Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

GoatboyBeta wrote:
Nine hundred and eighty confirmed deaths in the UK today. Bloody hell.

So pretty much 9000 now.
It's gonna get allot worse once Easter weekend is over.
I'm guessing 11,000 to 12,000 Tuesday morning.
And still nobody will give a gak.

In 12-18 months when a vaccine is available, it would seem that at the current rate of infection, herd immunity will have developed.
And locking people in their homes for a year? It’s only been a few weeks and already people are getting stir crazy. Not going to happen.

GoatboyBeta wrote:
Nine hundred and eighty confirmed deaths in the UK today. Bloody hell.

And the peak isn't even here. And the numbers released aren't even actually that accurate so there could be more later(initial days it was 80% too little per day in first report compared to what that day had casualties after more accurate numbers came out...Something about how they count things that the first number is quickly calculated but doesn't cover all)

Just read about a private jet being sent back to the UK from France , 10 people on board non of them even British by the sounds of it ....lockdowns going well

Well on your average day in the US about 9k people die on average. From the data I have seen 92% of those people are dying of natural causes (old age). Worst day for corona virus was about 1000. So you are still a lot more likely to die of natural causes than corona virus. Not trying to belittle the tragedy - it is ofc terrible that huge amounts of people are dying from this. Data is pretty worthless without perspective.

1K ontop of 9K is a big increase in volume. And if that 9K is for the whole of the USA then consider that the whole of the UK is VASTLY smaller. So suddenly that 1K is a vastly larger percentage of daily deaths on the system.

I mean of all the things in life that can potentially kill you, commuting by car is about the most likely thing to kill most people - being far more dangerous than even some dangerous sports/events/activities.



And this is 1K deaths a day when most of the country has shut down to reduce infection spread. Imagine the numbers if people were moving around normally

 Overread wrote:
1K ontop of 9K is a big increase in volume. And if that 9K is for the whole of the USA then consider that the whole of the UK is VASTLY smaller. So suddenly that 1K is a vastly larger percentage of daily deaths on the system.

I mean of all the things in life that can potentially kill you, commuting by car is about the most likely thing to kill most people - being far more dangerous than even some dangerous sports/events/activities.



And this is 1K deaths a day when most of the country has shut down to reduce infection spread. Imagine the numbers if people were moving around normally

Don't disagree with any of that. What we are seeing right now is the result of the virus spreading unimpeded. The Virus has about a 2 week incubation period and can survive on surfaces in 2-3 day and it takes about 3+ days to kill it's victims. You will see the number of deaths per day start to fall now if lockdown is effective.

How effective is lockdown anyways with people still congregating in grocery stores/ gas stations/ and doing "essential" work. Realistically the lock down does not reduce total deaths in the long run a society like the UK or the USA. All it does is spread them out and reduce the rate at which people get infected. This could be effective if we had a vaccine right around the corner but it is 12 months away at the absolute earliest. The planet can not shut down for that long. Gotta be realistic even the most grim projections from coronavirus (which honestly can't be accurate because we aren't even close to knowing the total number of people already infected with the virus) pale in comparison a global shutdown causing WW3. WW3 could potentially end life on earth...I'd really like to avoid that one.

And that's the pattern I think the UK government is accepting and working with. Even if the economy could cope with a years' shut down the population wouldn't easily cope. Especially with how casually highly mobile we've all grown up in. There isn't a generation alive that hasn't enjoyed easy transport and unimpeded movement over the country.

A vaccine is years away; the whole program is about not prevention but smoothing the curve. About keeping things within health systems capabilities and where it does overwhelm at least trying to reduce it. Plus it stretches things out, giving more time for more training, equipment, understanding etc...

UK certainly seems to be going down that pathway. Likely with several small re-activations of the country for a few weeks then another lockdown.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well on your average day in the US about 9k people die on average. From the data I have seen 92% of those people are dying of natural causes (old age). Worst day for corona virus was about 1000. So you are still a lot more likely to die of natural causes than corona virus. Not trying to belittle the tragedy - it is ofc terrible that huge amounts of people are dying from this. Data is pretty worthless without perspective.

Nearly 2000 people died yesterday of coronavirus. Today's deaths will likely top that.

 Overread wrote:
1K ontop of 9K is a big increase in volume. And if that 9K is for the whole of the USA then consider that the whole of the UK is VASTLY smaller. So suddenly that 1K is a vastly larger percentage of daily deaths on the system.

