BREAKING: All games suspended until 3 April "at the earliest" [Update: full EFL statement in OP]

[Costello 77]

1 minute ago, Animis said:

In terms of testing, at what point would you consider it? The latest figures show only 3.5% of those tested were positive. It makes you wonder what symptoms the other 96.5% had to justify being tested, and how the NHS will be able to deal with testing if the numbers increase significantly.

 

Testing won't help the public in the short term but it will become vital statistics for the planners.

[Costello 77]

Shocking grammar sorry.bit going off

[Mighty0wls]

2 minutes ago, Costello 77 said:

Why are you asking?

Just considering the implications of this with my family. I have a relative with downsyndrome who's immune system is already ineffective at dealing with infections, so he is probably at greater risk as this could be counted as an underlying health condition.

 

I also have relatives who drink regularly and probably have poor livers. Whether this is an underlying health condition that could create more severe symptoms I am unsure.

 

This is why I am asking

[prowl]

6 minutes ago, cognacbarnowl said:

 

 

Possibly because, like myself, they have very little faith in what governments tell us. I admit that I was very sceptical about what we were being told between December and a couple of weeks ago. However, after reading about it and informing myself on the matter I can now see how potent this virus can be. 

 

Besides the risk to life, this virus is going to cause all sorts of social and economic problems. We are all seeing martial law beginning to come into effect in Spain . Once these things become "normal" in everyday life it can be a long, long time before the authorities are willing to give up that kind of power.

 

WAHAW

I don't trust the government either but I don't want to believe scaremongering either. A neighbour told me some fanciful tale he'd heard on some fake media site. I won't repeat it, it was nonesense. There will be attempts to spread misinformation, ignore them.

 

I wish the govermnment hadn't stopped testing except in hospitals. It's only by testing that we can get an accurate handle on this thing. Give people accurate information and people will generally behave sensibly.

 

I think the government is behind the curve on this thing and are being forced to take action to catch up because the people are showing the way.

 

I wouldn't trust Boris to run a whelk stall. (I'm not political in any way, I don't trust Corbyn either)

[flo]

4 minutes ago, Animis said:

In terms of testing, at what point would you consider it? The latest figures show only 3.5% of those tested were positive. It makes you wonder what symptoms the other 96.5% had to justify being tested, and how the NHS will be able to deal with testing if the numbers increase significantly.

 

They have already said to isolate if you have a fever/cough and to not go out and get tested and they wouldn't test you anyway. Don't consider being tested, only go to a hospital if you are severely ill and then they would test you. 

[Costello 77]

1 minute ago, Mighty0wls said:

Just considering the implications of this with my family. I have a relative with downsyndrome who's immune system is already ineffective at dealing with infections, so he is probably at greater risk as this could be counted as an underlying health condition.

 

I also have relatives who drink regularly and probably have poor livers. Whether this is an underlying health condition that could create more severe symptoms I am unsure.

 

This is why I am asking

Ok ..the virus doesn't clinically discriminate.. still not sure what you're trying to know really.

[Animis]

1 minute ago, Costello 77 said:

Testing won't help the public in the short term but it will become vital statistics for the planners.

 

Indeed, but my point is if the projected positive numbers end up at 30-50m, how are the authorities going to deal with testing when to date only 3.5% have returned a positive test.

 

We'd have to undertake 100s of millions of tests by the end. I suspect we'll end up stopping the tests when this ramps up as the NHS resources will be needed elsewhere.

[Mighty0wls]

2 minutes ago, Costello 77 said:

Ok ..the virus doesn't clinically discriminate.. still not sure what you're trying to know really.

What type of medical conditions increase risk

 

Asked without thinking if anyone would realistically have an answer but someone may know something about what I'm trying to get at i.e. someone that knows about viruses

[Costello 77]

2 minutes ago, Animis said:

 

Indeed, but my point is if the projected positive numbers end up at 30-50m, how are the authorities going to deal with testing when to date only 3.5% have returned a positive test.

 

We'd have to undertake 100s of millions of tests by the end. I suspect we'll end up stopping the tests when this ramps up as the NHS resources will be needed elsewhere.

Yes.. I didn't make myself nearly clear enough.. I'm tired..in the early stages it's clinical gold data..if the numbers presenting outrun the data capture capabilities then it's pointless.. sorry.

[StudentOwl]

Just now, Mighty0wls said:

What type of medical conditions increase risk

 

Asked without thinking if anyone would realistically have an answer but someone may know something about what I'm trying to get at i.e. someone that knows about viruses

Those that die from coronavirus do so as a result of interstitual pneumonia... too little oxygen gets to vital organs and they shut down due to lack of oxygen. 

Those with a weak immune system will find it more difficult to fight off the virus, meaning it more likely to deprive organs of oxygen.

Those with 'weaker' organs will require relatively more oxygen for them to maintain function, meaning the virus has to do "less work" before the body's organs shut down.

