From today’s news:
Two senior SAGE [UK govt science advice committee] experts have produced estimates that a short sharp shock lockdown from October 24 could reduce deaths by between 3,000 and 107,000.
Don’t you just love science? It’s the answer to everything.
OK, the context is complex but it shows nobody has a clue.
…and even then these are basically total guesses. But I love total guesses that are given to an accuracy of 1%!
I’ve just done the swab test (for a planned trip) and what I thought was funny is that you could just stick the swab up your back end, or up somebody else’s nose, or up your dog’s nose, and – presumably – get a negative certificate. Or even nowhere at all? This point can’t be lost on thousands of airline travellers who need to produce this test certificate to travel.
Theoretically!!
You are probably able to transmitt Covid for 14 days (there or there abouts).
If any country was able to enforce the most harsh lock down for 2 weeks how close could you get to reducing the level of infection in the community to a very low number?
Is this how China is achieving the results they have?
We talk about circuit breakers – is it better to have a very short harsh look down and get somewhere close to resetting the infection rate, than a much more prolonged process (leaving to one side for a moment doing anything)?
Can this translate into regions if areas are effectively isolated – in other word people really are prevented from travelling say more than 5 miles in the area concerned, with a harsh lock down in that area.
There appear to be four categories of “long covid” i.e. the long-lasting effects – article
Perhaps someone can locate the original report.
It doesn’t sound at all good, although it is still difficult to get a grip on what % of people end up with this.
I’ve just read about that report. The source seems to be here:
https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/themedreview/living-with-covid19/
Just inadvertently started reading the first posts of this thread – which had me reading a few more … interesting to see the initial reaction and that now of some posters.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
If any country was able to enforce the most harsh lock down for 2 weeks how close could you get to reducing the level of infection in the community to a very low number? Is this how China is achieving the results they have?
I wonder if many of you realize quite how harsh the Chinese lockdown was and how long it was – It was certainly not 2 weeks. I saw some pretty distressing messages and pics sent to a work colleague from his friends over there at the beginning of February, then those messages mysteriously first stopped for 2 weeks then were obviously heavily edited prior to being received in the UK with some delay – it was nothing like the European experience – people were literally locked up by the authorities for 10 weeks initially, allowed out once a week for an hour to shop.
Regards, SD..
Apparently people with blood types A, B or AB are masssively higher at risk for a severe illness or death than those with type 0.
I have read this before, now again a study by Graz University stating this is in circulation They state the risk being increased b 50 to 70 % for those who have another blood type than zero.
I am type A, so I know that if I get it, chances are very bad.
Yes, Type A to Type O is about 1.5:1 more risk.
Also Male to Female is about 1.5:1 more risk.
However other health and ethnicity factors, and age, are much bigger.
I am finding the UK situation pretty depressing. Not so much the virus spread pattern (which follows its usual past trend, plus a clear map of which parts of the UK do the most partying and boozing 
) but the politics. When the whole country was locked down, and with the 80% handout, the politicians were on the same page. Well, except Wales and Scotland, whose politicians always had to do something slightly different, to show they are more clever. Now, with the partial lockdowns (which it is now obvious is how it should have always been done) you get the locked-down regions rebelling, and of couse opposition politicians smell an opportunity to make totally transparent political capital out of this. The opposition is demanding a national lockdown, which is obviously a stupid idea since most the UK’s land area has very little virus, but it is politicially useful because it screws everybody, so they feel good about it. Good old envy runs the show… I expect it will be settled with a heavy handout of £££
A good map of positive tests is here.
This is from a phone app where people enter symptoms so probably more accurate
