|
Post by StoKeith on Jul 18, 2020 18:35:29 GMT
This may have been posted on one of the previous thousand odd pages, but I like the way it shows COVID trends in each country. It plots new COVID cases vs total COVID cases and animated the plot to represent time. It’s a log-log plot, so you have to get your head around that, but it clearly shows when a country has got it under control as the graph essentially drops vertically down. The precise numbers can be argued but the numbers in most countries should be roughly correct to within one order of magnitude, unless antibody testing reveals 10x as many people have had it than previously thought. That’s the beauty of a log-log plot - a 10x increase only shifts the data by one axis mark. You can see the UK has finally got it manageable, whereas the US (where I am) and Brazil are total clusterfucks. aatishb.com/covidtrends/
|
|
|
Post by DrGonzo on Jul 18, 2020 18:49:38 GMT
Positive cases abit worrying and they’ve given up on the deaths reporting Nope, the fact that they are testing 200k+ people (and targeting specific areas suspected to have outbreaks) and only 800 or so have Covid-19 is a positive.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jul 18, 2020 18:55:29 GMT
Positive cases abit worrying and they’ve given up on the deaths reporting Nope, the fact that they are testing 200k+ people (and targeting specific areas suspected to have outbreaks) and only 800 or so have Covid-19 is a positive. We’ve been doing that for weeks though.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jul 18, 2020 19:16:24 GMT
Positive cases abit worrying and they’ve given up on the deaths reporting Nope, the fact that they are testing 200k+ people (and targeting specific areas suspected to have outbreaks) and only 800 or so have Covid-19 is a positive. What number of new case would you then suggest would be a bit worrying, how much more than 800 are you talking about? Would you consider (I dunno) say, 1,500 to be a bit worrying?
|
|
|
Post by chad on Jul 18, 2020 19:29:41 GMT
Odd. Govt not giving the death figures but Worldometer as it at 40 ???
|
|
|
Post by wakefieldstokie on Jul 18, 2020 19:35:24 GMT
Isn’t it time to unpin this thread now?
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Jul 18, 2020 19:51:40 GMT
Isn’t it time to unpin this thread now? Why not? Apparently it's all going to be over by Christmas.
|
|
|
Post by wakefieldstokie on Jul 18, 2020 19:55:55 GMT
Isn’t it time to unpin this thread now? Why not? Apparently it's all going to be over by Christmas. Yea let’s keep it going indefinitely then🙄. Forgot this was a general chat board.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Jul 18, 2020 20:20:14 GMT
Why not? Apparently it's all going to be over by Christmas. Yea let’s keep it going indefinitely then🙄. Forgot this was a general chat board. Absolutely - it's not like it's affecting football or anything.
|
|
|
Post by wakefieldstokie on Jul 18, 2020 20:23:49 GMT
Yea let’s keep it going indefinitely then🙄. Forgot this was a general chat board. Absolutely - it's not like it's affecting football or anything. Yep it totally surprised me again seeing no fans in the ground today, glad I saw the thread it kept me up to date with its effects on footy. If only I could find out the latest on covid 19 some where else like the bbc, Sky or social media!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jul 18, 2020 20:35:43 GMT
Absolutely - it's not like it's affecting football or anything. Yep it totally surprised me again seeing no fans in the ground today, glad I saw the thread it kept me up to date with its effects on footy. If only I could find out the latest on covid 19 some where else like the bbc, Sky or social media! Why are you clicking on the thread? It's just a few millimetres on your entire screen, it's not like you'd struggle to avoid it, you're obviously deliberately opening it up.
|
|
|
Post by ParaPsych on Jul 18, 2020 20:40:05 GMT
Yep it totally surprised me again seeing no fans in the ground today, glad I saw the thread it kept me up to date with its effects on footy. If only I could find out the latest on covid 19 some where else like the bbc, Sky or social media! Why are you clicking on the thread? It's just a few millimetres on your entire screen, it's not like you'd struggle to avoid it, you're obviously deliberately opening it up. I regularly open threads I didn't mean to, stupid phone loading a picture in slowly and scrolling the screen down as I click. It is though very hard to post accidentally!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jul 18, 2020 20:42:30 GMT
Why are you clicking on the thread? It's just a few millimetres on your entire screen, it's not like you'd struggle to avoid it, you're obviously deliberately opening it up. I regularly open threads I didn't mean to, stupid phone loading a picture in slowly and scrolling the screen down as I click. It is though very hard to post accidentally! Indeed and this one is pinned right at the very top, securely locked down ... it's not like it's moving around randomly, like all the other ones.
