Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[johnhemming]

And that puts another thought in my mind. What proportion of our politicians are scientifically trained compared to the average passenger load on the Clapham omnibus? That would be an interesting statistic.

I don't know about the bus, but I remember figures as to perhaps 10 MPs having scientific degrees in the 2005-15 period. I don't know what the figure is now.

Oddly enough there were similar numbers of MPs from Magdalen College, Oxford although one has a physics degree.

[Lootman]

Well as we know, politicians only talk in absolutes. They have to, to keep the message simple enough for the average bod on the Clapham omnibus to understand without having to think.

The tragedy is that the majority of our politicians have no training in science, so the message needs to be simple for them to understand it.
And that puts another thought in my mind. What proportion of our politicians are scientifically trained compared to the average passenger load on the Clapham omnibus? That would be an interesting statistic.

You could say the same about their knowledge of economics, medicine, engineering and any other profession (except law).

The average MP is either a lawyer, or else had some kind of pubic sector job. I'm not sure which is more useless. Many are professional politicians with no other real skills, like Corbyn.

If I have a choice I'd vote for a politician who had run a small business. They tend to have more common sense and practical experience.

[Nimrod103]

Well as we know, politicians only talk in absolutes. They have to, to keep the message simple enough for the average bod on the Clapham omnibus to understand without having to think.

The tragedy is that the majority of our politicians have no training in science, so the message needs to be simple for them to understand it.
And that puts another thought in my mind. What proportion of our politicians are scientifically trained compared to the average passenger load on the Clapham omnibus? That would be an interesting statistic.

I am a scientist, but not in a biological subject. While I would agree that all MPs with a social science type degree should be replaced by those with a science degree, I am under no illusions that this would lead to better or clearer or more informed decision making. One has only to look at the divergence between the Swedish chief epidemiologist, the Oxford institute of Suneta Gupta, and our infamous Neil Ferguson. Politicians have to believe one of them. Can I ask the scientists on this board, which one would you have chosen to follow their advice?

[Bouleversee]

Here is another article on children and the virus which states that they can spread the disease:

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/2020080 ... pOpz4%3d#2

It stands to reason that young children who have been sheltering at home with parents working from home are unlikely to spread the virus because they don't have it. Those who have parents going out to work, especially in the medical context, may have contracted the virus from their parents even if they displayed few or no symptoms and are likely to still retain immunity when they start school, as will their parents, so little chance of their spreading the disease. However, those with older siblings who are being free and easy and not observing social distancing outside school hours, may well contract the disease and pass it on to other pupils and staff. Without testing when school starts and frequent retesting, and a properly functioning tracing system, it will be well nigh impossible to know where the spread starts. I can tell you for a fact that teenagers and other young people are not all observing strict rules under lockdown and it remains to be seen what will happen when they return to school or go to university and what they will bring back from their foreign holidays. Isolating at home could well cause younger children to be infected. It is up to parents to exert some discipline but I am not sure they all will.

Anyway, I think Ms Vine needs to do a bit more homework before making such pronouncements.

[Bouleversee]

Lootman mentioned the other day that his (private) GP had insisted on his having 2 different vaccinations against Pneumonia, which was news to me and I already have a serious lung disease. WebMD's daily bulletin contained a feature about Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (https://www.webmd.com/lung/what-is-idio ... y-fibrosis) which contained the following advice, which confirms this:

"Get a flu shot. Vaccines can protect you from infections like the flu or pneumonia, which can harm your lungs. You need a flu shot every year. You’ll also need two vaccines to help protect against a serious type of pneumonia. Ask your doctor about when you should get these vaccines. Try to stay away from people who have colds."

I'm not sure what they mean by "a serious type of pneumonia" (anyone know?) Perhaps it's all types other than "walking pneumonia". It would seem that my GP practice is behind the times but surely it should be the consultant's responsibility to prescribe the correct jabs and not leave it to GPs who from my experience know little about rare diseases. My guess is that my consultant didn't know what was required either and to tell the surgery that I should keep up to date with the pneumococcal jab was just passing the buck.

