UK coronavirus discussion. “Stay at home. Protect the NHS. Save lives.”

Oct 25, 2017
8,546
England
Not really seeing a huge change in the amount of people out and about this weekend. Buses have fewer people in them but that’s about it. I really had expected things to be quieter. Can’t wait for people to stop panic buying, though. There’s plenty to go around as long as people don’t go crazy and buy too much.
 

bawjaws

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,563
Drove out to the forest for a solo walk and helped a bit. I swear I'm far more conscious of my breathing now and keep having placebo moments where I feel short of breath. Likely the anxiety creating a weight on the chest but it's crazy how you second guess everything atm.
Yeah, I definitely relate to this. It's hard to separate general anxiety symptoms from something worse, and of course it's a bit of a vicious circle too - you feel anxious about getting ill, that makes you feel like you might be getting ill, and so it goes. I'm finding my mindfulness exercises invaluable right now, and actually all of the coping strategies that I've developed to deal with anxiety are being called upon (and are working).

I think your idea about getting out and about in nature (in a safe and responsible way) is spot on. I went out on my bike the other day as a break from WFH and I felt so, so much better for it. Obviously I kept away from anyone else - I don't think I was within 20 metres of another person at any point.
 
Nov 14, 2017
2,933
The cases are already out there. Increased testing is just showing them.

The UK total is probably close to 15-20k by now if they were mass testing anyone with symptoms.
Right now we have 177 deaths with only 4k confirmed case, whereas Germany has 72 deaths with nearly 21k confirmed cases. We know we aren't testing enough here in the UK. If we assume that the mortality is proportional in the UK and Germany, it means we're more like 40k+ cases right now.
 

Sodding_Gamer

Member
Oct 31, 2017
247
I live in Tiverton (Devon) and commute to Exeter for work normally, but my word people here do not give a fuck. Literally business as usual outside it seems. Infuriating.
 

Mars People

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,199
Yeah, I definitely relate to this. It's hard to separate general anxiety symptoms from something worse, and of course it's a bit of a vicious circle too - you feel anxious about getting ill, that makes you feel like you might be getting ill, and so it goes. I'm finding my mindfulness exercises invaluable right now, and actually all of the coping strategies that I've developed to deal with anxiety are being called upon (and are working).

I think your idea about getting out and about in nature (in a safe and responsible way) is spot on. I went out on my bike the other day as a break from WFH and I felt so, so much better for it. Obviously I kept away from anyone else - I don't think I was within 20 metres of another person at any point.
You couldnt elaborate more on these mindfullness exercises could you?
I might find them useful.
 

Redcrayon

Zoinks!
Moderator
Oct 27, 2017
7,145
How long will it take the new limitations on pubs and bars to affect the death rate

what is the lag?
In Italy, they hoped to see something in around 10 days after a complete national lockdown, but it’s still rising as people continue to ignore it. With our lockdown on entertainment etc, and people continuing to ignore it, I suspect we won’t see any tangible benefits for weeks, but by that point we will be glad of it compared to the potential alternative.

(This was from Thursday)
There are more than 2,000 people in intensive care units across Italy -- the worst-affected country in Europe -- according to the latest official figures. Most are concentrated in Lombardy, where the crisis exploded on February 23, but many fear there will be new hotspot areas further south, where infrastructure is was already weaker and where fewer people are adhering to the lockdown measures. Police have given citations to nearly 200,000 people across the country and have said they will clamp down even more, starting this weekend, if people continue to flout the restrictions.

Dr. Giorgio Palù, the former president of the European and Italian Society for Virology and a professor of virology and microbiology of the University of Padova, told CNN he'd hoped to see the first signs of a change after just over a week of nationwide lockdown, but that has yet to materialize. "Yesterday we expected to have a change after almost 10 days of this new measure ... but it's still rising," he told CNN. "So I don't think we can make a prediction today."
Palù said that looking at the number of new cases on a graph, the slope of the curve is still rising, making it hard to impossible when the lockdown will start to reap tangible benefits. And while the outbreak remains concentrated in the north, it's hard to compare regions. "The virus has no border. Not even (in) Italy," he added.

