More Brits embarrassing themselves abroad “allegedly”

[Blue in Munich]

Yup let’s not let the truth get in the way. As I mentioned at the time the UK government said it was safe to travel. Not me and not you. Whilst we were there this country went into lockdown. They are the ones who set the rules. Since then there have been posts on this forum about booking holidays. Are they wrong to want to go somewhere safe. How many travel corridors have closed and folk gone into 14 day isolation on there return since then. We’re they wrong as well To go away.
If memory serves me right, I was accused of not loving me grandkids because we thought we would be looking after them. Guess what the government said “ Tash you can look after your kids coz there mums a copper”.

What exactly was my hypocrisy, pointing out then what folk are doing now. Would love to see where I said don’t travel when am abroad. And if it does then I will hold me hands up.

Best you hold your hands up then.

What you said was if we stop moving the virus stops moving. From Mexico.

Today's thought of the day.

The Virus does not move,
People move it.
We stop moving,
The Virus stops moving.
The virus dies.
It's as simple as that

Here's some of the responses, from a number of different forummers;

Says the man continuing to move round the planet on holiday...

Surely he’s on the wind up??
No one can be that stupid to post that after “moving” to Mexico and back

Have you been on the crack pipe or are you just trying to look like a fool.

These 2 quotes combined make you look ridiculous, you knew all the issues yet you jetted off to Mexico, will have to fly on a confined aircraft with yourself or others being potential carriers yet you have the cheek to tell people we need to stop moving about to prevent the virus moving. On top of all that potential infection you're exposed to your planning on flying back whether that's via plane or on your magical pegasus High horse and have your grandchildren for 3 weeks, exposing them to the risk of whatever you may have brought back with you.

Your daughter is a copper therefore a key worker and as such they can remain at school or the alternative is for them to be with their other parent if as you say both are coppers then their superior can arrange alternate shift patterns.

You should be getting back to the UK and quarantine yourselves as is expected of anyone that's been on international travel. I literally cannot believe you've posted those 2 things you're being either unbelievably selfish or stupid, perhaps even both. Stop telling people what we should do when you do the opposite and don't put your grandchildren at risk man for god sake.

That is a good thought, if only it were that simple, but somewhat ironic coming from our resident globe trotter!
There are times when it's best to stay silent.

Tashy boy..... I did try & tell you to STOP DIGGING those holes for yourself though I'm sure you'll have got that advice quite some time ago.

Time for you to 'self isolate' for everybody's sake..... unbelievable.

Think I came out when FCO said it's ok to fly. Maybe the globe trotters at skegness etc at the weekend had a bit to do with it ?

As already been stated the advice was don't travel unless you had to. Do you know everyone you're coming into contact with there, on flight back, at the airport upon your return is free from Covid19 and not putting you at risk of carrying it to. Of course you don't, therefore upon return rather than risking the health of your grandchildren you should be isolating away from them until you know you're clear. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.

You knew before you went what was happening but carried on regardless even when telling us there were confirmed cases near where you are and continued to spout tripe about how we back here should stop moving about.

Travel was being banned well before you left on your jolly. Even if the travel you undertook wasn't specifically banned, the hypocrisy in telling others not to travel from your sunbed , and then pleading a variation of the Nuremberg defence, is off the scale. You can try and hide behind the fact that travel to Mexico hadn't specifically been banned if you like, and if you'd kept your mouth shut then there wouldn't have been an issue. But you chose to lecture the forum on not travelling whilst you were travelling, which is why you got ripped to bits.

If you can't see the hypocrisy in it then you are beyond help.

 

[DanFST]

Think many of us have seen some (limited) stats that are showing the low mortality rate for healthy younger folk, and that's great. But do you have any to share that confirms no/low hospitalisations?
For clarity I've not seen them (although it may be true).
Perhaps the below is all over 60s?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-55480147

The data isn't that easy to find. 237 under 18's have been admitted with covid this year tho, less than the capacity of a nightingale hospital. Coupled with the median age of admission being 72.
This is a study into relatives of healthcare workers, but you should be able to extrapolate the results to the larger population.

