- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:10000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 2661 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [First 100 posts][ Reply ]
2695 posts omitted. First 100 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 27266
Right, now that the last corona thread is over 1,700 posts long, maybe it's time for a new one.
How long do you think it will be until we're fully back to normal?
|>>|| No. 27268
Normal wasn't sane. I can't see the world going fully back to the same state.
|>>|| No. 27269
Considering the government wants us to sarcrifice ourselves for the economy again now, and people are still for some reason desperate for holidays abroad, probably at least another year.
|>>|| No. 27270
Until an effective vaccine is developed, we're all at risk. So until then, it's about risk mitigation. It's not even been a year and the process usually takes about 3 years, even with stuff fast tracked for human trails we're talking roughly 18 months if we're lucky and people aren't rational about lock down.
|>>|| No. 27272
I'm not wasting three years of my life on 'risk mitigation', if you want to stay indoors thats your prerogative.
Going abroad doesn't give you coronavirus.
|>>|| No. 27273
>Going abroad doesn't give you coronavirus.
Obviously, it encourages the spread and you know this.
|>>|| No. 27276
Not all of us have the privilege of being able to sit at home wanking for three years.
|>>|| No. 27277
From where we are standing now, I think we should have just taken the deaths on the nose, honestly. Unpopular opinion and I know that, but if it turns out a vaccine can't be developed to give reliable immunity, that's about the only choice we will have. What can we do, socially distance forever?
It's not misanthropy that drives my viewpoint here, but rather the fact that we've gone above and beyond what should have been necessary, in a sensible world, to contain the spread and people still can't even follow the rules properly. If people are wilfully ignorant or too dense to put a mask on properly, or stay two metres away from me in the queue at Morrisons, then clearly they bloody well want to die. Who am I to stop them.
We're all still going to drown in fifty year's time and we're doing absolutely bugger all about it, but we're all sick with worry in case the nasty ickle cough bumps us off before then. I reckon we would have been absolutely fine if we just let it burn itself out like a wildfire.
The response to this virus offered us a choice to look at the way we operate society, and change it for the better, in the modern age. But we didn't take it. We're now heading for a worst of both worlds nightmare future, and on balance I'd have stuck with it before, as awful as things were.
|>>|| No. 27280
>Obviously, it encourages the spread
How can somebody not realise this.
Just read an article on Spain's tourism industry at the moment. Most countries that the bulk of tourists normally come from during the summer season have now issued either travel bans or warnings. It has taken away over 70 percent of their usual earnings during the summer months. And with few regional exceptions, they earn nearly all their annual revenue between May and September, so it's a double blow and they will be unable to make up their losses this year even if all travel restrictions are lifted again by October or November. And the beginning of the next summer holiday season, if there is going to be one, is still well over six months away.
|>>|| No. 27285
I'm inclined to agree with you, this whole thing's made me lose some more faith in humanity.
It's not as if there's an example out there of a country that did everything right in setting and following restrictions, and now has just over 100 cases. Oh wait. There is. Just like cases lowering in all the other countries doing the same. Seriously how is this a debate anymore?
Don't be stupid lad.
No, mate...Restrictions are for a timebeing so that the spread of the virus is greatly reduced, and then more easily controlled and any infections more easily managed, like you know, the entire reason we put restrictions in place to begin with. Then as time goes on, restrictions can be lessened gradually. It's how New Zealand was so on it, and how they got down to 0 cases. They restricted air travel too. But much like the Spanish Flu we apparently learned nothing from, opening up too early has/will make it much worse.
|>>|| No. 27302
No one is suggesting that you have to, but maybe keep your distance from strangers in shops until we have a vaccine, yeah?
|>>|| No. 27304
>Then as time goes on, restrictions can be lessened gradually.
Nope. Covid won't become less infectious just through the passage of time. China, South Korea and New Zealand were able to end their lockdowns and return to some sort of normality because they developed very efficient test-trace-isolate systems. It's all about speed at every stage - the quicker you find and isolate people who might be infected, the fewer people they can infect. That's what keeps the R value low enough to allow things to reopen.
