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

[Famine]

ambient level of murder

That's a hell of a name for a crime novel.

 

[Joey D]

Options 1: Risk catching CV19, a virus that I'm 80% likely not to even know I've had, which is similar to bad case of flu in vast the majority of full infections in healthy people, with a potentially (if at all, time will tell) tiny chance of suffering from long term effects and an infinitesimally small chance of dying from.

Our chief of infectious disease described it to me like this. If you had a bowl of 100 M&M's and 80 were completely safe, while 20 would make you sick, would you grab a handful? Now say of those 20, 10 would be a flu like illness, 5 would put you in the hospital, 3 would put you in the hospital for months, and 2 would kill you, would you still grab a handful? Now say everytime you grab a handful the bowl is instantly restocked, would you continue to grab handfuls if nothing happened the first time around?

Why are you worrying about catching Covid?

Because I have a reasonably good understanding of what can happen if I do get it, and while I won't get into my health history, I do have underlying conditions that could contribute to me being sick. I also have a son who has underlying conditions as well and would rather him not get COVID either since even influenza can put him in the hospital.

We also don't know the long term side effects, especially side effects for those with underlying conditions. I could be fine or I could end up needing constant medical care for the rest of my life. I don't know and I'd rather not find out. Same goes for my son.

As for getting the vaccine? I'm going to be required to get it, so I might as well get it during the trial phase when I'll have constant medical supervision over what's happening.

 

[Danoff]

Our chief of infectious disease described it to me like this. If you had a bowl of 100 M&M's and 80 were completely safe, while 20 would make you sick, would you grab a handful? Now say of those 20, 10 would be a flu like illness, 5 would put you in the hospital, 3 would put you in the hospital for months, and 2 would kill you, would you still grab a handful? Now say everytime you grab a handful the bowl is instantly restocked, would you continue to grab handfuls if nothing happened the first time around?

Now say you could eat most of those M&Ms and not get sick if you just put a flimsy piece of paper in front of your face...

 

[Joey D]

Now say you could eat most of those M&Ms and not get sick if you just put a flimsy piece of paper in front of your face...

Next time I talk to him I'm going to mention that. He'll get a kick out of it because his anti-masker rants are fantastic.

 

[Touring Mars]

We've had our first confirmed positive test in our work today. The lab is closed for 7 days and will be 'deep cleaned'.

On a pedantic note, I don't really know why the lab would need to be cleaned if it is going to be physically closed for a full week... there's more chance of the (unmasked and not very good at following guidelines) cleaners spreading the virus to other areas.

Sadly, this also happened back in March and it was only a matter of days until the whole department was closed.

There has also been something like 20 confirmed positive tests in student halls already too (and we're only in Day 3 of Week 1...), so that's not looking great either.

edit: There is also a confirmed outbreak at a University hall of residence which is literally around the corner from my apartment... and next door to the mini supermarket I visit almost every day. The trouble is, there are few (if indeed any) businesses around here where students don't go, so there's not much point in trying to shop elsewhere. Except maybe Waitrose.

ambient level of murder

That's a hell of a name for a crime novel.

Or a Glasgow nightclub.

 

[Stotty]

Bump your numbers to include serious side effects, then take a step back, look at it, and understand that that number is despite all of the best possible efforts to contain this thing.

Un-quantifiable at this stage... a few stories in the press about long term Covid but no solid evidence it will be a real and significant long term impact.

There are always outliers - for example; people die unexpectedly in routine surgeries everyday, but we don't stop doing routine surgeries.

Think about what you just said for a second. Your chances of being murdered are equivalent to getting killed by a disease that the entire world has turned itself upside down to stop. All of our efforts, social distancing, lockdowns, masks, hand santizing, temp checks, constant PSAs, closing bars and restaurants, closing schools, all of it... to get COVID down to the ambient level of murder for one of the best age demographics.

Now imagine we stopped "worrying" about it.

The restrictions only reduce my chance of catching Covid, they don't effect what will happen if I do catch it.

I can honestly say I've never got up in a morning and thought 'what if I get murdered today?'... can't say it's ever even just popped in to my mind for a second or two. In fact I've never been in a situation in 53 years where I've feared someone else is going to kill me.

I did have a few fights when I was younger - at school, and in my teens/early 20's when out drinking... just like most 'lads' growing up in Northern working class towns. But never thought I was going to get killed... or get a serious, long-term, life changing injury.

