When will this shit end?

[stuartbert two hats]

1 minute ago, gigpusher said:

Exactly I think for me whether people have it or not isn't as much of an issue as whether people are suffering really badly with it/dying from it. If 50000 people lose their sense of taste for a week or have a bit of an annoying cough I don't really think that merits any change in our behaviour whereas people in ICU and people dying clearly does. 

I think that's why a lot of the stats we see feel meaningless. I want to know really how many people still need hospitalisation, is the NHS overwhelmed with cases. Don't get me wrong I have complied absolutely with every measure so far and to be honest gone beyond. I haven't met up with any friends or family this year (apart from one socially distanced walk with my brother in law and family) but that is why I would like the truth about how necessary it is. It has definitely impacted on my health and mental health to be robbed of all the fun activities in my life. I know I haven't suffered as much as many others have. I just think it is time to think is the sacrifice we are making on balance worthwhile. If it is then yes no matter how hard we should definitely keep going but I just want to be sure it is. The cynic in me feels a lot of it could be a distraction from Brexit now. Not allowed to go out and march against the choices the government is making etc. 

It's really hard to get your head round where we're at right now with our testing being so much greater than before, so to translate the current case number into potential hospitalisations/deaths is tricky.  To me though, the thing that isn't tricky is that exponential growth in cases = BAD.  

But here's the healthcare figures.  They're not rising as steeply as the cases, but they are on the rise and if cases keep going up at the rate they are, then eventually the hospitalisations are going to go pretty high too.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare

[incident]

26 minutes ago, PolygonWindow said:

would you mind elaborating on the 3 month vaccine thing? my reg news source is Twitter and I do recall seeing this but as most things on Twitter I discarded it as bullshit.

is this common knowledge, am I way behind, does this actually have legs?

This page is useful as a pretty good (and frequently updated) state of play with vaccine developments: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker.html

Short version is that at least 2 of them (Oxford/AZ and BioNTech/Pfizer) should have enough data to know whether they're going to work out within a couple of months, and another one (Moderna) isn't far behind that. If any of those do succeed, we're looking at them likely filing for approval in late December or January and rolling out very soon after.

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

It's really hard to get your head round where we're at right now with our testing being so much greater than before, so to translate the current case number into potential hospitalisations/deaths is tricky.  To me though, the thing that isn't tricky is that exponential growth in cases = BAD.  

But here's the healthcare figures.  They're not rising as steeply as the cases, but they are on the rise and if cases keep going up at the rate they are, then eventually the hospitalisations are going to go pretty high too.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare

yeah...and as I said in previous post, they don't want to close off NHS to non-covid patients like they did in spring, especially as NHS usually busier over winter...which is really why they want to tackle this early.

Edited September 25, 2020 by steviewevie

[stuartbert two hats]

2 minutes ago, incident said:

This page is useful as a pretty good (and frequently updated) state of play with vaccine developments: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker.html

Short version is that at least 2 of them (Oxford/AZ and BioNTech/Pfizer) should have enough data to know whether they're going to work out within a couple of months, and another one (Moderna) isn't far behind that. If any of those do succeed, we're looking at them likely filing for approval in late December or January and rolling out very soon after.

Thanks for putting in the effort to answer my question properly

 

[zero000]

26 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Tory thinking 

 

He’s not wrong though is he? The students in Scotland have been royally stitched up and it’s becoming a significant civil liberties issue. 

[FestivalJamie]

14 minutes ago, gigpusher said:

Exactly I think for me whether people have it or not isn't as much of an issue as whether people are suffering really badly with it/dying from it. If 50000 people lose their sense of taste for a week or have a bit of an annoying cough I don't really think that merits any change in our behaviour whereas people in ICU and people dying clearly does. 

I think that's why a lot of the stats we see feel meaningless. I want to know really how many people still need hospitalisation, is the NHS overwhelmed with cases. Don't get me wrong I have complied absolutely with every measure so far and to be honest gone beyond. I haven't met up with any friends or family this year (apart from one socially distanced walk with my brother in law and family) but that is why I would like the truth about how necessary it is. It has definitely impacted on my health and mental health to be robbed of all the fun activities in my life. I know I haven't suffered as much as many others have. I just think it is time to think is the sacrifice we are making on balance worthwhile. If it is then yes no matter how hard we should definitely keep going but I just want to be sure it is. The cynic in me feels a lot of it could be a distraction from Brexit now. Not allowed to go out and march against the choices the government is making etc. 

