Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Deadly Virus is Spreading/ Covid19 Pandemic 2020

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post
    I was also thinking the other day that, while it's sad that many families have been physically separated for several months now, this went on for up to six years during WWII, without anyone knowing if or when they would be reunited with their loved ones, and everyone just had to put up with the separation, without the 21st century luxury of virtual communication.

    It wouldn't hurt us now and then to appreciate that, in general, life is still easier in 2020, masked up and isolated, than it was for previous generations.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Indeed. In the past I have idly wondered from time to time whether people today would be capable of the same sacrifices that were made by our parents' and grandparents' generation during the Second World War.

    Perhaps I am just turning into an old git now, but fear that this pandemic has given us the answer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Caroline Brown
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
    We often hear the view expressed that students had to go back to university because otherwise they would have been robbed of a year of their lives.

    I think that ignores the plight of the elderly and vulnerable, who are being robbed of at least part of their lives every day they are too frightened to leave their homes for fear of being infected.

    Add to that the fact that young people have so many more years ahead of them than the elderly - and the fact that, judging from infection rates, many young people can't be bothered to take any precautions against spreading the virus - and I think that view is a pretty peculiar one.
    I was also thinking the other day that, while it's sad that many families have been physically separated for several months now, this went on for up to six years during WWII, without anyone knowing if or when they would be reunited with their loved ones, and everyone just had to put up with the separation, without the 21st century luxury of virtual communication.

    It wouldn't hurt us now and then to appreciate that, in general, life is still easier in 2020, masked up and isolated, than it was for previous generations.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • R. J. Palmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
    Most everything is functioning poorly in my area, especially on the Oregon side of the border. It is a combination of things but the basic root is "The Virus". Nobody has to do anything or be responsible for anything because....The Virus.
    Where the virus is really spiking is the rural states who scorned social distancing and mask wearing. My relatives in Montana tell me people who wear masks in the streets are often ridiculed and confronted as "un-American" or "crazy libs," while the bars are still open to roaring trade.

    At the top is the current stats, showing the spikes: North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska, etc. In other words, states that didn't take Fauci's recommendations seriously. They kept the saloons open, threw massive motorcycle rallies, political events, etc.


    The second stats shows states that have flattened the curve and have things under control. Notice the "Oregon" side of the border: it's flat and has remained flat. Also New York State: major population density, yet they've reversed the trend.

    It's not hard to figure out why these trends exist. Some governors enforced mandates, others didn't. That and the 'I can do whatever I want in America' attitude.

    The only real hot-spot spike in Oregon was traced to a church group in a rural county who kept holding services despite the risks.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • Caroline Brown
    replied
    I am so sorry for your situation, Anna. Things may be tough for caring professionals and their patients here in the UK, but I can't imagine how much tougher it would have been for the vast majority who are not millionaires if we didn't have the NHS.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
    Interestingly I am trying to help a sick and severely crippled friend who was left to starve, dehydrate, etc. I told the bureaucrats, if they could not provide people for care, I would hire private nurses. What I didn't know is that is almost impossible since lots of people are not working because.....The Virus.

    Nor do bureaucrats have to do anything......because.....The Virus.

    To use an Americanism, the buck just keeps getting passed and nothing gets done.....because....The Virus.

    I am thinking it will require extraordinary means to help my friend and I hope I make the right choices.

    If people are using the virus as an excuse for neglecting people who need care, that is appalling.


    But I have to say that it's neither here nor there in the debate about what measures should be taken to limit the spread of the virus.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anna Morris
    replied
    Meanwhile, it looks like Taiwan got it right in combating the virus.

    It looks like much of the western world is using hospital overload as indication of when to apply restrictions. IMO, this is missing a few points since the goal should be to stop the virus if possible.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post
    Death from this virus is the ultimate infringement on the victim's civil liberties.

    We often hear the view expressed that students had to go back to university because otherwise they would have been robbed of a year of their lives.


    I think that ignores the plight of the elderly and vulnerable, who are being robbed of at least part of their lives every day they are too frightened to leave their homes for fear of being infected.


