Are you worried yet.

This isn't going away and we need to be aware and take what precautions we can, there is over dramatisation on all sides best you can do is make your own judgements based on what evidence you have and act accordingly. Ireland has closed schools, sporting events, cancelled, limits on internal and external numbers, even our company has started to take action, sanitisers at every dept entry, implementation space restrictions (minimum 2m gaps for all office staff), face to face meetings restricted to 15mins, and implementation of a WFH policy (where possible) all small steps but proactive rather than reactive. Because of these type of policies there seems to be less of the sensationalism that we can see in the rest of the world, more of its a problem let us deal with it the best we can.

Fingers crossed it continues

D Walker said:

Unfortunately the pessimist in me agrees. I’ve discussed it with some guys who are really close ex mil friends and they just think I’m totally alarmist.
I really really hope I am.

Click to expand...

Ex-mil think you are alarmist, as they have survived drinking water from one of these:



Current-mil are (obviously) making appropriate preparations for worst-case scenario, likely or not.

Koz said:

You can get tested in Wolverhampton. I believe they have a drive through testing station and its for their residents only. Not sure how referral works.

Click to expand...

You sure that’s still there? As I understood it, all changed on Friday. And if it is still there, then 111 are lying to me, which is also not good

So, I have a runny nose and a headache- typical symptoms of a cold - not Covid 19
So why to I feel so self conscious blowing my nose in public, everyone is so paranoid.
Clearly we all want to do the right thing by by others and bit out anyone at risk, but if everyone who gets a normal cold disappears for 7days the world really will grind to a halt faster than it is already.

lozcb said:

Elderly could be quarantined for four months in 'wartime-style' mobilisation to combat coronavirus, writes Robert Peston

People over 70 will be instructed by the government to stay in strict isolation at home or in care homes for four months, writes Robert Peston......

Click to expand...

Something that must be very frustrating for government and officials is that:
- every possibility is reported by the press as a probability, using weasel-words like 'could be', and sometimes casually throwing in a 'will be' as if it is a certainty, not a speculation: "Potatoes may cause cancer, thousands will die."
and that:
- every sensible worst-case contingency plan or preparation is reported by the press as actuality, as if a plan is an intent or a reality: "Canada has plans to repel US invasion."

So they have to assess risks and plan properly; but if they are secretive they are accused of 'inaction' or 'cover-up' and if they are open, hysteria ensues.

Wattie said:

Yes, for as long as it takes.
Frankly I think you’re wrong to think you’ll have a choice. You’ll be told to lock down as have others elsewhere when it deteriorates- at risk of penalty if you don’t!

Click to expand...

As both my partner and I are two of the many thousands who will be providing front line services to all, we will therefore be out and exposed to far greater risks and will be expected by the like of you to carry on and serve regardless.

So no I will not be cowering in self imposed quarantine or being told to stay at home.

Unless you have a self contained bunker (nuclear shelter) with fuel, filters, food, water and health provision you will be exposed no matter how long you stay in your home.

My pal is now all clear and back home now. He is a very fit sixty six year old.

Here’s his timeline regarding his infection:

Wednesday 4th March Back home from Italy feeling a bit **** so self quarantined himself.
March 5,6,7 & 8 Had a bit of a cough, high temperature and headaches coming in waves.
March 9 He called 111 and was tested although starting to feel better.
March 10 Was confirmed infected. Feeling even better.
March 11 Feeling normal and taken to hospital in Aberdeen by special ambulance and put into isolation.
March 12 & 13 tests taken.
March 14 Declared clear and told to take taxi and train to get home.

Food production in the UK is still very labour intensive. People working shoulder to shoulder, mostly agency workers.
If we go into lockdown and there is a breakout of the virus in the workplace they will have to stop production.
There is obviously stock at the moment in warehouses but for how long.
If we go into lockdown it can't be until a vaccination is available, and if slowing it down UK businesses just can't survive.
Isolate the vulnerable and then have corona parties for the rest?

I would have been flying back from skiing this morning if we hadn't cancelled ourself last Wednesday. Just found out by cousin flew out yesterday to discover all the ski resorts in France have shut down. Can't believe they decided to fly out.

Delmonte said:

You can’t get tested in the UK... I’ve had flu since Tuesday- concerned not for me but wife (mother in law, via her) and my dad. Rang 111. I have all symptoms bar temperature. But the cough is now at its worst since the start, getting worse. They won’t test me or let me see a doc. Just - ‘stay at home’ call back in 7 days if still got symptoms. 111 operatives are not doctors and read off scripts... That only tests are for inpatients in hospital. So they have no idea how many are infected. Looking bleak....

Click to expand...

I absolutely can see why you would want to get tested if you are feeling unwell, and especially if you have vulnerable people around you.

But I'm not sure why it would be sensible public health policy to use a test kit on someone with flu (or even symptoms consistent with a mild corona virus infection). If testing resources were infinite and free, I suppose it would be worth testing everybody every day to gather better data. But as they are not, why would it be sensible to test in this case? Surely it is better to conserve resources for when it gets more serious?

Scaf said:

So, I have a runny nose and a headache- typical symptoms of a cold - not Covid 19
So why to I feel so self conscious blowing my nose in public, everyone is so paranoid.
Clearly we all want to do the right thing by by others and bit out anyone at risk, but if everyone who gets a normal cold disappears for 7days the world really will grind to a halt faster than it is already.

Click to expand...

MarkMas said:

I absolutely can see why you would want to get tested if you are feeling unwell, and especially if you have vulnerable people around you.

