Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Loderingo

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, reddoh said:

to be honest Dave when the experts said the young fit and healthy wouldn't be affected what did they think the young fit and healthy were going to do. experts can be ***** too it's not an exclusive club. 

It was reported that there were more than 300,000 people on Bondi Beach in Sydney on Saturday. If any of you know this famous beach it is not very big. The 300,000 people on the beach blatantly ignored the government warnings that a safe distance must be kept across all states and territories across Australia between all people. As of tomorrow NSW , Victoria and the ACT are planning to implement what you have now in the UK where only essential services and companies Iike supply chains, hospital staff, pharmacies, fuel stations can only open. I understand the restrictions now in place that were implemented over the past four days are difficult for all as my mum, sibling and my wife’s families are all in bristol or close by. Us in Australia will have the same in the next 48 to 72 hours. Our son and his family live in the Northern Territory of oz and the NT close their borders on Tuesday evening . On this note I leave you all with the best of luck over the next few months and look forward to all of us coming out of this. Family first. BCFC second.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, havanatopia said:

 

The one statistic I have bought into from the start is that approximately 60% of the world's population will probably contract a mild to fatal covid 19. Nothing we do will change that approximate percentage. You will likely see a world average of around 0.5% dying which is five times that of flu. Long way to go but these are my informed estimates based on the past, what we know and what I am reading and watching in informed quarters, i hasten to add, and not in the highly politicised arena.

As others have said perhaps it is time, after all of this, to invest in washing with a B day or an adapted toilet. I have been doing it for 30 years. I love a good blast and feel nice and clean afterwards :) 

Those Japanese ones are awesome you could happily spent longer on it than you need to and then hardly need any toilet paper if at all 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, walnutroof said:

Those Japanese ones are awesome you could happily spent longer on it than you need to and then hardly need any toilet paper if at all 

They most certainly are. Well worth buying one and take up no extra space. A quick adaptation of the existing Ideal Standard is also possible. Definitely the way forward. I shall be on line with these on eBay asap!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Atticus said:

Just think of the poor sods that work on the checkout on supermarkets. I work in care, so I cant work from home and my pay is rubbish. But the people that work in the supermarkets are exposed to hundreds/thousands of people per day. For not a great wage. Potentially putting themselves and their loved ones at risk. While people much better paid get to work from home, or get their salary of up to £2,500 a month paid for being home. Its so lop sided its sad. 

This is great concern of mine. All well and good allowing elderly and vulnerable exclusive shopping times, and now NHS workers are joining the list, byt they are all going to shops and being served by workers who have had a huge amount of people through the rest of the time. Yes shops are cleaned, but not deep cleaned every couple of hours which would be what is needed but impossible to carry out.

In short the most at risk people, and the people we most need are going into one of the places most likely to be infected from. But we all need to eat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, havanatopia said:

 

The one statistic I have bought into from the start is that approximately 60% of the world's population will probably contract a mild to fatal covid 19. Nothing we do will change that approximate percentage. You will likely see a world average of around 0.5% dying which is five times that of flu. Long way to go but these are my informed estimates based on the past, what we know and what I am reading and watching in informed quarters, i hasten to add, and not in the highly politicised arena.

Two points:

1) the general consensus amongst scientists and medical experts seems to be the 60% would not necessarily happen with social distancing. The 60% figure was the expectation of initial mitigation strategies - which have been abandoned due to point 2) below - but governments across the world, including the UK are desperate to prevent that happening.

2) the Wuhan death rate dropped considerably both because they had the knowledge and space to quickly build hospitals and find extra beds. One of the likely Italy has a very high death rate is because intensive care beds are overwhelmed so people who could otherwise have been saved are not being saved. The 0.5% figure could be accurate but only if people get the care they need. If the hospitals get swamped by huge numbers of figures at the same time then the figures would go up, as would deaths from accidents and other non-Corona virus related health conditions due to that same lack of beds.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, bcfc01 said:

No.

Once again, his advisors (Chief medic and Vallance) said its possible that 20k-50k could die and anything under 20k would be a result.

They have never mentioned 250k.

That is someone else.

A potential 230, 000 deaths was the figure in the Imperial College report that the government based its decision to ask people to avoid pubs, clubs etc on. Up until Friday 13th, they were following a mitigation strategy but the report suggested that could lead to 230, 000 deaths, hence subsequent moves toward the suppression strategy adopted by other countries.