    Add to that the fact that young people have so many more years ahead of them than the elderly - and the fact that, judging from infection rates, many young people can't be bothered to take any precautions against spreading the virus - and I think that view is a pretty peculiar one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anna Morris
    replied
    Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post
    Perhaps it should be called the Fred Shipman virus. His victims were mostly old, but some were only in their 40s, 50s and 60s, and relatively few were so poorly at the time that they were expected to die. A common factor - rare in deaths from natural causes - which eventually raised the alarm, was that the victims tended to die in their own home in the daytime, fully clothed, sitting in an arm chair with their front door unlocked. A nicer way to go than catching COVID from someone you are treating, maybe, but not if you are fit and well and have many more good years in you. It's an absolute tragedy that those in the caring professions are risking their lives every day, while there are selfish people of all ages still refusing to wear a face covering or socially distance, because public health comes a poor second to their personal freedom to go around behaving like a loaded weapon. Death from this virus is the ultimate infringement on the victim's civil liberties.

    It's ironic that so many are blind to the financial hardship to come with Brexit, but would sacrifice granny - and her doctors and nurses - to the virus, to lessen the immediate damage to the economy.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Interestingly I am trying to help a sick and severely crippled friend who was left to starve, dehydrate, etc. I told the bureaucrats, if they could not provide people for care, I would hire private nurses. What I didn't know is that is almost impossible since lots of people are not working because.....The Virus.

    Nor do bureaucrats have to do anything......because.....The Virus.

    To use an Americanism, the buck just keeps getting passed and nothing gets done.....because....The Virus.

    I am thinking it will require extraordinary means to help my friend and I hope I make the right choices.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cogidubnus
    replied
    Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post
    Perhaps it should be called the Fred Shipman virus. His victims were mostly old, but some were only in their 40s, 50s and 60s, and relatively few were so poorly at the time that they were expected to die. A common factor - rare in deaths from natural causes - which eventually raised the alarm, was that the victims tended to die in their own home in the daytime, fully clothed, sitting in an arm chair with their front door unlocked. A nicer way to go than catching COVID from someone you are treating, maybe, but not if you are fit and well and have many more good years in you. It's an absolute tragedy that those in the caring professions are risking their lives every day, while there are selfish people of all ages still refusing to wear a face covering or socially distance, because public health comes a poor second to their personal freedom to go around behaving like a loaded weapon. Death from this virus is the ultimate infringement on the victim's civil liberties.

    It's ironic that so many are blind to the financial hardship to come with Brexit, but would sacrifice granny - and her doctors and nurses - to the virus, to lessen the immediate damage to the economy.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Where's the "like" button when you need it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Caroline Brown
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
    But generally this is not just a disease that kills octogenarians. In the UK, about a quarter of the fatalities are in people under 75. Not that I share the inclination of some people anyway, to write off the deaths of elderly people as preferable to disrupting our convenient way of life.
    Perhaps it should be called the Fred Shipman virus. His victims were mostly old, but some were only in their 40s, 50s and 60s, and relatively few were so poorly at the time that they were expected to die. A common factor - rare in deaths from natural causes - which eventually raised the alarm, was that the victims tended to die in their own home in the daytime, fully clothed, sitting in an arm chair with their front door unlocked. A nicer way to go than catching COVID from someone you are treating, maybe, but not if you are fit and well and have many more good years in you. It's an absolute tragedy that those in the caring professions are risking their lives every day, while there are selfish people of all ages still refusing to wear a face covering or socially distance, because public health comes a poor second to their personal freedom to go around behaving like a loaded weapon. Death from this virus is the ultimate infringement on the victim's civil liberties.

    It's ironic that so many are blind to the financial hardship to come with Brexit, but would sacrifice granny - and her doctors and nurses - to the virus, to lessen the immediate damage to the economy.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
    I was amazed by the recent reported comments of Kate Bingham, head of the UK "Vaccine Taskforce". She seemed to be suggesting that in the UK, only those over 50 will be vaccinated (and possibly some other key workers, though she expressed herself very badly if so). The impression she gave is that this was a matter of policy, not just a question of prioritising limited resources. She even went so far as to suggest younger people shouldn't be vaccinated because they might suffer "freak harm". (Does her job description actually include providing ammunition for anti-vaxers??)