Our system is getting worse, not better. The number of contacts being traced is below 80% and falling and the government doesn't even have stats on how quickly contacts are being traced. In many parts of the country it's taking a week to get results back from a COVID test. We don't have any real plan for how to improve those numbers.
|>>|| No. 27308
>Covid won't become less infectious just through the passage of time.
Not less infectious, but perhaps less dangerous. I think that's why we are just able to live with other seasonal coronaviruses like colds and flu, I think I read something that they would have started as a high-death toll pandemic and then mutated into something that isn't as deadly in order for itself to survive.
|>>|| No. 27311
Herd immunity is a thing, we'll eventually reach it to some degree, with the help of a vaccine or not. One of the reasons it has spread so effectively is that it's already one of those not-very-deadly pathogens, the death toll is just adding up because of the sheer number of cases. It's still only around 5% mortality.
Best case scenario it's full protection, but that's unlikely. Realistically it's more likely to end up being something like seasonal flu- The reason it's torn a path right across the world is because it was new and we've not been exposed to it before. Worst case scenario is it's like we're starting from scratch every time it comes round, and that's really the point at which we just have to accept it's one of those things out there in nature that might kill you, and deal with it come what may.
Either way, the impact will lessen over time, if not the actual potency of the disease. There are varying reports out there about re-infection and it's kind of hard to tell what's credible and what isn't right now.
|>>|| No. 27313
We have a government that can't lead and wants to sacrifice people for the economy, and apparently there's a good percentage of the country who are outright thickos.
|>>|| No. 27314
>Herd immunity is a thing, we'll eventually reach it to some degree
That was the theory when this first started, but it would have to spread massively for this to even begin to happen, seeing as how you can easily become re-infected. It's been bullshit for a while, unless it's left to spread uncontrolled and millions get sick and many more die, it won't happen.
|>>|| No. 27315
Also people seem to have completely forgotten how badly having covid can fuck you up in the long term. For some reason the "It's just like a seasonal flu" crowd are still about.
|>>|| No. 27316
You misunderstand what herd immunity means. It's not just a term thrown around to mean "everyone is safe".
If we develop a vaccine and deploy it en masse, herd immunity is exactly what we will have. As in, the people who cannot safely take the vaccine will be protected by virtue of high enough general population immunisation that they're unlikely to come into contact with an active case.
Now, if we don't develop an effective vaccine, yes, that's when massive numbers of people need to have had it, and the same level of protection probably wouldn't be reached. But it would still reduce the overall rate of transmission.
The trouble we're going to have is anti-vax dickheads. We've had comprehensive herd immunity to things like measles and polio for the last fifty odd years and only recently has that started to erode because of tossers who think vaccines give you autism.
|>>|| No. 27317
If you can become reinfected within a year, as recent cases are suggesting, you can't have herd immunity, at least not one that is logistically possible. We'd have to be getting vaccinations constantly, or the virus could come in different strains that would make the vaccine ineffective, like we see with the seasonal flu.
|>>|| No. 27318
Assuming money and logistics were no object, we could eradicate the flu by vaccinating everyone on the planet. If it's not in transmission, it's not going to mutate.
|>>|| No. 27320
Without a vaccine, we'd need at least 60% of the population to get COVID to develop herd immunity. At a conservative 0.7% CFR, that means at least 260,000 deaths. Getting to that level of infection without totally overwhelming the NHS would take the best part of a decade.
Unless the economic impacts of social distancing get really, really bad, I think the only politically tenable option is to ride it out until a vaccine arrives. The long-term health impacts of mass unemployment might end up being worse than the impact of uncontrolled COVID, but young people will bear the brunt of that and they don't vote.
|>>|| No. 27322
>but young people will bear the brunt of that
Not wanting to turn all middle aged tutting DM reading cunt, but serves them right for thinking they were invulnerable just because they were under 30 and couldn't get sick.
|>>|| No. 27324
Or thinking that being a barista or doing media studies is a good career choice.