Nor has anyone I've even known personally been murdered. Though I did lose a friend in my late teens and another received life changing injuries, both in separate car accidents.

Why would I (or anyone else) worry about an illness that's no more threatening to my life than murder?

Our chief of infectious disease described it to me like this. If you had a bowl of 100 M&M's and 80 were completely safe, while 20 would make you sick, would you grab a handful? Now say of those 20, 10 would be a flu like illness, 5 would put you in the hospital, 3 would put you in the hospital for months, and 2 would kill you, would you still grab a handful? Now say everytime you grab a handful the bowl is instantly restocked, would you continue to grab handfuls if nothing happened the first time around?

That analogy is utter rubbish.

Firstly, the numbers are complete and utter junk... I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise that politicians seem to use random number generators to support their latest harebrained ideas, but how can a 'chief of infectious disease' make the most fundamental mistake with the maths? I'd have thought statistics would have been a significant part of his degree.

Source: Mortality rates following Covid-19 infection for different age groups, estimated by researchers at Imperial College London... this data is from May, but no reason to expect more recent data to be of a magnitude different not to demonstrate the error in the chiefs original calculations.

Using the bowl of M&M's analogy for your age group (30-39), the numbers for every 100 M&M's flow like this...

1. 5 out of 10 don't end up in hospital... only 3.2% of 20% (non-asymptomatic cases) end up in hospital... a less than 1 out of every 100 need hospitalisation... about half an M&M (0.64%)... the broken one in the bottom of the bowl you maybe eat at the end when there are no other ones left.

2. 3 out of 10 don't end up 'in hospital for months'... only 5% of 3.2% of 20% require critical care... 1 in 7,692 M&M's, or 0.03% of an M&M... a tiny crumb in the bottom of the bowl.

3. 2 out of 10 don't die of Covid... 0.08% of 20% die... 1 in 62,500, or 0.016% of an M&M... a spec of dust in the bottom of the bowl you'd struggle to even see.

4. Even without the numbers being so massively misleading, the pleasure of eating an M&M (or even a full packet of M&M's... or maybe all the M&M's in the World unless you REALLY like M&M's) is simply not equatable to being able to live a normal life, see your family, socialise with your friends, go on holiday, have a job, earn money, have a future that won't be ruined by the cost of paying the trillions of GBP/USD thrown at the economy back, etc, etc, etc, etc. All of which we have now lost, or will lose in the future.

I'm 53, semi-retired, no mortgage, cash in the bank, decent pension and investments. I'd like to do some work again, but I don't need to. Outside of the current restrictions, I'm pretty much isolated from any personal pain. But I have an extended family that's much younger, and I'd like to think they have a future they can look forward to, rather than one where they'll spend their entire life with a massive tax burden, no standard of living and constant austerity.

If I was 30, I'd be looking at the future with dread... for all the reasons I put in my original post yesterday. I haven't checked the latest US numbers (last I saw it was something like $2.5tn of direct government bailouts, but that was some months ago), but for the UK, the economy is already completely and utterly ****ed. For decades to come. And now we're piling on another 6 months of restrictions.

Because I have a reasonably good understanding of what can happen if I do get it, and while I won't get into my health history, I do have underlying conditions that could contribute to me being sick. I also have a son who has underlying conditions as well and would rather him not get COVID either since even influenza can put him in the hospital.

We also don't know the long term side effects, especially side effects for those with underlying conditions. I could be fine or I could end up needing constant medical care for the rest of my life. I don't know and I'd rather not find out. Same goes for my son.

As for getting the vaccine? I'm going to be required to get it, so I might as well get it during the trial phase when I'll have constant medical supervision over what's happening.

I'm sorry that you have personal circumstances that make you and your son are more vulnerable... but governments need to make decisions based on the risk/benefit to the entire population.

'Required to get it'? How is this even acceptable in the 'free World'?

 

[Danoff]

no solid evidence it will be a real and significant long term impact.

I'm gonna let someone else handle this one.

The restrictions only reduce my chance of catching Covid, they don't effect what will happen if I do catch it.

You're moving goalposts here. You were talking about your chance of death. Some restrictions reduce your chance of death.

Edit:

Wait, did you not realize that was baked into your murder statistics? Your statistics were not "if I catch COVID, my chances of death are equivalent to my chances of being murdered", your statistics were "my chances of catching COVID and then subsequently dying are equivalent to my chances of being murdered". That latter statistic relies on everyone around you who is helping keep you safe.

