Coronavirus

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.

**Haighus**

Rob Lee wrote:
r_squared wrote:
Matt Swain wrote:
I've see that they're looking at ibufrofen to combat covid by reducing inflammation in the lungs.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200604/UK-doctors-test-lipid-ibuprofen-as-COVID-19-treatment.aspx

I'm sure thats the opposite of the advice that came out at the beginning? I definitely remember waking past a huge pile in Aldi a while back.

Different version of Ibuprofen. Not the sort you see on the shelves in Aldi.

That does however perhaps highlight just how dangerous misinformation is.

I've seen a few people commenting in this thread, posting information (including links to articles with said information), that is in fact wrong by all other accounts.

There is so much disinformation/misinformation about at the moment, not helped by people repeating it on social media/forums.

Azreal13 wrote:This isn't regular over the counter ibuprofen, I'm pretty sure you shouldn't be self medicating without the advice of a health professional at this point.

In the trial, the researchers are using Flarin, a lipid capsule form of ibuprofen that differs from the regular tablet available in pharmacies worldwide. Flarin has a unique formulation to protect the stomach of its users, and it is available in the U.K. Some people are already taking lipid capsules for other diseases, such as arthritis.

I agree that self-medicating is generally not advisable.

However, I don't think the brand here is relevant- Flarin is just a brand of ibuprofen with a gastro-protective coating. The active ingredient is identical and the systemic effects will be the same- the drug will still be reaching the body through the gut and liver the same way as any other oral preparation.

The coating is just intended to reduce any gastric side effects, which are the chief source of issues with NSAIDs. I don't think a reduction in stomach ulcers is why the researchers are using ibuprofen.

**endlesswaltz123**

In the UK, it's the patient wait to see if there is a rise in infection due to when eases on lockdown started (roughly two weeks ago) and mass people flocked to beaches etc, and then in a few more weeks if the protests have had an impact.

Let's hope they have not!

**ChargerIIC**

They opened outside dining last weekend in our area. It was a pretty weird feeling - going to an real live restaurant and sitting down at our table we didn't own.

It was nice, but fire season also started this week. That's the season in which everything catches on fire. 4 vegetation fires this week so far.

**Stevefamine**

My city has been doing great recently with covid - I wonder what the numbers look like at the end of the numbers for COVID with the small protest they had. I feel like it'll barely affect it

**Rob Lee**

Haighus wrote:

I agree that self-medicating is generally not advisable.

However, I don't think the brand here is relevant- Flarin is just a brand of ibuprofen with a gastro-protective coating. The active ingredient is identical and the systemic effects will be the same- the drug will still be reaching the body through the gut and liver the same way as any other oral preparation.

The coating is just intended to reduce any gastric side effects, which are the chief source of issues with NSAIDs. I don't think a reduction in stomach ulcers is why the researchers are using ibuprofen.

Yeah, the problem is someone might read what you've stated and think "oh well, I'll be fine if I have Covid-19 and use over the counter Ibuprofen".

I take an NSAID for arthritis, Naproxen. Given the advice so far I've been very concerned about using it if I have a flare up. It weakens the immune system, or so I've been led to believe by what I've read (funny that the GP who prescribed it never told me that!).

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
In the UK, it's the patient wait to see if there is a rise in infection due to when eases on lockdown started (roughly two weeks ago) and mass people flocked to beaches etc, and then in a few more weeks if the protests have had an impact.

Let's hope they have not!

I don't believe it will. There were scientists, back when this all kicked off, who were putting forward the idea that as an island we are better placed than anyone to deal with the virus and that at some point it will burn out.

I think we're seeing that burn out.

Although obviously I'm not a scientist. Nor can I lay my hands on a link to where I read that. So definitely don't take my word for that.

**endlesswaltz123**

Rob Lee wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
In the UK, it's the patient wait to see if there is a rise in infection due to when eases on lockdown started (roughly two weeks ago) and mass people flocked to beaches etc, and then in a few more weeks if the protests have had an impact.

Let's hope they have not!

I don't believe it will. There were scientists, back when this all kicked off, who were putting forward the idea that as an island we are better placed than anyone to deal with the virus and that at some point it will burn out.

I think we're seeing that burn out.

Although obviously I'm not that scientist. Nor can I lay my hands on a link to where I read that. So definitely don't take my word for that.

There's other factors as well that plays in our favour, due to the nature of the virus (being flu like) we are more likely to be robust in warmer weather. Makes sense really, less likely to have the cold, flu and other bugs flinging around putting our immune system under strain already so covid can be our immune systems full attention.

Though, the counter to that argument is with how infectious and deadly it has been and probably still will be in warmer climates (Though, those countries have either elder populations or are heavily deprived which are two of the 5 'most at risk' categories of people).

