Jump to content
IGNORED

The Coronavirus and its impact on sport/Fans Return (Merged)


Loderingo

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Ronnie Sinclair said:

Wife works in B&M in Brislington (the old Toys 'R' Us unit) - bog roll a plenty in there she said (she bought a couple of packets home, but they are required as now I'm working from home I have to do my toilet duties here and not using office 'resources').

As for panic buyers, is it too much to suggest giving supermarket security guards carte blanche to taser them, in the interests of public decency?

I think they should have security guards by the tills for sure. Making me so angry now if people just bought what they normally do we wouldn't have this problem. Supermarkets aren't having trouble getting the food.

Edited by Super
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LondonBristolian said:

I think it is. And a friend made the point to me the other day that she had various friends on her Facebook page who had spent years sharing memes around poppies and talking up the blitz spirit and 

The "blitz spirit" is a bit of a myth, sadly. At the time it was necessary to talk up our heroic "keep calm and carry on" (a poster that was mocked up, but never used, apparently) response to being bombed, for a number of reasons, including propaganda and showing Jerry we would not be cowed. 

People need to remember that all countries tell stories about themselves, their origins, and their finest moments that show them in a glowing, golden light. 

1 hour ago, LondonBristolian said:

 Maybe the community spirit and stoic calm of the blitz is a mirage and a fairytale created after the event 

It was created at the time, and was a "fairytale." See Richard Overy, Prof of History. He has written a book about this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, wood_red said:

I have been there a couple of times and it's been the same empty shelves over the last week, I had to go over by Cribbs earlier to pick some stuff up for my job and came back through downend on the way back, as I had to go to Lloyds bank. Popped in the Sainsburys local and loads empty and mass queue to the the checkout, and the Co-Op had plenty of empty shelves as well. Speaking to someone who works up Staple Hill and they said Iceland had a queue all along the high street before opening this morning (unsure how much exaggeration that was as obviously never seen it myself).

On the plus side surely all of these going crazy will soon have too much stuff won't they and have no need to go again? I'm hoping anyway.

 

That's my theory as well, only so much food and toilet rolls anyone needs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

The problem is twofold:

1)  I am sceptical of how you can control infections in a way that the NHS is not overwhelmed. One firth of 20-44 year olds with the disease are being hospitalised and - whilst people who are otherwise healthy only have a mortality rate of something like 0.5% - 30 million cases with a mortality of 0.5 would see 150, 000 extra deaths - way more than we can cope with. Statistically you are a lot safer if you are under 70 with no underlying health conditions but millions of under-70s around the world without health conditions would still end up dead or hospitalised. So I just don't think @Red-Robbo's plan can possibly work.

2) It is easy to talk up a sacrifice you yourself don't expect to make but there are a lot of people with health conditions with jobs, families and young children and full-time jobs.  Locking me and various other people up for our own good obviously isn't very desirable but I honestly don't think it is possible without making a load of people unemployed, taking children away from vulnerable parents and locking parents up if they have children with asthma or other conditions where they may be affected (6% of cases in children are serious).

3) Many of the most vulnerable people have care or support workers and many others will end up in hospitals for non-coronavirus related reasons. Unless the plan is to lock up a group of doctors, nurses and care and support workers then people are still gong to get infected.

There is no doubt that this virus is not going to go away and we need to find a way to co-exist with the virus rather than shut down the economy. But what you, @Red-Robboand @Ronnie Sinclairare talking about is practically unenforceable and would still end up with around 150, 000 extra deaths of young, non-vulnerable patients, millions of ICU beds taken up by young, non-vulnerable patients, the NHS overwhelmed and a massive crisis, only with the added steps of children separated from parents and elderly and disabled people incarcerated in their own homes only to subsequently catch it in hospital.

I think people really need to move past the idea this is only really a problem for people over 70 and with underlying health conditions because the facts don't bear that out. It affects those groups more, for sure, but still will severely affect a lot of people who are not in those categories. 

 

The trouble is LB: how many medical crises are we storing up from mental stress and extreme anxiety, how many suicides because of financial ruin and loneliness, how much long-term damage is being done by reduced exercise , poorer nutrition and just general unhappiness?