[Bouleversee]

The point is that it is a different strain every year so if you had 'flu last year it wouldn't stop you getting it this year whereas an updated vaccine hopefully will, though I don't know how effective they are in reality since so many old people die of 'flu and one would imagine most elderly people do have the jab. What I'd like to know is how they manage to produce a suitable vaccine for each year's new 'flu strain in time to vaccinate everyone when they are finding it so difficult with Covid 19.

Why would you not have the vaccine, Terry?

I suspect that the same thing that stops me getting flu may well stop this virus.

I'm not bothered, anyway.

TJH

That might just be not coming into contact with anyone who has 'flu or the virus down to good luck, which I hope will continue.

Keep safe.

[Lootman]

Lootman mentioned the other day that his (private) GP had insisted on his having 2 different vaccinations against Pneumonia, which was news to me and I already have a serious lung disease. WebMD's daily bulletin contained a feature about Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (https://www.webmd.com/lung/what-is-idio ... y-fibrosis) which contained the following advice, which confirms this:

"Get a flu shot. Vaccines can protect you from infections like the flu or pneumonia, which can harm your lungs. You need a flu shot every year. You’ll also need two vaccines to help protect against a serious type of pneumonia. Ask your doctor about when you should get these vaccines. Try to stay away from people who have colds."

I'm not sure what they mean by "a serious type of pneumonia" (anyone know?) Perhaps it's all types other than "walking pneumonia". It would seem that my GP practice is behind the times but surely it should be the consultant's responsibility to prescribe the correct jabs and not leave it to GPs who from my experience know little about rare diseases. My guess is that my consultant didn't know what was required either and to tell the surgery that I should keep up to date with the pneumococcal jab was just passing the buck.

There is some more information here about the two shots, PCV-13 and PPV-23, from the NHS. It appears that many children have one of them as a child. I did not have that, which is why both were recommended, one year apart:

"Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) is used to vaccinate children under 2 years old as part of the NHS childhood vaccination programme. It's known by the brand name Prevenar 13.

Pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV) is given to people aged 65 and over and people at high risk because they have long-term health conditions."

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinati ... ccination/

[ursaminortaur]

Lootman mentioned the other day that his (private) GP had insisted on his having 2 different vaccinations against Pneumonia, which was news to me and I already have a serious lung disease. WebMD's daily bulletin contained a feature about Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (https://www.webmd.com/lung/what-is-idio ... y-fibrosis) which contained the following advice, which confirms this:

"Get a flu shot. Vaccines can protect you from infections like the flu or pneumonia, which can harm your lungs. You need a flu shot every year. You’ll also need two vaccines to help protect against a serious type of pneumonia. Ask your doctor about when you should get these vaccines. Try to stay away from people who have colds."

I'm not sure what they mean by "a serious type of pneumonia" (anyone know?) Perhaps it's all types other than "walking pneumonia". It would seem that my GP practice is behind the times but surely it should be the consultant's responsibility to prescribe the correct jabs and not leave it to GPs who from my experience know little about rare diseases. My guess is that my consultant didn't know what was required either and to tell the surgery that I should keep up to date with the pneumococcal jab was just passing the buck.

https://www.cdc.gov/features/adult-pneumococcal/index.html

Two vaccines help prevent pneumococcal disease:

PCV13 (pneumococcal conjugate vaccine)
PPSV23 (pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine)

PCV13 protects against 13 strains of pneumococcal bacteria and PPSV23 protects against 23 strains of pneumococcal bacteria. Both vaccines provide protection against illnesses like meningitis and bacteremia. PCV13 also provides protection against pneumonia.

