@drcongo said:
I've not posted in this thread or on the subject of fans being allowed back in, because I've been struggling to work out how to post my thoughts on it without coming across like I'm insulting others on here. But here, roughly, are my thoughts - please don't be offended, none of this is aimed at anyone here.
This was obviously always going to be the case - until there's a vaccine there is simply no safe way to get even 10% of a ground's capacity in and out of a stadium.
I can't believe that anyone would even consider going to a game, it's obviously a huge risk to anyone who then comes into contact with you afterwards - it reminds me of the people who refuse to wear masks.
Several football matches at the start of the pandemic have been identified as super-spreader events - reducing the capacity will just make them spreader events.
None of this was ever safe. It's just the 2020 version of "let them eat cake".
I don’t understand this mentality. We know that a vaccine may never exist and if it does it could be years away. So you’re advocating for a strategy of suppression for what could be years on end, or possibly forever.
As we are seeing now, suppression involves a large portion of the population spending their entire working life at home and socialising being severely restricted. Not an acceptable way for us to continue in my view and should only ever have been used to buy some time initially to increase NHS capacity.
Sorry but this is total bollocks
There will be some sort of vaccine in the next 12 months, how effective we don't know. Treatments are also improving, as is general understanding of the the virus- such as long term effects, residual resistance, difference in mutations and strains. Anyine advocating letting a novel virus spread is just insane - for all you know it could kill people off by resurfacing 6 months later in the body. There's increasing reports of heart damage in younger covid "survivors", and lots of elite athletes are reporting significant effects on performance months after recovery from the initial flu like symptoms.
Time is knowledge, and one year/ 18 months : the minimum time to find a vaccine is not too long to be inconvenienced to save 10,000s lives.
I don't disagree with most of your observations. Except that the current restrictions on social activity are not just an 'inconvenience' are they? The consequences - depression, anxiety, job losses, economic damage etc - can be disastrous for people's lives.
So while I agree it makes sense to contain the spread to some extent (in particular through actions with little or downside like hand washing and mask wearing) I don't understand the approach of tolerating the myriad of known consequences indefinitely while waiting for a vaccine of as yet unknown effectiveness.
That was flippant I admit, but a lot of the complaints are about inconveniences rather than the serious things.
Yes those mental health is a serious concern, but the suicide rate would have to multiply by 10 to match the covid deaths, and surprisingly recessions have lead to an increase in life expectancy in the past so it's not as cut and dry as "economic downturn will lead to more suicides".
People can earn money back, they can rebuild businesses but they can't bring people back from the dead or heal damaged lungs, or regain sight or heart functionality, just a few of the effects of Covid I've heard of from our area
Fair points. You're quite right to point out that the financial impact is recoverable, although I'm also inclined to counter that evidence shows many people, especially those at the start of their career, will experience a scarring impact on their future prosperity. I'd also say that quality of life must come into the equation too, not only the net impact on mortality?
Anyway, I think those are subjective issues could be argued back and forth with neither side being right or wrong.
My main concern is that our strategy appears to be to fix the R rate at or below 1 until such time as there is a vaccine. We attempted to resume some form of normality and rely on a test, trace and isolate strategy to keep transmission down. As we can now see, either this isn't possible or the UK isn't able to do so. Whatever the reason, we are now pivoting back toward partial or full lockdown in order to reduce transmission. As far as I can tell from that position the only exit strategy is then either a radical improvement in testing (the so-called 'moonshot'); the discovery of a vaccine and rollout of successful innoculation programme; or some mutation or change in the virus which makes it less potent. Each of those are either a) fanciful or b) may or may not happen at an undetermined point in time. On that basis I'm not in favour of increasing restrictions on social activity.
I may feel differently if it were clearer to what degree we could be confident of an exit strategy within and within what timeframe. i.e if there is 90% confidence of a vaccine within 12 mths that is a big difference from 90% confidence within 10 years.
All this aside, it pisses me off that social restrictions are being distributed unequally. In the case of recreational activities, for example, we have cinemas open but stadium shut. Surely it would be more reasonable to have them both partially open? The same goes for work. Some people are now, in effect, going to asked to work from their kitchen table for 1yr+ while others continue to go to work as normal.
Your point on the exit strategy is totally valid.
There's no reason other than a mixture incompetence and corruption that we don't have a useful test and trace system and that has to be the immediate exit strategy with a vaccine in the background as the end goal.