|
|
|
Post by DrGonzo on Jul 18, 2020 20:45:33 GMT
Nope, the fact that they are testing 200k+ people (and targeting specific areas suspected to have outbreaks) and only 800 or so have Covid-19 is a positive. What number of new case would you then suggest would be a bit worrying, how much more than 800 are you talking about? Would you consider (I dunno) say, 1,500 to be a bit worrying? Turning that back on you - what is a good figure? 0? It would be quite easy to get that number. 10 less than last week (that’s what it is BTW)? Another question do you think the figure of 796 is an accurate assessment of the number of people who contracted Covid-19 on a given day last week who took their test 2 days ago? Of course it isn’t. There isn’t really a single day figure that would concern me. What would concern me is a trend of 10+ days of statistically significantly rising figures without evidence of increased testing or testing targeted to a specific location which had a suspected large outbreak.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jul 18, 2020 20:54:50 GMT
What number of new case would you then suggest would be a bit worrying, how much more than 800 are you talking about? Would you consider (I dunno) say, 1,500 to be a bit worrying? Turning that back on you - what is a good figure? 0? It would be quite easy to get that number. 10 less than last week (that’s what it is BTW)? Another question do you think the figure of 796 is an accurate assessment of the number of people who contracted Covid-19 on a given day last week who took their test 2 days ago? Of course it isn’t. There isn’t really a single day figure that would concern me. What would concern me is a trend of 10+ days of statistically significantly rising figures without evidence of increased testing or testing targeted to a specific location which had a suspected large outbreak. That's exactly why I've recorded the rolling weekly daily average since the beginning of lock down. But you described the figure of 800 cases on a specific day as being "positive", which completely contradicts everything you've just said in this post.
|
|
|
Post by DrGonzo on Jul 18, 2020 21:05:58 GMT
Turning that back on you - what is a good figure? 0? It would be quite easy to get that number. 10 less than last week (that’s what it is BTW)? Another question do you think the figure of 796 is an accurate assessment of the number of people who contracted Covid-19 on a given day last week who took their test 2 days ago? Of course it isn’t. There isn’t really a single day figure that would concern me. What would concern me is a trend of 10+ days of statistically significantly rising figures without evidence of increased testing or testing targeted to a specific location which had a suspected large outbreak. That's exactly why I've recorded the rolling weekly daily average since the beginning of lock down. But you described the figure of 800 cases on a specific day as being "positive", which completely contradicts everything you've just said in this post. Nope, the positive is they have been aggressively testing around certain hotspots for several weeks now and the figure has not statistically increased during that time. I’m a bit lost as to your point if I’m honest.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jul 18, 2020 21:17:10 GMT
That's exactly why I've recorded the rolling weekly daily average since the beginning of lock down. But you described the figure of 800 cases on a specific day as being "positive", which completely contradicts everything you've just said in this post. Nope, the positive is they have been aggressively testing around certain hotspots for several weeks now and the figure has not statistically increased during that time. I’m a bit lost as to your point if I’m honest. I was just interested in what criteria you would use to reach a "negative" description for a specific daily figure, after you had described today's figure as being "positive". You've now said however, that you're not actually interested in specific daily figures after all but originally you described a specific daily figure as being "positive", it seems to be a bit of a contradiction. Having said all that, I do agree that the rolling, weekly, daily average, is indeed the most important figure to focus on.