It's gonna hurt.
|>>|| No. 27326
Yes, literally every person now between the ages of 23-40 did media studies and then wanted to be a barista.
Are you fucking reading the posts you're making?
|>>|| No. 27327
I bet kids these days must be having a right old laugh. Imagine getting months off school in the era of high-speed internet and then for the rest of your life the media pats you on the back for 'surviving' it.
Little shits will probably get to live forever as well.
|>>|| No. 27328
What many younguns get wrong is that almost all youtube channels are and always have been shit. There is a lot of survivor bias because everybody knows a handful of youtubers in their main areas of interest who have millions of subscribers and are actually able to make a living that way. But nobody sees or hears much about all the wannabe youtubers who dabble and upload two or three poorly boshed together videos but then realise nobody watches them, because they are shit, and then give up.
You're not going to be able to earn a living from being a youtuber just because you suddenly decide that spending a few minutes a day talking into a camera suits your layabout lifestyle more than sitting at a desk in an office. Those who do succeed as youtubers often put long gruelling hours into scripting and preparing their clips and then spending several days filming and editing them.
It's not going to be your daytime job unless you treat it as one.
|>>|| No. 27329
Young people are basically invulnerable to COVID, but we're trashing their future to save the codgers. It doesn't seem particularly fair to me. If the roles were reversed, would the current generation of over-65s sacrifice their pension to save young people?
|>>|| No. 27330
Herd immunity is what makes the flu jab effective m8. Not everyone gets it but not everyone has to, just enough people to stop it spreading.
|>>|| No. 27331
>Young people are basically invulnerable to COVID
They really aren't though.
|>>|| No. 27332
Less than 0.001% of under-18s who catch COVID-19 will die. For people aged 18-49, the infection fatality rate is less than 0.01%. About 15% of over-65s who catch COVID will end up in hospital and about 5% will die.
It might be politically convenient to pretend that we're all at risk, but it's just not true. COVID is a disease that only poses a real threat to people who are close to death already - the elderly and the seriously ill. A tiny handful of young and healthy people will die of COVID, but they're practically a rounding error.
|>>|| No. 27333
>Young people are basically invulnerable to COVID
The statistical data is skewed because at the beginning of the pandemic, young people were tested less. Which in turn means it's highly likely that mild cases were overlooked more than in older adults. Whereas now, there is much more testing among younger people, which reveals that they are much more likely to contract the virus than previously thought.
There is very generally more testing now than in March or April, while the hospitalisation rate, which should serve as a mark of how serious the pandemic actually is, continues to taper off. It should mean that we are already much closer to herd immunisation than has been assumed, and that the virus as such is both less serious and that we're long past the worst bit. If we're really at the beginning of a second wave, then it certainly doesn't manifest itself in an increase in hospital admissions yet.
|>>|| No. 27334
>COVID is a disease that only poses a real threat to people who are close to death already
Middle age is going to be living hell for you.
|>>|| No. 27335
Funnily enough, my neighbour is one of those who has "made" it on youtube. She doesn't seem to be rolling in money for all the work that's involved. At least back when it was rappers they would rack up huge debts on mansions and non-disclosure agreements.
Plus she proper shit herself when I made a joke about selling her address online. It was poor taste in hindsight but who wants to live like that?
I think if it was a straight choice like that they would. They're certainly invested in making sure they pass on their wealth at any rate.
The thing is I doubt any of this matters in the long run. In a worst case scenario it's the oil crisis where we'll feel a pinch for a decade but a recession was overdue and it's not like we don't have anything to be excited about for the future. How many people seem to remember the Great Recession at this point?
|>>|| No. 27336
When people talk about young people surviving Covid or whatever they never mention post-Covid syndrome. It strikes anyone at any age. That's why I'm terrified of catching this thing. I can go through hell for a couple of weeks if that was all it was, that's temporary. The fatigue? That's for life (presumably). Fuck that, I don't want to be out of breath climbing stairs until the grave.
|>>|| No. 27337
This is what I've been struggling to explain to people - a lot of people seem to think you either get it and die, or you're perfectly fine.