@drcongo said:
I've not posted in this thread or on the subject of fans being allowed back in, because I've been struggling to work out how to post my thoughts on it without coming across like I'm insulting others on here. But here, roughly, are my thoughts - please don't be offended, none of this is aimed at anyone here.
This was obviously always going to be the case - until there's a vaccine there is simply no safe way to get even 10% of a ground's capacity in and out of a stadium.
I can't believe that anyone would even consider going to a game, it's obviously a huge risk to anyone who then comes into contact with you afterwards - it reminds me of the people who refuse to wear masks.
Several football matches at the start of the pandemic have been identified as super-spreader events - reducing the capacity will just make them spreader events.
None of this was ever safe. It's just the 2020 version of "let them eat cake".
I don’t understand this mentality. We know that a vaccine may never exist and if it does it could be years away. So you’re advocating for a strategy of suppression for what could be years on end, or possibly forever.
As we are seeing now, suppression involves a large portion of the population spending their entire working life at home and socialising being severely restricted. Not an acceptable way for us to continue in my view and should only ever have been used to buy some time initially to increase NHS capacity.
Sorry but this is total bollocks
There will be some sort of vaccine in the next 12 months, how effective we don't know. Treatments are also improving, as is general understanding of the the virus- such as long term effects, residual resistance, difference in mutations and strains. Anyine advocating letting a novel virus spread is just insane - for all you know it could kill people off by resurfacing 6 months later in the body. There's increasing reports of heart damage in younger covid "survivors", and lots of elite athletes are reporting significant effects on performance months after recovery from the initial flu like symptoms.
Time is knowledge, and one year/ 18 months : the minimum time to find a vaccine is not too long to be inconvenienced to save 10,000s lives.
I don't disagree with most of your observations. Except that the current restrictions on social activity are not just an 'inconvenience' are they? The consequences - depression, anxiety, job losses, economic damage etc - can be disastrous for people's lives.
So while I agree it makes sense to contain the spread to some extent (in particular through actions with little or downside like hand washing and mask wearing) I don't understand the approach of tolerating the myriad of known consequences indefinitely while waiting for a vaccine of as yet unknown effectiveness.
That was flippant I admit, but a lot of the complaints are about inconveniences rather than the serious things.
Yes those mental health is a serious concern, but the suicide rate would have to multiply by 10 to match the covid deaths, and surprisingly recessions have lead to an increase in life expectancy in the past so it's not as cut and dry as "economic downturn will lead to more suicides".
People can earn money back, they can rebuild businesses but they can't bring people back from the dead or heal damaged lungs, or regain sight or heart functionality, just a few of the effects of Covid I've heard of from our area
Fair points. You're quite right to point out that the financial impact is recoverable, although I'm also inclined to counter that evidence shows many people, especially those at the start of their career, will experience a scarring impact on their future prosperity. I'd also say that quality of life must come into the equation too, not only the net impact on mortality?
Anyway, I think those are subjective issues could be argued back and forth with neither side being right or wrong.
My main concern is that our strategy appears to be to fix the R rate at or below 1 until such time as there is a vaccine. We attempted to resume some form of normality and rely on a test, trace and isolate strategy to keep transmission down. As we can now see, either this isn't possible or the UK isn't able to do so. Whatever the reason, we are now pivoting back toward partial or full lockdown in order to reduce transmission. As far as I can tell from that position the only exit strategy is then either a radical improvement in testing (the so-called 'moonshot'); the discovery of a vaccine and rollout of successful innoculation programme; or some mutation or change in the virus which makes it less potent. Each of those are either a) fanciful or b) may or may not happen at an undetermined point in time. On that basis I'm not in favour of increasing restrictions on social activity.
I may feel differently if it were clearer to what degree we could be confident of an exit strategy within and within what timeframe. i.e if there is 90% confidence of a vaccine within 12 mths that is a big difference from 90% confidence within 10 years.
All this aside, it pisses me off that social restrictions are being distributed unequally. In the case of recreational activities, for example, we have cinemas open but stadium shut. Surely it would be more reasonable to have them both partially open? The same goes for work. Some people are now, in effect, going to asked to work from their kitchen table for 1yr+ while others continue to go to work as normal.
Your point on the exit strategy is totally valid.
There's no reason other than a mixture incompetence and corruption that we don't have a useful test and trace system and that has to be the immediate exit strategy with a vaccine in the background as the end goal.