The Independent essentially confirmed that yesterday- it’s not had an effect yet as people continue to flout the lockdowns despite the police handing out thousands of fines etc, so they are considering firmer stance.

 
Oct 27, 2017
6,277
How long will it take the new limitations on pubs and bars to affect the death rate

what is the lag?
Symptoms on average at starting to show five days after infection, right? Then several days more before people actually know if they'll survive or not. Probably close to ten days before it can even start to make a difference. Honestly, the 14 days initial period is probably too short to be sure we can tell if it makes a difference or not. I hope that's not the point...
 

Redcrayon

Zoinks!
Moderator
Oct 27, 2017
7,145
Symptoms on average at starting to show five days after infection, right? Then several days more before people actually know if they'll survive or not. Probably close to ten days before it can even start to make a difference. Honestly, the 14 days initial period is probably too short to be sure we can tell if it makes a difference or not. I hope that's not the point...
I agree- I don’t think 14 days will make a difference and suspect it will be extended to a month or until a long-term effect on the trend is observed. With increasing restrictions until people get the message.
 

Redcrayon

Zoinks!
Moderator
Oct 27, 2017
7,145
Yeah lots of criticism of stockpiling

They shared a video of a critical care nurse in tears because she couldn’t find any food after a 48 hour shift
 

Redcrayon

Zoinks!
Moderator
Oct 27, 2017
7,145
Guardian feed:
Helen Dickinson, the chief executive of the British Retail Consortium, said at the daily Downing Street briefing that there was plenty of food in the supply chain. The issue is around people and lorries.

She added there was £1bn more food in people’s houses than there was three weeks ago. “So we should make sure we eat some of it.”



NHS England’s national medical director, Stephen Powis, mentions the video posted of a NHS critical care nurse who was in tearsbecause she was unable to buy food in her local supermarket after a 48-hour shift.

“Frankly we should all be ashamed that has had to happen. It’s unacceptable. These are the very people we will all need to look after perhaps us or our loved ones in the weeks ahead,” he said.

—-

Speaking during the daily Downing Street briefing on Saturday afternoon, the environment secretary, George Eustice, urged people to be responsible and not to panic-buy.

He said: “We recognise that this is a challenging time and there are many things the government is asking the nation to do differently as we work together to fight this pandemic.

“Be responsible when you shop and think of others. Buying more than you need means others may be left without.”
 

Redcrayon

Zoinks!
Moderator
Oct 27, 2017
7,145
We’ve also seen Cornwall and Wales asking people fleeing to resort areas to their second homes to see out the situation whether they absolutely need to, as they will overwhelm local NHS resources. The M4 was packed last night.
 

Redcrayon

Zoinks!
Moderator
Oct 27, 2017
7,145
Eustice:
“Food manufacturers have responded by increasing their production by up to about 50%, so there’s no risk of food running out. The challenge we have is getting food to the shelves and keeping it there.”
 

Layla

Member
Oct 25, 2017
359
wow was idly checking out Sainsburys website and a delivery slot for next Friday popped up.
like those youtubers always say I SMASHED that confirm button. also all those "allow substitutions" boxes haha.
as a person in a risk group who is self isolating as a defence strategy this was v much needed, don't want to put my friends at risk every time I need some veg.
 

Andalusia

Member
Sep 26, 2019
473
User banned (1 week): spreading misinformation, hostility, antagonising other user
OK, so say the death rate is in the range 0.5% to 1%. That would be 200k to 400k, which is pretty much the range of outcomes Imperial predicted with the various mitigation strategies. At this point it's just a question of basic numeracy. You have stated the policy is to allow 60% overall infection, but there is no world where that doesn't result in hundreds of thousands of deaths. The policy has changed to try and avoid that outcome.
At this stage I need to ask, are you wilfully being ignorant? As I keep repeating for the umpteenth time now a 200k-400k death rate from 60% infection or whatever past figures you've used are the figures if EVERYONE was infected PROPORTIONALLY. Do you understand what that means?