Note these protect against pneumococcal bacteria they don't protect against viral pneumonia.

https://www.healthline.com/health/viral-pneumonia

Viral pneumonia is a complication of the viruses that cause colds and the flu. It accounts for about one third of pneumonia cases. The virus invades your lungs and causes them to swell, blocking your flow of oxygen.
.
.
.
Treatment is the biggest difference between bacterial and viral pneumonia. Bacterial pneumonia is treated with antibiotic therapy, while viral pneumonia will usually get better on its own. In some cases, viral pneumonia can lead to a secondary bacterial pneumonia. At that point, your doctor may prescribe antibiotic therapy. Your doctor will be able to tell if it has become bacterial pneumonia by a change in your symptoms or signs.

Covid-19 can on its own cause viral pneumonia though in some cases patients might also develop a secondary bacterial pneumonia infection.

[Mike4]

I've just remembered a hypothesis I heard a few weeks ago about why young children with COVID-19 are less infective than teenagers and adults. I find this quaintly appealing for how basic it is...

The idea is young children don't infect adults because the children are smaller than adults. The virus-laden breath comes out of their mouths much lower down than the noses and mouths of any adults nearby, unlike any nearby infective adults who breathe on you at face level. How about that for an idea then?

[Bouleversee]

Yeah, when you are holding them in your arms or crouchkng down to comfort them because they are wailing their heads off because they feel poorly and sneezing and coughing in your face.

[Bouleversee]

Thanks to Lootman and Ursaminortaur for further info, re vaccines.. Not terribly relevant to Covid, it would seem but seems sensible to have both to cover more bacteria.

[88V8]

The idea is young children don't infect adults because the children are smaller than adults. The virus-laden breath comes out of their mouths much lower down than the noses and mouths of any adults nearby, unlike any nearby infective adults who breathe on you at face level.

So we'd be safer (from the average adult) if we used a snorkel.
And the taller one is, the less likely to catch it.
Cuban heels

V8

[dealtn]

Do you accept the base reason for lockdown is to reduce the volume of human-to-human interactions? If you do, what would you suggest a lockdown comprises if not closing pubs?

If you don't accept the reason for lockdown, what action if any, do you think would reduce propagation of a virus such as SARS-CoV-2?

I have been away for a few days and "catching up". Firstly I notice, and am pleased, that the nature of debate here is considered, and polite, and investigative in general, from those on either "side" in the debate.

I could have picked a number of posts to quote and comment on, but chose this one.

Whilst away I "stayed" (met frequently and socialised, not lived with) with an old friend. Whilst catching up I discovered 2 separate people she would count as friends that have committed suicide during the pandemic. Both are tragedies, one in particular leaves 2 teenage children with a single parent, who herself is struck down with another health condition. So whilst I understand the "reduce the volume of human-to-human interactions", and the reason behind this in reducing the number of people catching, and dying of Covid, for the first time I can now say I am personally aware of the impact of the virus. 2 people, be they friends of friends, couldn't cope with the (simplification I know) reduction in human interaction and the "new" way of living.

It is now very clear to me that anyone that purely focuses on the "Covid" healthcare of this pandemic, and the importance of deciding rules purely on that basis is doing a huge disservice to all the other types of people that are affected by the mental health consequences of such "rules". I suspect it isn't any different if such "rules" also don't take into account "missed education" and "economic deprivation".

Now which side of the line re-opening pubs/restaurants/churches/gyms/businesses etc. sits is of course debateable but I hope that those that draw that line, and those that praise/criticise where that line is drawn, truly take into account ALL the ways this virus affects people, and not just the literal (and potential) virus sufferers.

[redsturgeon]

Thanks to Lootman and Ursaminortaur for further info, re vaccines.. Not terribly relevant to Covid, it would seem but seems sensible to have both to cover more bacteria.

Influenza and covid19 are both viruses.

Bacteria are killed by antibiotics not vaccines.

John

[servodude]

Thanks to Lootman and Ursaminortaur for further info, re vaccines.. Not terribly relevant to Covid, it would seem but seems sensible to have both to cover more bacteria.

Influenza and covid19 are both viruses.

Bacteria are killed by antibiotics not vaccines.