 

[Deleted member 21258]

On hospitalisations, the data is available here, download the excel files and have a look:-

Statistics » COVID-19 Hospital Activity (england.nhs.uk)

This guy uploads data from the following links over ages (yeah 18-64 is one band range done by nhs, not this person) :-

datatosee.com (@dontbetyet) / Twitter




When you look at the data, the number of admissions from care homes are still high, along with the number of people who appear to catch covid in hospital is high as well(ie test positive 7 days after being admitted) and of course as a % of the 65 plus admissions are very high when compared to the absolute populations numbers in each age range. Being old is the by far the biggest risk of hospitalisation and death sadly and Im not young.

Loads of data out there, that is presented and some quite eye opening data, when you start to see each piece of the jigsaw pieced together tbh.

 

[Ethan]

If you are insinuating that we should target the young as you infer they are contracting the disease the most. Surely it would make more sense to lock away anyone over 40.

less that 60 people under 40 with no underlying health conditions have died of covid. And only 350 if you include those with underlying conditions. (I hate using the word only, every death is a friend of somone) We could all be living completely normal lives, contributing to the economy. But we are locked away for the benefit of older people. If you are going to discriminate by age, realise that the old are the reason for all this.

Did you know there has been more suicides than covid deaths by under 40's?

There was a frank discussion yesterday on this statistic that ONLY so many people under 40 died from Covid, with or without underlying conditions. There are a number of issues to unpack, including whether or not underlying conditions are actually implicated in the outcome or not. They often aren't. But in young people, it isn't really about deaths. There are many more young people who have had an unpleasant stay in hospital, a near death experience in ICU (although much more likely to survive an ICU stay than an elderly person) or are currently suffering long Covid after a home illness. Covid isn't really a respiratory infection, that is just one early manifestation, it is a systemic inflammatory condition which can cause damage to all the major organs, some of the long terms implications of which are not yet fully understood but appear likely to be very damaging. The idea that young people shouldn't really worry too much about Covid is a serious mistake. The mix of outcomes appears to vary with age. Older people tend to do very badly or do OK. You get people are less likely to do very badly but are more likely to have a chronic complication.

And if you go a bit older, 50s and 60s, not yet entirely decrepit, mortality climbs a fair bit. It isn't really just young and old, it is a spectrum.

One of the lessons of Spanish Flu was that places which got to grips with the disease were able to recover their economies faster, even different cities as well as countries. This tension between dealing with health and dealing with the economy need to work in the same direction, and in my opinion the politicians who have pushed back against lockdowns in apparent defence of the economy have only made matters worse for the economy by prolonging things. You have probably seen reports that if we had locked down one week sooner, it could have saved 20,000 lives. It would have saved a lot more damage to the economy too.

 

[DanFST]

There was a frank discussion yesterday on this statistic that ONLY so many people under 40 died from Covid, with or without underlying conditions. There are a number of issues to unpack, including whether or not underlying conditions are actually implicated in the outcome or not. They often aren't. But in young people, it isn't really about deaths. There are many more young people who have had an unpleasant stay in hospital, a near death experience in ICU (although much more likely to survive an ICU stay than an elderly person) or are currently suffering long Covid after a home illness. Covid isn't really a respiratory infection, that is just one early manifestation, it is a systemic inflammatory condition which can cause damage to all the major organs, some of the long terms implications of which are not yet fully understood but appear likely to be very damaging. The idea that young people shouldn't really worry too much about Covid is a serious mistake. The mix of outcomes appears to vary with age. Older people tend to do very badly or do OK. You get people are less likely to do very badly but are more likely to have a chronic complication.

And if you go a bit older, 50s and 60s, not yet entirely decrepit, mortality climbs a fair bit. It isn't really just young and old, it is a spectrum.