Also worth mentioning in early March, Chris Whittey (Chief Medical Officer) talked of 350, 00 potential deaths and an aim to reduce that by 20% to 30%. This was before the Imperial College Report said the deaths could be cut to 20, 000 with a suppression strategy.

The government are now talking about the figures you mention but both Chris Whittey and the reports the government is following have both mentioned the figures @Roger Red Hat talks about.

They are worst case scenario figures but also possible with a high enough rate of infections - if 40 million people (a bit under 60% of the population) were infected and the mortality rate was 0.5 per 100 cases then that would be 200, 000 deaths. Both 60% infections rates and a 0.5 mortality rate are figures that have been suggested by a number  of epidemiologists so these are not implausible figures.

However they should not happen if we do follow the government advice and, if people do not, the government takes the more draconian steps that other countries have.

Edited by LondonBristolian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, One Team In Keynsham said:

I have no faith in humanity doing the right thing. There are sufficient selfish w@nkers and ***ts in the world that it will eventually turn to shite again.

I work for a large American company that makes electronics for the motor industry which is non essential but still the corporate bosses won't send us home when there's money to be made when all around us BMW & Honda have been shut down. But it's all ok they've taken chairs out the canteen so only six at a time can go in and put signs up everywhere telling us how to wash our hands! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Shaun Taylor said:

I work for a large American company that makes electronics for the motor industry which is non essential but still the corporate bosses won't send us home when there's money to be made when all around us BMW & Honda have been shut down. But it's all ok they've taken chairs out the canteen so only six at a time can go in and put signs up everywhere telling us how to wash our hands! 

Small consolation I know, but there are worse American companies you could be working for. Take Hobby Lobby for instance:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Maesknoll Red said:

Hindsight, it’s great isn’t it.

How the hell is it hindsight? It happened two weeks ago all over europe? We followed their exact path but just two weeks behind? Constantly being told no need to over react as they are ahead of us.

The fact is we had a two week head start, and we are going to be in the exact same position is ******* ridiculous. Action was needed earlier. If other countries thought lockdown was the only answer why are we waiting till it gets really out of hand until we do the same. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

It’s not a difficult calculation.

60 million population. 80% catch the virus. 1% die.

I am still amazed that people don’t understand the concept of exponential growth. If every person who catches this virus gave it to 3 people over 5 days that they were infectious, then in 100 days, 3.5 billion people would have the virus. That’s the point of isolating and quarantine. Stop the spread. Look at what happened in South Korea, Taiwan, Hong King and Singapore. If you want to stop the spread you have stop people giving it to each other, which means staying home.

I know there will be sceptics who ignore this advice and say I am doom-mongering and indulging in panic. Many on this forum will be in the high risk categories of age, sex, BMI and less than good general health. You do not want to catch this virus. If this is you, the chances of you needing intensive care and dying are high. Please take care and take the risks seriously. This has a long way to go yet. We aren’t even 1 week into Boris’s overoptimistic 12 week time frame yet.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Dr Balls said:

It’s not a difficult calculation.

60 million population. 80% catch the virus. 1% die.

I am still amazed that people don’t understand the concept of exponential growth. If every person who catches this virus gave it to 3 people over 5 days that they were infectious, then in 100 days, 3.5 billion people would have the virus. That’s the point of isolating and quarantine. Stop the spread. Look at what happened in South Korea, Taiwan, Hong King and Singapore. If you want to stop the spread you have stop people giving it to each other, which means staying home.

I know there will be sceptics who ignore this advice and say I am doom-mongering and indulging in panic. Many on this forum will be in the high risk categories of age, sex, BMI and less than good general health. You do not want to catch this virus. If this is you, the chances of you needing intensive care and dying are high. Please take care and take the risks seriously. This has a long way to go yet. We aren’t even 1 week into Boris’s overoptimistic 12 week time frame yet.

I agree , from my perspective we have a three month old baby who had open heart surgery at six weeks old. I’ve banned my partners parents from visiting, as they’ve continued to visit pubs and socialise and both work in schools as a caretaker and dinner lady. He hasn’t gone done well 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, One Team In Keynsham said:

Small consolation I know, but there are worse American companies you could be working for. Take Hobby Lobby for instance:

 

If he continues to ignore medical advice and trust in his wife's visions of God to look after his company, I fear he may be a divorced atheist within a year...

Edited by LondonBristolian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

BB3062D9-03B1-4510-BF67-31CB18C3E146.png

I called Cummings' fingerprints all over this ridiculous stategy on here on the day they floated it, you could spot it a mile off from the nasty eugenics vibe.