When you remove the at risk that number drops significantly. I'll illustrate this in a simple analogy so maybe you'll understand better; if hypothetically and hyperbolically we were to round up all the at risk individuals (the sick, the old etc..) and shipped them off to a remote isolated island where the virus could not reach and in the mean time we let the virus run loose on everyone else that was left you'd see a death rate of close to 0% if not outright 0%. This population would then develop immunity to it and if we then returned those at risk individuals back into general population you'd have herd immunity that would totally protect them.That is in the clearest sense what the government is trying to do hypothetically. I can't explain it any simpler than that.

This here shows that you don't understand population statistics. A difference of 0.1% and 0.01% on a population level is huge. Hospitalisation is rare on an individual level, but staggering on a population level. Even with 60% infection limited to under 65s spread out over 18 months, it would overwhelm the critical care capacity in the NHS by at least a factor of two. That's assuming all beds were allocated for COVID patients btw, and not accounting for the fact that something like 90% of critical care beds are currently taken. So, given that I think the real number is something like a factor of 10.
On a population level, COVID is significantly more dangerous than the flu, even amongst the young. Your comparison is dangerous and disingenuous.
I understand population statistics, it's you that's running with WHO statements without understanding the meaning or figures behind it. I'll educate you.

What do you want to class as "young"? Lets say under 30. Looking at that stats by ICL we see that 0.0126% of under 30s die from this virus. This ALL under 30s. So that includes those people at risk that have an underlying health condition. Stats have shown that people with those underlying health conditions are at least 5 times more likely to suffer severe reactions to this virus. So for healthy under 30s we could be looking at death rate of 0.0025%. That's death rate, looking at hospitalisation we see that around 0.53% of ALL under 30s will require such due to contracting the virus. Looking at just healthy individuals we see that it's 0.106%. Now lets look at people that will require critical care, it's 0.0265% of ALL under 30s. So it's ~ 0.0053%. Hospitalisation in the UK for flu for under 30s is around 0.2%. So you're just wrong on every level.

What the WHO was saying this on a literally sense young people are not immune to the virus. And that is completely accurate. They're speaking to those spring breaker types that think they are literally immune to the virus. Of course they're not.


Again, you're wrong here. The Imperial report only discussed herd immunity in context of mitigation.
No they discussed herd immunity and the lack of it in both cases.

They admit that a problem with suppression is that there is no herd immunity, and so suppression and extensive controls have to continue for many months (maybe 5+).
No not "no herd immunity", they say "less" AND depending on how stringent the suppression methods are. And they don't say it needs to continue for 5+ months, they say it needs to continue indefinitely until a vaccine is developed.

The current recommendation is not to acquire herd immunity through 60% infection over any timescale. The current policy is suppression to get the retransmission rate R₀ to as close or below 1 as possible.
Again if that were the case we'd have seen a complete lock down days ago. This is beyond obvious. Why is a fairly high level of social interaction being allowed if the aim is to reduce R0 to below 1? Because they're allowing for herd immunity.

Look, I appreciate you're doing your best to read all this and keep yourself informed. I get it - it's all very confusing. It doesn't help that the govt has basically done a total U-turn this week either.
Awww, this is sooo cute! Doesn't really jive though since I've had to correct you numerous times on gaps on your knowledge.

So, lets do this in summary. If 60% of people in the UK get infected at 0.5% mortality then 200k people die. Everyone agrees that's unacceptable. So, the policy has now changed to get the retransmission rate as close to 1 as possible, or ideally beneath 1.
I don't know if I should keep doing you the courtesy of assuming you're intentionally ignoring the correction I keep making to this misconceived or you're just no intellectually capable of understanding it. Either way I'm not going to example something again when I've already explained it 9 times.