    The idea that you can protect vulnerable people by giving them a vaccine which may be only 60-70% effective, but not attempting to control the spread of the virus through universal vaccination, seemed so bizarre to me that I wondered who this Kate Bingham was and what her academic qualifications were. I thought perhaps she had gone straight into the world of business and/or politics immediately after getting her Ph.D. and was therefore rusty on matters of basic science and arithmetic.

    It turned out to be worse than that. It seems her only academic scientific qualification is a bachelor's degree in biochemistry, after which she headed to Harvard Business School. Her job is "co-leading biotech investments" for an investment fund:
    https://svhealthinvestors.com/people/kate-bingham
    It seems the world of finance is still close to Ms Bingham's heart. The Sunday Times reports:

    The head of Britain's vaccine taskforce is facing calls to resign after disclosing 'official sensitive' government documents to a $200-a-head conference in America last week.

    Kate Bingham, a venture capitalist who is married to a Conservative minister, was appointed to the role by Boris Johnson in May despite having no vaccines expertise. She reports directly to him.

    Last week Bingham, 55, spent an hour explaining the government's strategy to a 'premier webinar and networking event' for women in private equity hosted by a Massachusetts company.

    According to a video of the event she showed financiers a detailed list of vaccines which the UK government is closely monitoring and could later invest in.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/v...irms-rtlzrz8v5

    In response the government issued a statement essentially saying how wonderful she is ("While not specifically a vaccines expert") and claiming she told the audience "little" that they could't deduce for themselves. Let's hope they don't start complaining they've been overcharged!
    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/a...cine-taskforce

    Leave a comment:


  • Anna Morris
    replied
    Chris: I don't disagree with what you are saying. There are so many worm holes in the U.S. approach, I don't know if the virus can be stopped. It is not just government but also the population which persistently celebrates any loosened restrictions with congregating in a crowded venue.

    (In Oregon the first steps were for the governor to apply for federal disaster money when there were a few cases in the state, then she had a stay at home order for a couple weeks or something. Everyone thought they had a vacation so they went to the Oregon coast is large numbers, really packing in to stores and restaurants. Then businesses on the coast got worried and so it goes...)

    I do not believe researchers have any idea how many people may have immunity since many of us think we were sick in December. We can't be tested at this point. Maybe there is more immunity present than is known.

    At least in this country it is often said the public schools--U.S. definition here--are the reason we have "flu season". All the kids swap germs and viruses and share with the general population. I figure the battle was totally lost when there was insistence to open the schools. If anyone was serious about stopping the virus I'd think especially university students could have been tested, etc. BEFORE going to their dorms and schools. Some states (i.e. Hawaii) and other countries are requiring quarantines or proofs that visitors or returnees are free of the virus.

    This virus can and will do terrible things to anyone. I am certain a number of young people, even children, will have lifelong damage from infection by this virus.

    I don't know what to think of statistics from other countries that showed a lull in cases. At this time it is said many of those are experiencing a second wave or whatever. I would guess that when people are indoors more in the cooler northern months, there will be more cases. Plus here in the states there is the first diagnosed case of dual infection with flu and COVID in one patient.

    Most everything is functioning poorly in my area, especially on the Oregon side of the border. It is a combination of things but the basic root is "The Virus". Nobody has to do anything or be responsible for anything because....The Virus. On the other hand there is not a cohesive attitude among people about defeating the virus. It looks like many people just bounce from restrictions to easing to recurring restrictions, and get away with as much as they can. I guess nobody wants to 'stay at home'.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
    Chris: I think it is hard to interpret the 1918-1919 data because of the aftermath of WWI, censorship and other factors. It is believed, perhaps proven, that troop movements during the war spread the disease. Then troops returned home. Europe was in a mess. Meanwhile global travel was less efficient so how long did it take for the virus to reach more distant areas, etc.?

    What would have been the trajectory of the disease if not for the war? It might have died out on the farm in Kansas, if that is the source. Maybe some farms and villages would have been affected, quarantined and the thing would have died out. The spread would certainly have been slower.