To my mind, the idea I'm kicking about falls down if we think we cannot totally isolate both the most vulnerable - and those who work in healthcare and social care and their families.  It would probably only work with a lot more state intervention; a command economy as operated in wartime.

TBH I was thinking out loud rather than making a big case for herd immunity. But I am starting to think the way we are operating now is not only not halting the spread, but is simply unworkable for the whole of 2020.

@Maesknoll Red was ridiculed for saying that much of the economy operated during the last war despite extreme risks, but he was right. We need to weigh up the risks presented by this different sort of challenge.

BTW did you get the figure of 150,000 deaths among the "non-vulnerable" population from an official source? Chris Whitty was talking about 400,000 possible deaths overall earlier. It seems unlikely that more than a third of them would be from young people or those without pre-exisisting conditions.If you look at this data - assembled from WHO sources - the likelihood of death from infection falls dramatically with age. Children are 80 times less likely to die than the over-80s for example.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not football related but possibly transferable and liked to Coronavirus.

Wasps and Worcester players- 25% wage cuts.

Could you imagine footballers in the top 2 divisions doing the same?

https://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/story/_/id/28929601/premiership-rugby-clubs-implement-pay-cuts-due-coronavirus

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Northern Red said:

Was in Home Bargains earlier and talking to the girl on the checkout who said the only things they were rationing were bog roll and pasta, 

If that's white - ie, refined - pasta, and people are filling their faces with that shite, and as much protein as they can chew, and no veg, then they are going to get fat - or, fatter - and will get diabetes, endure increasingly terrible health problems, and also be constipated, with limited need for wiping their backsides.

They'll probably eat the toilet roll, when the pasta runs out.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Here is a question- purely economic.

If they announce new measures today, the weekend, or Monday, how will it impact all of those already laid off or who have lost hours in the past fortnight? As in, just to existing workers still in work or more widespread?

The pub I work at is still open, but on reduced hours.

I've not had a single shift this week because they are only using one person a day.

 

Today no one was in, but a few people were on call to go in if it got busy- something I can't be because it takes me an hour on busses to get in.

 

I took the job because I was being offered full time hours, which I need to pay my rent, might have to start looking for alternatives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JamesBCFC said:

The pub I work at is still open, but on reduced hours.

I've not had a single shift this week because they are only using one person a day.

 

Today no one was in, but a few people were on call to go in if it got busy- something I can't be because it takes me an hour on busses to get in.

 

I took the job because I was being offered full time hours, which I need to pay my rent, might have to start looking for alternatives. 

Be surprised if many are hiring right now, tbh...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is - "was there a toilet roll shortage before someone reported there being a toilet roll shortage." I'm  getting more exasperated with the media at the moment in the way that they appear to be generating as much news as they are reporting. The number of times that an answer from an expert is misquoted or "misunderstood " by a reporter in order to muddy the waters is getting increasingly commonplace. Either that or the reporters aren't as bright as they claim to be!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

Agreed. Was more thinking about afterwards.

As of right now, the government making pubs shut would be better for me, as at least then the pub can get it's insurance and sort the staff out a bit. 

Er, yeah- about that...

Unfortunately though it's not certain, I've read lots of different things but many businesses and pubs don't have insurance that would cover this type of event ie serious illness/pandemic.

Even then, I read- in conjunction with football admittedly- that insurance for health reasons or something, may not cut it because it has to be an existing illness/virus/whatever- I'll try and find the article. :(

This is where Goverment would- in fact, has to- step up- I don't know if your pub does in fact have the insurance but it's possibly doubtful.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Er, yeah- about that...

Unfortunately though it's not certain, I've read lots of different things but many businesses and pubs don't have insurance that would cover this type of event ie serious illness/pandemic.

Even then, I read- in conjunction with football admittedly- that insurance for health reasons or something, may not cut it because it has to be an existing illness/virus/whatever- I'll try and find the article. :(

The issue is covid19 is not named on the policy as it didn't exist at the time, so it is not covered. That is one of the issues I have heard reported

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TRL said:

The issue is covid19 is not named on the policy as it didn't exist at the time, so it is not covered. That is one of the issues I have heard reported

Yeah, that sounds right- think I read similar the other day. Albeit with football rather than pubs, but it's applicable across the board.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Yeah, that sounds right- think I read similar the other day. Albeit with football rather than pubs, but it's applicable across the board.

