Jump to content

Canal re-opening


colmac
 Share

Featured Posts

I doubt there will ever be a vaccine. there isn't for its close relatives SARS and the common cold. There could be hope for a decent treatment and also if it behaves like SARS after having it, you do get immunity for a few months which then fades over about two years.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

SAGE member advising the Government suggest we are too early to lift restrictions.

He said this was because the sheer number of COVID-19 cases - known as the incidence - continued to stay at a relatively high level, despite the fall in the reproduction number.

Professor Edmunds said many scientists "would prefer to see the incidence driven down to lower levels, because that then means that we have fewer cases occurring before we relaxed the measures".

Yet he said the decision about where to set the number of cases was "clearly a political decision, not a scientific decision", because there was a trade-off between "the impact of the disease" and "the impact of the lockdown on wider society".

Professor Edmunds added that a further risk was posed by easing the lockdown measures "with an untested test and trace system".

Yet, he said, even an effective contact tracing scheme would not reduce the spread of the virus enough to make social distancing unnecessary.

"We cannot relax our guard by very much at all," he said.

 

With a true 8000 cases per day (not the Governments stated 2000 / 2500) it will overload the Track & Trace and we will have 1000's going back into full lockdown

If we have, say 8000 new cases per day and R = 1.0 then in a month's time we will still have 8000 new cases a day, same in 6 months or a years' time. It only starts to come down if the virus runs out of vulnerable people to find its lodging or R is significantly less than 1 or there is some form of immunity eg vaccine.

 

Flattening the curve may well have avoided the NHS running out of critical care beds (but the graphs show never getting much above 60% of capacity) but it does not reduce the overall number of infections, just that they will take longer to occur.

 

It will have been a plus tactic if a treatment arrives in short order and so avoids the death of people who might otherwise of become infected before a treatment is available. OTOH, if no treatment arrives then it will only have prolonged the crisis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sir Nibble said:

And then I get hit by a meteor and stop caring. You seem to suggest it's futile to attempt to control this or any other virus.

The only virus we have successfully controlled is smallpox.  It's futile to think you can control nature, all we can do is try to mitigate the effect it has on us.  Someone once said the difference between humans and other animals is that they adapt to nature, we try to adapt it to us. In this case, we are having to try out the first system, which is largely Darwinian. As with other animals, those mosr susceptible will die. 

No point worrying about it, you just have to, if you can, avoid the possibility of infection to the extent it's possible.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Flyboy said:

I thought hoarding  food was anti social and selfish just like it was at the start of the pandemic. If we all do it there will be shortages like before so please don't.

Hoarding food is not antisocial and selfish in itself.  Storing food ahead is normal prudence and not doing so is irresponsible. What is antisocial and selfish is suddenly trying to build a stockpile in times of shortage, it should be done well in advance and reasonably gradually.  There does not seem to be any shortage at present.

All of us should hold stocks of very basic foodstuffs. It is extraordinary that we are still dependant on a good harvest each year when we know that it is possible to have years with no harvest at all.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

The only virus we have successfully controlled is smallpox.  It's futile to think you can control nature, all we can do is try to mitigate the effect it has on us.  Someone once said the difference between humans and other animals is that they adapt to nature, we try to adapt it to us. In this case, we are having to try out the first system, which is largely Darwinian. As with other animals, those mosr susceptible will die. 

No point worrying about it, you just have to, if you can, avoid the possibility of infection to the extent it's possible.

Measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, hepatitis, polio, rabies. Not eradicated but not pandemic either. I think you are being unreasonably pessimistic.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Phil. said:

It sounds as though you were expecting things to be different. 

Not at all Phil.... you haven't been following me, (and why should you), this has been a predictable abortion from day 1, and we have been lied to every day during the propaganda sessions and other media opportunities. It is actually the lying and deceit that I dislike the most

 

I suppose I wasn't talking to you, given that you seem to know so much about it and, seemingly, agree with what I say and have been saying.

