crack on as normal as his neighbour John who is 50 is now vaccinated and is safe but he could still (whilst statistically a lower chance) get seriously ill or worse from it as he isn't getting a vaccine!