Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

[Swinglowandslow]

The biggest change since the spring of 2020 has to be the vaccination programme, which I think even the bigger sceptics agree has lessened the severity of the virus in those who catch it. Add to that a better understanding of how to treat Covid in a hospital environment and the result of mutations, and in general I think most agree that the virus should not terrify us to the extent it did.

I absolutely accept there will be exceptions to that, especially amongst the clinically vulnerable, but I am talking in general terms.

I’m not sure if you saw a quote I posted a few weeks ago from an ICU nurse. In her experience, she said those aged over 60 in ICU with Covid who were fully vaccinated were almost all immunosuppressed. In other words, and again in her experience, if you are over 60, fully vaccinated and with a strong immune system, you are unlikely to find yourself in ICU with Covid. I would hope that gives you the confidence to not be as frightened of the virus as most were when it first struck.

I get what you are saying but you are looking at it from a one dimension, sort of theoretical perspective somewhat. Your comments re natural immunity and Ethan's reply re "natural deaths" tend to show that.
I accept that we will probably get Covid at some time- but then , we may not.
I certainly do not see any sense in making it easier NOW, in winter, for people to catch it, by easing restrictions which are not really too onerous.
Wait until summer when hopefully the figures ( the 'figures' are not abstract, they are real people) are a lot fewer.

I look at it a bit like flying in a plane. It's a bumpy, noisy, not very nice flight and the sooner it ends the better.Everyone has a parachute, but the facts are for old people are that a lot more of their chutes will not open when they are used.
Everyone is invited to jump, but I would sooner stay till the plane landed.
If it were on fire, then I would certainly jump and take my chances, but what does it hurt to let it land. ?

 

[Ethan]

NZ philosophy on controlling covid seems to me to be based upon their experience and success of their very strict biosecurity regime, both when entering the country and within the country when entering certain protected/valuable/fragile environments. They know that very tight control can work and that their citizens understand such controls can work while the country get fully vaccinated. Also an observation on comparisons UK with NZ. While pop density across NZ may be low cf UK, about 1/3rd of the population lives in one city - Auckland. And so clearly the NZ approach has successfully contained viral spread even within its highest density conurbation.

Overall country pop density is meaningless. The empty spaces that dilute pop density don't matter. Most urban environments have high pop density, but in some Asian countries, the effective pop density is much higher than in London.

I agree that NZ has a different attitude to biosecurity, but the main differentiators, in my view, were speed of action and resolve.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Overall country pop density is meaningless. The empty spaces that dilute pop density don't matter. Most urban environments have high pop density, but in some Asian countries, the effective pop density is much higher than in London.

I agree that NZ has a different attitude to biosecurity, but the main differentiators, in my view, were speed of action and resolve.

I think that my main reflection was on the attitude that New Zealanders have in respect of understanding and accepting very tight border controls into and within the country - albeit in a biosecurity context.

 

[RichA]

Also worth remembering that our current low mortality and hopefully high immunity rate has come at the cost of over 150000 dead fellow UK dwelling humans. The NZ rate is significantly lower. They win.

 

[Foxholer]

I think that my main reflection was on the attitude that New Zealanders have in respect of understanding and accepting very tight border controls into and within the country - albeit in a biosecurity context.

Indeed! I got my golf kit cleaned better than any time since new when I went home during the UK's Foot & Mouth crisis!

 

[Foxholer]

Also worth remembering that our current low mortality and hopefully high immunity rate has come at the cost of over 150000 dead fellow UK dwelling humans. The NZ rate is significantly lower. They win.

52! However, cases have followed the usual peak that Omicron has brought. Up to 200 per day in November.

 

[Billysboots]

you are looking at it from a one dimension, sort of theoretical perspective somewhat.

I’m not sure that’s entirely fair.

I think the observation regarding vaccines, in particular, is borne out of the considerable experience of the medical profession that they lessen the severity of Covid symptoms in most. And the fact that doctors now have far better knowledge regarding how the virus behaves, and how to treat it, is not theoretical in the least.

Neither is the hands on experience of an ICU nurse - she merely relayed her own direct observations regarding the impact vaccines are having on those populating the ICU where she works.

I hear what you are saying regarding restrictions, and why they should be retained until the summer. The argument that those restrictions are so trifling that it matters not whether we continue to observe them has some credence. Until, that is, you consider that, even with those restrictions in place more than 3 million people are likely to have been infected in the U.K. in the last month alone. If I choose, I can drink in a packed pub, eat in a crowded restaurant, go to a football match with 75,000 others, and do any number of other things which bring me into contact, daily, with other people. That being the case, I see little to be gained from the mandatory wearing of face coverings in a shop or on a bus, if I can hop off that bus into the aforementioned pub, restaurant or football stadium.

It’s a half cocked approach - if we’re not taking a really full on, strict approach then we might as well do nothing.