Also, COVID is incredibly dangerous. There is no mild COVID, not even for young people.
Yes their is, if you'd read the ICL report like you claim you did then you'd have seen this. Instead you read a news article about the WHO saying young people aren't immune and have somehow extrapolated that you mean that young people contract severe cases of the virus commonly.

Comparisons to flu are dangerous and disingenuous.
Comparison between flu in healthy young people and COVID-19 in healthy young people is accurate.

This last point it something I really want to get you to agree on - herd immunity means thousands of people, even young people, die before their time.
In your bond villain fictional idea of herd immunity maybe. But no one with a modicum of intelligence has suggested it in the way you're. I've explained that 10 times now. I'm going to need to put you on ignore for my own sanity. Bye
 

God_Of_Phwoar

Member
May 29, 2018
3,706
Near London UK
Pubs were full across the UK last night for one last piss up. In 1 to 2 weeks there will be a massive spike in infections. Well done, you fucking idiots. You killed 10's of thousands of people, you selfish, thoughtless fucks.
 

Punished Dan

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,945
My sister in law works for the NHS in dementia care at the local hospital and she's quite senior.

She sent us a text message mainly aimed at protecting my elderly in-laws just saying the expect it to kinda ramp up here Tuesday onwards in terms of admissions to the hospital.

We are going to drop the mother in laws mothers day present off in her porch tomorrow and then we will face time them whilst they open it. It will seem very surreal.

I will also face time my mum who I haven't seen for a while, she too is NHS and works on a palliative care ward so she really can't be exposed to anything. She's literally going to work and staying home.
 

Calabi

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,473
In Italy, they hoped to see something in around 10 days after a complete national lockdown, but it’s still rising as people continue to ignore it. With our lockdown on entertainment etc, and people continuing to ignore it, I suspect we won’t see any tangible benefits for weeks, but by that point we will be glad of it compared to the potential alternative.

(This was from Thursday)


The Independent essentially confirmed that yesterday- it’s not had an effect yet as people continue to flout the lockdowns despite the police handing out thousands of fines etc, so they are considering firmer stance.

I just read a report in New Scientist, saying the main reason infection rates went down in China wasn't because of the lockdown that helped to start with but then they did massive testing to find those people running around infecting others and quarantined them, and that's when it started to go down.

Unless Countries understand this and are able to implement testing of suspect people quickly and get them to isolate for two weeks then it doesn't seem likely that things are going to go down. China are also increasing their capacity to deal with any breakouts, even though things seem to be calming down their.
 

Redcrayon

Zoinks!
Moderator
Oct 27, 2017
7,145
I just read a report in New Scientist, saying the main reason infection rates went down in China wasn't because of the lockdown that helped to start with but then they did massive testing to find those people running around infecting others and quarantined them, and that's when it started to go down.

Unless Countries understand this and are able to implement testing of suspect people quickly and get them to isolate for two weeks then it doesn't seem likely that things are going to do down. China are also increasing their capacity to deal with any breakouts, even though things seem to be calming down their.
That’s interesting, thanks
 

Dary

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,821
The English Wilderness
Problem with supermarkets imposing limitations on how much people buy is that there's no way to stop, say, couples alternating to buy twice as much - or people storing crap in their car before heading back to buy another horde...
 

pswii60

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,904
UK
I just read a report in New Scientist, saying the main reason infection rates went down in China wasn't because of the lockdown that helped to start with but then they did massive testing to find those people running around infecting others and quarantined them, and that's when it started to go down.

Unless Countries understand this and are able to implement testing of suspect people quickly and get them to isolate for two weeks then it doesn't seem likely that things are going to go down. China are also increasing their capacity to deal with any breakouts, even though things seem to be calming down their.
South Korea too. It's why the UK is rapidly increasing testing to achieve 25,000 tests per day within the next couple of weeks. But you have to lockdown to delay the spread so you can even have a chance of aiming for containment again (and work within healthcare resource limits). Hence both measures are required. Delay in the short term via social distancing whilst we build up testing measures and increase healthcare resources, research and potential treatments, then once everything is robust and in place then it's time to slowly reduce social distancing measures.
 

