Coronavirus
Jan 24th 2022, 11:38 am
#5941
Yo
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,474
Re: Coronavirus
Fortunately, I'm not one of the 3.7 million "clinically vulnerable" Brits (at least to my knowledge) but it does seem like the Government's hell-bent policy of "normality" will put a number of them unnecessarily at risk. It would be good to see more discussion of this in the media . How many lives we're willing to extinguish for the convenience of not wearing masks or distancing etc. Seems to be a taboo subject. If the number is low (100's) it's a simple trade off if it's high (10,000's) it bears further public debate.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...nd-axes-plan-b
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...nd-axes-plan-b
Jan 24th 2022, 1:14 pm
#5942
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: South of Calgary
Posts: 13,375
Re: Coronavirus
Fortunately, I'm not one of the 3.7 million "clinically vulnerable" Brits (at least to my knowledge) but it does seem like the Government's hell-bent policy of "normality" will put a number of them unnecessarily at risk. It would be good to see more discussion of this in the media . How many lives we're willing to extinguish for the convenience of not wearing masks or distancing etc. Seems to be a taboo subject. If the number is low (100's) it's a simple trade off if it's high (10,000's) it bears further public debate.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...nd-axes-plan-b
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...nd-axes-plan-b
Jan 24th 2022, 1:30 pm
#5943
Oscar nominated
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Moncton, NB, CANADA
Posts: 50,862
Re: Coronavirus
(I seem to recall that taking into account age and at risk for health reasons, this could be as high as half the households in the country)
How do they avoid the risk where someone in the same house is in situations - school, college, Uni, workplace, clubs where there may be little risk to themselves but there would be a risk to others in the same household?
Jan 24th 2022, 3:15 pm
#5944
Yo
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,474
Re: Coronavirus
The precautions you suggest (WFH, isolation, groceries, masks) have an impact at population level, and a (much) lesser impact at individuals level. A proper debate would clarify whether this is sufficient or not.
Jan 24th 2022, 3:34 pm
#5945
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: Ontario
Posts: 761
Re: Coronavirus
To clarify, it's irrelevant because the paper deals with measuring test accuracy and the test is for Covid-19 as opposed to vaccination status. It's first time I am being told that a 5-months old paper is too old, but guess there is the first time for everything. And while peer reviewed and published papers can be challenged by people who understand the subject, this isn't the right forum. Briefly, it's a better source of information on test accuracy than "someone I know told me an anecdote".
Jan 24th 2022, 4:03 pm
#5946
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2019
Location: France atm
Posts: 747
Re: Coronavirus
It is still true that the majority of deaths are in the elderly, I believe the average age of death from Covid is 82.3 years of age.
There is definately a big risk to elderly people living in multi generational households as soon as the relief from masks, passes and social distancing are put inplace.
I no longer understand the agenda or the goals from the government's point of view, they are not telling.
There will be more natural immunity coming and more deaths in elderly people with the upcoming changes, is my guess.
There is definately a big risk to elderly people living in multi generational households as soon as the relief from masks, passes and social distancing are put inplace.
I no longer understand the agenda or the goals from the government's point of view, they are not telling.
There will be more natural immunity coming and more deaths in elderly people with the upcoming changes, is my guess.
Jan 24th 2022, 4:08 pm
#5947
Yo
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,474
Re: Coronavirus
To clarify, it's irrelevant because the paper deals with measuring test accuracy and the test is for Covid-19 as opposed to vaccination status. It's first time I am being told that a 5-months old paper is too old, but guess there is the first time for everything. And while peer reviewed and published papers can be challenged by people who understand the subject, this isn't the right forum. Briefly, it's a better source of information on test accuracy than "someone I know told me an anecdote".
Jan 24th 2022, 4:50 pm
#5948
Oscar nominated
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Moncton, NB, CANADA
Posts: 50,862
Re: Coronavirus
It is still true that the majority of deaths are in the elderly, I believe the average age of death from Covid is 82.3 years of age.
There is definately a big risk to elderly people living in multi generational households as soon as the relief from masks, passes and social distancing are put inplace.