There's a mounting body of evidence that in some people, there's permanent long-term damage.
|>>|| No. 27338
>the elderly and the seriously ill
Or people who are overweight or have any kind of lung condition, it would seem.
Your rounding error is still hundreds of thousands of people - that's a city or two - I think that's worth saving.
|>>|| No. 27340
I get that you want to go to back to work as your only way to socialise but it's not the time for throwing around speculation and endangering people. We know that severe flu can have long-term impacts but there's no hard evidence the coronavirus is not more dangerous or shouldn't concern young people.
If you'd bothered to do a quick think before your post you'd realise there are no long-term studies into the coronavirus because it hasn't been around that long yet.
|>>|| No. 27341
Post-viral fatigue can happen with any infection, Respiratory or otherwise, and usually gets diagnosed as chronic fatigue syndrome if it persists beyond a year. Know a lass with CFS, she has ME too and constantly gets chest infections.
I have CFS, but don't have shortness of breath. It's a horrible fugue state that descends like fog and I need to sleep or I'll get a migraine. What caused it is also post-viral fatigue, but it was a severe case of impetigo that triggered it for me.
|>>|| No. 27342
>Your rounding error is still hundreds of thousands of people - that's a city or two - I think that's worth saving.
You're off by orders of magnitude. If literally everyone under 65 caught COVID-19, we'd expect less than 10,000 of them to die. 92% of people who died of COVID were aged over 65, 69% were over 80 and 27% were over 90. This is a disease that overwhelmingly harms the elderly, presents almost no risk to the young and presents only a very small risk to middle-aged people in poor health. If it weren't for the elderly, we wouldn't have ever considered a lockdown.
|>>|| No. 27343
You've equated death with all harm. I have friends in their 30s who have what appears to be permanent lung damage from covid. That is a factor that unknown in how it will affect people long term and how many are affected.
|>>|| No. 27345
Tories raising rates on second properties is not something I thought even a pandemic could bring about. What's next, increasing the seven year rule for inheritance?
Also unrelated but does anyone want to buy a flat in Leeds? It's very nice.
|>>|| No. 27349
We (globally) seem to be getting a bit better at treating it. Dunno if that's a plus, or minus, for long term effects?
|>>|| No. 27350
>Also unrelated but does anyone want to buy a flat in Leeds? It's very nice.
Does it have a view of a playground?
|>>|| No. 27351
Sadly not, though I'd have bought are Jim's flat for sure.
It's right by the canal though, if The Pusher is still active on here.
|>>|| No. 27352
Partly that, but partly that what we saw in April-May-June was infections running amok in care homes, their staff, nurses and doctors etc. To an extent there's now plausibly a certain level of herd immunity within that small subset of the population, as well as within those settings the access to PPE is much better than it was. So now the most vulnerable people, and the people most likely to pass it on to more vulnerable people are a bit safer.
The spikes in infections we're seeing now within the UK and the rest of Europe are to a larger extent in young people who aren't getting seriously ill, which is reflected in hospital admissions not rising in step with increasing infections. The biggest threat right now is that the young people getting infected will be passing it onto older family members.
|>>|| No. 27353
I think that generally, the bulk of elderly or otherwise frail and vulnerable people already caught it and died from the virus earlier this year. As highly contagious as the virus is, it is probably more widespread now by many orders of magnitude than we have any way of knowing.
What's really making statistics unreliable is that testing capacities have been expanded. According to data.gov.uk, testing capacity is now ten times what it was in early April. Test processing has also increased at least about five-fold.
You can probably liken it to the phaenomenon of overpolicing in crime hotspots. The more police you have watching people, the higher statistical crime rates tend to become in an area. Likewise, reported covid cases are on the increase now because there are simply more of them becoming known, both due to more testing and perhaps more public awareness. But it doesn't necessarily mean that the spread of the virus is getting worse as such.
|>>|| No. 27354
I agree with you general point - that far more testing, means we have far more known cases; and from there we are identifying far more of the "less lethal" cases. But my view is that we don't then extrapolate from there and go to "this is nothing to worry about" - it just shows how wrong we probably got the testing earlier in the year.