I can honestly say I've never got up in a morning and thought 'what if I get murdered today?'... can't say it's ever even just popped in to my mind for a second or two. In fact I've never been in a situation in 53 years where I've feared someone else is going to kill me.

Have you ever locked your doors?

Nor has anyone I've even known personally been murdered. Though I did lose a friend in my late teens and another received life changing injuries, both in separate car accidents.

Depending on who you talk to, I have a relative who was murdered.

Why would I (or anyone else) worry about an illness that's no more threatening to my life than murder?

Because the only reason it's no more threatening to your life is because people are doing something about it ("worrying"). How did you not get that from my last post? I thought I went out of my way to make that point. And I even threw in another reason, which is to prevent it from threatening other people's lives more than murder.

Honestly... I wrote that stuff. Did you not read it?

 

[Joey D]

a few stories in the press about long term Covid but no solid evidence it will be a real and significant long term impact.

Probably because COVID has been around for less than a year. We're not going to know what the long term side effects are until there's been an actual long term.

That analogy is utter rubbish.

Firstly, the numbers are complete and utter junk... I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise that politicians seem to use random number generators to support their latest harebrained ideas, but how can a 'chief of infectious disease' make the most fundamental mistake with the maths? I'd have thought statistics would have been a significant part of his degree.

He wasn't quoting actual numbers, just breaking it down into something that's easy to understand to illustrate a point. The likelihood of being infected by COVID is going to vary from country to country, state to state, city to city, and even neighborhood to neighborhood.

I'm sorry that you have personal circumstances that make you and your son are more vulnerable... but governments need to make decisions based on the risk/benefit to the entire population.

What does that have to do with me getting the vaccine? You asked why I wanted to get the vaccine and I told you why. I want to voluntarily get a vaccine.

'Required to get it'? How is this even acceptable in the 'free World'?

I mean I can choose not to get it, I just won't have a job any more if I do make that choice. Since I like my job, I'm going to get it since it'll be required. I'm required to have all my vaccination up-to-date and get a yearly flu shot too. It's pretty standard in my line of work.

 

[Barra333]

Assuming you have no other contributing factor(s) that CV19 would impact, why would you take the risk of taking a vaccine with no understanding of any medium or long term side effects... and no recourse to the manufacturer if those side effects are life limiting.

Aside from all the reasons @Joey D already posted, how about the greater good?

Probably because COVID has been around for less than a year. We're not going to know what the long term side effects are until there's been an actual long term.

There are already plenty of examples of very fit people (MLB and NCAA football players) getting Myocarditis as a result of COVID.

And one for the 'let people get it until we have herd immunity' crowd... Here is a study that just came out stating that while it is mathematically possible to get herd immunity in the UK without overwhelming hospitals, the set of circumstances required for it to happen are near impossible to create in a real world population. They did the math based on no vaccine, no treatment options (ie, current situation) .

 

[Stotty]

You're moving goalposts here. You were talking about your chance of death. Some restrictions reduce your chance of death.

Edit:

Wait, did you not realize that was baked into your murder statistics? Your statistics were not "if I catch COVID, my chances of death are equivalent to my chances of being murdered", your statistics were "my chances of catching COVID and then subsequently dying are equivalent to my chances of being murdered". That latter statistic relies on everyone around you who is helping keep you safe.

Because the only reason it's no more threatening to your life is because people are doing something about it ("worrying"). How did you not get that from my last post? I thought I went out of my way to make that point. And I even threw in another reason, which is to prevent it from threatening other peoples' lives more than murder.

Honestly... I wrote that stuff. Did you not read it?

I take your point... Apologies for misrepresenting that part of your post... my chances of catching Covid will of course increase as the total number of cases increase. At this moment in time it just so happens that the numbers intersect and give a similar outcome to murder.

However...

Murder is, by definition, 100% fatal in every case... if I 'catch' murder, I die. I therefore need protecting as much as is possible from murder.

Covid is virtually non-fatal to healthy people. No matter how much the chance of me catching Covid increases, the chance of me dying if I catch it doesn't change... IFR for 50-59 y/o is 0.6%... so 0.12% of the people who get the virus... but that includes people with contributing factors, of which I am not one, and as such my chance of dying decreases by a huge margin. Therefore I do not need protecting from Covid.