There is definately a big risk to elderly people living in multi generational households as soon as the relief from masks, passes and social distancing are put inplace.
In the U.S., about 81% of deaths from the disease have been in people age 65 and older.
For 'mixed-risk' households, here's something from a couple of previous posts of mine.
For a previous post I did some googling and found that in North America 25% of Seniors share a household with non seniors and something like one in five households include someone with a disability. Of course not all disabilities mean 'at risk' but then there's a bunch of medical conditions that do mean 'at risk' but don't count as a disability.
I wasn't able to find figures for households with Seniors in the UK but there are lots of references to many seniors living alone. So perhaps there are fewer elderly people sharing than the USA's 25%.
There's no reason for wide variations in the other at risk groups. Over 5m people currently being treated for Asthma in the UK. 4m with Diabetes. Over 1m with COPD. High blood pressure affects 1 in 4 adults. 1 in 5 have disabilities.
If they are all the same people and/or they all live alone then there aren't that many mixed risk households. A more reasonable view would be that some have this condition while others have that one and that they do not all live alone. Add them all up and you get a not insignificant number living with "no risk" types..
Anecdotally everyone of my friends and family I remain in touch with in the UK is also in a mixed risk household. Of course most friends and family are at the upper age range so you'd expect me to know older people, but they still have young healthier people with them.
When you add in the non seniors who have as yet undiagnosed conditions (they call them silent killers for a reason) that would put them at risk you might have at least half households containing someone at risk.
Which ever way you look at it there are a lot of households with at risk folk sharing with much less risk.
I wasn't able to find figures for households with Seniors in the UK but there are lots of references to many seniors living alone. So perhaps there are fewer elderly people sharing than the USA's 25%.
There's no reason for wide variations in the other at risk groups. Over 5m people currently being treated for Asthma in the UK. 4m with Diabetes. Over 1m with COPD. High blood pressure affects 1 in 4 adults. 1 in 5 have disabilities.
If they are all the same people and/or they all live alone then there aren't that many mixed risk households. A more reasonable view would be that some have this condition while others have that one and that they do not all live alone. Add them all up and you get a not insignificant number living with "no risk" types..
Anecdotally everyone of my friends and family I remain in touch with in the UK is also in a mixed risk household. Of course most friends and family are at the upper age range so you'd expect me to know older people, but they still have young healthier people with them.
When you add in the non seniors who have as yet undiagnosed conditions (they call them silent killers for a reason) that would put them at risk you might have at least half households containing someone at risk.
Which ever way you look at it there are a lot of households with at risk folk sharing with much less risk.
Jan 24th 2022, 5:04 pm
#5949
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: South of Calgary
Posts: 13,375
Re: Coronavirus
In a multi-person household - probably the majority of households in the country - there may be someone at risk.
(I seem to recall that taking into account age and at risk for health reasons, this could be as high as half the households in the country)
How do they avoid the risk where someone in the same house is in situations - school, college, Uni, workplace, clubs where there may be little risk to themselves but there would be a risk to others in the same household?
(I seem to recall that taking into account age and at risk for health reasons, this could be as high as half the households in the country)
How do they avoid the risk where someone in the same house is in situations - school, college, Uni, workplace, clubs where there may be little risk to themselves but there would be a risk to others in the same household?
You may recall the ridicule I faced on here when I asked the question as to whether everyone intended to wear masks when at home when masks were first being discussed. I couldn't understand why, if transmission was to be avoided at all costs, members of the same household should not continue to wear them when at home. I know that, if I was so vulnerable that catching it could kill me, I would take all necessary steps to avoid catching it, even if that made my life uncomfortable/inconvenient.
If the evidence is to be believed, this isn't going away and the vulnerable are going to remain vulnerable for the remainder of their lives, unless a more effective vaccine can be discovered.
My daughters have not been at uni since September 2020. I believe that most of society would much prefer that the vulnerable isolate, rather than the whole of society having to, as many eminent epidemiologists have been suggesting all along.
