Official COVID-19 megathread

[al_bro]

17 hours ago, Hands on said:

There are different views on the way forward.  There is the avoid catching and passing it on at any cost approach that looks like being adopted more rigorously this week notwithstanding the deaths, deprivation and mental health issues it causes BUT there is also the time has come for us to accept that the virus isn't going to go away and we have to learn how to live with it approach.

 

I say adopting the current approach more rigorously but my feeling is that our Government has now lost the consent of the people for this as 'the people' of Oldham have clearly demonstrated by not doing what they have been asked to do with 280 'positive' tests in the week to 17th September.

 

I will accept that much was learnt by our 'saved' NHS during the first peak but as we are beginning to see any lives 'saved' by the lock down will be outstripped by lives lost when the NHS was paralysed by the approach they were persuaded to adopt and as a consequence largely gave up on the day job of saving lives by neglecting cancer, CHD etc etc.  [I hasten to add that I am not criticising the people who work in the NHS but rather the political decisions which put so much focus on and fear of the coronavirus].

 

I believe we have to learn to live with Covid.  It is here to stay.  A vaccine that works for all those people with underlying health conditions would be wonderful but I don't believe it.  We have not defeated Influenza and Covid will be no different.

 

The whole basis of the current approach is a test which produces both false negatives and false positives.  The swab approach works well under laboratory conditions but it doesn't work in the real world particularly when you ask people to swab themselves - at best it is only 80% accurate.  Swab tests are notorious for producing false positives - I've seen rates of 0.4% suggested for Covid.  Even if the false positive rate is only 0.1% and you tested everyone in Oldham next week you would get 230 false positive results.  [False positives could be simply identified by testing all positive cases a second time if the test didn't produce so many false negatives - it isn't fit for purpose and makes test and trace a pointless exercise which is why it hasn't worked].

 

So the choice is more restrictions and probably bigger fines or, now that we understand what it does and to whom, putting our effort into helping the vulnerable whilst allowing everyone else to get on with their lives.

 

 

People should just use common sense. If you are vulnerable, make sure you stay away from places you may catch his virus. If you know someone that is vulnerable, stay away from them etc.

 

There are several vaccines in 3rd. stage trial. They must be working, otherwise the trials would have stopped. Once people have been vaccinated, covid goes away Unless, like flu, it mutates into another strain that the vaccines can't stop. We will only find that out in the future. Apparently it will be quite easy to alter one or two of the vaccines if this happens, just like the flu vaccine. However that depends on the WHO choosing the correct three strains they expect to circulate each year.

[Dave_Og]

23 minutes ago, frizzell54 said:

 

 

So the government is deliberately deceiving the people or they just stupid and non-numerate.

 

 

 

That would be innumerate...  

[frizzell54]

3 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

That would be innumerate...  

 

Thanks for that I would have never known.

[Dave_Og]

3 minutes ago, frizzell54 said:

 

Thanks for that I would have never known.

Never a wasted day if one has learned something...  

[Chaddyexile84]

12 minutes ago, al_bro said:

People should just use common sense. If you are vulnerable, make sure you stay away from places you may catch his virus. If you know someone that is vulnerable, stay away from them etc.

 

There are several vaccines in 3rd. stage trial. They must be working, otherwise the trials would have stopped. Once people have been vaccinated, covid goes away Unless, like flu, it mutates into another strain that the vaccines can't stop. We will only find that out in the future. Apparently it will be quite easy to alter one or two of the vaccines if this happens, just like the flu vaccine. However that depends on the WHO choosing the correct three strains they expect to circulate each year.

This! If you are vulnerable or worried stay at home and let the rest carry on with life 

[Matt]

This country is a selfish mess, and recent events have made it more apparent.

[disjointed]

5 minutes ago, Matt said:

This country is a selfish mess, and recent events have made it more apparent.

The government lead the way others follow suit. 

[BP1960]

1 minute ago, disjointed said:

The government lead the way others follow suit. 

 

The government is covering its own back, if they don't they will be accused at not doing enough.

 

[Wardie]

I live semi-rural, the nearest city or sizeable town being 20 miles away but the virus is in our glorified village because college students have brought it into the community. I think the virus will eventually get most of us.

