COVID-19/Coronavirus Information and Support Thread (see OP for useful links)

[Joey D]

And phase 1 is when? Next year? 2022? Not sure about you but I'm already more than done with this crap already. Breaking point not too far off.

Vaccines take a long time to develop because researchers need to be sure that they are going to work and not have any unintended consequences. Say Company XYZ rushed a vaccine to market and it ended up giving every single recipient blood poisoning, that would be bad, especially with a healthcare system that's already stressed.

It's important that we do things quickly, but it's just as important that we do things safely.

With all that said, the likelihood that we have a vaccine by the end of the year is looking better and better every day. At the latest, I say we have one by this time next year, which still would be an impressive feat for humankind.

 

[McLaren]

And phase 1 is when? Next year? 2022? Not sure about you but I'm already more than done with this crap already. Breaking point not too far off.

Hello. Mother Nature? Yes, the human species is tired of Covid, you can stop now. Are you there? Hello?


Damn, we'll try again tomorrow.

 

[Joey D]

Hello. Mother Nature? Yes, the human species is tired of Covid, you can stop now. Are you there? Hello?


Damn, we'll try again tomorrow.

Mother Nature: New Phone, who dis?

 

[Dotini]

Mother Nature may be tired of the human species.


WORLD NEWS
Researchers Warn Of “Jaw Dropping” Crash In Global Fertility Rate

“It’s extraordinary, we’ll have to reorganise societies”.

Published

1 min ago
on 15 July, 2020
Steve Watson

Researchers at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation have warned that the planet is not prepared for an ongoing global population crash, and that the impact will be “jaw dropping”.

The BBC reports that the research, published in the Lancet highlights that the global fertility rate almost halved to 2.4 in 2017, and projections indicate that it will fall below 1.7 by 2100.

For further context, In 1950, an average of 4.7 children were being born for every woman.

The research suggests that almost every country on the planet could have shrinking populations by the end of this century, with 23 nations projected to see their populations halve by 2100.

The research indicates that the total global population will peak at 9.7 billion in 2064, and then naturally shrink back to 8.8 billion come the end of the century.

Fewer births and longer life expectancy will also mean a drastically older population.

“That’s a pretty big thing; most of the world is transitioning into natural population decline,” Professor Christopher Murray noted.

“I think it’s incredibly hard to think this through and recognise how big a thing this is; it’s extraordinary, we’ll have to reorganise societies,” Murray further warned.

The research highlights that Japan’s population likely peaked at 128 million in 2017 yet will fall below 53 million by 2100.

In addition, Italy’s population is expected to crash from 61 million to 28 million in the same time period.

“It will create enormous social change,” Professor Murray urged, adding “Who pays tax in a massively aged world? Who pays for healthcare for the elderly? Who looks after the elderly? Will people still be able to retire from work?”

“We need a soft landing,” Murray warned.

When asked whether the trend could threaten the human race, Murray said “I find people laugh it off; they can’t imagine it could be true, they think women will just decide to have more kids.”

“If you can’t [find a solution] then eventually the species disappears, but that’s a few centuries away.” Murray added.
https://summit.news/2020/07/15/researchers-warn-of-jaw-dropping-crash-in-global-fertility-rate/
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30677-2/fulltext
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53409521

 

[Joey D]

Mother Nature may be tired of the human species.

That has little to do with COVID though. Raising a child is expensive, especially if both parents work and you need to pay for daycare. Back in 1950, it was more accepted to just have women be homemakers while men worked outside the home. Birth control also wasn't nearly as prevalent as it is today. It makes sense the birth rate was so much higher in the 50s than it is now.

 

[Dotini]

That has little to do with COVID though. Raising a child is expensive, especially if both parents work and you need to pay for daycare. Back in 1950, it was more accepted to just have women be homemakers while men worked outside the home. Birth control also wasn't nearly as prevalent as it is today. It makes sense the birth rate was so much higher in the 50s than it is now.

It's too early to know, but I'm guessing COVID will have a negative effect on fertility/reproduction/birth rates. But sometimes when people are forced to huddle together in fear the birth rate actually increases.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Dude... Chill. Don't do anything irrational. I know you're in Arizona which is not handling this well. Go out for a drive and get some fresh air

Canyons this weekend with friends. Nothing like hauling ass on mountain roads with imminent death 2 feet away. I love it.

Hello. Mother Nature? Yes, the human species is tired of Covid, you can stop now. Are you there? Hello?


Damn, we'll try again tomorrow.

Some of us just don't care. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.

 

[McLaren]

Some of us just don't care. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.