This. We’ve farmed out test and trace to Serco for no apparent reason other than donations to the Tory party, we keep putting Dido Harding in charge of critical things despite the fact that she’s basically Chris Grayling in drag and has spent her entire career falling upwards and overseeing spectacular failures, we turned down the absolutely free contact tracing API from Apple and Google to spend £14M (with a company owned by Matt Hancock’s neighbours) trying to do our own version despite anyone and everyone who works in tech knowing that what they planned was actually impossible, we opted out of the EU joint PPE proposal and our prime minister hasn’t attended a COBRA meeting since May (allegedly due to being busy with an affair and dealing with a certain rotund brexiteer being investigated for rape). I’m struggling to think of a single thing we’ve done right.
@Username deforestation and human encroachment into formerly uninhabitable areas (not to.mention eating the things they find, or being bitten by them) will lead to more bizarre and excitingly untreatable infections in the same way climate change is buggering things up. Scientists have been boringly banging on about it for years...but we need our burger cattle.
@Glenactico cinemas are doomed mate...with all the effort the Odeon in Aylesbury have made to re-open its Almost empty and the people who do turn up dont follow their guidelines. It may shock you but we seem largely to be a whinging nation of idiots???
From my perspective, we are trying to suppress the virus over the winter knowing there is a very high chance of a vaccine over the next 6 months. Results of Phase III studies for both mRNA vaccines (Pfizer/Biontech and Moderna) are likely in November, and for the most advanced adenovirus vaccine (AstraZeneca/Oxford), perhaps December. All 3 vaccines have already shown a very strong antibody and T Cell response in Phase I/II, which points to a successful potential vaccine. What actual immunity the vaccine will provide though is the point of contention - hopefully we’ll know this by year’s end with the Phase III results. In my opinion, if the vaccine is safe (and doesn’t cause an infection augmentation, for example - which is almost certain not to happen), the worse case scenario is the patient can still be ‘infected’ but be either asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, but can still pass on the virus. Best case, the vaccine prevents infection as a whole (no infection, cannot pass on). My best guess would be it’ll be somewhere in between. So, in English, if you can mass vaccinate, that would end this pandemic (in the region/country of mass vaccination). Probably annual vaccinations needed (like flu) in high risk individuals going forward.
So, I would expect a FDA/MHRA/EMA approval (or minimum an EUA - Emergency Use Authorisation) for one or more vaccines by December. Then vaccinate high risk (elderly, immune compromised etc) late 2020/early 2021. Then, dependent on manufacture and distribution coherence, full mass vaccination in the Spring.
So, the current agenda, whatever you think of it, to suppress does have an exit strategy. Until then, get used to any football on the TV, and wear a mask when you’re out (it will generally reduce asymptomatic spread to others, and there is growing evidence that although it won’t stop you getting coronavirus, it will reduce the amount of virus you are exposed to, what’s called the viral, and mean you are far more likely to have an asymptomatic or only mildly asymptomatic infection).
Viral inoculum is the ‘dose’ of virus an individual is exposed to which causes the infection, while viral load is the amount of virus in the body post infection (which often can be relative to the severity of the infection too). The idea that exposure to less virus might lead to a less severe infection was actually utilised long ago in the process of variolation - by ‘inoculating’ individuals with small amounts of crushed scabs from smallpox patients into scratches of healthy patients. The idea was smaller viral inoculum, milder disease. It did usually work, but unfortunately not always. So masks could potentially be seen as a modern method of variolation for coronavirus, until a vaccine is ready.
Interesting stuff @Quarterman. Masks are a must. I reckon anyone in the supermarket (or any other shop) without one should have to display a badge or lanyard card saying that they are exempt.
Hi @micra sorry to deviate a bit, but you mentioned that washing up liquid on the inside of specs can avoid the misting up. Please could you expand a little? Would that be "neat" application or somewhat diluted? If diluted, would you be able to help with the ratios?
@EwanHoosaami said:
Hi @micra sorry to deviate a bit, but you mentioned that washing up liquid on the inside of specs can avoid the misting up. Please could you expand a little? Would that be "neat" application or somewhat diluted? If diluted, would you be able to help with the ratios?
Not to say this doesn't work but it might not be to good for the treatments on your lenses, making sure the mask is tight and if possible higher up your nose than your glasses also helps.