[Ritchierich]

Just heard what Dyche said today..... what an absolute c++t... basically saying Premier league clubs should not help lower league teams and used the analogy of a successful hedge fund being forced to help an unsuccessful one!! Actually, hedge funds and the Premier league are a similar breed 

 

I feckin hate the Premier league and everything it's done to try and destroy the amazing football pyramid we have in this country but to hear the manager of a club like Burnley who are punching above their weight talk like that is especially galling

 

 

 

[Bobledgersheart]

4 minutes ago, Ritchierich said:

Just heard what Dyche said today..... what an absolute c++t... basically saying Premier league clubs should not help lower league teams and used the analogy of a successful hedge fund being forced to help an unsuccessful one!! Actually, hedge funds and the Premier league are a similar breed 

 

I feckin hate the Premier league and everything it's done to try and destroy the amazing football pyramid we have in this country but to hear the manager of a club like Burnley who are punching above their weight talk like that is especially galling

 

 

 

It's surprising how money changes some people !

[latics22]

This illness kills mainly people above 80. Closing the world is madness, if u have a weakend immune system or are getting on shield if u wish to do so. But for how long its madness. We have to just live with this, if they cure a strain of the common cold I'll amazed !

[Ackey]

9 hours ago, latics22 said:

This illness kills mainly people above 80. Closing the world is madness, if u have a weakend immune system or are getting on shield if u wish to do so. But for how long its madness. We have to just live with this, if they cure a strain of the common cold I'll amazed !

If the over 70's were safe and you were at risk, do you think the same stance would be acceptable? If their behaviour could directly relate to a measurable and meaningful increase in the chance you would die, would you accept there being nothing done to stop that? Or would you expect something to be done to stop them?

 

"I'm not going to die, someone else is - so I will not do anything to help" is a reasonable extrapolation of the stance you just stated, and it's utterly baffling.  Imagine if during the Second World War someone was unwilling to turn out their lights because they had gone to an air raid shelter... "I'm OK I'm in a shelter, so I will leave my lights on..." - we'd rightly consider those people socially irresponsible, and outcast or chastise them accordingly.

 

I'm saddened and baffled by how selfish and arrogant people are about this.  No one's asking for anything more than help. Someone is turning to you and saying "please help me"  that's it - you can look at the nuance and complexity beyond that. But the bottom line is someone is saying "please help save my life" and you are saying "nah mate, I wanna go to the pub".

 

It's heart breaking how unpatriotic this country has become. Not in the flag waving way abused by the far-right, but in a meaningful help-your-fellow-person way.

 

    

[Crusoe]

Beautifully put. 

[Crusoe]

On the timeline for a vaccine, the FT has some enlightening information on the various trials and potential pitfalls. 
 

How close is a coronavirus vaccine?

 

(might be behind a paywall)

 

The most optimistic scenario is successful trials and regulatory approval by the end of this year, then initial delivery to vulnerable groups, then further analysis of trial results before mass rollout mid-next year. The pessimistic scenario is about six months behind that. And there’s a big open question about boosters.

 

[Worcester Owl]

10 hours ago, Ritchierich said:

Just heard what Dyche said today..... what an absolute c++t... basically saying Premier league clubs should not help lower league teams and used the analogy of a successful hedge fund being forced to help an unsuccessful one!! Actually, hedge funds and the Premier league are a similar breed 

 

I feckin hate the Premier league and everything it's done to try and destroy the amazing football pyramid we have in this country but to hear the manager of a club like Burnley who are punching above their weight talk like that is especially galling

 

 

 

Frank Lampard has expressed the opposite view. I liked Lampard as a player and my respect for him as a manager has grown, a really decent bloke. More class in his little finger than Dyche will ever have.

[singe]

10 hours ago, latics22 said:

This illness kills mainly people above 80. Closing the world is madness, if u have a weakend immune system or are getting on shield if u wish to do so. But for how long its madness. We have to just live with this, if they cure a strain of the common cold I'll amazed !

It is far too simplistic to say it's just over 80's or just those with weakened immune systems. Many, many others are affected especially over 60. Not only that, but people are affected in life changing ways.

It is ironic that those pretty much advocating a view bordering on eugenics are not considering that those affected but surviving will also be (from their viewpoint) a burden on society. What a selfish way of looking at the world.

Actions should be measured, based on science and calculated.
The flu vaccine should be in full swing now, but too little being done.

 

Shrugging shoulders are preventable deaths is not the mark of a mature, successful, and civilised society.