|
|
|
Post by DrGonzo on Jul 18, 2020 21:20:32 GMT
Nope, the positive is they have been aggressively testing around certain hotspots for several weeks now and the figure has not statistically increased during that time. I’m a bit lost as to your point if I’m honest. I was just interested in what criteria you would use to reach a "negative" description for a specific daily figure, after you had described today's figure as being "positive". You've now said however, that you're not actually interested in specific daily figures after all but originally you described a specific daily figure as being "positive", it seems to be a bit of a contradiction. Having said all that, I do agree that the rolling, weekly, daily average, is indeed the most important figure to focus on. OK yeah I did badly phrase that original reply.
|
|
|
Post by durbanscircus on Jul 18, 2020 21:46:41 GMT
The report for the Government Office for Science released last Tuesday projected that 120,000 people would die this winter under a reasonable worst case scenario. The midrange assumption was about the same number of deaths than we have just had but spread over four months rather than 10 weeks in the first wave.
The best case was an uptick of deaths from where we are now...so do you feel lucky punk? given past performance where do you think we will land?.....120,000 or 65000 or a few thousand? it our family kith and kin so it matters.
I think it will turn to shit
|
|
|
Post by Soro's Sorrows on Jul 18, 2020 22:06:36 GMT
The report for the Government Office for Science released last Tuesday projected that 120,000 people would die this winter under a reasonable worst case scenario. The midrange assumption was about the same number of deaths than we have just had but spread over four months rather than 10 weeks in the first wave. The best case was an uptick of deaths from where we are now...so do you feel lucky punk? given past performance where do you think we will land?.....120,000 or 65000 or a few thousand? it our family kith and kin so it matters. I think it will turn to shit You are in a good mood We have learnt a lot over the last 4 months. The Public, the government and the NHS. We are in a completely different place than we were in March. A second wave is likely in late Autumn but we just have to deal with it together. The public are adept to social distancing, most people will accept local lockdowns, the NHS have a couple of drugs that make a good difference, they can profile patients to access who will need what, the Nightingales are ready, testing is at a sufficient level. It's just a new fact of life to deal with. Vaccines are looking possible for early next year, we just need to see this thing through, there is no choice.
|
|
|
Post by durbanscircus on Jul 18, 2020 22:09:06 GMT
The report for the Government Office for Science released last Tuesday projected that 120,000 people would die this winter under a reasonable worst case scenario. The midrange assumption was about the same number of deaths than we have just had but spread over four months rather than 10 weeks in the first wave. The best case was an uptick of deaths from where we are now...so do you feel lucky punk? given past performance where do you think we will land?.....120,000 or 65000 or a few thousand? it our family kith and kin so it matters. I think it will turn to shit You are in a good mood We have learnt a lot over the last 4 months. The Public, the government and the NHS. We are in a completely different place than we were in March. A second wave is likely in late Autumn but we just have to deal with it together. The public are adept to social distancing, most people will accept local lockdowns, the NHS have a couple of drugs that make a good difference, they can profile patients to access who will need what, the Nightingales are ready, testing is at a sufficient level. It's just a new fact of life to deal with. Vaccines are looking possible for early next year, we just need to see this thing through, there is no choice. My understanding is that the modelling on outcomes during the winter has taken this into account. It will be a difficult winter, Im hoping for the best. But we had the worst outcomes in Europe during the first wave for a reason- we have a shite approach to public health which has been underfunded for a decade. Now do you think we have massively improved over the last few weeks?...if not make sure your gran and Grandad are safe for the winter
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jul 18, 2020 22:22:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jul 18, 2020 23:43:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by duckling on Jul 19, 2020 1:37:03 GMT
A law to make masks compulsory in shops is just plain crazy. It's unenforceable and makes a mockery of the law. The only way it can work is if shops decide themselves on whether or not to allow customers in without a mask. They have the right to set their own rules. OS. I live in the Boston area, Massachusetts, USA. There has been a statewide mask requirement since April or May. Compliance is around 100% in indoor public spaces like grocery stores. Outside compliance is about 90% though that might have changed with the current heatwave (37C in the shade tomorrow). Our virus numbers have gone way down. There is data from two hair stylists in Missouri who served 140 customers while they had the virus. One of the hairdressers even served customers while showing symptoms (wtf?). None of the customers caught it. They were all wearing masks. If you want a mask and don't have one, I recommend following this tutorial. All you need are a t-shirt and scissors. You get two masks from a single t-shirt. I personally found that it fit better tied behind the head than behind the ears, maybe because I wear glasses. If you tie it behind your head, it's easier to tie two ends together first before putting it on, then slip it over your head, then tie the other two ends. I also slipped an unbent paperclip with sports tape covering the ends into the hem part of the sleeve to make a nose wire.