I think if it was covered there would be very little paid out as the insurance companies would be bankrupt overnight.. more unemployment!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

The trouble is LB: how many medical crises are we storing up from mental stress and extreme anxiety, how many suicides because of financial ruin and loneliness, how much long-term damage is being done by reduced exercise , poorer nutrition and just general unhappiness?

To my mind, the idea I'm kicking about falls down if we think we cannot totally isolate both the most vulnerable - and those who work in healthcare and social care and their families.  It would probably only work with a lot more state intervention; a command economy as operated in wartime.

TBH I was thinking out loud rather than making a big case for herd immunity. But I am starting to think the way we are operating now is not only not halting the spread, but is simply unworkable for the whole of 2020.

@Maesknoll Red was ridiculed for saying that much of the economy operated during the last war despite extreme risks, but he was right. We need to weigh up the risks presented by this different sort of challenge.

BTW did you get the figure of 150,000 deaths among the "non-vulnerable" population from an official source? Chris Whitty was talking about 400,000 possible deaths overall earlier. It seems unlikely that more than a third of them would be from young people or those without pre-exisisting conditions.If you look at this data - assembled from WHO sources - the likelihood of death from infection falls dramatically with age. Children are 80 times less likely to die than the over-80s for example.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

 

I absolutely agree that the way we are operating is both failing to halt the spread and unworkable. And I agree we need to get the economy working again. I just don't think the idea you are suggesting is workable because of not only the implications but the number of people who are "healthy" and under 70 but still get hospitalised or die.

The figure of 150, 000 was a ballpark one and an example based on an assumption of 30 million people getting infected (somewhere around 40% of the population so below the 60% or 80% others have talked about) and an estimate at 0.5% mortality rate for people with no underlying conditions. The 30 million isn't perfect  as I don't have figures for what % of the populations stands to get infected with minimal social distancing (thus allowing the economy to function) but with over 70s and people with underlying conditions taken out. The 0.5% is an estimate because the stated mortality rate for people with no underlying conditions is 0.9% but this will include people over 70, who should be excluded.. But a substantial number of people over 70 will have an underlying condition so this will not shift the figure that much. Hence me going for 0.5%.

The 150, 000 is not meant to be perfectly accurate - as you can see, I lack some of the figures needed to calculate - but more an illustration that, when we talk about allowing a mass infection to circulate around the healthy population and the  rough  mortality rate for the healthy population 1 in 200 or possibly worse, we are still talking way more deaths than hospitals can manage. The other thing of course is the number of people who won't know they have an underlying health condition.

Figures in America suggest 40% of hospital admissions are amongst people from people aged 20 to 54. Figures are not available for how many of those had underlying conditions but it suggests the scale of the problem of just letting the virus circulate:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/health/coronavirus-young-people.html

 

Edited by LondonBristolian
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, TRL said:

I think if it was covered there would be very little paid out as the insurance companies would be bankrupt overnight.. more unemployment!

Government needs to step up across the economy now then.

Already done a fair bit but more may need to be required.

This may not even be to preserve jobs and industries- but for basics like food, drink, shelter- whatever.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
3 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I absolutely agree that the way we are operating is both failing to halt the spread and unworkable. And I agree we need to get the economy working again. I just don't think the idea you are suggesting is workable because of not only the implications but the number of people who are "healthy" and under 70 but still get hospitalised or die.

The figure was a ballpark one and an example based on an assumption of 30 million people getting infected (somewhere around 40% of the population so below the 60% or 80% others have talked about) and an estimate at 0.5% mortality rate for people with no underlying conditions. The 30 million isn't perfect  as I don't have figures for what % of the populations stands to get infected with minimal social distancing (thus allowing the economy to function) but with over 70s and people with underlying conditions taken out. The 0.5% is an estimate because the stated mortality rate for people with no underlying conditions is 0.9% but this will include people over 70, who should be excluded.. But a substantial number of people over 70 will have an underlying condition so this will not shift the figure that much. Hence me going for 0.5%.