Nor do the majority of people under 65 with no significant health issues.

He wasn't quoting actual numbers, just breaking it down into something that's easy to understand to illustrate a point. The likelihood of being infected by COVID is , to vary from country to country, state to state, city to city, and even neighborhood to neighborhood.

Yes, that's exactly what he was doing... quoting numbers... and he was out by a magnitude that should be embarrassing for someone in his position. If he'd have said take, say, a giant bucket, fill it with 62,500 M&M's (I have no idea how big a contained you'd need for that many M&M's), one might kill you, it's a completely different message.

Of course the numbers will vary... but he was so far out he may as well have been talking Martian... how is 2 in 100 even relevant when the real number is 1 in 62,500

The proof is you actually chose to quote his analogy to me... as justification, as one of the reasons you are, and everyone else should be, fearful/worrying/whatever about Covid. If the chances of me dying from Coivd if I caught it (either a case or the infection) was 2% I'd be terrified... but it's nowhere near this number. The IFR is c.0.1%... his numbers give a CFR of 2%.

It's completely misleading.

Politicians, the media and people such as your boss (people we should be able to trust) are throwing random numbers out there. They get repeated and spread by people like yourself (given you job, I would imagine your family and friends trust what you tell them 100%), and huge proportions of the population end up unnecessarily terrified they are going to die.

Aside from all the reasons @Joey D already posted, how about the greater good?

There are already plenty of examples of very fit people (MLB and NCAA football players) getting Myocarditis as a result of COVID.

And one for the 'let people get it until we have herd immunity' crowd... Here is a study that just came out stating that while it is mathematically possible to get herd immunity in the UK without overwhelming hospitals, the set of circumstances required for it to happen are near impossible to create in a real world population. They did the math based on no vaccine, no treatment options (ie, current situation) .

To be blunt, I am part of the greater good. I hopefully have 25-30 years left to live, to contribute to society. I'm not taking a vaccine that's not been properly tested, and that may cause me serious side effects, to potentially add 6 months life to a 80-90 yo who already has significant health problems that will probably kill them in the next 6-12 months anyway.

 

[Barra333]

To be blunt, I am part of the greater good. I hopefully have 25-30 years left to live, to contribute to society. I'm not taking a vaccine that's not been properly tested, and that may cause me serious side effects, to potentially add 6 months life to a 80-90 yo who already has significant health problems that will probably kill them in the next 6-12 months anyway.

I don't doubt you are contributing in your own way. In this case, I agree that your demographic might not the be best to test the vaccine (old enough that any negative effects may be amplified, but young enough have plenty left in the tank otherwise). Meanwhile, for a fit and healthy person in their 20's or 30's to take the (lower) risk and verify the vaccine safety, it may give you that 25 years instead of 3 weeks in a worst case if you get the virus.
There is a sliding scale of risk/reward, and even the smartest people out there are still working it out.

 

[Joey D]

Yes, that's exactly what he was doing... quoting numbers... and he was out by a magnitude that should be embarrassing for someone in his position. If he'd have said take, say, a giant bucket, fill it with 62,500 M&M's (I have no idea how big a contained you'd need for that many M&M's), one might kill you, it's a completely different message

The proof is you actually chose to quote his analogy to me... as justification, as one of the reasons you are, and everyone else should be, fearful/worrying/whatever about Covid. If the chances of me dying from Coivd if I caught it (either a case or the infection) was 2% I'd be terrified... but it's nowhere near this number. The IFR is c.0.1%... his numbers give a CFR of 2%.

You're aware of how to illustrate a point and make it really easy to understand right? I never assumed he was quoting any kind of real numbers since we both know the real numbers since we receive the same information on a daily basis. He was just trying to illustrate a point that while COVID is likely not to end in a fatal result, would you still risk it?

And you don't have to be worried about COVID, plenty of people aren't.

Politicians, the media and people such as your boss (people we should be able to trust) are throwing random numbers out there. They get repeated and spread by people like yourself (given you job, I would imagine your family and friends trust what you tell them 100%), and huge proportions of the population end up unnecessarily terrified they are going to die.

He's not my boss. I don't work for the department of infectious disease. I also don't spread fear to people and tell them that they're going to die. What I do try to make family and friends understand is that COVID isn't to be brushed off. I've also had to explain to far too many people that no, COVID isn't a hoax, it's a real disease that can effect you in a myraid of ways.