If anyone is in any doubt how badly this government has ****** this up, all you need to know is that a completely medically inexperienced man who fancies himself as a polymath, but is in fact a blagger beyond anything but single issue political campaigning, was involved in overuling epidemiologists with decades of experience. And Johnson was listening.

Why did no other country try to go down the insane herd immunity route? Because no other government would listen to such a pound shop Machiavelli and put dogma before science.

 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, BCFC Grim said:

How the hell is it hindsight? It happened two weeks ago all over europe? We followed their exact path but just two weeks behind? Constantly being told no need to over react as they are ahead of us.

The fact is we had a two week head start, and we are going to be in the exact same position is ******* ridiculous. Action was needed earlier. If other countries thought lockdown was the only answer why are we waiting till it gets really out of hand until we do the same. 

 

Exactly. We were warned of this and ignored it. That isn't anything to do with hindsight. It is simply arrogance that, despite all evidence to the threat posed, our country was an exception. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Atticus said:

Exactly. Im 35, not in any danger age and don't have any underlying health concerns. If I do develop a cough/fever, the last thing I would want to do if hop on over to my local hospital or gp to get tested. To potentially infect others? Erm no, I will self isolate. 

Anyway this country is looking ****** as it stands. And not because of anything Boris has or has not done imo. Its the idiots that are so brain dead they do not understand the gravity of the situation. Its so sad to think that this country will have to impose literal martial law because there are idiots out there that don't give a damn or are to stupid to understand that this isn't some stupid little virus. 

Good points you make and I'll also add that bored kids are starting to congregate in groups on cycles or playing in the small play grounds who have no idea of the situation and it's upto their parents to educate them if not keep them inside 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I just hear that right on sky news. Easy jet going cap in hand to government for money to stay afloat.. but still paying a massive dividend payout to shareholders!  Really Jesus ******* Christ how the hell can they justify that!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BBC online had a story recently around a prediction that 60% may be infected and 0.5% fatalties. That could be 200,00 of which the majority will be older people with other conditions. These are people they stated who could quite possibly have died in the next year or two anyway. 600,000 die in the uk annually in a typical year. 

All those stats make me wonder if trashing the economy is really the logical response. When NICE look at recommending a new treatment on the NHS they look at the cost compared to the benefit i. e. how many years of qualty life is delivered by spending £X. 

Why is that logic, which has contributed to controlling healthcare spending for many years, suddenly being abandoned? If this new logic, in terms of what we are prepared to spend to save lives,  carries on once this is over we will probably need to quadruple the nhs budget! 

To me it feels as if all the normal logic around what we should spend on healthcare has been turned on its head in a mass panic. It felt like our govt was reacting quite logically initially, accepting that it is inevitable that the majority of people will eventually get it, whatever. However as other countries lockdown they couldn't politically resist the pressure to follow suit. 

If 200,000 end up dying anyway and on top of that a million jobs are lost and the national debt rockets then will we look back and think the govt did a good job in this crisis?

On the other hand if, by some miracle, there are only 20,000 more deaths than usual will we be prepared to carry on spending at this same rate on the nhs budget to deliver the same kind of reduction in the normal death rate. I'm sure if we doubled the spend we could buy an extra year or two, on average, for those 600k dying every year. 

I doubt it - which suggests to me we have ditched the logic we use in normal times and are just reacting to mass panic. 

  • Like 1
  • Hmmm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Lew-T said:

Stop talking political bollocks. It’s so tiresome. They’re doing all they can and no different to what any other party could do in their position.

Can we leave out the politics? Had ******* 3 years of it...

This attitude utterly baffles me. What the Hell do people think politics is if it isn't running the country and making the appropriate decisions in a national crisis.

Of course it is going to be about politics. I agree other parties could have made similar errors but Boris Johnson has chosen to be leader of the Conservative party and wanted to be Prime Minister and being prime minister means being ultimately accountable for the timing and choice of decisions taken.

Over the coming week, some people will lose people they love. Other people will be very ill in hospital. People may lose their businesses or their jobs or struggle for food and basic essentials. Other older and vulnerable people (myself included) are spending at least twelve weeks - probably longer - isolated at home whilst the government gets this under control.

All of these people will be the people who ultimately will decide how political this gets. It will be the choice of the people who lose people or things that they cannot replace through this - not the choice of people on Internet forums who find criticism of the government for not following global health advice a trifle inconvenient. 