[Costello 77]

2 minutes ago, Mighty0wls said:

What type of medical conditions increase risk

 

Asked without thinking if anyone would realistically have an answer but someone may know something about what I'm trying to get at i.e. someone that knows about viruses

Obesity..COPD.. Asthma.. anyone with immuno surpression.. anyone 

[prowl]

17 minutes ago, Mighty0wls said:

Don't see how I could be blaming anyone, or who I could even be blaming.

 

As I understand it underlying health conditions would mean people with a genetic presdisposition to a certain disorder, but I don't know, which is why I'm asking

I can't speak for everyone but it's not bad choices in my case. The only tbad choice I've made in life is supporting Wednesday.

I think that was genetic anyway. It must be it runs in the family.

[Animis]

The UK government approach of 'Herd Immunity' goes against what most of main-land Europe are doing. 

 

No idea who will be proven correct, but not closing schools is a risky strategy, as they are surely a fertile ground for infection, then its straight into the family.

 

The Chief Medical Officer said on Thursday that kids would only interact outside school anyhow, and he was even encouraging infection and future immunity.

 

Like I said, it's one hell of a risky strategy.

[Animis]

5 minutes ago, Costello 77 said:

Yes.. I didn't make myself nearly clear enough.. I'm tired..in the early stages it's clinical gold data..if the numbers presenting outrun the data capture capabilities then it's pointless.. sorry.

 

no worries - hope you get well.

[Costello 77]

If this nonsense continues about people dying through lifestyle "choices" gets any sort of credence then we're lost.

It's DANGEROUSLY DIVISIVE...

[Mighty0wls]

3 minutes ago, StudentOwl said:

Those that die from coronavirus do so as a result of interstitual pneumonia... too little oxygen gets to vital organs and they shut down due to lack of oxygen. 

Those with a weak immune system will find it more difficult to fight off the virus, meaning it more likely to deprive organs of oxygen.

Those with 'weaker' organs will require relatively more oxygen for them to maintain function, meaning the virus has to do "less work" before the body's organs shut down.

Nice one thanks. 

Could I also ask, why are we so far away from a potential vaccine if multiple scientists have isolated COVID-19? Aren't vaccines weakened forms of the disease injected to induce antibody production?

[prowl]

23 minutes ago, Animis said:

In terms of testing, at what point would you consider it? The latest figures show only 3.5% of those tested were positive. It makes you wonder what symptoms the other 96.5% had to justify being tested, and how the NHS will be able to deal with testing if the numbers increase significantly.

 

They were testing anyone exposed to someone who came down with it or had recently been to Italy or China. e.g. Forest plkayers were tested because they'd been near the owner who was positive.

[Costello 77]

1 minute ago, Animis said:

 

no worries - hope you get well.

I'm not clinically ill Animis.. I work with elderly and vulnerable adults and between them and the local authority .. they've worn me out.

 

I'm dreading tomorrow because there's no leadership in my building but I want a proper plan in the morning or I'll start making my own decisions on safety.. totally against my principles but there must be leadership..

[StudentOwl]

11 minutes ago, Mighty0wls said:

Nice one thanks. 

Could I also ask, why are we so far away from a potential vaccine if multiple scientists have isolated COVID-19? Aren't vaccines weakened forms of the disease injected to induce antibody production?

It's all well and good isolating it and sequencing it, but to produce in such a way takes a lot of resources and that takes time to set up. Once you've got the thing you're injecting into people, it has to undergo a sufficient amount of testing. The worst thing you could do is inject people with something that creates more problems a couple of months later. 

 

Even being optimistic, you'd be looking at 9 months for everything to be rubber stamped and cleared for humans and being mass produced on the required scale. 

[prowl]

2 minutes ago, Mighty0wls said:

Nice one thanks. 

Could I also ask, why are we so far away from a potential vaccine if multiple scientists have isolated COVID-19? Aren't vaccines weakened forms of the disease injected to induce antibody production?

Reading the gene sequence is only the first part of it.

 

Then they have to study it and see how best to create a vaccine. How they can make it effectively inert.

 

Then they test on animals to see if the vaccine kills them. Then they infect the animals to see what happens. Each stage is done then statistically assessed against a group that received a placebo.

 

Then they need to test on healthy humans to see if they can tolerate the vaccine, then they infect them and see what happens. Then they need to see how much vaccine is needed to be effective. Then it all needs statistically analysing.

 

The results are then put out for other scientists to study and pick holes in. (peer review)

 

Once it's proved it works they have to get it into production which needs a lot of labs to work out the best way to mass produce it. Then they need to produce enough for 6 billion people, distribute it round the world etc.

 

I'm not a scientist so I've probably missed a few stages.  Best case scenario 15 months to find and test it before they even think of production. Maybe a lot longer. There's somethings they can't immunise against.

 

After all this time the thing might have mutated and the vaccine is ineffective against the new strain. That's why flu and the common cold are still around.