COVID-19

I think this started with an assumption suggesting that the young and the old were most vulnerable (like with flu) and someone pointed out that there’d been no child fatalities.

10-19 is an age range that includes adults, and given we know the risk increases massively as people get older, and we don’t have more specific details of the under 20’s who’ve died, we really ought to be comfortable with the idea that children aren’t at greater risk than adults.

 

That's fine if you're in a country with a modern health-care system where you will be given the best possible care. However the fact that my 8 and 2 year old grandchildren could catch the virus ( which I'd imagine wouldn't be a pleasant experience) doesn't sit easy with me, even with a much greater chance of recovery.

 

Over 4000 people with COVID-19 in Northern Italy are currently in hospital beds.

I would be surprised if the UK has 4000 beds available.

 

But the figures are worldwide, there really is no way of reading those statistics that should make you more concerned about them than you.

I’m seriously concerned about my older siblings with underlying health conditions but not at all concerned about my grandchildren who are healthy and are statistically not at risk of death. Simply because every piece of information available leads me to that conclusion. In fact from all I’ve read the greatest risks around kids is that they show virtually no symptoms - makes them highly efficient carriers.

 

I'm sure with you being a rational person then that you don't believe that the government, as some posters have suggested, would be content to see people die?

 

I'm not sure content is the right word, but the state will make a monetary assessment of the value of the lives of its citizens. It's taken into account when deciding on availability of drugs etc. so I'd be very surprised if the government hasn't considered what amount of lives is worth minimising disruption to the economy.

 

A couple of corona victims in the commons might just change opinions

 

I’m fairly rational, and I believe the government works in a rational way. Some deaths are inevitable, and of course the government always has to make decisions based on cost though idiots on both sides of politics like to pretend that government is malicious/ incompetent in its decision making.

ie Would you rationally spend a quarter of a million quid to sort out a car crash on the M1 to save 1 life?

when you start attaching £ notes to any question people make some odd moral choices.

but none of that is relevant in the cases of COVID 19 in relation to age, where the evidence suggests that very young people only get mild flu like symptoms.

All I can suggest is that you take a rational attitude, and aim your concerns not at the grandkids who’ll be fine, but your elderly relatives who will be far from fine.

 

No need to patronize.
I'm completely and utterly rational and have no concerns. I said I wouldn't want my grandkids to become ill not that I expect them to. I'm so concerned that I'm off to the far East at Easter My posts were aimed at those who were trying to politicise the issue: was just pointing out that people in power will have family members who will be vulnerable to the virus.

 

Not at all patronising, you mentioned ‘rational’ I responded using the same language.

 

Don't think it's a case of trying to make a political point. All governments will have to take a pragmatic approach to the situation.
Clearly a total lock down like Italy is the best way to stop the spread. However that also come this rather drastic economic consequences. I wouldn't even say one choice is right or wrong. It's just a choice, moreover if you were to lockdown too soon and then have to maybe do it again later it wouldn't have the same affect.

 

The number of new cases today is lower than could have been expected based on extrapolation from previous days and what has happened in Italy. However, what is interesting is the number of people tested in the last 24 hours is lower than the previous day which is unexpected given a) that the virus is undoubtedly spreading, and b) the previous day's figures dealt with a Sunday.

What is also interesting is that in today's figures the percentage of positive tests is the highest in any one day so far. This suggests that either we are now better at identifying which people need to be tested (which seems unlikely given the vague and common nature of symptoms) or the arrest in growth rate is simply due to fewer people being tested and fewer of the positive cases being identified as a result.

 

They will create them by not admitting patients scheduled for routine surgery , shuttling A&E to patients not brought in by Ambulance and possibly this ....

 

The Chinese live animal markets will still open after this with the Chinese authorities saying they’re doing everything they can to stop the sale on these markets of wild rare animals and torturing puppies before boiling them alive , we’ll be back to square one while those that govern us go back to looking after their own interests .

 

Roughly 9 deaths out of the current 4,264,or 0.2%. I'd not be surprised to hear most or all of those were imunocompromised in some way.

 

I think their problem is banning them outright just drives them underground making it harder to manage them. As usual the education process in changing habits with these things is a long one...

Worth pointing out that they're still not sure it came from the market. They're about 13 other cases that had no link to it whatsoever.

Also as an aside, the first case diagnosis was 1st December meaning it had likely been circulating for several weeks before that.

 

Knew there must be a reason why I never get colds.