OK @StrongestTeam I'll give it a go. Need them for driving towards the end of the day when I get a bit tired, so not sure if they have any treatment on them as I didn't pay for any as far as I am aware? Getting old is a b'stard! Thank you.
Afternoon @EwanHoosaami. Hope you and yours are bearing up reasonably well.
What I do is to squeeze a really tiny blob of washing up liquid (2-3 mm diameter) onto the tip of my index finger then smear it across the lenses. I do it on both sides but not sure it’s needed on the front. Next, dry it with a soft cloth (eg a tea towel). Do that fairly gently to avoid totally removing the coating. That should do the trick for a couple of trips.
I take @StrongestTeam’s point about potentially damaging any (eg anti reflection) coating but, like you, I don’t have anything like that. For anyone wary of the Fairy treatment (aren’t we all, ducky), specsavers do anti-mist wipes for about £6.
I do find it bizarre that we can still go into as many Brexitspoon pubs as we like before 10pm amongst people with probably somewhat lax or impaired social distancing but going to the footy is too dangerous when with organisation we can easily be three seats apart with a reduced capacity. I wonder how successful they considered the Norwich trial?
Indeed. Not that I am advocating we or the club take any undue risk but the rules just seem so random and ill-thought out. I have nothing to add with regard to washing up liquid and spectacles.
Surely cinemas are no less safe than pubs, schools or workplaces though?
They'll have massively limited numbers, and you'll be sat well away from anyone else, and most importantly you're not mingling - once you're in, you're sat down and only for a couple of hours.
They could easily have a limited number of fans in pro football games though, 500 - 1,000 with a bit of thought put into it.
Comments
Your point on the exit strategy is totally valid.
There's no reason other than a mixture incompetence and corruption that we don't have a useful test and trace system and that has to be the immediate exit strategy with a vaccine in the background as the end goal.
This. We’ve farmed out test and trace to Serco for no apparent reason other than donations to the Tory party, we keep putting Dido Harding in charge of critical things despite the fact that she’s basically Chris Grayling in drag and has spent her entire career falling upwards and overseeing spectacular failures, we turned down the absolutely free contact tracing API from Apple and Google to spend £14M (with a company owned by Matt Hancock’s neighbours) trying to do our own version despite anyone and everyone who works in tech knowing that what they planned was actually impossible, we opted out of the EU joint PPE proposal and our prime minister hasn’t attended a COBRA meeting since May (allegedly due to being busy with an affair and dealing with a certain rotund brexiteer being investigated for rape). I’m struggling to think of a single thing we’ve done right.
Oh right, that’s why we opted out of the EU PPE deal. https://bylinetimes.com/2020/09/18/firm-meller-designs-conservative-donor-nets-millions-government-ppe-deals/
You've definitely read the Twitter thread " a week in Tory"
It really has been one catastrophe after another, propped up by their consistent conning of the under- informed to keep them in power regardless.
Boris a happy shacked up with younger woman divorcee new father having an affair? Lucky hes not running the country !!
@Username deforestation and human encroachment into formerly uninhabitable areas (not to.mention eating the things they find, or being bitten by them) will lead to more bizarre and excitingly untreatable infections in the same way climate change is buggering things up. Scientists have been boringly banging on about it for years...but we need our burger cattle.
@Glenactico cinemas are doomed mate...with all the effort the Odeon in Aylesbury have made to re-open its Almost empty and the people who do turn up dont follow their guidelines. It may shock you but we seem largely to be a whinging nation of idiots???
From my perspective, we are trying to suppress the virus over the winter knowing there is a very high chance of a vaccine over the next 6 months. Results of Phase III studies for both mRNA vaccines (Pfizer/Biontech and Moderna) are likely in November, and for the most advanced adenovirus vaccine (AstraZeneca/Oxford), perhaps December. All 3 vaccines have already shown a very strong antibody and T Cell response in Phase I/II, which points to a successful potential vaccine. What actual immunity the vaccine will provide though is the point of contention - hopefully we’ll know this by year’s end with the Phase III results. In my opinion, if the vaccine is safe (and doesn’t cause an infection augmentation, for example - which is almost certain not to happen), the worse case scenario is the patient can still be ‘infected’ but be either asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, but can still pass on the virus. Best case, the vaccine prevents infection as a whole (no infection, cannot pass on). My best guess would be it’ll be somewhere in between. So, in English, if you can mass vaccinate, that would end this pandemic (in the region/country of mass vaccination). Probably annual vaccinations needed (like flu) in high risk individuals going forward.