[oafcmetty]

1 hour ago, Crusoe said:

On the timeline for a vaccine, the FT has some enlightening information on the various trials and potential pitfalls. 
 

How close is a coronavirus vaccine?

 

(might be behind a paywall)

 

The most optimistic scenario is successful trials and regulatory approval by the end of this year, then initial delivery to vulnerable groups, then further analysis of trial results before mass rollout mid-next year. The pessimistic scenario is about six months behind that. And there’s a big open question about boosters.

 

But can I go to Bolton away?

[OldhamSheridan]

Surely it lies somewhere in between hiding scared and one out, all out. The summer should have been spent organising a way that the nigh on completely out of risk could go about keeping the economy afloat, the shielded could keep away from risk but part of society/not completely isolated (testing improvement and directed to help with this), and that the unknowingly risky ones didn't overflow the NHS. 

I feel it was spent ploughing through brexit and avoiding publication of stories whilst out camping. No plan now. Just repeat and fail until herd immunity comes by default.

[Worcester Owl]

1 hour ago, Ackey said:

If the over 70's were safe and you were at risk, do you think the same stance would be acceptable? If their behaviour could directly relate to a measurable and meaningful increase in the chance you would die, would you accept there being nothing done to stop that? Or would you expect something to be done to stop them?

 

"I'm not going to die, someone else is - so I will not do anything to help" is a reasonable extrapolation of the stance you just stated, and it's utterly baffling.  Imagine if during the Second World War someone was unwilling to turn out their lights because they had gone to an air raid shelter... "I'm OK I'm in a shelter, so I will leave my lights on..." - we'd rightly consider those people socially irresponsible, and outcast or chastise them accordingly.

 

I'm saddened and baffled by how selfish and arrogant people are about this.  No one's asking for anything more than help. Someone is turning to you and saying "please help me"  that's it - you can look at the nuance and complexity beyond that. But the bottom line is someone is saying "please help save my life" and you are saying "nah mate, I wanna go to the pub".

 

It's heart breaking how unpatriotic this country has become. Not in the flag waving way abused by the far-right, but in a meaningful help-your-fellow-person way.

 

    

I think that's over the top and while I agree with a lot of what you say I'm not sure latics22 is necessarily being selfish. There are countless examples every day of people helping each other to get through this and rubbishing your fellow citizens doesn't help anybody.

 

I'm 62 and I'm very lucky in that I'm now retired, live in a rural spot and have a garden and am generally in good health (though my bloody back is playing up but that's another story!). If there is to be another lockdown it should be aimed at 60+ year olds, and we need to do everything we can to ensure life is as normal as possible for the younger and economically active segments of the population. If old gits like me want to go out, that's a risk we should be prepared to take but only by following government rules.

 

Concentrate on sheltering the older and more vulnerable and ask younger people - who are bearing the brunt of this pandemic and recession - to use common sense but to try to live as normally as possible. And the NHS must treat non-covid illnesses as well as the virus.

[super_blue]

18 hours ago, BP1960 said:

Interesting comment from an Orient fan.

I wonder if our Trust could find out if any Latics players were tested prior to this game.

 

'I reckon we caught it at Oldham as the players felt ill after that game. There is not regular testing in League 2 so I wouldn’t be surprised if it has spread across the whole league already'.

Haha how an earth would a fan know about this. Prob just seeing Oldham is in local lockdown and adding 2+2 and coming up with 7. 

[singe]

3 hours ago, Worcester Owl said:

I think that's over the top and while I agree with a lot of what you say I'm not sure latics22 is necessarily being selfish. There are countless examples every day of people helping each other to get through this and rubbishing your fellow citizens doesn't help anybody.

 

I'm 62 and I'm very lucky in that I'm now retired, live in a rural spot and have a garden and am generally in good health (though my bloody back is playing up but that's another story!). If there is to be another lockdown it should be aimed at 60+ year olds, and we need to do everything we can to ensure life is as normal as possible for the younger and economically active segments of the population. If old gits like me want to go out, that's a risk we should be prepared to take but only by following government rules.

 

Concentrate on sheltering the older and more vulnerable and ask younger people - who are bearing the brunt of this pandemic and recession - to use common sense but to try to live as normally as possible. And the NHS must treat non-covid illnesses as well as the virus.

I do agree with much of what you say, but feel L22 was being.
You have the right to state/criticise in oyur age bracket, but have the advantage over many through your situation.