Says the one posting how upset they are a virus restricts what they can do.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Says the one posting how upset they are a virus restricts what they can do.

It's not restricting anything for me. I mean I spend less time going to stores just to go for no reason but I dislike the general public anyway so I'm probably better off staying away. My weekend activities haven't changed.

 

[x3ra]

So you doesn't consider that the almost world wide lockdown has made the number of deaths less? And when everyone opens up the number of people in the ICU will rise to the point of filli-up and that will lead to triage and subsequently even more deaths. It's way too soon to say what the mortality rate will be in an open society.

Even if it multiplies by 10 it would still be a relatively small number. The lockdown was over-reaction, the governments advice - brainwashing. Anyone up for some WHO information

Potential harms/disadvantages

‘The likely disadvantages of the use of mask by healthy people in the general public include:

• potential increased risk of self-contamination due to the manipulation of a face mask and subsequently touching eyes with contaminated hands;
• potential self-contamination that can occur if non- medical masks are not changed when wet or soiled. This can create favourable conditions for microorganism to amplify;
• potential headache and/or breathing difficulties, depending on type of mask used;
• potential development of facial skin lesions, irritant dermatitis or worsening acne, when used frequently for long hours;
• difficulty with communicating clearly;
• potential discomfort;
• a false sense of security, leading to potentially lower adherence to other critical preventive measures such as physical distancing and hand hygiene;
• poor compliance with mask wearing, in particular by young children;
• waste management issues; improper mask disposal leading to increased litter in public places, risk of contamination to street cleaners and environment hazard;
• difficulty communicating for deaf persons who rely on lip reading;
• disadvantages for or difficulty wearing them, especially for children, developmentally challenged persons, those with mental illness, elderly persons with cognitive impairment, those with asthma or chronic respiratory or breathing problems, those who have had facial trauma or recent oral maxillofacial surgery, and those living in hot and humid environments.’

— World Health Organisation (5 June, 2020)

So wearing a mask may make you more likely, to be infected.

 

[McLaren]

It's not restricting anything for me. I mean I spend less time going to stores just to go for no reason but I dislike the general public anyway so I'm probably better off staying away. My weekend activities haven't changed.

Then you're just raging for no reason? Alright.

Ship it.

Let's get this 🤬 over with.

Get to it.

And phase 1 is when? Next year? 2022? Not sure about you but I'm already more than done with this crap already. Breaking point not too far off.

 

[BobK]

Is there any evidence that the coronavirus has had an effect on fertility/reproduction/birth rates?

Although I have no evidence (yet), I strongly suspect a spike in the birth rate after a couple months of enforced stay-at-home.

Back in 1950, it was more accepted to just have women be homemakers while men worked outside the home.

Back in the 50s and 60s a family could easily get by on one person's income. Given 50 years of inflation outpacing increases in wages, that's no longer true and hasn't been for quite a while now.

 

[UKMikey]

Even if it multiplies by 10 it would still be a relatively small number. The lockdown was over-reaction, the governments advice - brainwashing. Anyone up for some WHO information

Potential harms/disadvantages

‘The likely disadvantages of the use of mask by healthy people in the general public include:

• potential increased risk of self-contamination due to the manipulation of a face mask and subsequently touching eyes with contaminated hands;
• potential self-contamination that can occur if non- medical masks are not changed when wet or soiled. This can create favourable conditions for microorganism to amplify;
• potential headache and/or breathing difficulties, depending on type of mask used;
• potential development of facial skin lesions, irritant dermatitis or worsening acne, when used frequently for long hours;
• difficulty with communicating clearly;
• potential discomfort;
• a false sense of security, leading to potentially lower adherence to other critical preventive measures such as physical distancing and hand hygiene;
• poor compliance with mask wearing, in particular by young children;
• waste management issues; improper mask disposal leading to increased litter in public places, risk of contamination to street cleaners and environment hazard;
• difficulty communicating for deaf persons who rely on lip reading;
• disadvantages for or difficulty wearing them, especially for children, developmentally challenged persons, those with mental illness, elderly persons with cognitive impairment, those with asthma or chronic respiratory or breathing problems, those who have had facial trauma or recent oral maxillofacial surgery, and those living in hot and humid environments.’

— World Health Organisation (5 June, 2020)

So wearing a mask may make you more likely, to be infected.

You didn't provide a link to this report, so we can't tell whether the WHO thinks these risks are outweighed by the risk of contracting coronavirus if you don't wear a mask or if you're just quote mining for something that fits your views.

 

[Joey D]

You didn't provide a link to this report, so we can't tell whether the WHO thinks these risks are outweighed by the risk of contracting coronavirus if you don't wear a mask or if you're just quote mining for something that fits your views.