So, I would expect a FDA/MHRA/EMA approval (or minimum an EUA - Emergency Use Authorisation) for one or more vaccines by December. Then vaccinate high risk (elderly, immune compromised etc) late 2020/early 2021. Then, dependent on manufacture and distribution coherence, full mass vaccination in the Spring.
So, the current agenda, whatever you think of it, to suppress does have an exit strategy. Until then, get used to any football on the TV, and wear a mask when you’re out (it will generally reduce asymptomatic spread to others, and there is growing evidence that although it won’t stop you getting coronavirus, it will reduce the amount of virus you are exposed to, what’s called the viral, and mean you are far more likely to have an asymptomatic or only mildly asymptomatic infection).
Thanks @Quarterman, excellent post, though I think the word “load” is missing from your last sentence.
Hi @drcongo. Sorry, somehow deleted that word after it was written, although the missing word was actually viral ‘inoculum’ rather than ‘load’
Butting in on an excellent dissertation (?) i too thought it should be viral load. Also “mildly symptomatic infection” right at the end ?
Hi @micra. Correct, mildly ‘symptomatic’ infection, not ‘asymptomatic’. Long day!
Inoculum. Not heard of that before and I gather dissertation applies to a longer discourse.
You’re much too quick for me!
Viral inoculum is the ‘dose’ of virus an individual is exposed to which causes the infection, while viral load is the amount of virus in the body post infection (which often can be relative to the severity of the infection too). The idea that exposure to less virus might lead to a less severe infection was actually utilised long ago in the process of variolation - by ‘inoculating’ individuals with small amounts of crushed scabs from smallpox patients into scratches of healthy patients. The idea was smaller viral inoculum, milder disease. It did usually work, but unfortunately not always. So masks could potentially be seen as a modern method of variolation for coronavirus, until a vaccine is ready.
Interesting stuff @Quarterman. Masks are a must. I reckon anyone in the supermarket (or any other shop) without one should have to display a badge or lanyard card saying that they are exempt.
Interesting and informative posts @Quarterman
Thanks for that @Quarterman
Hi @micra sorry to deviate a bit, but you mentioned that washing up liquid on the inside of specs can avoid the misting up. Please could you expand a little? Would that be "neat" application or somewhat diluted? If diluted, would you be able to help with the ratios?
Not to say this doesn't work but it might not be to good for the treatments on your lenses, making sure the mask is tight and if possible higher up your nose than your glasses also helps.
OK @StrongestTeam I'll give it a go. Need them for driving towards the end of the day when I get a bit tired, so not sure if they have any treatment on them as I didn't pay for any as far as I am aware? Getting old is a b'stard! Thank you.
Appreciate the posts @Quarterman.
Afternoon @EwanHoosaami. Hope you and yours are bearing up reasonably well.
What I do is to squeeze a really tiny blob of washing up liquid (2-3 mm diameter) onto the tip of my index finger then smear it across the lenses. I do it on both sides but not sure it’s needed on the front. Next, dry it with a soft cloth (eg a tea towel). Do that fairly gently to avoid totally removing the coating. That should do the trick for a couple of trips.
I take @StrongestTeam’s point about potentially damaging any (eg anti reflection) coating but, like you, I don’t have anything like that. For anyone wary of the Fairy treatment (aren’t we all, ducky), specsavers do anti-mist wipes for about £6.
I do find it bizarre that we can still go into as many Brexitspoon pubs as we like before 10pm amongst people with probably somewhat lax or impaired social distancing but going to the footy is too dangerous when with organisation we can easily be three seats apart with a reduced capacity. I wonder how successful they considered the Norwich trial?
@Wendoverman Not to mention being outside.
Indeed. Not that I am advocating we or the club take any undue risk but the rules just seem so random and ill-thought out. I have nothing to add with regard to washing up liquid and spectacles.
What seems even more incredible to me @Wendoverman is that the cinemas are still open.
Surely cinemas are no less safe than pubs, schools or workplaces though?
They'll have massively limited numbers, and you'll be sat well away from anyone else, and most importantly you're not mingling - once you're in, you're sat down and only for a couple of hours.
They could easily have a limited number of fans in pro football games though, 500 - 1,000 with a bit of thought put into it.
As i say Aylesbury odeon have worked very hard to make it happen safely and it works albeit with the usual idiot %
Trouble is the idiot % means it doesn’t work.