Jan 24th 2022, 5:48 pm
#5950
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: South of Calgary
Posts: 13,375
Re: Coronavirus
It is still true that the majority of deaths are in the elderly, I believe the average age of death from Covid is 82.3 years of age.
There is definately a big risk to elderly people living in multi generational households as soon as the relief from masks, passes and social distancing are put inplace.
I no longer understand the agenda or the goals from the government's point of view, they are not telling.
There will be more natural immunity coming and more deaths in elderly people with the upcoming changes, is my guess.
There is definately a big risk to elderly people living in multi generational households as soon as the relief from masks, passes and social distancing are put inplace.
I no longer understand the agenda or the goals from the government's point of view, they are not telling.
There will be more natural immunity coming and more deaths in elderly people with the upcoming changes, is my guess.
Jan 24th 2022, 10:32 pm
#5952
Oscar nominated
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Moncton, NB, CANADA
Posts: 50,862
Re: Coronavirus
That shouldn't be beyond the capabilities of most households. The at risk person remains isolated from the others in the household or, where that is unavoidable, takes the appropriate measures (not spending too long in the vicinity of others, sanitizing the crap out of everything they come into contact with). You know, the things the authorities have been suggesting everyone does for the past couple of years. If the evidence is to be believed, this isn't going away and the vulnerable are going to remain vulnerable for the remainder of their lives, unless a more effective vaccine can be discovered.
I believe that most of society would much prefer that the vulnerable isolate, rather than the whole of society having to...
Just as an example England is scaling everything back including doing away with requirements to wear masks. Would it be such a hardship to continue with mask wearing on public transport and certain work situations for example. Mask wearing at the cinema no longer needed and it appears no capacity limit. Perhaps either require masks or limit capacity in some way.
Pubs. Do they have to open all day, every day? There must be hundreds of ways that they and other businesses could operate - reduced opening hours, every other day, reduced capacity and so on.
Much like how cities restrict traffic on bad air quality days by limiting who can drive there on those days.
Jan 24th 2022, 11:38 pm
#5953
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: Kelowna
Posts: 2,514
Re: Coronavirus
Yes, all fair enough. But it only goes so far as well as placing all the responsibility on the vulnerable.
Or instead of it being one or the other, we start talking about compromises.
Just as an example England is scaling everything back including doing away with requirements to wear masks. Would it be such a hardship to continue with mask wearing on public transport and certain work situations for example. Mask wearing at the cinema no longer needed and it appears no capacity limit. Perhaps either require masks or limit capacity in some way.
Pubs. Do they have to open all day, every day? There must be hundreds of ways that they and other businesses could operate - reduced opening hours, every other day, reduced capacity and so on.
Much like how cities restrict traffic on bad air quality days by limiting who can drive there on those days.
Or instead of it being one or the other, we start talking about compromises.
Just as an example England is scaling everything back including doing away with requirements to wear masks. Would it be such a hardship to continue with mask wearing on public transport and certain work situations for example. Mask wearing at the cinema no longer needed and it appears no capacity limit. Perhaps either require masks or limit capacity in some way.
Pubs. Do they have to open all day, every day? There must be hundreds of ways that they and other businesses could operate - reduced opening hours, every other day, reduced capacity and so on.
Much like how cities restrict traffic on bad air quality days by limiting who can drive there on those days.
Jan 25th 2022, 12:18 am
#5954
Oscar nominated
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Moncton, NB, CANADA
Posts: 50,862
Re: Coronavirus
I think that there should be some sensible approach on masks for example i see no issue with requiring masks in medical settings or whilst attending close up personal services and in care home settings to some degree but it seems plain nonsense to be required to wear one to walk from restaurant door to table or when ordering a take out coffee and sandwich whilst stood behind a large plexi screen. ...
As for the take-out coffee, your fellow customers are the same side of the screen as you are.
Jan 25th 2022, 12:58 am
#5955
MODERATOR
Joined: Sep 2009
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 29,877
Re: Coronavirus
I get that you get some natural immunity - but only for a specific strain, and as that mutates then you have no immunity for the new strain.
There are numerous reports of people having COVID twice - and at least one report of a patient who passed having two strains simultaneously.