Coronavirus it's not gone away

[Cambsred]

if there is a second wave of infections, what would you like to government to do?

Some people are feeling quite contrary today.

Ideally I would like the government to be prepared- monitoring, swabbing and sharing the information transparently to local populations and organisations so local action can be taken.

I think there is so much info and contradiction this thread is difficult to read. I am not sure how you define airborne- the virus itself isn't airborne in the way for example measels is, however it does appear it is aerosolised easier than perhaps was thought- e.g singing in a choir, shouting in a pub etc. This perhaps makes it difficult to categorise one way or the other. Hence indoor spaces remain a risk currently and people being encouraged to work from home. However, it is still believed to be predominantly droplet spread- which requires social distancing and hand washing and I believe masks in enclosed spaces where possible.

Keeping society locked down forever is not going to happen, money talks and livelihoods matter. I think close tracking and tracing is fundamental to opening things up, and I find it difficult to decide what we have/ dont have in place currently. So many mixed messages and I don't trust the government to do it well.

Rolling deaths/ daily deaths- choose which argument and time frame you want to support. Cases of infection I think is probably the best metric currently, if the data is correct to guide strategy. Rises in infection should be presumed to lead to a rise in death- unless evidence suggests otherwise (Borolad posted something earlier about Sweden and reduced mortality which is great to see).

Be safe, take precautions, don't be contrary on the death rate- deaths are still deaths. Don't forget Australia have had approx 100 deaths in this whole episode, we had similar yesterday regardless of rolling numbers. This is still a lot!

 

[Frozen Horse]

I wouldn't expect this to go away for years.

Even if we get a vaccine, there will be done who don't get it.

So, sooner or later we have to decide when we get on with life.

 

[Chris_Boro]

Right at the start if this, 2.2 million of the most vulnerable people in our society were told to say at home.

These 2.2 million people, are about to be released. As I said earlier, I hope that the virus is continuing to decline, but if its not, then we could be in big trouble.

 

[atypical_boro]

Right at the start if this, 2.2 million of the most vulnerable people in our society were told to say at home.

These 2.2 million people, are about to be released. As I said earlier, I hope that the virus is continuing to decline, but if its not, then we could be in big trouble.

They don't *have* to go out though, do they? The government are just not asking them to stay at home, but they still can if they choose to take a risk averse approach.

Back in March there was an element of 'we know nothing about this, tell us what to do Mr Government', but now, people know enough don't they, to make a judgement call?

 

[hewielewie]

Some people are feeling quite contrary today.

Ideally I would like the government to be prepared- monitoring, swabbing and sharing the information transparently to local populations and organisations so local action can be taken.

I think there is so much info and contradiction this thread is difficult to read. I am not sure how you define airborne- the virus itself isn't airborne in the way for example measels is, however it does appear it is aerosolised easier than perhaps was thought- e.g singing in a choir, shouting in a pub etc. This perhaps makes it difficult to categorise one way or the other. Hence indoor spaces remain a risk currently and people being encouraged to work from home. However, it is still believed to be predominantly droplet spread- which requires social distancing and hand washing and I believe masks in enclosed spaces where possible.

Keeping society locked down forever is not going to happen, money talks and livelihoods matter. I think close tracking and tracing is fundamental to opening things up, and I find it difficult to decide what we have/ dont have in place currently. So many mixed messages and I don't trust the government to do it well.

Rolling deaths/ daily deaths- choose which argument and time frame you want to support. Cases of infection I think is probably the best metric currently, if the data is correct to guide strategy. Rises in infection should be presumed to lead to a rise in death- unless evidence suggests otherwise (Borolad posted something earlier about Sweden and reduced mortality which is great to see).

Be safe, take precautions, don't be contrary on the death rate- deaths are still deaths. Don't forget Australia have had approx 100 deaths in this whole episode, we had similar yesterday regardless of rolling numbers. This is still a lot!

My issue is that the term 'Second Wave' seems to be a catch all term. It could be a second wave of mild cold like symptoms or none at all or it could be a second wave of deaths worse than we have had.

 

[Randy]

Think they need to check their facts in that case!!!

The government hired QC's stated it.

 

[Cambsred]

My issue is that the term 'Second Wave' seems to be a catch all term. It could be a second wave of mild cold like symptoms or none at all or it could be a second wave of deaths worse than we have had.

This is fair. Like with much in life these things are generally on a spectrum- I wonder if there is a solid pandemic definition somewhere?

How would you define it if you could?

 

[hewielewie]

This is fair. Like with much in life these things are generally on a spectrum- I wonder if there is a solid pandemic definition somewhere?

How would you define it if you could?