It has been interesting to see the (old, white, right-wing) media shift tack this weekend to the "everyone go back to work" lines. Almost as if there has been some concerted spinning..
|>>|| No. 27355
> It has been interesting to see the (old, white, right-wing) media shift tack this weekend to the "everyone go back to work" lines. Almost as if there has been some concerted spinning..
The mainstream media have just been a government mouthpiece for the whole covid period. Note the almost complete lack of dissenting views early on in lockdown, loss of civil liberties, destruction of economy etc.
|>>|| No. 27356
>Note the almost complete lack of dissenting views early on in lockdown, loss of civil liberties, destruction of economy etc
There was no shortage of all that in all the edgelad Breitbartian media that people like you probably prefer in general.
And even if everybody erred on the side of caution, including mainstream media, there can be no doubt in anybody's mind that the death toll would have been far greater if we had just stuck our heads in the sand and continued with Bojo's initial herd immunity approach.
Oh, I forgot, everybody over 65 is just a waste of oxygen anyway, right?
Have a word, lad.
|>>|| No. 27357
Anyone else looking forward to the flu and covid team up in the winter and second lockdown?
|>>|| No. 27360
U wot m8. I just want a media that raises questions that I myself would have.
|>>|| No. 27361
Who knows. Media peer pressure, or maybe just the fear that even with the best intentions, you will be put in the same corner as Breitbart if you doubt received wisdom about how this pandemic has to be handled.
But the onus isn't on the mainstream media, it's on all the idiots who believe the coronavirus is spread by 5G, who think that ordering people to wear masks is totalitarianism, and who retweet podcasts of conspiracy nuts on Twitter. They are the ones who have muddied the waters so that even if you present a well thought out point that calls general wisdom into question, people will think you are one of them.
|>>|| No. 27362
Corona's never going away. It'll keep on mutating and we'll get a new deadly strain each year just like the flu.
|>>|| No. 27370
>Oh, I forgot, everybody over 65 is just a waste of oxygen anyway, right?
Well. It's not quite that they're a waste of oxygen, it's just that out of any age group, they appear to be the one least appreciative of the sacrifices everyone has had to make- For their benefit, no less.
Also, not everyone you disagree with on the internet is some befedora'd alt right autist. Jumping to that conclusion says a lot more about how you see the world than that poster.
|>>|| No. 27372
>Also, not everyone you disagree with on the internet is some befedora'd alt right autist
No, you're right, that assumption isn't universally warranted. But there are plenty of alt right people out there right now who spout a lot of the same things as otherlad. And who on the surface will appear quite reasonable at first. It can be difficult to tell otherlad apart from them.
|>>|| No. 27384
It's more likely to mutate into strains that don't end up killing the host. I'm sure any singleton at the moment could tell you how social isolation impacts reproductive success.
Or it will mutate and give us all superpowers like in X-Men. This time next year we could all be wearing spandex.
|>>|| No. 27399
>It's more likely to mutate into strains that don't end up killing the host.
Why? How does that help it reproduce?
|>>|| No. 27400
Mutation as such is aimless, it just "happens". It's just as likely that strains will evolve that kill their host rapidly as it is that more benign strains come into being. But the more benign strains then have a higher chance of reproducing and jumping from host to host and spreading. Because if somebody gets rapidly and violently sick from a bad strain, it's much more likely that that individual will be spotted and isolated before the virus can infect a greater number of people.
It's one, but not the only reason why ebola has never led to a global pandemic. Incubation time is short, less than 48 hours in most cases, and patients deteriorate so rapidly and become very gravely ill that they're easy to spot. Also though, ebola tends to break out in small rural communities that have little contact to the outside world, and you can't normally give it to somebody just by breathing on them from a metre away. Whereas scientists now think that Covid-19 can even cling to exhaled smoke particles from a cigarette. I think Spain has now banned smoking in public areas for that reason.
|>>|| No. 27402
A virus needs living cells to reproduce and a host healthy enough to infect everyone else. It serves no purpose to kill people which is why pandemics emerge when viruses cross-species and why the various strains of the common cold are so successful.
