The Coronavirus thread.

[Chippy_Tea]

They could certainly do without Naga Munchetty and Charlie Stayt.

I couldn't argue with that.

 

[AlDaviz]

I couldn't argue with that.

But not Carol

 

[MartinHaworth]

Sainsburys today. Empty beer shelves......except for weihenstephaner!

Result.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

So what i am hearing and reading is thus goes on for longer than 7 days. To be to rethink the self isolate for 7 days thing then.

Don't forget that the "symptoms" are mostly the body's response to the virus, and continue long after the virus itself is dead. See eg this article from a top Cambridge virologist who works on swine flu :
"Can you relapse after recovering from the virus?
That doesn’t happen with these respiratory viruses. The symptoms that drag on are your body’s response to the virus, but the virus is gone after a few days. I take great umbrage at the lengths of time you are meant to be infectious for because it is just not true. Nine days is nonsense. You don’t excrete a live virus that long.

Those studies are not checking for live virus, they are checking for genome. They do something called a PCR test (polymerase chain reaction), which is the test we are using to diagnose patients. It doesn’t tell you that you have live virus in your nose, it tells you have had it. For about 72 hours of a viral infection you have a live virus. In children it can last for longer – four or five days have been observed in flu.

So, there’s a big difference between how long we can detect the virus and how long they can infect someone else. With this coronavirus the only way you can say, yes, they are still shedding live virus - which is the only thing that will infect someone else, is if you take that sample from the patient and extract it and put it on tissue culture cells and then see it growing. That is done very rarely. There are not a lot of studies that look at live viruses. It is very easy to do PCR tests. It is harder to do live virus studies.

How long are people contagious before symptoms appear?
The likelihood is up to 48 hours before. The symptoms are your body’s response to the virus.

Will the government’s plans work?
Julia Gog is a mathematician in Cambridge who did a lot of studies post-swine flu and then recently did one called Pandemic, which looked at people’s daily movements and the effects on the spread of the virus. They mathematically modelled all the data post-swine flu and looked at all the mitigations you could put in place, like closing schools and stopping sports events and making people work from home.

All of them had relatively small effects. The one thing that seemed to have a massive effect was stopping travel and saying to people you must stay home. But that is the hardest one to bring in and it has massive other consequences. We have done so much work on this since swine flu. They are not the same but you can draw a lot of similarities looking at the best approach."

 

[Leon103]

Don't forget that the "symptoms" are mostly the body's response to the virus, and continue long after the virus itself is dead. See eg this article from a top Cambridge virologist who works on swine flu :
"Can you relapse after recovering from the virus?
That doesn’t happen with these respiratory viruses. The symptoms that drag on are your body’s response to the virus, but the virus is gone after a few days. I take great umbrage at the lengths of time you are meant to be infectious for because it is just not true. Nine days is nonsense. You don’t excrete a live virus that long.

Those studies are not checking for live virus, they are checking for genome. They do something called a PCR test (polymerase chain reaction), which is the test we are using to diagnose patients. It doesn’t tell you that you have live virus in your nose, it tells you have had it. For about 72 hours of a viral infection you have a live virus. In children it can last for longer – four or five days have been observed in flu.

So, there’s a big difference between how long we can detect the virus and how long they can infect someone else. With this coronavirus the only way you can say, yes, they are still shedding live virus - which is the only thing that will infect someone else, is if you take that sample from the patient and extract it and put it on tissue culture cells and then see it growing. That is done very rarely. There are not a lot of studies that look at live viruses. It is very easy to do PCR tests. It is harder to do live virus studies.

How long are people contagious before symptoms appear?
The likelihood is up to 48 hours before. The symptoms are your body’s response to the virus.

Will the government’s plans work?
Julia Gog is a mathematician in Cambridge who did a lot of studies post-swine flu and then recently did one called Pandemic, which looked at people’s daily movements and the effects on the spread of the virus. They mathematically modelled all the data post-swine flu and looked at all the mitigations you could put in place, like closing schools and stopping sports events and making people work from home.

All of them had relatively small effects. The one thing that seemed to have a massive effect was stopping travel and saying to people you must stay home. But that is the hardest one to bring in and it has massive other consequences. We have done so much work on this since swine flu. They are not the same but you can draw a lot of similarities looking at the best approach."

True. My employer is wanting/expecting people back after 7 days.

 

[Banbeer]

I got told today that I will be furloughed as of this Wednesday the 1st so looks like I'll have a great garden this year and all my DIY will be completed(wife will be cracking the whip i suppose as she's working from home)

 

[Dutto]

I dont know that much about economics but I've been reading pieces that the virus will tip Britian, if not the world into recession. .........

Obviously, it would be better to not have an economic recession, but I would much sooner have the world put into recession by a virus, than by faceless financiers and bankers squandering and/or trousering millions of our money!