**Overread**

Rob Lee wrote:

I don't believe it will. There were scientists, back when this all kicked off, who were putting forward the idea that as an island we are better placed than anyone to deal with the virus and that at some point it will burn out.
.

And yet we are currently ranked with about one of the worst (reported) death rates in the world. In fact at present only the USA has a higher rate and they are many times our size. It seems like perhaps Brazil will overtake the UK fairly swiftly, but otherwise the UK has weathered this particularly badly.

I think we have had a few issues, first the approach (based on early science) of going for herd immunity which stifled our reaction time to lockdown at the initial period. Then there's our populations general lack of awareness/understanding which hasn't helped matters (though in truth that's not a unique factor). The government has also made odd calls such as only imposing quarantine for those arriving from overseas in the last few weeks as opposed to right at the start of lockdown etc....

It's not all bad, but the UK is far from a shining example, even accounting for our older population.

**Rob Lee**

Overread wrote:
Rob Lee wrote:

I don't believe it will. There were scientists, back when this all kicked off, who were putting forward the idea that as an island we are better placed than anyone to deal with the virus and that at some point it will burn out.
.

And yet we are currently ranked with about one of the worst (reported) death rates in the world.

Yeah, the point the scientists at the time were making is that the virus should have nowhere to go, us being an island surrounded by water. As you've said though, our govt. made some dubious decisions.

BTW - Brazil has overtaken the UK, it did so yesterday, or Saturday, or I thought I had read that - we're 4th in the world, they're 3rd now. And there are reports they are no longer reporting their figures, so they may well be higher up.

EDIT: According to worldometers Brazil are 2nd today. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?utm_campaign=homeAdUOA?Si,

**RiTides**

That is a useful link, I'm not familiar with it though - has anyone checked that it is accurate compared to other sources?

If it is, it looks like using deaths per million population, UK is second only to Belgium in death rate of large countries, just ahead of Italy and Spain... that seems like a more informative figure than total deaths...

**Overread**

It's the one I've been looking at for a while and linked too a good few times in the thread. Far as I know its accurate.

It also shows that the UK is still not publishing/collecting any recovery data

**Disciple of Fate**

Its accurate in so far as the numbers given are those listed by the countries themselves. As reporting varies wildly from very broad (Belgium) to only the strictest definitions (Russia, partly to artificially deflate the number of deaths) on official deaths. After a good while, the excess rate of death is going to be a better metric, but this is what we have for now.

Saw this on the BBC, underlining some parts:

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52968523

Coronavirus: Lockdowns in Europe saved millions of lives

Lockdowns have saved more than three million lives from coronavirus in Europe, a study estimates.

The team at Imperial College London said the "death toll would have been huge" without lockdown.

But they warned that only a small proportion of people had been infected and we were still only "at the beginning of the pandemic".

Another study argued global lockdowns had "saved more lives, in a shorter period of time, than ever before".

The Imperial study assessed the impact of restrictions in 11 European countries - Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK - up to the beginning of May.

By that time, around 130,000 people had died from coronavirus in those countries.

The researchers used disease modelling to predict how many deaths there would have been if lockdown had not happened. And the work comes from the same group that guided the UK's decision to go into lockdown.

They estimated 3.2 million people would have died by 4 May if not for measures such as closing businesses and telling people to stay at home.

That meant lockdown saved around 3.1 million lives, including 470,000 in the UK, 690,000 in France and 630,000 in Italy, the report in the journal Nature shows.

"Lockdown averted millions of deaths, those deaths would have been a tragedy," said Dr Seth Flaxman, from Imperial.

Their equations made several assumptions, which will affect the figures.

They assume nobody would have changed their behaviour in response to the Covid threat without a lockdown - and that hospitals would not be overwhelmed resulting in a surge in deaths, which nearly happened in some countries.

The study also does not take into account the health consequences of lockdowns that may take years to fully uncover.

Only the beginning?
The model also predicted that the outbreak would be nearly over by now without lockdown, as so many people would have been infected.

More than seven in 10 people in the UK would have had Covid, leading to herd immunity and the virus no longer spreading.

Instead, the researchers estimate that up to 15 million people across Europe had been infected by the beginning of May.

The researchers say at most, 4% of the population in those countries had been infected.

"Claims this is all over can be firmly rejected. We are only at the beginning of this pandemic," said Dr Flaxman.

And it means that as lockdowns start to lift, there is the risk the virus could start to spread again.

"There is a very real risk if mobility goes back up there could be a second wave coming reasonably soon, in the next month or two," said Dr Samir Bhatt.

Meanwhile, a separate study by University of California, Berkeley, analysed the impact of lockdowns in China, South Korea, Iran, France and the US.

Their report, also in Nature, says lockdown prevented 530 million infections in those countries.

Just before lockdowns were introduced, they said cases were doubling every two days.