  • Like 7
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, robin_unreliant said:

The BBC online had a story recently around a prediction that 60% may be infected and 0.5% fatalties. That could be 200,00 of which the majority will be older people with other conditions. These are people they stated who could quite possibly have died in the next year or two anyway. 600,000 die in the uk annually in a typical year. 

All those stats make me wonder if trashing the economy is really the logical response. When NICE look at recommending a new treatment on the NHS they look at the cost compared to the benefit i. e. how many years of qualty life is delivered by spending £X. 

Why is that logic, which has contributed to controlling healthcare spending for many years, suddenly being abandoned? If this new logic, in terms of what we are prepared to spend to save lives,  carries on once this is over we will probably need to quadruple the nhs budget! 

To me it feels as if all the normal logic around what we should spend on healthcare has been turned on its head in a mass panic. It felt like our govt was reacting quite logically initially, accepting that it is inevitable that the majority of people will eventually get it, whatever. However as other countries lockdown they couldn't politically resist the pressure to follow suit. 

If 200,000 end up dying anyway and on top of that a million jobs are lost and the national debt rockets then will we look back and think the govt did a good job in this crisis?

On the other hand if, by some miracle, there are only 20,000 more deaths than usual will we be prepared to carry on spending at this same rate on the nhs budget to deliver the same kind of reduction in the normal death rate. I'm sure if we doubled the spend we could buy an extra year or two, on average, for those 600k dying every year. 

I doubt it - which suggests to me we have ditched the logic we use in normal times and are just reacting to mass panic. 

Do you have any idea how callous this sounds? Those elderly and vulnerable people are mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, loved ones and you're talking about them like chaff to be seperated from the wheat. An inconvenience to the 'normal' folk. Seriously, look at what you're writing.

And as for 'ditching the logic we use in normal times', I should ******* well hope so, or hundreds of thousands of people will die ffs.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stortz said:

Do you have any idea how callous this sounds? Those elderly and vulnerable people are mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, loved ones and you're talking about them like chaff to be seperated from the wheat. An inconvenience to the 'normal' folk. Seriously, look at what you're writing.

And as for 'ditching the logic we use in normal times', I should ******* well hope so, or hundreds of thousands of people will die ffs.

That was the kind of reaction I expected tbh. That isn't what I'm saying. Where is the shock and outrage for the 600,000 loved ones who die every year is the point. Why isn't there massive pressure to spend whatever it takes to save them when there isn't a pandemic. Why has everyone been happy to sit back and allow the govt to decide not to spend more on healthcare in the past when that is condemning people to die early? The reaction to this is at odds with how we normally decide spending on healthcate is all I'm saying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, robin_unreliant said:

The BBC online had a story recently around a prediction that 60% may be infected and 0.5% fatalties. That could be 200,00 of which the majority will be older people with other conditions. These are people they stated who could quite possibly have died in the next year or two anyway. 600,000 die in the uk annually in a typical year. 

All those stats make me wonder if trashing the economy is really the logical response. When NICE look at recommending a new treatment on the NHS they look at the cost compared to the benefit i. e. how many years of qualty life is delivered by spending £X. 

Why is that logic, which has contributed to controlling healthcare spending for many years, suddenly being abandoned? If this new logic, in terms of what we are prepared to spend to save lives,  carries on once this is over we will probably need to quadruple the nhs budget! 

To me it feels as if all the normal logic around what we should spend on healthcare has been turned on its head in a mass panic. It felt like our govt was reacting quite logically initially, accepting that it is inevitable that the majority of people will eventually get it, whatever. However as other countries lockdown they couldn't politically resist the pressure to follow suit. 

If 200,000 end up dying anyway and on top of that a million jobs are lost and the national debt rockets then will we look back and think the govt did a good job in this crisis?

On the other hand if, by some miracle, there are only 20,000 more deaths than usual will we be prepared to carry on spending at this same rate on the nhs budget to deliver the same kind of reduction in the normal death rate. I'm sure if we doubled the spend we could buy an extra year or two, on average, for those 600k dying every year. 

I doubt it - which suggests to me we have ditched the logic we use in normal times and are just reacting to mass panic. 