You’re not even considering long term health effects of the virus (long covid), which is an issue thousands of people are facing in the UK right now, and a very important point why we shouldn’t just let cases get out of control. Therefore, in my opinion, case numbers are important, as lots of people getting permanent long term health problem is not okay.

My aunt is having to have an x ray this week because of her long term problems since she had the virus in April.

[ace56blaa]

3 minutes ago, zero000 said:

He’s not wrong though is he? The students in Scotland have been royally stitched up and it’s becoming a significant civil liberties issue. 

It's a screwed up situation, anyway you play it. You either have thousands of students heading home and spreading the virus around the country a second time or you have thousands of students isolating in their halls. 

How the hell were we not more prepared for this. 
Millions of pounds and time and thought put into an eat out to help out scheme to very temporarily help pubs and cafes and restaurants.

But no crisis management for schools, universities, everyone knew this would happen, yt the line was constantly "no it's fine, unis will be safe, young people aren't affected."

[Mr.Tease]

6 minutes ago, zero000 said:

He’s not wrong though is he? The students in Scotland have been royally stitched up and it’s becoming a significant civil liberties issue. 

That's a different issue to me- there's a difference between people being conned into paying to be imprisoned in tiny rooms, just because the uni needs the money- (really feels like a complete disregard for their wellbeing, and fundamentally dishonest, not really about civil liberties).

[Mr.Tease]

4 minutes ago, ace56blaa said:

It's a screwed up situation, anyway you play it. You either have thousands of students heading home and spreading the virus around the country a second time or you have thousands of students isolating in their halls. 

How the hell were we not more prepared for this. 
Millions of pounds and time and thought put into an eat out to help out scheme to very temporarily help pubs and cafes and restaurants.

But no crisis management for schools, universities, everyone knew this would happen, yt the line was constantly "no it's fine, unis will be safe, young people aren't affected."

Yep, they either thought about it before hand and decided "well, we need the money, so just get them to come and then lock the door behind them", or they didn't think about it at all. Don't know which is more damning.

[kaytee...]

1 hour ago, gigpusher said:

I was going to say so in answer to the original thread question it seems the answer is never. 

 

I don't get to read this thread religiously so don't know if it has been asked and answered but it seems we are getting lots more cases but far fewer deaths. Are we getting better at treating or is the virus becoming less potent (probably not the scientific way of describing it) 

Just wondering if we can manage it better now are the lockdowns etc as necessary because I personally know 3 people who have had relatives die from Covid but about 15 who have died as a result of cancers that were diagnosed relatively recently (ie sincle lockdown), I know of a few people who have died of heart attacks and even 2 cases of sadly quite young people who have commit suicide. Surely it gets to the stage where you have to balance risk to life from covid vs risk to life from other issues created by covid. One of my friends lost her Mum and Uncle within 4 weeks of each other to cancer that were diagnosed since lockdown. Both in their late 50's and early 60's. Both lost so quickly because of delays accessing other treatments because of COVID. Maybe they both would still have died but perhaps they would have had a few more precious years if it weren't for all the restrictions. 

I agree with this but can see why a lot of people don't. I've got family who since February have only left their house to walk their dog early hours of the morning they're so worried by it. One of them being my nan and she's otherwise fit and healthy so it's such a shame that she'd rather lock herself away at an age where you should be making the most of life. I know you can't compare an infectious virus to the likes of cancer and other common deadly diseases but I have personally had a scare this year and couldn't even get to see my gp for so long. 

Shutting everyone away at home again might bring the infection levels down, but what will happen when everyone can go about their lives again? Surely we can't keep doing this until we find a vaccine that might not do much.

 

[Gilb]

3 minutes ago, ace56blaa said:

Millions of pounds and time and thought put into an eat out to help out scheme to very temporarily help pubs and cafes and restaurants.

 

This in itself was a lifeline for many people and businesses and very worthwhile imo

 

[gigpusher]

1 minute ago, FestivalJamie said:

You’re not even considering long term health effects of the virus (long covid), which is an issue thousands of people are facing in the UK right now, and a very important point why we shouldn’t just let cases get out of control. Therefore, in my opinion, case numbers are important, as lots of people getting permanent long term health problem is not okay.