Also, taking something seriously is not the same as assuming you're going to die. It's puzzling to me how you conflate the two.

 

[Outspacer]

And one for the 'let people get it until we have herd immunity' crowd... Here is a study that just came out stating that while it is mathematically possible to get herd immunity in the UK without overwhelming hospitals, the set of circumstances required for it to happen are near impossible to create in a real world population. They did the math based on no vaccine, no treatment options (ie, current situation) .

There was an article in BMJ the other day which gives some reasons why there might be a slightly more optimistic outlook than that describes, including that various studies have found T-cell responses in people who don't test positive for antibodies and that the herd immunity threshold may be over-estimated when considering that the population don't randomly mix.

However I still can't see, even with the most optimistic numbers, that we are close to it being over. Perhaps in some of the cities worst hit in the first wave, but not generally. I don't know how reproducible the results from the studies referred to are, or if any conclusions are generally applicable. For example my area didn't have much of a first wave at all, which was a surprise considering it has multiple transport links to London for commuters etc.

 

[Stotty]

You're aware of how to illustrate a point and make it really easy to understand right? I never assumed he was quoting any kind of real numbers since we both know the real numbers since we receive the same information on a daily basis. He was just trying to illustrate a point that while COVID is likely not to end in a fatal result, would you still risk it?

Of course I’m aware of how to illustrate a point, but come on, the illustration was so far out the picture it was ‘illustrating’ was akin to comparing The Mona Lisa to The Scream

it was, to all intents and purposes, irrelevant. Completely misrepresenting the real risk.

Don’t try and defend such a lame position.

 

[Joey D]

Of course I’m aware of how to illustrate a point, but come on, the illustration was so far out the picture it was ‘illustrating’ was akin to comparing The Mona Lisa to The Scream

it was, to all intents and purposes, irrelevant. Completely misrepresenting the real risk.

Don’t try and defend such a lame position.

Think what you want, but I completely understood the point he was trying to make and figured it would work to illustrate the point here. Guess not.

Also, no one where I work has misrepresented the risk at all as far as I'm aware. We've done a fantastic job of making sure there are plenty of tests, plenty of testing sites, ample room, ample staff, and enough PPE to keep our staff safe.

I will say, I really do hope that you nor anyone you know gets COVID and ends up having a rough go of it, or worse. It's not a fate that I'd wish on anyone.

 

[Touring Mars]

I will say, I really do hope that you nor anyone you know gets COVID and ends up having a rough go of it, or worse. It's not a fate that I'd wish on anyone.

Good to know, though, that he finds it hilarious that you might even worry about such things.

-

Meanwhile, around the corner from my apartment...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54268780

 

[Stotty]

Think what you want, but I completely understood the point he was trying to make and figured it would work to illustrate the point here. Guess not.

When your numbers are off by a factor of >x1,200 you’re not making a point, you’re making **** up.

Carry on like this and you won’t be able to see out of the hole you’re digging for yourself.

 

[UKMikey]

When your numbers are off by a factor of >x1,200 you’re not making a point, you’re making **** up.

Carry on like this and you won’t be able to see out of the hole you’re digging for yourself.

No one is claiming he was representing the numbers accurately except you.

To me it looks like he was trying to illustrate that repeated exposure to the same risk increases that risk. Accuracy of numbers doesn't change that and he's not digging a hole. The point remains the same whether there are a hundred M&M's or a hundred thousand. If there's a chance some of them will kill me I wouldn't stick my hand into that jar.

It's analagous to surviving a game of Russian Roulette and spinning up the barrel for another round. Even if the gun had one chamber for everyone in the UK the more times one plays the game the more one is likely to shoot oneself in the head.

In my opinion.

 

[Joey D]

When your numbers are off by a factor of >x1,200 you’re not making a point, you’re making **** up.

Carry on like this and you won’t be able to see out of the hole you’re digging for yourself.

It's not making anything up. It's taking something the average person can conceptualize and using it to make a point. People do this all the time for a bunch of different scenarios so it puts it into perspective using something the average person can understand.

Also, what hole? No one is claiming those numbers and/or percentages are based on anything other than a hypothetical. If you feel like I'm being misleading or outright lying, then by all means report the post. If the mods deem it to be in breach of the AUP, then it'll be removed and I will get a warning or an infraction.