Page 8 from this report: https://www.who.int/publications/i/...of-the-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)-outbreak

From page 6 of the same report:

However, taking into account the available studies evaluating pre- and asymptomatic transmission, a growing compendium of observational evidence on the use of masks by the general public in several countries, individual values and preferences, as well as the difficulty of physical distancing in many contexts, WHO has updated its guidance to advise that to prevent COVID-19 transmission effectively in areas of community transmission, governments should encourage the general public to wear masks in specific situations and settings as part of a comprehensive approach to suppress SARS-CoV-2 transmission (Table 2).

===

Seriously, @x3ra you're trying to push a false narrative that could very well be harmful to people. I doubt many people are solely getting their information from GTP about COVID-19, but if it is, you're providing bogus information, that's not backed up by any research, and is better left for Facebook (or the bin).

 

[McLaren]

You didn't provide a link to this report, so we can't tell whether the WHO thinks these risks are outweighed by the risk of contracting coronavirus if you don't wear a mask or if you're just quote mining for something that fits your views.

That's exactly what he's doing.

Edit* Sorry, wrong passage. This is the part he's excluding before it.

Potential benefits/advantages:
The likely advantages of the use of masks by healthy people in the general public include:
•reduced potential exposure risk from infected persons before they develop symptoms;
•reduced potential stigmatization of individuals wearing masks to prevent infecting others (source control) or of people caring for COVID-19 patients in non-clinical settings;(70)
•making people feel they can play a role in contributing to stopping spread of the virus.
•reminding people to be compliant with other measures (e.g., hand hygiene, not touching nose and mouth). However, this can also have the reverse effect (see below);
•potential social and economic benefits. Amidst the global shortage of surgical masks and PPE, encouraging the public to create their own fabric masks may promote individual enterprise and community integration. Moreover, the production of non-medical masks may offer a source of income for those able to manufacture masks within their communities. Fabric masks can also be a form of cultural expression, encouraging public acceptance of protection measures in general. The safe re-use of fabric masks will also reduce costs and waste and contribute to sustainability.

Here's more:

Background

The use of masks is part of a comprehensive package of the prevention and control measures that can limit the spread of certain respiratory viral diseases, including COVID-19. Masks can be used either for protection of healthy persons (worn to protect oneself when in contact with an infected individual) or for source control (worn by an infected individual to prevent onward transmission).

However, the use of a mask alone is insufficient to provide an adequate level of protection or source control, and other personal and community level measures should also be adopted to suppress transmission of respiratory viruses. Whether or not masks are used, compliance with hand hygiene, physical distancing and other infection prevention and control (IPC) measures are critical to prevent human-to-human transmission of COVID-19.

This document provides information and guidance on the use of masks in health care settings, for the general public, and during home care. The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed specific guidance on IPC strategies for health care settings (2), long-term care facilities (LTCF) (3), and home care.(4)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjoy6Ou48_qAhXvkOAKHa32CIMQFjAAegQIAhAB&url=https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1279750/retrieve&usg=AOvVaw3OEk7GblHnLXwd5oEzXFJ1

Last we checked, masks, thorough hand cleaning, and social distancing all remain repeated advice.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Then you're just raging for no reason? Alright.

I'm just tired of hearing about it. Like a bad rash on my ass that won't go away.

 

[Danoff]

So wearing a mask may make you more likely, to be infected.

Actually what you quoted doesn't say that. It says increased potential risk of "self-contamination" not "infection". There's a difference, but I'm sure you're not interested.

 

[WFO Krypto]

Although I have no evidence (yet), I strongly suspect a spike in the birth rate after a couple months of enforced stay-at-home.



Back in the 50s and 60s a family could easily get by on one person's income. Given 50 years of inflation outpacing increases in wages, that's no longer true and hasn't been for quite a while now.

I disagree. We are a family of 5, and do pretty well on just my salary. We own a home, have 3 vehicles, a cat, a dog, etc etc. Why wouldn't a family in the US not be able to get by on one 6 figure income?

 

[Danoff]

I disagree. We are a family of 5, and do pretty well on just my salary. We own a home, have 3 vehicles, a cat, a dog, etc etc. Why wouldn't a family in the US not be able to get by on one 6 figure income?

...because people assume you need tons of stuff that didn't exist back in the 50s and 60s to "get by".

 

[EngieDiesel]

It's too early to know, but I'm guessing COVID will have a negative effect on fertility/reproduction/birth rates. But sometimes when people are forced to huddle together in fear the birth rate actually increases.