One of the lessons of Spanish Flu was that places which got to grips with the disease were able to recover their economies faster, even different cities as well as countries. This tension between dealing with health and dealing with the economy need to work in the same direction, and in my opinion the politicians who have pushed back against lockdowns in apparent defence of the economy have only made matters worse for the economy by prolonging things. You have probably seen reports that if we had locked down one week sooner, it could have saved 20,000 lives. It would have saved a lot more damage to the economy too.

I believe we spoke before in March after I gave a brief account of what covid was like. I haven't spoke of the long term effects. It took me about 6 months to get back physically to where I was, on the bike/running or lifting weights. I was constantly tired, or didn't sleep for ages. Obviously it's anecdotal. Is there any data or chat on your side regarding the effects of long covid? In know of 60ish people under 40 that have had it, i'm the only one who got knocked for 6 when I had it, and had effects after. Obviously anectdotal.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, however is it usual for data to be presented in such a way? Ie: 0-17, 18-64, 65-84,85+. It seems to me that 18-64 should be split into 2 groups. We know the death rate goes up substantially from 40+, why is data not aligned with death categories? You know why i'm asking, but it would be great to hear impartial thoughts.

Following from that, why is antibody testing unavailable for anyone other than the rich and NHS workers? I was luckily enough to have the money to pay, but a startling amount of NHS workers I know only found out they had already contracted it once testing was rolled out internally.

Quickly stepping into my domain, we can't compare to the reactions of Spanish Flu. Our economy is radically different than it was back then.

And lastly you may remember back in March I was even more pro lockdown than you! Was called all sorts on here for spreading "doom and gloom". I believe one of our debates was I was certain it had been here longer than suggested. So i'm in no way against lockdown. However we ******* it. We never got the virus low enough to give us enough time to start to rebuild to make the lockdown worthwhile. The current process going forward is pointless (economically speaking). We gasp at Americans ignoring it, saying how stupid they are with no lockdown and minimal restrictions. However their death per million is lower than ours even with their healthcare system. Which in my conjectured opinion is that they only started diagnosing it once we'd been dealing with it and improved treatment significantly. Also Belgium's is still the worst per million by a huge amount because of the National Carnivals in February again before we'd had more experience with treatment.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Anyone else have to bight their tongues quite hard when they hear their children scold their children for not tidying their rooms and putting out their washing.

 

[Ethan]

I believe we spoke before in March after I gave a brief account of what covid was like. I haven't spoke of the long term effects. It took me about 6 months to get back physically to where I was, on the bike/running or lifting weights. I was constantly tired, or didn't sleep for ages. Obviously it's anecdotal. Is there any data or chat on your side regarding the effects of long covid? In know of 60ish people under 40 that have had it, i'm the only one who got knocked for 6 when I had it, and had effects after. Obviously anectdotal.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, however is it usual for data to be presented in such a way? Ie: 0-17, 18-64, 65-84,85+. It seems to me that 18-64 should be split into 2 groups. We know the death rate goes up substantially from 40+, why is data not aligned with death categories? You know why i'm asking, but it would be great to hear impartial thoughts.

Following from that, why is antibody testing unavailable for anyone other than the rich and NHS workers? I was luckily enough to have the money to pay, but a startling amount of NHS workers I know only found out they had already contracted it once testing was rolled out internally.

Quickly stepping into my domain, we can't compare to the reactions of Spanish Flu. Our economy is radically different than it was back then.

And lastly you may remember back in March I was even more pro lockdown than you! Was called all sorts on here for spreading "doom and gloom". I believe one of our debates was I was certain it had been here longer than suggested. So i'm in no way against lockdown. However we ******* it. We never got the virus low enough to give us enough time to start to rebuild to make the lockdown worthwhile. The current process going forward is pointless (economically speaking). We gasp at Americans ignoring it, saying how stupid they are with no lockdown and minimal restrictions. However their death per million is lower than ours even with their healthcare system. Which in my conjectured opinion is that they only started diagnosing it once we'd been dealing with it and improved treatment significantly. Also Belgium's is still the worst per million by a huge amount because of the National Carnivals in February again before we'd had more experience with treatment.