 

I was speaking to people like Smelly, Andy Pandy, 99, furness, and similar.... those who believe the government can do no wrong, and leap to their defence at every hint of criticism.

 

Is it significant that you have been mostly quiet when these blokes have been kissing arse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

If we have, say 8000 new cases per day and R = 1.0 then in a month's time we will still have 8000 new cases a day, same in 6 months or a years' time. It only starts to come down if the virus runs out of vulnerable people to find its lodging or R is significantly less than 1 or there is some form of immunity eg vaccine.

 

Flattening the curve may well have avoided the NHS running out of critical care beds (but the graphs show never getting much above 60% of capacity) but it does not reduce the overall number of infections, just that they will take longer to occur.

 

It will have been a plus tactic if a treatment arrives in short order and so avoids the death of people who might otherwise of become infected before a treatment is available. OTOH, if no treatment arrives then it will only have prolonged the crisis.

I wasnt aware of the maths at the R rate of 1 being the same rate of infections after 1 month.

My maths tells me 8,000 infect another 8,000 ( infecting a total of 16,000), which next month becomes 32,000.

Perhaps your maths was right, I may be wrong!!!!  Pray correct me please !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

Not at all Phil.... you haven't been following me, (and why should you), this has been a predictable abortion from day 1, and we have been lied to every day during the propaganda sessions and other media opportunities. It is actually the lying and deceit that I dislike the most

 

I suppose I wasn't talking to you, given that you seem to know so much about it and, seemingly, agree with what I say and have been saying.

 

I was speaking to people like Smelly, Andy Pandy, 99, furness, and similar.... those who believe the government can do no wrong, and leap to their defence at every hint of criticism.

 

Is it significant that you have been mostly quiet when these blokes have been kissing arse?

Richard I think that the dodah we are in is deep! But honestly nothing anyone can do will sort it short of a vaccine. As time goes on and the world wide numbers getting the virus keeps on going up we will all realise that. Yes I am worried, but nothing will stop it spreading, as long as its controlled its the best we can hope for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MoominPapa said:

Depends if you're moored at Devil's Garden or not.

 

MP.

I’d settle for nipping down from the T&M to do the shopping and visit Yarwoods to get Mike Carter to do my BSC! 

 

Edited by frangar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

Measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, hepatitis, polio, rabies. Not eradicated but not pandemic either. I think you are being unreasonably pessimistic.

All these have vaccines, and most might make you ill but rarely kill you. I don't think I'm being pessimistic, it's likely a vaccine will be available soon and once found, should be adaptable to any mutation.  But not yet, that's all, so we need to take care when out and about.  And anyway, for most people, even this one isn't particularly dangerous.  I just don't want the idiots in charge to panic in two weeks and shut the canals down again!

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Karen Lea Rainey said:

My maths tells me 8,000 infect another 8,000 ( infecting a total of 16,000), which next month becomes 32,000.

Perhaps your maths was right, I may be wrong!!!!  Pray correct me please !

 

Some get better, some die.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

All these have vaccines, and most might make you ill but rarely kill you. I don't think I'm being pessimistic, it's likely a vaccine will be available soon and once found, should be adaptable to any mutation.  But not yet, that's all, so we need to take care when out and about.  And anyway, for most people, even this one isn't particularly dangerous.  I just don't want the idiots in charge to panic in two weeks and shut the canals down again!

Well at least we've moved on from achieving herd immunity and then it mutates, which hasn't happened with the viruses I listed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Lots get better and in reality few die, 2 olies from the moorings have got better so their is hope 

 

I agree, I was just pointing out that the people infected don't stay on the current cases list for ever like in @Karen Lea Rainey's question.

 

They do go on the total cases list though, but it doesn't go 8000 -> 16000 -> 32000 current active cases unless R = 2 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

I agree, I was just pointing out that the people infected don't stay on the current cases list for ever like in @Karen Lea Rainey's question.