I mean of all the things in life that can potentially kill you, commuting by car is about the most likely thing to kill most people - being far more dangerous than even some dangerous sports/events/activities.



And this is 1K deaths a day when most of the country has shut down to reduce infection spread. Imagine the numbers if people were moving around normally

And in US about 1.7k dies per day to heart attack. That's the biggest killer. So 1k vs 1.7k of US's(lot bigger country)'s biggest killer.

It's not that insignificant number. And likely lot lower than truth(they don't include those who died to corona outside hospital for example. Died in old people's care house? Don't count)

US btw just couple hundred deaths from taking #1 spot in number of deaths from Italy. And Italy rate has been dropping. Well US is lot bigger so to be expected but wonder how bad it will get. Around 102k + 5 times what italy still suffers and they are about same related to population. On equal response US should be less than Italy related to population count,

...but you can't really spread and/or catch a heart attack, right?

There's a reason why 'social distancing' is working and helping a lot here, but eventually people are going to have to get back out there to work too - it's a razor's edge of a balancing act...

 Alpharius wrote:
...but you can't really spread and/or catch a heart attack, right?

There's a reason why 'social distancing' is working and helping a lot here, but eventually people are going to have to get back out there to work too - it's a razor's edge of a balancing act...

Yes but point is in US daily death rate Corona is already equaling or exceeding #1 killer. So much for harmless flu like some people dismiss it as. It is killing more in US than previous #1 killer per day.

 Alpharius wrote:
...but you can't really spread and/or catch a heart attack, right?

The fast food industry would beg to differ.

They will have to start opening up areas of the country. I imagine they might do it in small amounts, and target it. Unaffected or very low areas opening up more first. Higher areas kept under stricter rules until they level out a bit, but then that causes its own problems.

In order to effectively open up areas in the USA, we're really going to have to flatten curves in the hot spots, limit travel , expand rapid testing, be able to contact trace, and just overall have a real, actual plan.

We're getting closer to that, but we're not that close yet.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
They will have to start opening up areas of the country. I imagine they might do it in small amounts, and target it. Unaffected or very low areas opening up more first. Higher areas kept under stricter rules until they level out a bit, but then that causes its own problems.

I believe they have (or are close to having) a test for the antibodies. So we might get a situation where people who have had it, (and survived) and have the anti-bodies can return to a more normal life.

Although a vaccine may be 2 years away, real treatments could be sooner. And even months of additional study of this bug will help. Lots of ways the distancing is helping.

 Nevelon wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
They will have to start opening up areas of the country. I imagine they might do it in small amounts, and target it. Unaffected or very low areas opening up more first. Higher areas kept under stricter rules until they level out a bit, but then that causes its own problems.

I believe they have (or are close to having) a test for the antibodies. So we might get a situation where people who have had it, (and survived) and have the anti-bodies can return to a more normal life.

Though no evidence how good protection having recovered from virus provides.

I don't think reinfection is likely, and even if it is, it will probably not be as bad the second time. Viruses generally want to mutate to be less lethal to their hosts. The opposite makes things much harder for them. That's another reason why we need some exposure amongst the healthy over a period of time. The more it goes on, it should hopefully have a better outlook

The longer you stretch things out the more chance that new drugs can be deployed to reduce the serverity. Furthermore staff become more aware of the signs and symptoms of things going bad and the facilities get more funding for ventilators and the like. So the longer you can stretch out the infection curve the better it is in the long run.

The disaster is a run-away infection rate that just grows and grows as it blazes through the population; which basically totally overwhelms medical services and results in many who would have survived, being killed.


Of course a run-away infection rate would end things pretty fast; give it a month or two and the nation would get back to operation because it would have burned through most of them. However it would result in a huge spike of deaths and many of them would be needless deaths simply the result of not being able to see a doctor or use a ventilator etc....



A vaccine is a very long way off right now, but closer to now we've been hearing about several drugs that can reduce the recovery period and lessen symptoms. Reducing the recovery period is a big thing, if you can deploy the drug you can either use it on vulnerable groups who can get increased survival from a faster recovery; and/or you can deploy it to larger swathes of the population so that the recovery rate speeds up and the burden on the health service reduces.



There are positives in the mix, but right now most nations are in the grim period of increasing infections.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I don't think reinfection is likely, and even if it is, it will probably not be as bad the second time. Viruses generally want to mutate to be less lethal to their hosts. The opposite makes things much harder for them. That's another reason why we need some exposure amongst the healthy over a period of time. The more it goes on, it should hopefully have a better outlook

The latest news is that people who recover tend to keep very few antibodies and are easily reinfected. Some of the reinfected died from their second bout. Coronavirus is not so straight forward as the flu, it seems.