I'm pretty sure this is common sense.
|>>|| No. 27403
But the lethality of covid is only about 1% and symptoms for most people are mild. Since it's a new virus there must be many ways it could evolve to spread better and many of these could have a higher lethality. The chances of it getting more lethal are 50-50.
|>>|| No. 27404
Town high streets are pretty much finished for volume sales, city high streets inly slightly less glum. Yes the virus has hastened the inevitable but its time for government to start looking at incentives for alternative uses
I'd imagine the airline industry is going to look very different before long
|>>|| No. 27406
The airline industry will recover before "high streets" do - I don't think the government realises, at all, because it doesn't want to try and solve the problem, how successful working from home has been for so many companies.
|>>|| No. 27407
>But the lethality of covid is only about 1% and symptoms for most people are mild
That's the key reason why it has spread so successfully. The aim of all life, forgetting for a moment the controversy if a virus counts as life to begin with, is to reproduce. The more a life form reproduces, the more successful it is, because it's proof that it's fit for life in its environment. There is no point in a virus killing its host "just because".
SARS-Cov-2 has spread so vastly because it's a mild infection for over 90 percent of people, enough so that many people pass it on without even ever knowing they were infected by it, and the rest of them probably have trouble telling their own symptoms from those of a common cold.
|>>|| No. 27408
>Outsourcing firm Capita is to close over a third of its offices in the UK permanently, the BBC understands.
>The firm, which is a major government contractor, is to end its leases on almost 100 workplaces.
>Home Office staff in England could be working from home for the next year as departments limit the number of people working in their buildings to comply with coronavirus social-distancing measures, a departmental email has revealed.
>Matt Hancock has said he cares more about how well his civil servants “perform” in their jobs than whether or not they return to the office, amid pressure on Whitehall to set an example after months of lockdown.
>The health secretary said he had “absolutely no idea” what percentage of staff in his department had returned to the office amid the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.
They know that town and city centre footfall is fucked for the foreseeable, but they just don't want to admit it. Everyone has seen the benefits of work-from-home and nobody is going to go back to the office just to save Pret and WH Smith from oblivion. If they pretend that things will be back to normal soon, they delay the political reckoning. Same with the furlough scheme - they know that a heck of a lot of those workers won't be going back to their jobs, they know that we're going to see record levels of unemployment, but they don't have a plan so they're just pretending that everything will be alright.
|>>|| No. 27412
If companies like Capita are doing it, the government really doesn't have much choice but to follow suit. They practically are the government in a lot of areas.
|>>|| No. 27413
Equally, if the government can't persuade Capita not to do it then they sure as hell can't persuade anyone else.
|>>|| No. 27414
Yes - it also seems a bit rich to say to people "you're all going to get outsourced if you don't return to the office" when companies such as Capita and Serco have so much government outsourcing business.
|>>|| No. 27417
When the economy is destroyed and the globo homo digital serfitude system is up and running. The slave of the future shall be willing
|>>|| No. 27446
Is there something wrong with me? I've only just now noticed that coughing emoji isn't actually coughing.
|>>|| No. 27474
>consider wearing a mask when having sex
Just what the plastic surgery consultant told me while sadly shaking her head.
|>>|| No. 27481
From the very first frame you can see he is up for a fight. His body language gives him away. As for "panic attacks" FFS.
|>>|| No. 27482
Laddo has been coughing at people and spitting on the floor beforehand. The Nutters are trying to pin this as MUZZLE REFUSER GETS ATTACKED! Ignoring the first bit.
|>>|| No. 27483
"Medical condition". These are the same people who are "souverign citizens", believing magical incantations will save them.
|>>|| No. 27484
They're just lunatics - there is a brilliant legal judgement somewhere on the interwebs, by a Canadian judge, which dissects and destroys all the "legal" basis for those sovereign citizens - is a good read.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]