 

[Sander 001]

It's going to take a huge commitment to defeat this virus when our elected representatives are willfully ignorant.

 

[Stotty]

No one is claiming he was representing the numbers accurately except you.

To me it looks like he was trying to illustrate that repeated exposure to the same risk increases that risk. Accuracy of numbers doesn't change that and he's not digging a hole. The point remains the same whether there are a hundred M&M's or a hundred thousand. If there's a chance some of them will kill me I wouldn't stick my hand into that jar.

It's analagous to surviving a game of Russian Roulette and spinning up the barrel for another round. Even if the gun had one chamber for everyone in the UK the more one plays the game the more one is likeley to shoot oneself in the head.

In my opinion.

Sorry, but you really don’t understand this... which goes to prove my point that the original analogy was junk and misleading.

Repeated exposure to people who have Covid has zero influence on the outcome for the individual.

Transposing @Joey D analogy to Russian roulette as best I can...

If the risk of me dying if I came into contact with someone who had the Covid virus, and I caught it as a result, was 2%, it would be akin to playing Russian roulette with a revolver with 50 bullets, one of which was live, 49 of which were blanks, and that one live bullet had a 100% chance of entering my brain and killing me.

But that’s not the case.

Reality is the gun has around 10,000 bullets, one of which is live, 9,999 of which are blanks, and even if I happened to shoot myself with the one live bullet, I’d be more likely to shoot myself in the foot than the head/heart.

The number of live virus carriers you come into contact with only effects whether you catch the virus or not. It has no impact on how serious your illness is.

If you do catch it, you’re either asymptomatic (80% probability), or you get the infection. If you get the infection its down to your age/health profile how you come out of it.

It's not making anything up. It's taking something the average person can conceptualize and using it to make a point. People do this all the time for a bunch of different scenarios so it puts it into perspective using something the average person can understand.

Also, what hole? No one is claiming those numbers and/or percentages are based on anything other than a hypothetical. If you feel like I'm being misleading or outright lying, then by all means report the post. If the mods deem it to be in breach of the AUP, then it'll be removed and I will get a warning or an infraction.

Can you not see the error in your argument?

The ‘average’ person reads that and thinks ‘a chief of infectious diseases says I have A 2% chance of dying if I catch Covid’ (in any way)... 1 in 50 chance... equivalent to c.7 million deaths in the US if 100% of the population simply had the virus, never mind the disease.

You are misleading over the danger, massively. But so are our politicians and media.

I have no interest in ‘reporting’ you. There are enough mods on the forum who can make their own mind up whether you’re breaking any rules or not. I’m happy to have an open discussion that’s addresses the real issue without any threats or fear of reporting.

 

[Danoff]

Murder is, by definition, 100% fatal in every case... if I 'catch' murder, I die. I therefore need protecting as much as is possible from murder.

Covid is virtually non-fatal to healthy people. No matter how much the chance of me catching Covid increases, the chance of me dying if I catch it doesn't change...

Goalpost shifting again (same exact issue). You were comparing murder to covid deaths. You keep trying to have your cake and eat it too here. You need just as much protecting against covid deaths as you do from murder deaths because they're both death, and other people need even more protecting from you (you keep trying to side-step that last part).

 

[UKMikey]

Goalpost shifting again (same exact issue). You were comparing murder to covid deaths. You keep trying to have your cake and eat it too here. You need just as much protecting against covid deaths as you do from murder deaths because they're both death, and other people need even more protecting from you (you keep trying to side-step that last part).

Quite so. I'm more worried about one of those bullets ricocheting off my foot and hitting my mum or a neighbour in the head as you don't know who's healthy. I know she definitely isn't at her age.

 

[Blitz24]

Quite so. I'm more worried about one of those bullets ricocheting off my foot and hitting my mum or a neighbour in the head as you don't know who's healthy. I know she definitely isn't at her age.

Same reason I am nervous about it and why I posted what I did above (which some people find to be hysterical). Both of my parents are at risk.

 

[Joey D]

Can you not see the error in your argument?

It's not an argument. It's a hypothetical scenario to illustrate a point. I've said this numerous times now. It's not illustrating COVID numbers or percentages, it's merely asking the question if there was a chance the candy could kill you, would you risk it? Even if that chance was small?