 Ghool wrote:
In 12-18 months when a vaccine is available, it would seem that at the current rate of infection, herd immunity will have developed.
And locking people in their homes for a year? It’s only been a few weeks and already people are getting stir crazy. Not going to happen.

agreed. that was my response when Trudeau mentioned this could go on for a year and a half, however, I think it's not going to be going as bad for the next year, rather that until a vaccine is going to be developed some things will be a bit differant.

My uncle’s mother died today. That wasn’t corona related, but her funeral is going to be affected by this, right in the middle of our surge week. I feel awful for him.

If they started opening parts of Britain I'd suggest leaving cities closed off completely. Leave London, Birmingham, Manchester etc etc etc in a complete and total lock down.
Those are the places of biggest risk and highest foot traffic.
Retain a larger distancing.
BAN GLOVES FOR FRICK SAKE THEY ARE DEADLY!!!
Keep public toilets closed.
Keep store number limits.
Keep pubs, restaurants, cinemas closed.

tneva82 wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
They will have to start opening up areas of the country. I imagine they might do it in small amounts, and target it. Unaffected or very low areas opening up more first. Higher areas kept under stricter rules until they level out a bit, but then that causes its own problems.

I believe they have (or are close to having) a test for the antibodies. So we might get a situation where people who have had it, (and survived) and have the anti-bodies can return to a more normal life.

Though no evidence how good protection having recovered from virus provides.

Well, that's not strictly true. Covid 19 is just a Coronavirus. Coronavirises in general are common and fairly well understood. While one has to allow room for exceptions and corner cases, the assumption that a certain amount of immunity is gained by those who recover is a well founded one.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I don't think reinfection is likely, and even if it is, it will probably not be as bad the second time. Viruses generally want to mutate to be less lethal to their hosts. The opposite makes things much harder for them. That's another reason why we need some exposure amongst the healthy over a period of time. The more it goes on, it should hopefully have a better outlook

The latest news is that people who recover tend to keep very few antibodies and are easily reinfected. Some of the reinfected died from their second bout. Coronavirus is not so straight forward as the flu, it seems.

So why are they doing the antibody test and making it like if you've had it you'll be OK? I think the 'reinfections' are likely caused by false positives during testing.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I don't think reinfection is likely, and even if it is, it will probably not be as bad the second time. Viruses generally want to mutate to be less lethal to their hosts. The opposite makes things much harder for them. That's another reason why we need some exposure amongst the healthy over a period of time. The more it goes on, it should hopefully have a better outlook

The latest news is that people who recover tend to keep very few antibodies and are easily reinfected. Some of the reinfected died from their second bout. Coronavirus is not so straight forward as the flu, it seems.

If you're going to make claims like that, please source it.

That would pretty much be a first in medical history. The entire reason viruses are called Novel is because no one is out there with antibodies in their system. The only way people won't produce antibodies for this is if their immune system is compromised.

Even Dr. Fauci says that it's likely people will develop antibodies that probably will last about a year or two. With Coronaviruses, historically the worse the virus the longer the body produces antibodies for, and other than the transmission rates, Covid19 is (relatively) weak compared to things like SARs, or Swine Flu.

Voss wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I don't think reinfection is likely, and even if it is, it will probably not be as bad the second time. Viruses generally want to mutate to be less lethal to their hosts. The opposite makes things much harder for them. That's another reason why we need some exposure amongst the healthy over a period of time. The more it goes on, it should hopefully have a better outlook

The latest news is that people who recover tend to keep very few antibodies and are easily reinfected. Some of the reinfected died from their second bout. Coronavirus is not so straight forward as the flu, it seems.

If you're going to make claims like that, please source it.

Here’s one:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/victoriaforster/2020/04/08/can-you-get-sick-with-coronavirus-again-after-youve-already-had-it-new-research-continues-to-emerge-but-the-jury-is-still-out/amp/

There are others that come up from simple googling, however I haven’t yet found a recent and reliable story of a confirmed death from a reinfection.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
According to that article, it’s fairly common for Coronaviruses to reinfect people.

Yeah, that article is a big bucket of shrug.

Honestly doesn't really back up you initial claim, and the main thrust of *mild infection provokes mild response, so might be vulnerable to stronger infection" is probably just simple common sense.