My aunt is having to have an x ray this week because of her long term problems since she had the virus in April.

I am. I have a friend who has never had a positive covid test but is presumed to have had it (had to go to hospital twice with it in the very early days when they were only testing key workers) who is still suffering with post viral fatigue syndrome. I'm not saying it is not right to do these things and as I have clearly stated I have been more than complying with all measures we've had to do this year at a cost to my health both physical and mental. It's just for every story I hear about covid I seem to be hearing 10 more about other issues that have been allowed to slide because of it so as I have mentioned one of my friends has lost both her mother and uncle within a month of each other to cancers diagnosed since lockdown. I know of probably about 10 other cancer deaths, 3 or 4 heart attacks, 2 suicides. My husband's cousin has been in agony this year and badly needs a hysterectomy but it hasn't happened because of covid. I know several people including my husband who have had scans for knee injuries cancelled and been removed from the waiting list without being consulted. (not life threatening obviously but does limit thing he can do and at some point all these things do need to come back)

That's why I was asking questions rather than making pronouncements. Have we gotten better at treating it? If we know the most effective drugs to treat can we treat people earlier before they get to hospitalisation etc thus preventing the more long term effects in the first place. 

 

[philipsteak]

53 minutes ago, Chawk said:

I've just moved to Norway and it's pretty strange with no masks and not having to be pacman in the shops. 

Well that's going to make going to the supermarket more fun. Would it be weird if I made the noises too?

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, Gilb said:

This in itself was a lifeline for many people and businesses and very worthwhile imo

 

a life line at what cost in the long run?  ..... If it leads to another lockdown ... or more deaths and infections .... them being open might even cause longer term problems for that industry and other industries ... its a tough  balancing act ....

[ace56blaa]

Just now, Mr.Tease said:

Yep, they either thought about it before hand and decided "well, we need the money, so just get them to come and then lock the door behind them", or they didn't think about it at all. Don't know which is more damning.

My feeling is that the government has been in a constant state of denial about the pandemic. 

When Lockdown worked and they could start lifting restrictions ago, I think the gov truly believed that the virus might just die out or someone not make a resurgence due to very little often ignored provisions. 

When the virus didn't increase after protests and beach parties (all outside events) I think there was a genuine feeling it might just not come back, when the reality was we just didn't know that outside transmission is a lot less unlikely.

At that point, They decided to go all in on protecting the economy and cause a second wave, asking kids back to school, eat out to help out, asking workers back to the office, if it was one at a time we could have maybe made it work, kept an eye on rising infections and not had a second peak this early.

But this government has been so reactionary, taking every decision 1 week to late. Thinking they might not have to take action and then they do when it's too late. 
A circuit breaker could work if they did it right now, but it'll be too late to stop growth if you do it later and still leave pubs and workplaces open. - 

[Crazyfool01]

Just now, philipsteak said:

Well that's going to make going to the supermarket more fun. Would it be weird if I made the noises too?

im getting a transfer to booths up your way just so I can hear the noises  

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, gigpusher said:

That's why I was asking questions rather than making pronouncements. Have we gotten better at treating it? If we know the most effective drugs to treat can we treat people earlier before they get to hospitalisation etc thus preventing the more long term effects in the first place.

we've definitely got better at treating it...I think chance of dying for those who catch it is now 0.4%, whereas previously was closer to 1%. I think long covid is still a problem though, not sure if they've got better at treating that.

[gigpusher]

3 minutes ago, kaytee... said:

I agree with this but can see why a lot of people don't. I've got family who since February have only left their house to walk their dog early hours of the morning they're so worried by it. One of them being my nan and she's otherwise fit and healthy so it's such a shame that she'd rather lock herself away at an age where you should be making the most of life. I know you can't compare an infectious virus to the likes of cancer and other common deadly diseases but I have personally had a scare this year and couldn't even get to see my gp for so long. 

Shutting everyone away at home again might bring the infection levels down, but what will happen when everyone can go about their lives again? Surely we can't keep doing this until we find a vaccine that might not do much.

 

Yes I'm not saying we shouldn't continue to be careful and obviously those in an at risk group should absolutely take care and wearing masks and washing your hands etc is just a basic decency that we can all suck up for the greater good. I just worry about the impact of the loss of jobs etc to people in the long term particularly for all arts lovers. It's completely unsustainable and depression etc could end up being a bigger killer longer term. 