    The latest information I find on COVID is the mortality is about .4%, mostly people over 80. The bigger problem which doctors and researchers are just beginning to acknowledge is long term sequelae for some. Little by little it has been found that some viruses cause terrible "chronic" diseases. For instance, Coxsackie virus is now pinpointed as a cause of Type-1, juvenile diabetes.

    Unfortunately, between people and politics, I feel like the present mess has been badly mishandled. Until now doctors accepted awful, unknown viral diseases as something to live with. Until recently, the workforce was told to keep on working and not to take sick days. Mentally no one was prepared and then we see, especially in the U.S., so much contradictory activity and policy.

    For all we know, this virus has been around for awhile and this pass through is suddenly more deadly. Hopefully it will weaken. Death rates seem to be down for whatever reason.

    I think what I'm really looking for is some solid evidence to back up your opinion that "the collateral damage is probably not worth trying to stop a virus that cannot be stopped." Most particularly because I think it can be stopped. And in Europe it was largely stopped during the Summer, with only moderate restrictions to people's activities.

    I'm sorry to be blunt, but only yesterday I had an email from someone who was terribly worried about a family member who is a health service worker and quite ill in intensive care. That kind of thing makes me feel very bad.

    That family member was only about 50, I should think, and not in a particular risk category as far as I know. I would guess he contracted the virus through his work, trying to save the life of a patient. But generally this is not just a disease that kills octogenarians. In the UK, about a quarter of the fatalities are in people under 75. Not that I share the inclination of some people anyway, to write off the deaths of elderly people as preferable to disrupting our convenient way of life.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anna Morris
    replied
    Chris: I think it is hard to interpret the 1918-1919 data because of the aftermath of WWI, censorship and other factors. It is believed, perhaps proven, that troop movements during the war spread the disease. Then troops returned home. Europe was in a mess. Meanwhile global travel was less efficient so how long did it take for the virus to reach more distant areas, etc.?

    What would have been the trajectory of the disease if not for the war? It might have died out on the farm in Kansas, if that is the source. Maybe some farms and villages would have been affected, quarantined and the thing would have died out. The spread would certainly have been slower.

    The latest information I find on COVID is the mortality is about .4%, mostly people over 80. The bigger problem which doctors and researchers are just beginning to acknowledge is long term sequelae for some. Little by little it has been found that some viruses cause terrible "chronic" diseases. For instance, Coxsackie virus is now pinpointed as a cause of Type-1, juvenile diabetes.

    Unfortunately, between people and politics, I feel like the present mess has been badly mishandled. Until now doctors accepted awful, unknown viral diseases as something to live with. Until recently, the workforce was told to keep on working and not to take sick days. Mentally no one was prepared and then we see, especially in the U.S., so much contradictory activity and policy.

    For all we know, this virus has been around for awhile and this pass through is suddenly more deadly. Hopefully it will weaken. Death rates seem to be down for whatever reason.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
    Yes. Viruses mutate. There is some thought the 1918 virus passed through in a milder form circa 1917, then mutated into a deadly form in 1918.

    I have long been interested in plagues and had a discussion on some website about viral mutations. My opinion was, OMG....some certain virus...don't remember which....would come back and ill a bunch of people. The reply to me was that extremely deadly viruses frequently become milder so they can spread more efficiently, thus survive more or less. Not that viruses are alive but they do like to replicate and pass themselves around.

    But surely what we're seeng in the graphs over the course of a year is the virus going away, not because it was mutating into a milder form, but because of the effects of increasing immunity, modified by people's changing behaviour and/or seasonal factors. Immunity does stop a virus spreading, and evidently the immunity to Spanish flu was quite durable, as it could still be seen in survivors 90 years later:
    https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080...2008.1045.html


    I think the conclusion has to be that in the longer term it could survive only by mutating. This coronavirus is a different proposition, because it mutates much more slowly than flu viruses. In that respect I am more hopeful than some people, in that I think both that acquired immunity will start to reduce the spread quite a lot, as it did in 1918, and that vaccination has the capacity to turn it into a rare disease that won't permanently disrupt our way of life.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X