 

They do go on the total cases list though, but it doesn't go 8000 -> 16000 -> 32000 current active cases unless R = 2 

I get you mate 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Lots get better and in reality few die, 2 olies from the moorings have got better so their is hope 

Glad to hear it.

the reality is like all respiratory illness it preys on the weak and vulnerable. On the way some people who are unaware of their vulnerability tragically die too .

The government has made some attempt to enable people to protect themselves, and tried to stop the nhs being overwhelmed.

Now they have given up. The new message is almost it’s down to you not to catch it.

Next it will be if you catch it it’s your fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

I agree, I was just pointing out that the people infected don't stay on the current cases list for ever like in @Karen Lea Rainey's question.

 

They do go on the total cases list though, but it doesn't go 8000 -> 16000 -> 32000 current active cases unless R = 2 

Ah, I understand now, I've got it the maths that is, not the ###### thank you for educating me .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Karen Lea Rainey said:

Ah, I understand now, I've got it the maths that is, not the ###### thank you for educating me .

 

You are very welcome.  I'm convinced that most of the news media can't tell the difference between "everyone who has ever had it" and "those who currently have it". 

 

The usual pattern seems to be infection -> 3-5 days -> symptoms -> 7-14 days -> case closed (recovery or death) in more than 90% of all cases.  Some cases are being reported as dragging out for much longer, but they are outliers, and some of those recover too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, roland elsdon said:

 

Now they have given up. The new message is almost it’s down to you not to catch it.

Next it will be if you catch it it’s your fault.

Abdication was never a good leadership model.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Karen Lea Rainey said:

I wasnt aware of the maths at the R rate of 1 being the same rate of infections after 1 month.

My maths tells me 8,000 infect another 8,000 ( infecting a total of 16,000), which next month becomes 32,000.

Perhaps your maths was right, I may be wrong!!!!  Pray correct me please !

I think you are confusing the rate of new infections (which relates closely to R) and total infections or total active infections (ie people who are at risk of passing on the virus) That 8000 in a day come from all the previously infected people, not just the day before's 8000. Their infections of others will be spread over the time of their infectiousness. (As I understand it!)

 

The point is that until R is very much less than 1, the virus will continue to spread through the community at a consistent rate until the level of immunity impacts the ability of the virus to infect (and will then be seen in further reductions in R). As Whitty and Vallance have been trying to get across to non-scientific politicians and Joe Public for ages, unless and until something changes (eg social contact rules, treatment, vaccine) then the rate of infection will continue for a very long time. At present it has only touched around 7% of the population, we hear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, roland elsdon said:

Glad to hear it.

the reality is like all respiratory illness it preys on the weak and vulnerable. On the way some people who are unaware of their vulnerability tragically die too .

The government has made some attempt to enable people to protect themselves, and tried to stop the nhs being overwhelmed.

Now they have given up. The new message is almost it’s down to you not to catch it.

Next it will be if you catch it it’s your fault.

I think that what we are hearing over the past couple of days is that the most recent in-hospital studies show that the Covid virus affects much more of the body than just the respiratory system - at least in some people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

>> I have every intention of setting up a large reserve of everything before Brexit day at the year end. Be a fool not to.<<

 

If you have ever been in a large supermarket in the run up to Christmas, any year, you'll know that it is apparently quite normal to stock the house ready for a siege. I'd like to know how much unnecessary food gets thrown away - I'd bet it's more than the 30%* that gets wasted anyway.

 

 

 

*I think that's more or less the right figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

If you have ever been in a large supermarket in the run up to Christmas, any year, you'll know that it is apparently quite normal to stock the house ready for a siege.

Yes, these folks have to stock up... the shops will all be closed for one day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Sir Nibble said:

Well at least we've moved on from achieving herd immunity and then it mutates, which hasn't happened with the viruses I listed.

Very true, some do, some don't.  You can't rely on the damn things, really.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.