Punished Dan

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,945
John Lewis closing all its stores from closing time Monday.

---------

Apparently the NHS has agreed a deal with private hospitals which will see an extra 20,000 staff, 8000 beds and 1200 ventilators be made available.
 

pswii60

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,904
UK
If hypothetically and hyperbolically we were to round up all the at risk individuals (the sick, the old etc..) and shipped them off to a remote isolated island where the virus could not reach and in the mean time we let the virus run loose on everyone else that was left you'd see a death rate of close to 0% if not outright 0%.
Didn't a healthy young 34 year old doctor (the whistleblower) die of the virus in China?
Apparently the NHS has agreed a deal with private hospitals which will see an extra 20,000 staff, 8000 beds and 1200 ventilators be made available.
Was expecting something like this, but do you have a link? Can't see anything anywhere.
 

Nooblet

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,215


We all knew this was going to happen in a matter of days but it's scary AF to see it happen, and it's likely going to get worse next week before it stabalises a bit. I can't believe we had idiots going out last night to "have fun for the last time" after Boris said they are asking bars, pubs and clubs to shut down from today.

What a lot of people don't realise is that these don't even consider the thousands of cases where people are sick but at home.
 

ScopehJ

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,595
John Lewis closing all its stores from closing time Monday.

---------

Apparently the NHS has agreed a deal with private hospitals which will see an extra 20,000 staff, 8000 beds and 1200 ventilators be made available.
Yeh, just seen this. This is pretty big news and shows that the Gov is starting to throw its weight around
 

StallionDan

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,176
I am beginning to take bets on the % of my sainsburys online order that actually turns up tomorrow....
I've been hearing tales of people who been waiting 7-14 days for their order just to barely get any of it.

What's the point if you have to wait so long and not get it? Some people are trapped indoors and may need that to last.
 

Calabi

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,473
South Korea too. It's why the UK is rapidly increasing testing to achieve 25,000 tests per day within the next couple of weeks. But you have to lockdown to delay the spread so you can even have a chance of aiming for containment again. Hence both measures are required.
Yeah I'm not saying the lockdown isn't required or the article interviewee isn't(its with the WHO's Bruce Aylward). The lockdown prevents it from spreading widely but not in the smaller areas constantly, and then when you lift the lockdown it just spreads everywhere again. Interestingly he says that we haven't seen any school outbreaks, meaning kids infecting one another, and there families at home etc(they have seen Teachers infecting kids, but he says that is different). So closing schools may not be a necessary thing, but at this stage its probably best to take all precautions.
 

Punished Dan

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,945
Didn't a healthy young 34 year old doctor (the whistleblower) die of the virus in China?

Was expecting something like this, but do you have a link? Can't see anything anywhere.

Few papers reporting it now.
 
Nov 14, 2017
2,933
At this stage I need to ask, are you wilfully being ignorant? As I keep repeating for the umpteenth time now a 200k-400k death rate from 60% infection or whatever past figures you've used are the figures if EVERYONE was infected PROPORTIONALLY. Do you understand what that means?

When you remove the at risk that number drops significantly. I'll illustrate this in a simple analogy so maybe you'll understand better; if hypothetically and hyperbolically we were to round up all the at risk individuals (the sick, the old etc..) and shipped them off to a remote isolated island where the virus could not reach and in the mean time we let the virus run loose on everyone else that was left you'd see a death rate of close to 0% if not outright 0%. This population would then develop immunity to it and if we then returned those at risk individuals back into general population you'd have herd immunity that would totally protect them.That is in the clearest sense what the government is trying to do hypothetically. I can't explain it any simpler than that.
This is manifestly untrue and an incredibly dangerous myth to be spreading. The Imperial figure for 250k deaths was based on the best mitigation strategy which assumed that most vulnerable populations would be isolated, which is why they assume an eventual death rate of just over 0.5%. Even they admit that is the most optimistic assumption, which is why epidemic suppression is the new policy.
 