A few points

a) It's a bit erroneous to suggest that older people or people with health conditions are likely to have died in the next year or two in any case. There will be some crossover but most people over 70 and most people with conditions such as diabetes, heart conditions and high blood pressure would have a life expectancy of many years. Your argument is a convenient one, but not an accurate one. For reference, an initial study of 196 people hospitalised suggests that only 18 (9.1%) of those 196 had severe heath conditions. That suggests 92% of cases are not people who would otherwise have been likely to die.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/21/doctors-warn-coronavirus-could-overwhelm-nhs-intensive-care

b) 37% of admission are under 60, along with 40% of admissions in the US being between 20 and 55 years old. This whole idea that only older and vulnerable are getting hospitalised is not really holding up well to facts at the moment.

c) If 60% of people get it, the mortality rate for people without health conditions under 70 is estimated at somewhere between 0.5 and 0.9 (higher for people with underlying health conditions or older) so we are potentially talking significant numbers of deaths. Once you get millions infected, one out of every two hundred healthy cases still mounts up into tens and thousands of deaths.

d) The reason why we have locked down is because studies show that our health service would be overwhelmed if we did what you suggest. Not only would that significantly up the deaths of both healthy and non-healthy people for coronavirus but also deaths of people in accidents or who needed A & E admissions for other reasons. Even treatable conditions become fatal if there are no intensive care beds.

The best way to understand is this report from Imperial College, which the government has based its thinking on:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

It explains why the strategy you should is dangerous and would cause a significant number of deaths, many of them outside of elderly and vulnerable groups.

You are right that we are panicking and ditching the usual logic but that is because the usual logic would get a lot of people killed. And these would mostly not be people who would have died anyway. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, robin_unreliant said:

That was the kind of reaction I expected tbh. That isn't what I'm saying. Where is the shock and outrage for the 600,000 loved ones who die every year is the point. Why isn't there massive pressure to spend whatever it takes to save them when there isn't a pandemic. Why has everyone been happy to sit back and allow the govt to decide not to spend more on healthcare in the past when that is condemning people to die early? The reaction to this is at odds with how we normally decide spending on healthcate is all I'm saying. 

As organic beings our only certainty is eventual death, so people will always die, that is a given.

The difference in these circumstances is that the immediate action or inaction of governments could lead directly to, or prevent, many hundreds of thousands of additional, unneccesary deaths.

The logical fallacy in your argument 'people eventually die anyway so let's not spend any money stopping preventable deaths' is glaring, particularly during a pandemic.

Edited by Stortz
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

It turns out in, erm, hindsight that not cancelling the Cheltenham Festival might have been a bad idea:

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk-news/cheltenham-festival-2020-racegoers-coronavirus-17947651?fbclid=IwAR1HPl-TDFr8NR-UrrRTsrdsUi_bym5mIMnKXw09Oxa2XNGbAa4JF43ENOw

Who knew?

To be fair, it was an eventuality that no scientist or doctor could have reasonably foreseen.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Hmmm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

out of interest, 10 days ago when we were still allowing flights to arrive from Lombardy,  Italy into the UK unrestricted and unchecked did you think at the time that was a good, or a bad idea? 

Well quite. I made the point on here more than a week ago so I'm not going to labour it, but this continues to baffle me to this day and will for the rest of my life if the country suffers badly this year or I lose friends or family to this disease.

As mentioned before there was literally historical precedent for being able to ground all flights across Europe at the drop of a hat, so why didn't we do so when we saw this developing - even from regions affected would have been a start.

People were flying in from Northern Italy and tweeting their free passage through UK airports unchecked when it was already out of control. Yet try flying into Heathrow from Lisbon if you're not white - they can do it if they want to. ?

I'm amazed the usual newspapers didn't make a fuss. A few dark people in a rubber dinghy off Dover and they all lose their shit, but 1000s of people flying in and out of the country from disease central and no one says a ******* thing. 

I can only guess the government was a) worried about financial hit to airlines, b) inconveniencing Brits skiing in Northern Italy and/or c) simply isn't up to the task of taking back control of borders, other than as a soundbite to win votes.

The double standards are astounding. The country has been consumed for years with the threat of foreigners and whipped into a frenzy to control the border. Given the first practical exercise to do so we do **** all and no one says a thing.

If they had been refugees arriving from Lombardy, this would have played out very differently...

  • Like 7
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another Tweet warning that younger, healthier people should not assume themselves to be immune to all this:

 

Honestly not trying to frighten anyone but there are still far too many people who think they're guaranteed to be fine if they get it. Most people will be - including those in elderly or vulnerable groups - but a significant number across all age groups and with or without health conditions will not. All of us need to do everything we can to avoid the risk of transmission. 

  • Like 2
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...