You've highlighted the issues though.
The Government rules hae been very inconsistent, and shouldn't have been.
And define common sense? It's indefinable.
For me, there should be a clear pathway for older & /or vulnerable people like specific shoppng times etc. Proper secure buses for school kids.

The trouble is it was work from home, go to work ( too hastily IMHO), now it's stay at home again.
Don't go to restaurants, here's aload of dosh to help out to eat out -grea initiative but now largly wasted, now you can hardly eat out.
A more even, consistent and safe method of both those would have been better and a flatter curve.

 

Age is an individual thing. My Mum is 78, and very active. Helps organise Whit Friday, sells programs was trying to hlp save Saddleworth Church, has done foryears. But can't go out because she's survived two forms of cancer and pnemonia. She's not vulnerable in the almost dying sense. All my grandparents lived well into their late 80's.

Older people can and probably have contributed much to society and such not be seen as expendable.

Govt should be more considered, less reactionary  to allow us to go safely about our business.

[Worcester Owl]

Nobody, whatever their age, should be seen as expendable.

 

Common sense? Well, in a nutshell, follow the rules. We all know we should. Yes, it's been a very trying time, but all countries are struggling to a greater or lesser degree with this new virus and will do until we have a vaccine. In the meantime we have to protect the economy as much as possible while sheltering the vulnerable and providing non-covid health care.

 

I do think that return to work was rushed. Schools first, then offices etc, then pubs/restaurants in an ideal world. On the other hand Sweden doesn't seem to have done terribly badly, with no lockdown at all, though it's said that as a society they are much more self-disciplined and voluntarily isolated anyway.

[Behind Closed Doors]

3 hours ago, Worcester Owl said:

I think that's over the top and while I agree with a lot of what you say I'm not sure latics22 is necessarily being selfish. There are countless examples every day of people helping each other to get through this and rubbishing your fellow citizens doesn't help anybody.

 

I'm 62 and I'm very lucky in that I'm now retired, live in a rural spot and have a garden and am generally in good health (though my bloody back is playing up but that's another story!). If there is to be another lockdown it should be aimed at 60+ year olds, and we need to do everything we can to ensure life is as normal as possible for the younger and economically active segments of the population. If old gits like me want to go out, that's a risk we should be prepared to take but only by following government rules.

 

Concentrate on sheltering the older and more vulnerable and ask younger people - who are bearing the brunt of this pandemic and recession - to use common sense but to try to live as normally as possible. And the NHS must treat non-covid illnesses as well as the virus.

 

32 minutes ago, Worcester Owl said:

Nobody, whatever their age, should be seen as expendable.

 

Common sense? Well, in a nutshell, follow the rules. We all know we should. Yes, it's been a very trying time, but all countries are struggling to a greater or lesser degree with this new virus and will do until we have a vaccine. In the meantime we have to protect the economy as much as possible while sheltering the vulnerable and providing non-covid health care.

 

I do think that return to work was rushed. Schools first, then offices etc, then pubs/restaurants in an ideal world. On the other hand Sweden doesn't seem to have done terribly badly, with no lockdown at all, though it's said that as a society they are much more self-disciplined and voluntarily isolated anyway.

I think over 60s are massively economically active....the grey pound and all that is vital to the economy. We need over 60s out there spending

[Ackey]

3 hours ago, Worcester Owl said:

I think that's over the top and while I agree with a lot of what you say I'm not sure latics22 is necessarily being selfish. There are countless examples every day of people helping each other to get through this and rubbishing your fellow citizens doesn't help anybody.

It's fair to say I don't know Latics22 from Adam - the person behind the statement could be behaving in an exceptionally selfless way and you're right that would be unfair of me to assume.  However, the statement analogy I stand behind. If your statement is "this doesn't affect me" it's immediately a selfish starting point. We're all prone to it, don't get me wrong. Empathy is hard work. But we need it now more than at any other time in about 99% of our lifetimes.  

 

30 minutes ago, Worcester Owl said:

Common sense? Well, in a nutshell, follow the rules.

This is where the Government has failed most. The rules are (deliberately, one could argue?) unclear. The local lockdown stated that no one could leave the region and yet the airport was open. That's just one glaring contradiction in the rules as they were published.  Confusion and mixed messages along with a lack of emotional, practical and economic support for those unable to adapt to the new way of living has cost thousands of lives.