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Rave on Jul 19, 2020 8:55:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Jul 19, 2020 9:49:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 19, 2020 10:14:05 GMT
Fascinating read:
Spillover: the origins of Covid-19 and why the next pandemic may already have started Forget patient zero. Pathogens with pandemic potential are constantly jumping from animals to humans, say experts
By Paul Nuki, GLOBAL HEALTH SECURITY EDITOR and Sarah Newey, GLOBAL HEALTH SECURITY REPORTER 18 July 2020 • 11:45am
Imagine you are a smoker who drives for a living. Every day you throw burning cigarette butts from the car. It’s happened many thousands of times without incident. The smouldering stub lands, bounces and dies. Occasionally one may singe a clump of grass but nothing more. You drive on in blissful ignorance.
This analogy, say virologists, is a good way of thinking about zoonotic spillover events like the one which sparked the Sars-Cov-2 pandemic. They are happening all the time but are seldom noticed. Only very rarely, when environmental conditions are just right, do they spark a violent wildfire which spreads exponentially.
“These things happen every day around the world, and we miss them because we don’t focus enough on supporting surveillance of unusual illnesses in under-served and often distant rural communities”, says Dr Peter Daszak, the veteran virus hunter and one of the world’s foremost experts on coronaviruses.
Working backwards to find the origin of Covid-19 is necessary but misses the main point, adds Dr Daszak. If you are very lucky you might find the smoker who sparked the wildfire, but this discovery won't stop the next one unless something more fundamental changes.
“The key problem is that too many ill-informed people are working outside of their own experience to try to ‘trace back’ from ground zero”, says Dr Daszak. “What we need to do is look at it the other way round: from the bats to the people”.
The idea that zoonotic spillover events are much more widespread than we realise is not just a theory but a fact, and variants of the Sar-Cov-2 virus are a case in point.
A study published in 2018 by Dr Daszak and Zheng-Li Shi - Wuhan’s famous ‘batwoman’ - documented how they took blood from 218 people who live in close proximity to bat caves in Yunnan province, China. Most were farmers and 97 per cent had a history of exposure to or contact with live-stock or wild animals.
In total six of those tested (2.7 per cent) were found to have antibodies to a Sars-Cov variant carried by local bats. The virus did not appear to have caused harm but even if it had we may never have known. In the 12 months prior to the sampling date, only one of those infected had travelled outside of Yunnan. Several of the others had never left their village. This particular spark - like the vast majority of them - briefly smouldered, then died.
But that’s not always the case. Sometimes the conditions are right for things to catch fire. And on occasion, the blaze can be vast: one recent outbreak has cost 30 million lives to date and is still burning.
Take Hendra virus. It’s traits mean it has never triggered a major outbreak - it isn’t contagious enough - but every so often, it still sparks a lethal blaze. The first reported outbreak was in 1994 in Hendra, a small suburb in Brisbane, Australia when a racehorse called Drama Series fell ill. She was feverish, frantic and frothing from the mouth. Within 24 hours she was dead.
Drama Series was the first of 21 racehorses to die in that outbreak. “At the height of the crisis, seven animals succumbed to their agonies or required euthaniasia within twelve hours,” David Quammen writes in his book, ‘Spillover’. “Seven horses dead in twelve hours - that’s carnage, even for a case hardened veterinarian.”
The disease also jumped to two humans, killing one - a horse trainer called Vic Rail. After a week in intensive care he died in hospital after his organs failed and he could no longer breathe.
It took years to find where the Hendra virus came from but in the end it was traced to fruit bats, which are common in east Australia. Since 1994, it has crossed from bats to horses in 52 separate spillover incidents and infected a total of seven people.