 

[Foxholer]

I really do think locking down for a handful of cases is going to do more harm than good in the long term. The population are building up no natural immunity whatsoever.

I just checked their chart of cases here! https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/new-zealand/
It was is more than 'a handful'! For a country that has had mainly single figure daily cases for 18 months, the spike to around 200/day is an enormous jolt!
Not an over-reaction imo!

 

[Billysboots]

I just checked their chart of cases here! https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/new-zealand/
It was is more than 'a handful'! For a country that has had mainly single figure daily cases for 18 months, the spike to around 200/day is an enormous jolt!
Not an over-reaction imo!

I never said it was!!

And it was the media this morning reporting a handful - I read 9.

EDIT: The handful, I stress, relates to omicron cases, not all reported Covid infections.

 

[Foxholer]

I never said it was!!

And it was the media this morning reporting a handful - I read 9.

EDIT: The handful, I stress, relates to omicron cases, not all reported Covid infections.

Yeah. I was trying to include PNW's statement as well (without having to quote his post).
I've no idea where 'handful' nor '9' came from!

 

[Ethan]

I think that my main reflection was on the attitude that New Zealanders have in respect of understanding and accepting very tight border controls into and within the country - albeit in a biosecurity context.

No, I know, and in other countries, social attitudes make social distancing easier, such as Scandinavia. Lots of different factors, but we do see some patterns in the data despite all that.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Seems like everyone has already gone back to "normal" in Bracknell. Precious few masks, no social distancing and pubs and restaurants busy (which is good for a struggling sector). Not sure we are out of the woods personally but I guess we'll have to see where the trajectory takes us in the next few weeks

 

[larmen]

As we are now covid isolating we have placed our 1st ever online shopping order. What a weird experience. I think I know my ‘regular path’ through my local Tesco that well, I basically did a VR round through the shop. But it really highlights to me how unhealthy my shopping is. But it should see us through until at least one of us is allowed out again.

That didn't go to well. Someone in this house has to start eating dark chocolate soya custard and drink decaf diet coke. Just clicking on pictures is a lot harder than selecting the stuff from shelves ;-) User error, learning experience.
2 substitutions, 1 cancellation, not too bad on the lottery end of the order.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

I’m not sure that’s entirely fair.

I think the observation regarding vaccines, in particular, is borne out of the considerable experience of the medical profession that they lessen the severity of Covid symptoms in most. And the fact that doctors now have far better knowledge regarding how the virus behaves, and how to treat it, is not theoretical in the least.

Neither is the hands on experience of an ICU nurse - she merely relayed her own direct observations regarding the impact vaccines are having on those populating the ICU where she works.

I hear what you are saying regarding restrictions, and why they should be retained until the summer. The argument that those restrictions are so trifling that it matters not whether we continue to observe them has some credence. Until, that is, you consider that, even with those restrictions in place more than 3 million people are likely to have been infected in the U.K. in the last month alone. If I choose, I can drink in a packed pub, eat in a crowded restaurant, go to a football match with 75,000 others, and do any number of other things which bring me into contact, daily, with other people. That being the case, I see little to be gained from the mandatory wearing of face coverings in a shop or on a bus, if I can hop off that bus into the aforementioned pub, restaurant or football stadium.


It’s a half cocked approach - if we’re not taking a really full on, strict approach then we might as well do nothing.

Sorry, Billy, I didn't mean to be unfair, if that's how you see it.
But this is a situation where others can be dreadfully affected by the actions of others.
Above, where you say "If I choose .......etc.
Masks do not fully prevent you breathing in the virus. They help enormously, but not hundred per cent. They also help prevent you breathing out the virus.

So, you (and others) go to the pub etc and then go on a bus. On that bus is an elderly lady who must go on that public transport-she has no other choice.
If most on the bus are not wearing masks and some are positive, the viral load she has to contend with is far higher than if everyone( who had been to the pub etc) was wearing masks. Their "positive" breath would be hampered by the mask somewhat, and she would have a better chance of not picking it up.
To me it's a no brainier. Why is the inconvenience of all wearing a mask on the bus too onerous to keep her safe?
I agree that as far as that bus journey affects your chances of picking up the virus there masks or no masks makes no difference.
But it's about protecting the less robust people who have no choice but to be there.?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I’m not sure that’s entirely fair.

I think the observation regarding vaccines, in particular, is borne out of the considerable experience of the medical profession that they lessen the severity of Covid symptoms in most. And the fact that doctors now have far better knowledge regarding how the virus behaves, and how to treat it, is not theoretical in the least.

Neither is the hands on experience of an ICU nurse - she merely relayed her own direct observations regarding the impact vaccines are having on those populating the ICU where she works.