But I'm not sure why it would be sensible public health policy to use a test kit on someone with flu (or even symptoms consistent with a mild corona virus infection). If testing resources were infinite and free, I suppose it would be worth testing everybody every day to gather better data. But as they are not, why would it be sensible to test in this case? Surely it is better to conserve resources for when it gets more serious?

Click to expand...

Exactly , but test kits are om the way ................suposedly for hospitals and clinics and ( pharmacies but for staff only ) , the daughter in law has promised me and the missus a kit when they arrive , up until then i just get this gut feeling its all very last episode Black Adder

Phil H said:

Over the years we've had doom and gloom over SARS, Swine Flu, Avian Bird Flu, Winter Flu and goodness knows what else causing high levels of infection and death worldwide. Today's headlines suggest that the UK government is planning isolation for the vulnerable including those with underlying health conditions and the over 70's, and there are allegedly plans to use the army to police supermarkets etc, whilst other countries are closing their borders

The current virus seems to be an easily transmitted killer, but given the nature of previous viruses I'm puzzled by the panic over this one; is it being hyped by the media, or is it more virulent than anything we've seen previously?

Peter has a point. We need to be sensible and apply what controls we can, but how often do we hear that 'lessons will be learned' when unintended consequences are realised?

PH

Click to expand...

In most cases it is harmless but for the 15% who get it bad it could be fatal. Bilateral Interstitial Pneumonia.

iainw said:

Oh my god - the problem is a vast number of people are burying their head in the sand , and either don’t understand or don’t want to understand the situation. The problem with this is- not only are they risking their own lives, which is well within their right- but they will directly cause the death of others. The self isolation point is a fair one though- if everyone self isolated, the world would fall apart. The real test will be getting the right number of people of the highest risk to self isolate, and the essential people to be brave enough to face it. Anyone comparing it to avian flu, and SARS etc is deluded.

Click to expand...

It is SARS so it is a fair comparison. It's just far more contagious than the 2002 strain of SARS. It's a corona virus just like MERS, Avian Flu and SARS-2002.

An interesting article with simulations of quarantine vs 'social distancing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/corona-simulator/





I think the UK is attempting graph 3, moderate distancing' at the moment, and may need to move to graph 4 if the infection rate rises too fast. This is not callousness or putting money above life, but an attempt to get the whole population through the next year in a controlled way, and avoiding the double peak that 'shut everything down' methods risk.

This also feels like quite a sensible strategy for a largish island, with a low compliance population (like the UK), and might be less appropriate for a continental country (like France), or a smaller, high-compliance island like Singapore (or even Taiwan).

Any overwhelming of the health service will be because vulnerable people are getting infected too fast, so actually what is needed is for vulnerable people to do 'vigorous distancing' to try to avoid it for as long as possible, and the rest of us to gradually get it (over say 3-6 months) and get better, so that the spread is then very much contained, and it becomes 'just yet another winter respiratory infection, with a vaccine for the vulnerable'.

Good (and some what equivocal) commentary on this strategy here:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/coronavirus-can-herd-immunity-really-protect-us

Contigo said:

It is SARS so it is a fair comparison. It's just far more contagious than the 2002 strain of SARS. It's a corona virus just like MERS, Avian Flu and SARS-2002.

Click to expand...

Seemingly much more contagious, but much less dangerous. And that changes the public health strategy.

MarkMas said:

Seemingly much more contagious, but much less dangerous. And that changes the public health strategy.

Click to expand...

Less dangerous BUT more contagious so actually as it will infect more than it could be argued will kill more.

Just a quick note on hand sanitisers. My wife works at a zoo where they used to have loads of them dotted about. A few years ago, on one of their regular inspections, Public Health Wales advised them to replace the sanitisers with more hot water and soap washing facilities. The reason being two-fold (1) washing your hands properly is far more effective at stopping the spread from person to person and (2) the 90% plus alcohol sanitising fluids which are used in hospitals are not available to commercial organisations and the public. Relying on the stuff people are panic buying won’t help.

Just been to Tesco.
apart from pasta, bog roll and hand wash there was plenty of everything else. Kitchen roll on last legs tho.

Hurricane52 said:

Just a quick note on hand sanitisers. My wife works at a zoo where they used to have loads of them dotted about. A few years ago, on one of their regular inspections, Public Health Wales advised them to replace the sanitisers with more hot water and soap washing facilities. The reason being two-fold (1) washing your hands properly is far more effective at stopping the spread from person to person and (2) the 90% plus alcohol sanitising fluids which are used in hospitals are not available to commercial organisations and the public. Relying on the stuff people are panic buying won’t help.

Click to expand...

Showing my age , but absolutely nothing wrong with good old fashioned red carbolic , hand sanitiser is for woosses and says it all about the young generation ( tongue in cheek )

Contigo said:

Less dangerous BUT more contagious so actually as it will infect more than it could be argued will kill more.

Click to expand...

Yes, indeed. You get the same number of deaths with a 80% infection rate and a 1% death rate as you get with a 20% infection rate and a 4% death rate.

BUT if your data is suggesting that 'most people get it, but most people survive with no trouble and many of the others also survive with good nursing' (eg flu) then 'slowing the peak so we can cope' (plus vaccination) is a sensible strategy. If your data is suggesting 'very few people get it, but most of them die whatever we do' (eg ebola) then 'isolation and eradication' is a sensible strategy.

If your data is showing an 50% infection rate and a 50% death rate (bubonic plague), then you have a different problem!