I don't remember that discussion, but I don't doubt it. Your story is not that uncommon. Fatigue is a common and debilitating effect and lots of subtle stuff has been reported, from psychiatric effects (mood changes) to cognitive effects (memory problems, reduction in some intellectual abilities) to seizures (direct encephalitic effects). It seems that younger people are more prone to these effects.

Data is presented in different ways for different purposes. I have no major objection for the age categories, presumably there is a thought that you can broadly characterise the condition in those bands. The best data is, of course, per capita, so knowing the bare numbers is not helpful, you need to know what the denominator is too. There will be data broken down much more finely, it just may not be easily available to the public.

Hospitalisations and death rates go up sharply with age, with deaths rising much faster. In US data, compared to someone aged 18-29, if you are aged 40-49, you have a 3x chance of hospitalisation and a 10x chance of death, but of you are 65-74, those numbers rise to 5x and 90x, and if you are over 85, 13x and 630x.

I think the US death rates need to be carefully interpreted. It is a big place and it doesn't really operate as one entity. People in Montana are largely insulated from what happens in New York or LA. Local death rates in places in the US which have not taken lockdown seriously have been horrendous. Belgium is an interesting case. It is quite densely populated in places and once the infection gets in, even if it through dumb luck rather than neglect, it will travel fast.

I think I said before that the public health concept behind pandemic planning is very simple. 1. Stop the virus getting in. 2. Stop it circulating. NZ and Aus did number 1 very well, we did it badly. The amount of work left in 2 depends how well you did 1. We had a lot of work left and didn't do it well. The key period was that time when we saw cases rising in Italy and the inevitability it would come here. We needed to close the airports and impose quarantine on skiers returning from Italy then. Not doing so probably cost 10s of thousands of lives. Then a firm lockdown would have stopped the endemic spread of the virus. That is what S. Korea and China did very well. OK, their people are used to different flavours of authoritarianism and social compliance but the virus didn't know that. NZ and Aus retained a much more normal version of life than we did inside their national or state bubbles.

We are now entering the most dangerous time in the whole story. People see the vaccine and think it is a panacea. It isn't, at least not until a substantial proportion of the population is done. There will likely be further growth in the case numbers and NHS hospitals tipped over the edge, and if flu, which has been suppressed this year by Covid restrictions, decides to join the party, there will be carnage.

 

[Deleted member 21258]

I believe we spoke before in March after I gave a brief account of what covid was like. I haven't spoke of the long term effects. It took me about 6 months to get back physically to where I was, on the bike/running or lifting weights. I was constantly tired, or didn't sleep for ages. Obviously it's anecdotal. Is there any data or chat on your side regarding the effects of long covid? In know of 60ish people under 40 that have had it, i'm the only one who got knocked for 6 when I had it, and had effects after. Obviously anectdotal.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, however is it usual for data to be presented in such a way? Ie: 0-17, 18-64, 65-84,85+. It seems to me that 18-64 should be split into 2 groups. We know the death rate goes up substantially from 40+, why is data not aligned with death categories? You know why i'm asking, but it would be great to hear impartial thoughts.

Following from that, why is antibody testing unavailable for anyone other than the rich and NHS workers? I was luckily enough to have the money to pay, but a startling amount of NHS workers I know only found out they had already contracted it once testing was rolled out internally.

Quickly stepping into my domain, we can't compare to the reactions of Spanish Flu. Our economy is radically different than it was back then.

And lastly you may remember back in March I was even more pro lockdown than you! Was called all sorts on here for spreading "doom and gloom". I believe one of our debates was I was certain it had been here longer than suggested. So i'm in no way against lockdown. However we ******* it. We never got the virus low enough to give us enough time to start to rebuild to make the lockdown worthwhile. The current process going forward is pointless (economically speaking). We gasp at Americans ignoring it, saying how stupid they are with no lockdown and minimal restrictions. However their death per million is lower than ours even with their healthcare system. Which in my conjectured opinion is that they only started diagnosing it once we'd been dealing with it and improved treatment significantly. Also Belgium's is still the worst per million by a huge amount because of the National Carnivals in February again before we'd had more experience with treatment.