But if you're insistent on numbers, looking at the cases in Salt Lake County, you have a 6.24% chance of being hospitalized if you contract COVID and a 13.7% chance of dying if you do end up in the hospital. So if out of 100 candies, 6 could make me sick enough to be in the hospital and of those six 1 could kill me. So based on where I live, no, I wouldn't be grabbing a handful of candy.

You are misleading over the danger, massively. But so are our politicians and media.

I'm not. If you've followed anything in this thread you'd see that I'm not misleading anyone about the dangers. I've provided scientific sources based on real numbers and real research. I'm by no means an expert in the field though. I've done what any person with an internet connection could do. If you want an expert to weigh in, you should probably listen to @Touring Mars and @Famine since they're both way more qualified than any of us to speak on this.

With that said, I feel you're massively underplaying the dangers and even suggesting it's funny when someone is worried. You seem fixated on mortality, which is not a good statistic to go off of. You're right in saying that a vast majority of people won't die from COVID. However, there's way more to COVID than death. There are all the long term effects to consider which could turn into a major health crisis. If there's suddenly a huge uptick in respitory disease from former COVID patients in 3 or 4 years, that's going to put a strain on the healthcare system and the economy. There will be more trips to the ER, more hospitalizations, higher cost of care, more missed days of work, and so on.

Even if the long term effects are minimal, I still don't want COVID. I don't want to feel like crap for a week, I don't want to take time off work, I don't want to have a lingering cough for months, and I certainly don't want to pass it along to my wife and son. That alone seems like a good enough reason for me to take all the precautions I can, take the virus seriously, and get a vaccination when it becomes available. It's not fear, it's the desire not to make myself or my family miserable.

 

[Touring Mars]

Repeated exposure to people who have Covid has zero influence on the outcome for the individual.

I don't disagree with much of your logic, but you need to realise that some of the basic points that underpin your arguments are on very shaky ground... this line I've quoted being a case in point. How do you know this?

Why are so many medics dying from COVID-19? Other public-facing workers - bus drivers, taxi drivers etc. - have also been hit hard by the virus, but deaths and serious/prolonged illness among healthcare professionals is worrying, not least given their training and early adoption of safety protocols and normal use of PPE.

There is growing evidence that repeated exposure and/or exposure to high concentrations of virus can make the severity of disease worse...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-.../viral-load-many-health-workers-getting-sick/

I'm not saying that there is a definite link between exposure and severity of illness, but you cannot and should not say that there isn't one either.

no solid evidence it will be a real and significant long term impact.

... and here's another one. As @JoeyD has already said, there's a reason for this... but there is a growing body of evidence that COVID-19 is causing long-term illness and can impact otherwise healthy individuals in serious/life-changing ways.

Again, it would be wrong at this stage to suggest that COVID-19 will not have a significant impact on those who do not die from it.

 

[Outspacer]

At long last England and Wales now have a contact tracing app, but will enough people use it?

... a major challenge will be convincing them to download it in the first place:

• officials suggest only about one in 10 people installed the app during a recent trial in the London Borough of Newham, an area picked for its ethnic diversity. When the BBC visited on Wednesday, a reporter could only find one person using it
• Scotland's app launched about a fortnight ago, and roughly one in five people there have installed it
• Ireland, one of the leaders in the field, has still only convinced about one in three people to use its app, which was released in July

How many would be enough? Will it work reasonably well? Maybe we'll know by xmas

 

[UKMikey]

At long last England and Wales now have a contact tracing app, but will enough people use it?

How many would be enough? Will it work reasonably well? Maybe we'll know by xmas

The Singaporeans had the bright idea of producing wearable tokens for the oldies. I think most people who could downloaded the app since they wouldn't let you into shops or restaurants without it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54143015

 

[PeterJB]

I'm at the beginning of a career as a professional bassoonist, so naturally the reports of people being left with permanent lung damage is a cause for concern for me. Is there much data on the percentage of recovered patients who've been left with long-term lung problems?

 

[Outspacer]

The Singaporeans had the bright idea of producing wearable tokens for the oldies. I think most people who could downloaded the app since they wouldn't let you into shops or restaurants without it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54143015

That's a great idea! Even Mr Huang tolerated it, since he knew he could destroy it if they started doing anything fishy with it!

More than 50% of adults downloaded the app there, with about 30% using it in August, which their Ministry of Health claims "has helped to reduce the time it takes to identify and quarantine close contacts of Covid-19 cases from four days to two".

So that could be a pretty good benefit if people use it here, particularly in our cities.