John

Absolutely correct and true
- but the vaccines previously mentioned were to counter strains of pneumococcal bacteria and got conflated a bit in the discussion with the flu vaccine so I can see why some the above quote makes sense

- sd

[Bouleversee]

Thanks to Lootman and Ursaminortaur for further info, re vaccines.. Not terribly relevant to Covid, it would seem but seems sensible to have both to cover more bacteria.

Influenza and covid19 are both viruses.

Bacteria are killed by antibiotics not vaccines.

John

I know that, John, (which is why I can never understand why people think anti-bacterial hand washes will prevent Covid infection) but unless I have gone completely gaga (always a possibility) I thought one or other of those articles said the pneumococcal vaccine was to prevent (rather than cure) bacterial pneumonia (caused by any of a large no. of bacterial infections) which one might get from, for instance, falling into a pond or river, which I did in my youth and nearly died from double pneumonia. Other causes are available. No time to re-read a.t.m. but feel free to correct me if I am wrong after you have read them both.

[Bouleversee]

The following is, I think, a rather well written article re Covid 19 which covers most aspects to date:

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articl ... e-the-body

It contained several things I hadn't read before.

[redsturgeon]

Thanks to Lootman and Ursaminortaur for further info, re vaccines.. Not terribly relevant to Covid, it would seem but seems sensible to have both to cover more bacteria.

Influenza and covid19 are both viruses.

Bacteria are killed by antibiotics not vaccines.

John

I know that, John, (which is why I can never understand why people think anti-bacterial hand washes will prevent Covid infection) but unless I have gone completely gaga (always a possibility) I thought one or other of those articles said the pneumococcal vaccine was to prevent (rather than cure) bacterial pneumonia (caused by any of a large no. of bacterial infections) which one might get from, for instance, falling into a pond or river, which I did in my youth and nearly died from double pneumonia. Other causes are available. No time to re-read a.t.m. but feel free to correct me if I am wrong after you have read them both.

My apologies B. I had not read the previous posts to which you were referring and had wrongly assumed we were discussing flu and covid 19 vaccimes.

John

[Clitheroekid]

The reason I disagree is twofold.

Firstly, as I've said many times before, CV presents virtually no serious risk to the younger half of the population. Yet they are the ones who are being hurt most by the lockdown. They're the ones who are losing their jobs; having to cope with closed schools and no childcare; suffering serious financial problems because of large debts and reduced or non-existent incomes.

Broadly, I have decided I agree with you on this point. I have been resisting until now but I think you are right. Although we don't know for a fact yet, a lot of those under 60 get it with symptoms so mild they barely or don't notice so just carry on regardless. There is however a smattering of deaths (starting with the 32 year old fit male doctor who first raised the alarm) in the under 60s and these we think, are worth accepting in order to hold out financial system together?

Questions like this are extremely difficult to answer without seeming to be some sort of sociopath – of course the death of a 32 year old doctor, or any other 32 year old for that matter, is horrendous. But I'm afraid the answer has to be yes, such deaths are `worth accepting’ because there is no real alternative. We just have to accept that some young people will die who would probably not have died had there been a more stringent lockdown.

The other reason for lockdown is to hold down the sheer volume of sick and dying people it is feared will swamp our hospitals if our attempts to control propagation of the virus are abandoned. What are your views on this point specifically please?

The key word here is `feared'. The government have done an excellent job in terrorising the population, but the simple fact is that CV is relatively harmless for the vast majority of healthy people under 50 (which is the sector of the population I was saying should be `freed').

Consequently, accepting a wider spread of the virus among younger people will almost certainly not result in hospitals being `swamped'. This is already evident from the areas where there have been localised outbreaks, with the stupid local whack-a-moleing that's followed - the local hospitals have apparently not been under any particular strain at all.

But it is simply incredibly selfish of our half of the population to insist that the government acts to ensure our protection at the expense of the younger half, which is effectively what's happening. We have no right to make such a demand.

Hmmmmm. I'm not sure it is so unreasonable for ANY sector of society to want measures to be taken to control a virus threatening their lives.