I hear what you are saying regarding restrictions, and why they should be retained until the summer. The argument that those restrictions are so trifling that it matters not whether we continue to observe them has some credence. Until, that is, you consider that, even with those restrictions in place more than 3 million people are likely to have been infected in the U.K. in the last month alone. If I choose, I can drink in a packed pub, eat in a crowded restaurant, go to a football match with 75,000 others, and do any number of other things which bring me into contact, daily, with other people. That being the case, I see little to be gained from the mandatory wearing of face coverings in a shop or on a bus, if I can hop off that bus into the aforementioned pub, restaurant or football stadium.

It’s a half cocked approach - if we’re not taking a really full on, strict approach then we might as well do nothing.

On this - yes I agree - we do - on basic virus; the variants so far we've had to deal with; the symptoms and illness the variants have given rise to; plus the vaccines developed to counter these specific variants and treatment of the illness.

But unlike flu and cold viruses, we just don't, and can't, yet have decades of experience of longer term effects; experience of multiple and many variants of various levels of seriousness; and we have not been able to develop vaccines and treatments that span multiple 'classes' of variants and their associated illness.

And that for me is why we cannot treat and live with covid as we treat and live with common viruses - not yet. We need to adopt slightly higher and stricter risk mitigations in our way of life - mitigations more than Catch it; Bin it; Kill it, and if we are feeling rubbish maybe (but not necessarily) taking a day or two off work.

It's all very well advocating an approach that lets the coronavirus run free through the population - and of course I know why we'd want to take that approach, but I feel that the unknowns mean that that approach can only lead to the most vulnerable (and even to an extent those caring for them) finding themselves almost housebound in a way that they are not with such as flu and cold viruses.

If I wasn't in this situation I might not be thinking this, but as of Christmas Eve I am, therefore I am.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

just a touch confused

My daughter had the flu vaccine on Saturday

One of the side affects is a high temp

She got that and we gave her calpol during the night , kept her off school just for today , told the school and now they want LFT for her and can only come back in 2 days if another LFT is negative?!?

Temp is fine and no other symptoms

Confused and it’s a side affects of the flu vaccine

Edit - school confirmed she can go back tomorrow if negative

But she is positive ? - the way she is running around like a loon it seems it’s not affecting her much ?

 

[PNWokingham]

I am sure many will hate this, others may not but i just heard a stat given at 6 minutes into the video that GB News asked the ONS how many otherwise healthy people died of covid in England and Wales - and they were told 17,371 and average age 82. Has anyone heard anything about this?

 

[Ethan]

I am sure many will hate this, others may not but i just heard a stat given at 6 minutes into the video that GB News asked the ONS how many otherwise healthy people died of covid in England and Wales - and they were told 17,371 and average age 82. Has anyone heard anything about this?

If they ask a very narrow clinically obtuse question, they will get a meaningless answer. As they did.

Many people have co-morbidities, high blood pressure, overweight, osteoarthritis, diabetes. The risk of death for the vast majority of those people is very low, and some of those conditions have no relation to a Covid death. The average (median) death age may be 82, but the distribution of deaths across ages, and unlike flu, the perennial comparator, it skews much younger.

Deaths within 28 days of a positive Covid test are considered in official Govt stats. The background death rate, i.e. the risk of death by age and sex in the normal population in the next 28 days, which can be predicted very precisely from actuarial data, is also well known, and is surprisingly low, even for elderly people, no more than 1% at age 80. The chance, therefore, that someone has a Covid test, but dies of something else in the next 28 days, is very very small, so small as to be safely ignored. And the odd case of someone who has a Covid test and dies when a meteorite hits them 27 days later are even more rare. Also, a lot of ICU deaths occur more than 28 days after first test, so are not counted in the official stats, although will likely be deemed Covid deaths at inquest. They key question is what proportion of these deaths would not have occurred had the patients not had Covid, and the answer is a lot more than 17k of them.

The other side of this is that whilst a Covid death may not be due only to Covid, a non-Covid death may be partly due to Covid. Suppose someone who has high BP, diabetes and Covid dies, what killed them? Possibly a bit of each. If you saw a certain death rate from this combo, you could compare it against deaths in people who had BP and diabetes only, and the difference would be attributable to Covid.

 

[RichA]

I am sure many will hate this, others may not but i just heard a stat given at 6 minutes into the video that GB News asked the ONS how many otherwise healthy people died of covid in England and Wales - and they were told 17,371 and average age 82. Has anyone heard anything about this?

Just watched the relevant bit. I'm genuinely not sure what overall point he's trying to make and I'm trying not to let my pre-conceived opinions about GBN into the equation.

 

[SocketRocket]

I am sure many will hate this, others may not but i just heard a stat given at 6 minutes into the video that GB News asked the ONS how many otherwise healthy people died of covid in England and Wales - and they were told 17,371 and average age 82. Has anyone heard anything about this?

This is a very political video and I'm surprised it's been kept on the thread. I would like to comment on it but I'm sure my comments wouldn't be allowed.