Dr Solomon Hsiang, one of the researchers, said coronavirus had been a "real human tragedy" but the global action to stop the spread of the virus had "saved more lives, in a shorter period of time, than ever before".

**tneva82**

Rob Lee wrote:
Overread wrote:
Rob Lee wrote:

I don't believe it will. There were scientists, back when this all kicked off, who were putting forward the idea that as an island we are better placed than anyone to deal with the virus and that at some point it will burn out.
.

And yet we are currently ranked with about one of the worst (reported) death rates in the world.

Yeah, the point the scientists at the time were making is that the virus should have nowhere to go, us being an island surrounded by water. As you've said though, our govt. made some dubious decisions.

BTW - Brazil has overtaken the UK, it did so yesterday, or Saturday, or I thought I had read that - we're 4th in the world, they're 3rd now. And there are reports they are no longer reporting their figures, so they may well be higher up.

EDIT: According to worldometers Brazil are 2nd today. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?utm_campaign=homeAdUOA?Si,

Well UK is missing significant % of casualties as well. Last estimate I read put it as 40% deaths missing.

**Azreal13**

My local healthcare trust (which is in the least affected part of one of the least affected parts of the country) apparently hasn't had a confirmed case in a fortnight.

**Kilkrazy**

The death rate to watch is the excess mortality per 100,000 population.

Remember that Brazil has over 200 miliion people, compared to the UK's 66 million.

**Voss**

Rob Lee wrote:
Overread wrote:
Rob Lee wrote:

I don't believe it will. There were scientists, back when this all kicked off, who were putting forward the idea that as an island we are better placed than anyone to deal with the virus and that at some point it will burn out.
.

And yet we are currently ranked with about one of the worst (reported) death rates in the world.

Yeah, the point the scientists at the time were making is that the virus should have nowhere to go, us being an island surrounded by water. As you've said though, our govt. made some dubious decisions.

That... isn't how viruses work. They move between people, not land, so surrounding water isn't a magical barrier. The virus doesn't 'go' at all.
Transmission is a function of how the population interacts with each other- once established as long as people are coming into contact, the virus will keep spreading. The advantage to an island is its easier border control- if someone bothers.

But the UK gets a lot more travelers than say, New Zealand, and has a much higher population density. Once it got there, the island status didn't matter anymore, because a kick-off, the proper precautions weren't taken.

**NinthMusketeer**

Virus moves between people, water is a barrier to people moving. The logic is pretty straightforward. How valid it is, less so.

**tneva82**

Were those "scientists" by any chance the same guys who were saying bojo herd immunity is good strategy...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

NinthMusketeer wrote:
Virus moves between people, water is a barrier to people moving. The logic is pretty straightforward. How valid it is, less so.

That might have been true in millenias ago but these days we have these things called "ships" and "airplanes" that crosses water in no time. Combined with only handful infected people needed to cause cascading effect and that water is zero protection.

The virus did not come to Europe from China via land route either...There's "wee" bit more km's between China and Italy than say Italy and UK.

**NinthMusketeer**

Now that is just willfully obtuse.

**Rob Lee**

Voss wrote:

That... isn't how viruses work.

Yeah, I'm aware of how viruses transmit.

You described how as an island we could have been in a better position, and why we aren't.

That was the point of what the scientists were talking about...

Nothing to do with water being a magical barrier...

**Not Online!!!**

TBF, UK with it's border to ireland would've had to form a clooective attempt to actually capitalize on that island position with ireland.
To say that politially speaking that might have been connected with issues is pretty fair i believe altough i'd think a concerted effort would've or could've kept the islands in a better state health wise but quite a bit more devastated economically.

**Skinnereal**

tneva82 wrote:
Well UK is missing significant % of casualties as well. Last estimate I read put it as 40% deaths missing.

Kilkrazy wrote:
The death rate to watch is the excess mortality per 100,000 population.

That 40% is the better number to go by, as it is the excess mortality rate. Confirmed infected deaths can only be counted if they were tested. The UK is not yet good at testing the dead.
So, the number of deaths above normal is much better, as all deaths caused by Covid-19 are counted, whether direct (infected) or indirect (scared to go to hospital from heart attack, or suchlike).
Also, counting against population is a big factor when comparing. USA has had a lot of deaths, and comparing tested deaths against the to UK, is doing terribly.
But, factoring in the populations, USA is not doing as badly.

**tneva82**

Not Online!!! wrote:
TBF, UK with it's border to ireland would've had to form a clooective attempt to actually capitalize on that island position with ireland.
To say that politially speaking that might have been connected with issues is pretty fair i believe altough i'd think a concerted effort would've or could've kept the islands in a better state health wise but quite a bit more devastated economically.

Well common policy would have been easy enough if there had been will. It's rather funny that the european country with most open borders during the initial phase is and still is UK.