A bigger viral blaze was sparked in Yambuku, a village with a Belgian missionary outpost deep within the Congolese forest, in 1976. A mysterious haemorrhagic fever killed well over 200 people in just three weeks before apparently petering out.
The virus, later named after the nearby Ebola river, has now sparked more than 28 different outbreaks (each a separate spillover event) and killed more than 22,000 people over the last 40 years. The worst occurred in West Africa between 2013 and 2016, when the first spark fell near a major road, enabling it’s spread. At least 11,323 people died.
Even today as Covid spreads, the World Health Organisation - now armed with a vaccine - is fighting a new Ebola outbreak in the north west of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In just four weeks, there have been 56 confirmed cases and at least 20 deaths.
Experts suspect the “natural reservoir” for Ebola is also bats - but they are far from the only animal to carry zoonotic viruses. The Spanish Flu of 1918 is thought to have started in North American poultry. Middle East respiratory syndrome (Mers), another coronavirus, comes from camels and has killed 858 people since it was first discovered in Jordan in 2012.
The case numbers reported for these and other zoonotic diseases are almost certainly just the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of spillover events go unreported, say experts.
“We’re continually exchanging viruses with animals, that's what happens”, says Dr David Redding, from the Centre for Biodiversity and Environment Research at UCL. “These conspiracy theories about labs misunderstand the basics of virology. We know that all species are sharing pathogens all the time. It is through this process that viruses naturally mutate and evolve.”
It is HIV that best illustrates the point, a virus now known to date back to the early 1900s. It’s simian version (SIV) is thought to have jumped from monkeys to humans through hunters and butchers in Africa. Cities like the former Belgian colony Leopoldville, which were rife with prostitution and the ulcerating venereal disease syphilis, are thought to have provided the ideal environmental conditions for the virus to mutate and adapt to humans.
Dr Daszak describes HIV, which has killed an estimated 32 million people, as the “ultimate” example of spillover. After many decades of repeated small scale flare ups (all unnoticed at the time) it exploded as a pandemic in the early 1980s. What had changed was not so much the virus itself - the spark - but the society it landed in. The population boom in Africa, the globalisation of air travel, the sexual revolution in the west - they all played a part.
“Changes to human behavior increase the transmission of viruses between people, for example sexual contact or injected drug use,” says Dr Daszak. “These changes alter the ‘R’ or reproduction rate of a virus and may assist in driving their emergence.”
Sars-Cov-2 may also have been circulating longer than thought. The virus has mutated very little since first being discovered in humans. This may be because it is a stable virus which faces little pressure to adapt. But it may also be because it has already adapted.
“The evolution of this virus to become a human pathogen may have already happened and we missed it,” Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University told Science magazine last week.
Prof Linfa Wang of the Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore also thinks a version of the virus may have circulated earlier in humans in southern Asia. “If it happens in a small or remote village, even with some people dying, nobody is going to know there’s a spillover,” he said.
Today there are roughly 300 animal pathogens from 25 “high risk” viral families which are known to infect people. That more will emerge is inevitable. Researchers estimate that as many as 1.7 million viruses from these same families exist in the wild, including some 700,000 with “zoonotic potential”. That’s a lot of sparks.
There is temptation to think that major events like pandemics are once-in-a-century events but the logic of spillover may suggest the opposite. Just as we have seen wildfires proliferate around the globe in recent years because of a change in climatic conditions, there are environmental changes that make it more likely that viral jumps will also burn bright. The growth in the world’s population, the development of previously undeveloped nations and the growth in the international trade in wildlife are just a few of them.
“We need to think about things like supply chains,” says Dr Redding. “Demand for palm oil and soya [in the west], for instance, are driving huge changes in the way people interact with biodiversity in the locations in which they’re farmed.
“This is all a bit hidden at the moment. We don’t take responsibility for that. But international trade is driving changes to land use across the world. This is far bigger than wet markets.”
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jul 19, 2020 13:19:52 GMT
For the anti maskers
|
|
|
Post by henry on Jul 19, 2020 14:47:59 GMT
Or When you cough and sneeze cover your face.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Jul 19, 2020 16:01:24 GMT
|
|