NeonCarbon

Member
Oct 28, 2017
793

Looks like it was updated an hour ago, is that right?
I don't think so, I think 3384 is from yesterday morning, according to PHE tracker - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-track-coronavirus-cases
 
Threadmarks Private sector deal to support NHS at cost: 1,200 ventilators, 20,000 staff, 8,000 beds New

solidussnaku

Member
Nov 29, 2017
1,846
Some good news at last, just in time too:

'NHS to get thousands more beds, ventilators and extra healthcare staff
The NHS has struck a deal with private hospitals to provide thousands more beds, ventilators and extra healthcare staff from next week to aid in the fight against coronavirus.
The extra resources, which include nearly 20,000 staff, will also help the NHS deliver other urgent operations and cancer treatments.
The deal with independent hospitals is thought to be the first of its kind and will include the provision of 8,000 hospital beds across England, nearly 1,200 more ventilators, more than 10,000 nurses, over 700 doctors and over 8,000 other clinical staff.
Matt Hancock, the health secretary, said:
This is great news for the hospitals and staff doing everything they can to combat coronavirus.
Under the agreement, the independent sector will reallocate almost its entire national hospital capacity to the NHS and will be reimbursed at cost.
Sir Simon Stevens, the NHS’s chief executive, hailed the deal with the private sector, saying:
We’re dealing with an unprecedented global health threat and are taking immediate and exceptional action to gear up.
The NHS is doing everything in its power to expand treatment capacity and is working with partners right across the country to do so.
David Hare, the chief executive of the Independent Healthcare Providers Network, said:
We have worked hand-in-hand with the NHS for decades and will do whatever it takes to support the NHS in responding to this pandemic.
This significant additional capacity across the country will be a major boost to the NHS’s efforts to treat those patients that need hospital care over the coming period and the independent sector stands ready to maintain that support for as long as needed.'
From the guardian live blog. They should have enacted the powers they had to take over private hospitals but whatever, right now the country needed this. 20k+ clinical staff too.

The NHS has worked rapidly around the clock and I do hope the extra 13k beds they advised last week become available this week. 23k more beds and thousands more ventilators would be a big dose of good news before the surge happens.
 
Nov 14, 2017
2,933
Some good news at last, just in time too:

'NHS to get thousands more beds, ventilators and extra healthcare staff
The NHS has struck a deal with private hospitals to provide thousands more beds, ventilators and extra healthcare staff from next week to aid in the fight against coronavirus.
The extra resources, which include nearly 20,000 staff, will also help the NHS deliver other urgent operations and cancer treatments.
The deal with independent hospitals is thought to be the first of its kind and will include the provision of 8,000 hospital beds across England, nearly 1,200 more ventilators, more than 10,000 nurses, over 700 doctors and over 8,000 other clinical staff.
Matt Hancock, the health secretary, said:

Sir Simon Stevens, the NHS’s chief executive, hailed the deal with the private sector, saying:

David Hare, the chief executive of the Independent Healthcare Providers Network, said:


From the guardian live blog. They should have enacted the powers they had to take over private hospitals but whatever, right now the country needed this. 20k+ clinical staff too.

The NHS has worked rapidly around the clock and I do hope the extra 13k beds they advised last week become available this week. 23k more beds and thousands more ventilators would be a big dose of good news before the surge happens.
Some good news at least. Isn't that like a 10% increase in ventilators?
 

Redcrayon

Zoinks!
Moderator
Oct 27, 2017
7,145
Wow, that's some good news at least.

Do we know if 'at cost' means 'what those resources actually cost to provide with zero profit' or 'at the base cost that the private sector would charge'. Even so I suppose it's going to be a drop in the ocean compared to what the chancellor announced yesterday.