**nfe**

tneva82 wrote:
Rob Lee wrote:
Overread wrote:
Rob Lee wrote:

I don't believe it will. There were scientists, back when this all kicked off, who were putting forward the idea that as an island we are better placed than anyone to deal with the virus and that at some point it will burn out.
.

And yet we are currently ranked with about one of the worst (reported) death rates in the world.

Yeah, the point the scientists at the time were making is that the virus should have nowhere to go, us being an island surrounded by water. As you've said though, our govt. made some dubious decisions.

BTW - Brazil has overtaken the UK, it did so yesterday, or Saturday, or I thought I had read that - we're 4th in the world, they're 3rd now. And there are reports they are no longer reporting their figures, so they may well be higher up.

EDIT: According to worldometers Brazil are 2nd today. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?utm_campaign=homeAdUOA?Si,

Well UK is missing significant % of casualties as well. Last estimate I read put it as 40% deaths missing.

I replied to you the last time you said this. We know those numbers, they're released by the ONS weekly.

**ced1106**

So if you get a mild case of the virus, it'll lasts two weeks then you're all fine.

Or not. Here's an initial UK study that says, for 10% of mild cases, symptoms can last as long as six or seven weeks, including not able to return to work. The article doesn't break down the study by age or preexisting conditions.

"There are fears many people struggling with post-viral effects are therefore not getting the right diagnosis and support, particularly as they are unlikely to be so ill they need hospitalisation."

"Her illness started with a fever and a “slight cough” and exhaustion. Over the next couple of weeks the fatigue worsened, she had dizziness and blacked out and she experienced excruciating back muscle pain, vomiting, diarrhoea, changes in taste and smell, the soles of her feet went black and rashes would appear and disappear within the same day. ... I have the lung capacity of an 85 year old with asthma." (Obviously, this woman was probably one of those hospitalized.)

With the virus existing for only about six months, the long-term effects of the virus are not fully known, including by those who believe to have recovered.

https://inews.co.uk/news/coronavirus-post-viral-effects-after-covid-19-chronic-fatigue-long-term-health-440730

**Kilkrazy**

This is a very odd virus. The way it can cause a symptomless infection which is transmissible by breathing, all the way to infecting organs outside the lungs.

**queen_annes_revenge**

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-52977940

Asymptomatic carriers seem unlikely to infect lots of others basically. Makes sense if they aren't coughing everywhere I guess.

**Slipspace**

ced1106 wrote:
So if you get a mild case of the virus, it'll lasts two weeks then you're all fine.

Or not. Here's an initial UK study that says, for 10% of mild cases, symptoms can last as long as six or seven weeks, including not able to return to work. The article doesn't break down the study by age or preexisting conditions.

That matches up with the experiences of two of my colleagues, both relatively young and fit (in their mid-to-late 30s, one of them a triathlete). Both had coronavirus and had symptoms lasting well over a month, one of them with a short period of "remission" before feeling exhausted for another couple of weeks. It seems like the initial reports about the effects of the virus weren't so accurate. Also interesting to note the info about asymptomatic people being less infectious. I wonder if that's just due to less coughing and therefore not as much transmission of infected particles or whether there's something else going on there.

In other news, Scotland had 2 full days of no deaths over the weekend and only 7 reported today, so things are generally moving in the right direction here, I think. Even our Black Lives Matter protests at the weekend seemed to be much more socially distanced than others across the country. Now we get our government telling us on Thursday what we'll be allowed to do a week on Thursday. Don't really get that side of it, TBH. We already know what the different phases of coming out of lockdown entail so I don't see why we need a whole week's notice about moving to the next phase.

**OrlandotheTechnicoloured**

also interesting to note that Scotland doesn't (at least on initial study of their results) see the excess deaths in BME groups that many other western nations (including the rest of the UK are seeing)

it could well be that the overall standard of health of enough of Scotlands population is low enough (we're the European capital of so many health issues) that the overall deprivation of BME populations just isn't showing up

**Alpharius**

queen_annes_revenge wrote:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-52977940

Asymptomatic carriers seem unlikely to infect lots of others basically. Makes sense if they aren't coughing everywhere I guess.

They've sinced walked that back a bit, haven't they?

Now it is asymptomatic carriers that have NO symptoms whatsoever are deemed unlikely to spread it - WHO got a lot of negative feedback so they're revising their statement into...that?

Apparently if you have even a single minor almost unnoticeable symptom (scratchy throat? slightly runny nose?), you can spread it 'almost asymptomatically'...

**Kilkrazy**

The difficulty is that you need to get some asymptomatic carriers and study the amount of virus particles they breath out in normal (non coughing) breath. Find out how those particles spread and are inhaled by other people and how likely they are to become infected.

It's all rather difficult in the middle of the crisis.

However, the example of Measles shows that viral diseases certainly can be spread by airborne transmission by asymptomatic patients.