The 150, 000 is not meant to be perfectly accurate - as you can see, I lack some of the figures needed to calculate - but more an illustration that, when we talk about allowing a mass infection to circulate around the healthy population and the  rough  mortality rate for the healthy population 1 in 200 or possibly worse, we are still talking way more deaths than hospitals can manage. The other thing of course is the number of people who won't know they have an underlying health condition.

Figures in America suggest 40% of hospital admissions are amongst people from people aged 20 to 54. Figures are not available for how many of those had underlying conditions but it suggests the scale of the problem of just letting the virus circulate:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/health/coronavirus-young-people.html

 

I think the data is still too raw, not detailed enough, you can find articles to suit nearly whatever death rates you chose.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-18/99-of-those-who-died-from-virus-had-other-illness-italy-says

No idea what the answer is, all we can do is follow the advice and guidance of the epidemiologists and health experts and hope they get it right.  But does there come a point where it gets taken out of health professionals hands?  Governments cannot allow their plans to be followed if they result in financial ruin for whole economies, as @Red-Robbo has said, this could lead to many deaths from other causes, including suicides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just back from picking the kids up from school for the last time until who knows. Strangely emotional, feels very real.

We’re trying to be honest with them about what they’re about to go through - probably at least two months of not seeing anyone but their parents. For 8 and 11 year olds, that’s a bit of a fear! We’re setting routine in and making sure they do things like get up and dressed normal time, do school work in a different room etc. 

Expecting there will be rows. Everyone will be stressed in different ways, but it’s needed and at least we’ve got eyes open. Luckily will still be in work (2m away from anyone and using private transport to get there) to keep structure but reckon that’s finite.
 

The mental health piece is very important here. And that’s why I agree that posting speculation and theories on here is probably doing more harm than good.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

Guys and St Thomas' have canceled all routine / non urgent surgeries and treatments and are reverting a lot of their wards for CV19 treatment.  That's from our engineer onsite. 

I think that might apply across the NHS. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

I think the data is still too raw, not detailed enough, you can find articles to suit nearly whatever death rates you chose.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-18/99-of-those-who-died-from-virus-had-other-illness-italy-says

No idea what the answer is, all we can do is follow the advice and guidance of the epidemiologists and health experts and hope they get it right.  But does there come a point where it gets taken out of health professionals hands?  Governments cannot allow their plans to be followed if they result in financial ruin for whole economies, as @Red-Robbo has said, this could lead to many deaths from other causes, including suicides.

As I understand it, that report which you quote has not yet been peer-reviewed (i.e had its methodology checked and examined by other experts) so it may be way too early to draw conclusions from it. However, if we did, we'd say that 41, 000 people have been infected in Italy from a 60 million population. That is around 0.06% of the population. There is talk of 60% of people in the UK ultimately being infected - i.e. 1000 times the number infected so far in Italy. If Italy reach a point where they have 60% of the population infected and it is true that only 1% have no underlying medical conditions, you are still talking 34, 000 deaths of healthy young people. So far we have way less than that and hospitals are already underwhelmed.

Even if that study is right, other studies show the rate of infection would still be significant enough for that 1% of healthy people to cause tens of thousands of extra deaths and hundreds of thousands of additional hospitalisations. Even the numbers you quote are way too overwhelming for @Red-Robbo's idea of letting the disease circulate amongst the healthy population to be a viable strategy without bringing the NHS to its knees.

PS I agree the data is still raw and we cannot be clear on exact reasons but I think that is all the more reason why we need to be prudent and plan for the worst outcomes the data suggests rather than hoping for the best and finding ourselves with a crisis on our hands. We and the rest of Europe have done that much already. 

Edited by LondonBristolian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maesknoll Red said:

Absolute c***s, I have nothing more in my fridge than usual.  I saw someone with loads of stuff in a trolley last week and unless they owned a large B&B, I have no idea how they would eat it all before it went rotten - and by the size of them, a few smaller portions would do their survival chances any harm either.....

If everyone shopped normally there 100% would be food on the shelves and no long queues in the shops. People are panic buying causing both the things I have mentioned. 

Yes I understand people might want to shop for a few days or so at a time so they are limiting themselves to exposure. But I normally ‘Big’ shop once a week and buy fresh every couple of days, so why has everyone gone nuts in the past week or so.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...