You're quite right, it's not at all unreasonable that everyone wants protection. But what is unreasonable is to allow the wishes of a particular sector (in this case the older half of the population) to be so heavily prioritised over everyone else's.

Secondly, though it's a development of the first point, it's entirely wrong to place so much emphasis on stopping the spread of the virus. As I said earlier, it's increasingly clear that although the infection rate may be rising the death rate isn't, at least nothing like to the same extent.

This is circular non-argument. The death rate is steady because of the measures currently being taken to control the spread of virus.

No. The infection rates, both here and abroad, often rise quite quickly, but they are not followed by a commensurate increase in the death rate. I suspect this is because CV carried off the `easy' victims when it first struck. Those being infected now are (as is widely reported) the younger people, who are far more resilient and for the most part not at any real risk of dying or even becoming seriously ill.

The frantic, whack-a-mole efforts to stop it spreading conjure up an image of King Canute pompously ordering the tide to retreat. Of course we should take reasonable steps to slow its spread, but not if it means trashing the economy. In brutal terms we have to accept the death of a few more people as a necessary price of saving the livelihoods of far more.

You've made this point already and I begrudgingly agree with you. So now it's time to quantify your "death of a few more people". How many additional deaths should we accept? A million, say, to save the economy? My guess is you will swerve putting a number on it...

It's not `swerving the question' to say I don't know the answer, and neither does anyone else, as the question is simply not susceptible to any sensible answer. Even if it were possible to arrive at a figure it would be utterly absurd to imagine that the government would simply let everything carry on while the figure gradually totted up and then suddenly slam on the brakes.

But the fact is that decisions like this are made every day in government and the NHS irrespective of CV. Keeping people alive costs money, and people die every day because it's become too expensive to keep them alive. The same principle applies here, unpleasant as it is to admit.

What it really comes down to is that we are going to have to accept significantly higher levels of infection risk. We must learn to live (and die) with CV and stop pretending that we can make it go away by hiding from it.

Must we? Everyone is aware of it. No-one is pretending. It is human nature to try to avoid the risk each of us personally perceives and if people think hiding away is needed to avoid dying, this is what they will do. There are tens (if not hundreds) of thousands out there with serious comorbidities "shielding", and you will not convince them or those who love them with your argument that they and everyone over 60 should be thrown to the wolves on the altar of saving the economy.

I would contend that the government is pretending that they know how to deal with CV. They don't, and neither does anyone else. However, all these silly measures like suddenly having to wear masks, overnight quarantines and local lockdowns are designed to give the impression they do know, and that such decisions are based on solid scientific evidence, which they aren't.

I have not remotely suggested that "everyone over 60 should be thrown to the wolves on the altar of saving the economy", and using such emotive language doesn't help what's a very difficult discussion. But people over 60 are, generally speaking, much more able to take steps to protect themselves than people under 60. For a start, most of them don't need to work; neither do they have young children that need care. Many of them already spend most of their time at home, so that they will be less severely affected by lockdown type arrangements. Although older people (and remember, I'm one of them!) will undoubtedly suffer if they choose to avoid contact with people their suffering will generally be a lot less than that of younger people.

The simple fact is that there are two irreconcilable targets - maintaining the health of the economy, and maintaining the health of the people. Of course we can and should aim to maximise both, but the present setup is too fixated on maintaining people's health at the expense of the economy. This might be justified if CV was as dangerous as it was first thought, but it seems increasingly clear that for most people it really isn't. That reduction in risk must therefore now be reflected in a much lighter regulatory regime, with people given far more freedom to make their own decisions.

[88V8]

....people given far more freedom to make their own decisions.

Ooooh, we can't have that.
They might think wrong, then the media would blame the govt. We can't risk the govt's hard-won credibility by allowing people to think.

On a related matter, article about masks https://newatlas.com/health-wellbeing/f ... 0-92456261 which concluded that knitting your own probably is not a good idea.
Presumably crochet wouldn't be great either.

V8