The only thing I have read, was that 18-65 was the working age but as you say mad to not split. As someone like me in 50s is at far greater risk than someone in their 20s of hospitalisation and death from the virus. As people we take risks everyday and assess them, we need to know these risks. I don't need to be controlled or feared mongered that has happened. I need proper information, I am a grow up adult with some element of common sense. Science also has been very madly used in this period and I hope it can recover.

The antibody testing is a real interesting question, as I can not understand why we can not buy them for home testing. Last time I looked I think they were blocked from being sold. And you have to goto a private clinic or via the post to a private clinic. I appreciate there are not 100% but would be nice to have the option.

Not sure if you have researched about the Spanish flu cases and any papers on the matter, but what they did back then was nothing like the experiment we are currently doing and as you say to compare the two, is not really helpful apart from the lesson to be learnt is that you need to stop the virus getting in, in the modern world (if you can with a country like the UK, not convinced but we should have tried). IIRC most restrictions in the Spanish flu were in place for a max of a couple of months only and as we know the flu is nothing like as aggressive as this virus on a relative naïve population.... Well worth reading all about and when I was reading about the Spanish flu, couldn't help but to think about collateral damage that is going to happen with this virus(back in March this was). The collateral damage that is now being inflicted is massive as this runs on and will only grow into the future.

Thought I would add that what I type above doesn't mean, I disagree with restrictions. Personally I would have liked to see a lockdown happen like Chinas and then control the little spreads that happen. But think we are way to late in the day for this and wherever you sit on the fence, the vaccine is the only exit strategy.

 

[Ethan]

The only thing I have read, was that 18-65 was the working age but as you say mad to not split. As someone like me in 50s is at far greater risk than someone in their 20s of hospitalisation and death from the virus. As people we take risks everyday and assess them, we need to know these risks. I don't need to be controlled or feared mongered that has happened. I need proper information, I am a grow up adult with some element of common sense. Science also has been very madly used in this period and I hope it can recover.

The antibody testing is a real interesting question, as I can not understand why we can not buy them for home testing. Last time I looked I think they were blocked from being sold. And you have to goto a private clinic or via the post to a private clinic. I appreciate there are not 100% but would be nice to have the option.

Not sure if you have researched about the Spanish flu cases and any papers on the matter, but what they did back then was nothing like the experiment we are currently doing and as you say to compare the two, is not really helpful apart from the lesson to be learnt is that you need to stop the virus getting in, in the modern world (if you can with a country like the UK, not convinced but we should have tried). IIRC most restrictions in the Spanish flu were in place for a max of a couple of months only and as we know the flu is nothing like as aggressive as this virus on a relative naïve population.... Well worth reading all about and when I was reading about the Spanish flu, couldn't help but to think about collateral damage that is going to happen with this virus(back in March this was). The collateral damage that is now being inflicted is massive as this runs on and will only grow into the future.

Thought I would add that what I type above doesn't mean, I disagree with restrictions. Personally I would have liked to see a lockdown happen like Chinas and then control the little spreads that happen. But think we are way to late in the day for this and wherever you sit on the fence, the vaccine is the only exit strategy.

Oops, I didn't comment on antibody testing. I think we are moving past that now. Leaving aside lab accuracy issues, we know that people who get exposed to virus or vaccine mount an antibody response, but it falls off with time and your T-cell immune memory then does there work for you. People who were exposed to Covid back in March and April may well have lost the antibody already and test negative now. I am a fan of the immune passport or similar. The only real objection to this is political, that it separates groups of people, but that is the way things will have to go. I haven't looked for an antibody test and wouldn't be particularly interested in paying for one.

 

[SocketRocket]

Probably a gang of Pensioners having an illicit Bingo session.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-55506681