[ace56blaa]

5 minutes ago, Gilb said:

This in itself was a lifeline for many people and businesses and very worthwhile imo

 

how much did they spend on that scheme that they could be spending on furlough and support for unemployed,

eat out scheme was meant to start the restaurants with money and convince people it's safe to start eating out again. But most restaurants wouldn't have started to make their loss back and were probably only starting to now, as more restrictions have been put on them and people are going to be much more hesitant to eat out now.

Not to mention alot of local lockdowns have been caused by spikes of infections that can be traced back to pub and restaurants especially in manchester.

The eat out to help out wasn't a lifeline in a lot of cases it could be a death sentence for businesses or peoples healths and was part of long list of premature opening up the government did, when we really should have been only opening up a little bit at a time and focusing on what measures we could do to make opening up safe.

If we got infections down even more to a manageable and trace-able amount we might not even be looking at a second spike yet. 

 

[zahidf]

Its worth noting that we need a week or so more before we work out if the local lockdowns work

 

[zahidf]

Just now, ace56blaa said:

how much did they spend on that scheme that they could be spending on furlough and support for unemployed,

eat out scheme was meant to start the restaurants with money and convince people it's safe to start eating out again. But most restaurants wouldn't have started to make their loss back and were probably only starting to now, as more restrictions have been put on them and people are going to be much more hesitant to eat out now.

Not to mention alot of local lockdowns have been caused by spikes of infections that can be traced back to pub and restaurants especially in manchester.

The eat out to help out wasn't a lifeline in a lot of cases it could be a death sentence for businesses or peoples healths and was part of long list of premature opening up the government did, when we really should have been only opening up a little bit at a time and focusing on what measures we could do to make opening up safe.

If we got infections down even more to a manageable and trace-able amount we might not even be looking at a second spike yet. 

 

Tbf according to ONS only 5% of infections is traced back to eating out

[ace56blaa]

4 minutes ago, gigpusher said:

Yes I'm not saying we shouldn't continue to be careful and obviously those in an at risk group should absolutely take care and wearing masks and washing your hands etc is just a basic decency that we can all suck up for the greater good. I just worry about the impact of the loss of jobs etc to people in the long term particularly for all arts lovers. It's completely unsustainable and depression etc could end up being a bigger killer longer term. 

Can be stop with the "close away all the vulnerable as we restart life" rhetoric. As people have mentioned constantly it is not just about elderly people dying from the virus it is about long covid, the long-term health impacts of the virus. As well you don't have to be vunerable to get complications or long term pain or symptoms from covid. 

Also the art sector was completely decimated by Rishi Sunaks winter budget. - They only thing that will get theatres, film productions, sports, live music etc  open faster is getting the virus under control. 

 

[zero000]

18 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

That's a different issue to me- there's a difference between people being conned into paying to be imprisoned in tiny rooms, just because the uni needs the money- (really feels like a complete disregard for their wellbeing, and fundamentally dishonest, not really about civil liberties).

For me I would consider it to be both as does the Children and Young People's commissioner for Scotland. It also affects students who work in hospitality and targets and scapegoats a specific group for rising infections, when there are wider systemic issues at play as you identified. 

 

 

Edited September 25, 2020 by zero000

[Gilb]

6 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

a life line at what cost in the long run?  ..... If it leads to another lockdown ... or more deaths and infections .... them being open might even cause longer term problems for that industry and other industries ... its a tough  balancing act ....

Well did infections surge into the stratosphere within 2/3 weeks after people started eating out again? No, I dont think so.
But many businesses were able to stay afloat and keep jobs open. Getting out relieved a lot of tension and mental stress for millions of people. I can't see what poeple are moaning about regarding this.

I realise its not trendy on here to give the government any credit for anything, but this one they got right even if the other 9,999 decisions they had to make may have been fkd up!

[zahidf]

Just now, zero000 said:

For me I would consider it to be both as do the Children and Young People's commissioner for Scotland. It also affects students who work in hospitality and targets and scapegoats a specific group for rising infections, when there are wider systemic issues at play as you identified. 

 

 

Poor young people. First fuckd over by the Alevels fiasco and now by greedy University rentals