I agree that we need a decent (it doesn't have to be World beating) TT&I system until we know that the virus isn't as easily transmitted or as deadly. That could happen soon if we see the infection rate drop even though we are opening up. A pandemic is where there is almost simultaneous transmission taking place worldwide. I am not sure that is the case now. I think that COVID will become endemic in our society just like chicken pox and the common cold but we will, and I think are starting to, control it a lot more.

 

[Cambsred]

Making absolute statements of certainty about ‘ second waves’ is unwise, given the current substantial uncertainties and novelty of the evidence. As we cannot see the future and our understanding of this new agent is in its infancy we think preparedness planning should be inspired by robust surveillance, the flexibility of response and rigid separation of suspected or confirmed cases. These measures should stand for all serious outbreaks of respiratory illness. https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-epidemic-waves/

A nice straight forward read for a bit more uncertainty

 

[Chris_Boro]

They don't *have* to go out though, do they? The government are just not asking them to stay at home, but they still can if they choose to take a risk averse approach.

Back in March there was an element of 'we know nothing about this, tell us what to do Mr Government', but now, people know enough don't they, to make a judgement call?

Well all those employed pretty much do have to go to work as furlough is changing, then ending and SSP is being stopped. I have to go back to work 1st August, its not a choice.

Also much of the support systems put in place to help the elderly is also coming to an end.

Its not going to be a judgement call on going out or not, for the majority.

 

[atypical_boro]

Well all those employed pretty much do have to go to work as furlough is changing, then ending and SSP is being stopped. I have to go back to work 1st August, its not a choice.

Also much of the support systems put in place to help the elderly is also coming to an end.

Its not going to be a judgement call on going out or not, for the majority.

I was on about the older/retired generation, they don't have to go out. I appreciate they will want to and they should feel more than welcome to, but the government (as much as I loathe them) cannot completely shield them from this virus forever (there is a huge problem with making children and younger people stay under house arrest), any more than they can protect them from dying of anything else. Its all about what personal risks a person is willing to take. If you have to shop, shop, but you don't *have* to go to the pub or out for a meal, but that doesn't mean other lower risk people shouldn't be allowed to either.

 

[Michael_Vronsky]

Imagine not being able to 'go out' indefinitely?

 

[1finny]

Imagine not being able to 'go out' indefinitely?

Imagine being told it wasn't safe to go out and you could die.
and
nothing has changed but
but its now safe to go out ..….

 

[Michael_Vronsky]

Imagine being told it wasn't safe to go out and you could die.
and
nothing has changed but
but its now safe to go out ..….

I agree, but not having some kind of time frame really screws with one's mental health. Like anything in life we have to look for positives and being in a situation where you can't go out and have no interaction, really pushes to the limit.

 

[atypical_boro]

I agree, but not having some kind of time frame really screws with one's mental health. Like anything in life we have to look for positives and being in a situation where you can't go out and have no interaction, really pushes to the limit.

But sadly nobody can say when this virus will be completely eradicated. Its hard on the people in the higher risk bracket, absolutely, but even if we remained in lockdown it could take years to die out entirely. People would die of other things as a result of lockdown itself.

I think those people just have to be sensible and keep journeys out to a sensibly managed minimum (not complete abstention), without feeling like they *can't* go out.

 

[Michael_Vronsky]

But sadly nobody can say when this virus will be completely eradicated. Its hard on the people in the higher risk bracket, absolutely, but even if we remained in lockdown it could take years to die out entirely. People would die of other things as a result of lockdown itself.

I think those people just have to be sensible and keep journeys out to a sensibly managed minimum (not complete abstention), without feeling like they *can't* go out.

Yes, sadly, this is true.

 

[Cambsred]

Are there many people in the risk groups/ shielding groups on here. It would be useful to get their perspective.

I am not at risk, but I would find it difficult visiting my in-laws who are both at high risk due to the potential risk associated with it. They get out regularly fortunately in the countryside, but shopping and social interaction is at a minimum.

 

[NYboro]

How convenient. If it's airborne then why the social distancing and why the cloth masks one would ask as neither will help if virus is airborne.

Cloth masks are not to protect the wearer; they are to protect others from the wearer, who may have asymptomatic Covid. They are mandatory here and it seems to be working very well.

 

[Randy]

Cloth masks are not to protect the wearer; they are to protect others from the wearer, who may have asymptomatic Covid. They are mandatory here and it seems to be working very well.

You've missed my point. If it's airborne as some say that must mean the particles are small enough to penetrate a cloth mask regardless as to if you are wearing one to protect others or yourself.

 

[NYboro]

You've missed my point. If it's airborne as some say that must mean the particles are small enough to penetrate a cloth mask regardless as to if you are wearing one to protect others or yourself.

Depends on how many layers of cloth and it stops it spreading as widely.