There was an expectation of a baby boom happening because of lockdowns, but apparently trends are showing that isn't too likely to happen. I'm guessing largely due to financial worries (babies are very expensive to take care of properly, after all), but also due to concerns that an expectant mother may not be able to get into a hospital if another big spike in infections happens during the fall or winter.

 

[WFO Krypto]

I forg

...because people assume you need tons of stuff that didn't exist back in the 50s and 60s to "get by".

I forgot to add that we live in a small town in the Midwest (pop. 4,000) and the cost of living is really low.

 

[x3ra]

Actually what you quoted doesn't say that. It says increased potential risk of "self-contamination" not "infection". There's a difference, but I'm sure you're not interested.

Yes it does say that, and no I don't know the difference between self-contamination and infection. Please enlighten me.

In light of the UK government saying that we should wear masks in shops, but not in offices. How does this fit in?

‘We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.’

— New England Journal of Medicine (21 May, 2020)

 

[McLaren]

Yes it does say that, and no I don't know the difference between self-contamination and infection. Please enlighten me.

In light of the UK government saying that we should wear masks in shops, but not in offices. How does this fit in?

‘We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.’

— New England Journal of Medicine (21 May, 2020)

Missed a spot kiddo.

We understand that some people are citing our Perspective article (published on April 1 at NEJM.org)1 as support for discrediting widespread masking. In truth, the intent of our article was to push for more masking, not less. It is apparent that many people with SARS-CoV-2 infection are asymptomatic or presymptomatic yet highly contagious and that these people account for a substantial fraction of all transmissions.2,3 Universal masking helps to prevent such people from spreading virus-laden secretions, whether they recognize that they are infected or not.4

We did state in the article that “wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection,” but as the rest of the paragraph makes clear, we intended this statement to apply to passing encounters in public spaces, not sustained interactions within closed environments. A growing body of research shows that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is strongly correlated with the duration and intensity of contact: the risk of transmission among household members can be as high as 40%, whereas the risk of transmission from less intense and less sustained encounters is below 5%.5-7 This finding is also borne out by recent research associating mask wearing with less transmission of SARS-CoV-2, particularly in closed settings.8 We therefore strongly support the calls of public health agencies for all people to wear masks when circumstances compel them to be within 6 ft of others for sustained periods.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2020836?query=recirc_curatedRelated_article

 

[CodeRedR51]

There was an expectation of a baby boom happening because of lockdowns, but apparently trends are showing that isn't too likely to happen. I'm guessing largely due to financial worries (babies are very expensive to take care of properly, after all), but also due to concerns that an expectant mother may not be able to get into a hospital if another big spike in infections happens during the fall or winter.

 

[Jezza819]

State of Alabama goes under state wide mask wearing order from 5pm July 16th to the 30th.

https://whnt.com/news/gov-ivey-issues-statewide-mask-requirement/

 

[x3ra]

but as the rest of the paragraph makes clear, we intended this statement to apply to passing encounters in public spaces, not sustained interactions within closed environments.

So how does this make sense of wearing masks in shops, but not offices? Surely it should be the other way round?

 

[EngieDiesel]

Yeesh. I'd known that Japan has been undergoing a population decline for a while now due to corporate culture, and so were some European countries with all the young people leaving to find better paying work abroad. Guess it's a lot more common nowadays...

 

[MatskiMonk]

Why wouldn't a family in the US not be able to get by on one 6 figure income?

What if it's a 5 figure income?

 

[polysmut]

So how does this make sense of wearing masks in shops, but not offices? Surely it should be the other way round?

Making sense of the UK government's actions doesn't always have a lot to do with the science.

 

[Touring Mars]

I'm just tired of hearing about it. Like a bad rash on my ass that won't go away.

Jeez, the pandemic is bad enough without having to picture your ass too...

In all seriousness, though, I am sure the majority of people (including my family) share your frustration - and I am more worried about my family's expectations than my own. The effect on my family's mental health is already starting to show in subtle ways - and I really do fear for the moment if and when they face another prolonged lockdown.

Unfortunately, there is no quick fix. There may not be a fix at all. That may be a reason to feel depressed, worried etc., but I am making a conscious effort to counteract those (natural and perfectly understandable) reactions with a more pragmatic approach... there are definitely things we can do, both individually and collectively, to minimize (but alas not eradicate) the impacts that both the virus and the effects of lockdown might have.

I am trying hard to convince my family to stick with it and be prepared for the (very real) possibility that things may get worse before they get better - but, paradoxically, the more things we learn to do a bit differently, the more 'normal' life returns.