 

[Ghillie]

Quick question:

Would it not be more socially, economically, medically and financially appropriate to have the "high risk and/or vulnerable" at home in isolation and let the rest of the "healthy" population deal with the virus as we would with every other strain of flu as per normal?

Excuse my ignorance, but can't see why not?

 

[Covrich]

When I had both Swine flu and Aussie flu one thing I did notice was I beat the virus quikly but often had like a post viral fatugue for a couple of weeks after

 

[Covrich]

Quick question:

Would it not be more socially, economically, medically and financially appropriate to have the "high risk and/or vulnerable" at home in isolation and let the rest of the "healthy" population deal with the virus as we would with every other strain of flu as per normal?

Excuse my ignorance, but can't see why not?

I think the plan is to slwo it down so that the vulnerable will in particular not overwhelm the ICU and we are fored to play god,Whilst I am of the opinion we will all have it at some point anyway whether we even know baout it or not.. spreading it wilding just going about our daily life will make it very difficult and impossible for vulnerable people for a long time to remain in complete isolation as it will be everywhere

 

[Oneflewover]

I think the plan is to slwo it down so that the vulnerable will in particular not overwhelm the ICU and we are fored to play god,Whilst I am of the opinion we will all have it at some point anyway whether we even know baout it or not.. spreading it wilding just going about our daily life will make it very difficult and impossible for vulnerable people for a long time to remain in complete isolation as it will be everywhere

But this isn't 'just' flu, and it isn't 'just' killing the very vulnerable.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Would it not be more socially, economically, medically and financially appropriate to have the "high risk and/or vulnerable" at home in isolation and let the rest of the "healthy" population deal with the virus as we would with every other strain of flu as per normal?

Excuse my ignorance, but can't see why not?

Essentially that was gov.uk's Plan A, then they realised that this is not "every other strain of flu as per normal" and became less ignorant about it. It's 10x more deadly and about twice as transmissible, and we don't have a vaccine. So you're seeing people in their 20s dying of it even with medical care (although that's very rare), and even if you could lock every vulnerable person in an isolated room you would still overwhelm healthcare just with the "healthy" people getting sick because of the speed at which it moves through the population, and you could still be looking at 200k deaths.

 

[Covrich]

But this isn't 'just' flu, and it isn't 'just' killing the very vulnerable.

I never suggsedted otherwise

But I still think we will still all get it at some point, spreading this over a longer period of time will make it far easier and hpoefully save lots more lives..

 

[MyQul]

I got told today that I will be furloughed as of this Wednesday the 1st so looks like I'll have a great garden this year and all my DIY will be completed(wife will be cracking the whip i suppose as she's working from home)

I dont think the forumites are interested in what you get up to in the bedroom

 

[Duxuk]

Whats a few more dead peasants. Hope he passes it on to Randy Andy Pandy

Interestingly I live in Chorley which is Anglo Saxon for "Peasant's Clearing". I might take offence at any implication that we peasants are unworthy.

 

[MyQul]

Obviously, it would be better to not have an economic recession, but I would much sooner have the world put into recession by a virus, than by faceless financiers and bankers squandering and/or trousering millions of our money!

Your right dutto, I'd rather not have a recession at all.

 

[MyQul]

Quick question:

Would it not be more socially, economically, medically and financially appropriate to have the "high risk and/or vulnerable" at home in isolation and let the rest of the "healthy" population deal with the virus as we would with every other strain of flu as per normal?

Excuse my ignorance, but can't see why not?

I think it's because, with regular seasonal flu we have a vaccine whereas with C-19 we dont. C-19 is also more infectious and has a higher mortality rate. So with these things i combination we'de possibly have a lot more dead than seasonal flu.

I'm sure you've herd the phase herd immunity being bandied about. This is when a population becomes immune to a disease because everyone gets it and then builds up antibodies to protect themselves against further infection. The down side of doing this is that the weak and the vulnerable die off and the stronger members survive to build up the antibodies.The other way to herd immunize it through a vaccine.

It seems our government initially were going the herd immunity route. I think they then realized how politically devastating the optics would be to purposely let vast swathes of the population die. So they then had a u-turn and told everyone to stay indoors and social distance

 

[terrym]

We (the UK) had plenty of time to take precautions, to test, to accept offers for ventilators from the EU and from UK manufacturers. We saw what was going on in China, we saw what happened in Italy. Why were we the last to react?

I thought you lived in France

 

[An Ankoù]

I thought you lived in France

I do, but I'm still British which is why I put "the UK" in brackets to be clear that I was talking about the "we" on your side and not the "we" (the French) on this.

 

[MyQul]

For anyone that might to struggling to access the Dr's at the moment, I highly recommend this tome

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/61703/61703-h/61703-h.htm