Coronavirus

[Nearly Sane]

I endure your continuing sneery arrogance.

I forgive you. Now, to get back on track, do you agree that for many reasons the exception here is baffling, inconsistent and wrong?

[SteveH]

Yes. I never said otherwise.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes. I never said otherwise.

Hurrah, now for Christmas, do we have a virtual game of football?

[Nearly Sane]

Travel to Ireland stopped.

https://amp.rte.ie/amp/1185542/?__twitter_impression=true

[Udayana]

So trying to find out something that is rambling around in my head.

Is the fact that the UK has allowed the virus to take hold at fairly high levels in the population responsible (partly or wholly) for the emergence of this new more transmissable variant earlier than would have happened if we had controlled the virus more effectively?

And how is it more transmissable? They are saying 70% more but by what mechanism is that taking place?

I've tried internet searches but it all seems a bit sketchy currently.

There just isn't enough information available in the public domain (as far as I can tell) that allows us to confirm that the new virus variant is more transmissible or the exact mechanism behind this. It is certainly possible.

What is clear is that infection figures are running very high and the gov. has u-turned on the previous approach, using the "new strain" as an excuse.  It would have been much more effective to have followed the advice and comments offered earlier.
   

[Nearly Sane]

This seems unlikely


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-wiltshire-55329808?__twitter_impression=true

[Nearly Sane]

And Eurotunnel shut for 48 hours


https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/eurotunnel-close-folkestone-france-uk-covid-mutant-strain-b410570.html

[jeremyp]

There just isn't enough information available in the public domain (as far as I can tell) that allows us to confirm that the new virus variant is more transmissible or the exact mechanism behind this. It is certainly possible.

What is clear is that infection figures are running very high and the gov. has u-turned on the previous approach, using the "new strain" as an excuse.  It would have been much more effective to have followed the advice and comments offered earlier.
 

Somebody told me that it is less serious if you catch it. I really do hope that is the case but I am not sure where that factoid came from.

[Nearly Sane]

Somebody told me that it is less serious if you catch it. I really do hope that is the case but I am not sure where that factoid came from.

This seems like a reasonable summary of what is known


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55388846

[Nearly Sane]

And more and more countries restricting travel to and from UK


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55391289

[SweetPea]

Somebody told me that it is less serious if you catch it. I really do hope that is the case but I am not sure where that factoid came from.

The BBC reported similar. If that is the case why all these extras measures? My son-in-law tested positive for the virus and was not very poorly at all - up and about helping with household chores. My daughter and grand-daughters were then tested and all three had a negative result. They were still off work and school and in isolation for fourteen days.

There's something very wrong about the handling of this pandemic. It's not all about the virus. The loss of lives (suicides) and livelihoods is tragic, some people are suffering abominably.   

[Nearly Sane]

The BBC reported similar.

Link?

[SweetPea]

Link?

On a couple of news bulletins.

[Aruntraveller]

My son-in-law tested positive for the virus and was not very poorly at all - up and about helping with household chores. My daughter and grand-daughters were then tested and all three had a negative result. They were still off work and school and in isolation for fourteen days.

I'm glad your family got off relatively lightly.

I still speak to people I used to work with in the NHS. They are sick and tired of people dying from Covid in their hospital.

This disease is almost uniquely unpredictable, and for some people deadly. Do not dismiss it in this way.

[Nearly Sane]

On a couple of news bulletins.

Here's link to BBC summary on the mutation

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55388846

The discussion on its impact is



"Does it make the infection more deadly?
There is no evidence to suggest that it does, although this will need to be monitored.

However, just increasing transmission would be enough to cause problems for hospitals.

If the new variant means more people are infected more quickly, that would in turn lead to more people needing hospital treatment."

This suggests that you misunderstood.

[SteveH]

The most important question is surely "will the vaccines be effective against the new variant?" I understand that the answer, fortunately, is probably yes.

[Enki]

The BBC reported similar. If that is the case why all these extras measures? My son-in-law tested positive for the virus and was not very poorly at all - up and about helping with household chores. My daughter and grand-daughters were then tested and all three had a negative result. They were still off work and school and in isolation for fourteen days.

There's something very wrong about the handling of this pandemic. It's not all about the virus. The loss of lives (suicides) and livelihoods is tragic, some people are suffering abominably.   

Like Trentvoyager, I genuinely am glad that your family have got off lightly. I have just learned that our neighbour's father died from Covid 19 recently, and my sister also died as a direct result of contracting the virus on December 1st.

[SweetPea]

Enki, sorry to hear of the death of your neighbour's father to this dreadful virus and my genuinely heartfelt condolences for the loss of your sister, very sad.
.......

Trent, I'm not disputing the seriousness of the virus (that's obvious given it's nature) but I cannot understand why perfectly healthy people that are not infected are being told to isolate for fourteen days. You don't quarantine a healthy person - it's never been known. I just feel it's an incredible price to pay to lose your livelihood and commit suicide for a virus that has a 98% chance of recovery.
.......

Nearly, perhaps I did misunderstand those reports from the BBC but that's what I gathered at the time.
.......

Nye Scuppertea, yes, I also heard from the BBC that the vaccines will probably be effective against the new variant. Here's hoping so and that with the rollout of the vaccines we shall be in a better place all round this time next year. 

[Aruntraveller]

I just feel it's an incredible price to pay to lose your livelihood and commit suicide for a virus that has a 98% chance of recovery.
.......

It is worth noting that 2% of 60 million is 1,200,000. Not to mention the fact that our hospitals would be totally overrun and unable to deal with all the other diseases that need treating.

As to your remark about healthy people isolating. You can test negative after coming into contact with a covid carrier and become positive later, hence the need for isolation. Until we get more reliable testing and more regular testing (both unlikely under this shambles of a government) isolation after contact is the safest way forward until vaccine time.

[Spud]

It is worth noting that 2% of 60 million is 1,200,000.

Is the actual recovery rate higher when you account for those who are positive but don't get tested?

[jeremyp]

Not helping, guys

[ad_orientem]

Not helping, guys

Always liked Eric Clapton but he's just gone down in my estimation.

[Nearly Sane]

Can't be great being a lorry driver stuck in Kent

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55405299

[Nearly Sane]

Possibility of the tier 4 restrictions in Scotland getting tighter!


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55414617

[Nearly Sane]

Hmm...


https://bylinetimes.com/2020/12/21/eat-out-to-help-out-scheme-epidemiologically-illiterate-rishi-sunak-failed-to-consult-scientists/