Ski Club 2.0 Home
Snow Reports
FAQFAQ

Mail for help.Help!!

Log in to snowHeads to make it MUCH better! Registration's totally free, of course, and makes snowHeads easier to use and to understand, gives better searching, filtering etc. as well as access to 'members only' forums, discounts and deals that U don't even know exist as a 'guest' user. (btw. 50,000+ snowHeads already know all this, making snowHeads the biggest, most active community of snow-heads in the UK, so you'll be in good company)..... When you register, you get our free weekly(-ish) snow report by email. It's rather good and not made up by tourist offices (or people that love the tourist office and want to marry it either)... We don't share your email address with anyone and we never send out any of those cheesy 'message from our partners' emails either. Anyway, snowHeads really is MUCH better when you're logged in - not least because you get to post your own messages complaining about things that annoy you like perhaps this banner which, incidentally, disappears when you log in :-)
Username:-
 Password:
Remember me:
durr, I forgot...
Or: Register
(to be a proper snow-head, all official-like!)

Corona Virus + upcoming holiday

 Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
@brianatab, all of that.
ski holidays     
 Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@abc i don't see anything wrong with having a discussion about it. This isn't a scientific journal and I doubt the government is looking for advice here rolling eyes . If you don't want to discuss anything we don't have the complete facts on you should probably just ignore this whole thread. Personally I think it's quite interesting that a bit of recent research could completely change how we are going to view this and the policy we take going forward. Of course we won't know for sure until the antibody testing is here, but I don't see the harm in conversation.

Quote:

What is important, is that every death where this Virus has been identified, should be recorded as such so that better comparisons can be made to find the most effective methods of dealing with it.


Yes they should all be recorded. But we have to be very careful about how we analyse them. There are going to be cases where someone died with coronavirus but it was not a cause of the death. There will be other cases where coronavirus is a contributing factor but no the main cause. It's complicated.
ski holidays     
 Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
@boarder2020, I don’t think you got my point.

I’m not saying you can’t debate the best course of action without “ complete” fact. Science actually exist in a world of incomplete knowledge. We are always cognizant the fact our understanding of the world is limited.

However, when our knowledge is so woefully inadequate, AND WE KNOW IT AS SUCH, then the debate becomes rather baseless speculation. Not much better than Egyptians speculated the relationship of the sun and god. I’m pretty sure the Egyptian found their speculation entertaining or even mentally invigorating.

But “in retrospect”, it bore little resemblance to reality.
snow report     
 You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
LaForet wrote:
@Whitegold {Deaths as % of population: London = 0.002% NY = 0.001% }

Nope - Gr. London = 0.0018%, NY = 0.0025%,

US Census 2018 NY Pop. 8,398,748 - 210 deaths = 0.0025%
UK Census ONS 2016 Greater London Pop. 8,137,941 - 143 deaths = 0.0018%

Standard Trumpian countermeasure. Just make it up. Then post on Twitter. Trouble is, viruses don't look at Twitter.

I understand the tactic. It's easier to justify your views by simply making up false data: by the time someone has fact-checked your inventions, you've moved on to the next false claim. But keep it up, I have plenty of spare time at the moment.
____________________________________________

As of 1st thing Sat.28 March

Deaths as % of population - Gr. London = 0.003%, New York = 0.006%


As of Sunday 29th March

Deaths as a % of population - Gr. London = 0.004%, New York = 0.010%

Now, I'm posting this not because I think that London is in some way superior to New York. Both cities are suffering their own form of tragedy. I'm posting this because I'm fed up with @Whitegold's made-up, xenophobic Trumpian propaganda. Whitegold's 'facts' were a complete fiction right from the start and need to be countered and seen for what they are: falsehoods.
____________________________________________

Since there's been silence from @Whitegold on this, but sadly no cessation of propaganda from him elsewhere, here's an update as of Monday 30th

Deaths as a % of population - Gr. London = 0.006%, New York = 0.014%

With total deaths in New York 2.6-times more than Gr. London, with an equivalent population.


Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Tue 31-03-20 11:57; edited 3 times in total
snow conditions     
 Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
I don't think there is any mileage in pointing out the lunacy in Whitegold's posts, which are deliberately provocative.

It's looking like America is likely to be hardest hit by this pandemic which is a tragedy given their resources. It just happens that they have the very wrong person to be in charge at the very worst time.
I feel so sorry for the people of New York at the moment
ski holidays     
 You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
Quote:

It's looking like America is likely to be hardest hit by this pandemic


I think we have to wait and see. It's still not known exactly how dangerous coronavirus is. This article sums it up more eloquently than I could https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/The-evidence-on-Covid-19-is-not-as-clear-as-we-think

I'm sure isolation is saving lives. But how many and at what cost? The British government has borrowed huge amounts of money so far which is all going to have to be paid back. There are potential long term economic effects of how we are managing the pandemic here in Europe.

You have to remember the mentality is not the same in USA than UK. People are more money/economy driven there, a large proportion don't even want free healthcare.
ski holidays     
 Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
boarder2020 wrote:


I think we have to wait and see. It's still not known exactly how dangerous coronavirus is.

“Not known exactly how dangerous “?

Wait till you hear the news of someone you know is dead, then tell me how NOT dangerous it is!
latest report     
 After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
@boarder2020, That article makes the usual "denial assumptions". Get real people!

You cannot compare the number of annual worldwide cases of any disease with the Coronavirus, which has only been in a small percentage of the population a matter of weeks!

The simple fact is, that Health services are some Countries have already been overwhelmed, and many Countries are in danger of being so in the next few weeks. This does NOT happen with Flu

A few simple questions:

Has any virus in living memory* killed 10,000+ people in any 1 European Country, and over 23,000 in Europe in the first month?

When was the last time anyone can remember the NHS having access to all the Private Hospital facilities and still building temporary Hospitals for an expected 20,000+ patients?

Outside of Wartime, when has this, or any Country ever made provision for thousands of places in numerous temporary morgues in Ice Stadiums?


Our Health experts have stated that if they restrict the total number of deaths in this Country to under 20,000 then they would consider that a success.

I would prefer to find out in 6 months that a few of the restrictions might not have been necessary, than to have done nothing and watch tens of thousands die.

* I don't include the Spanish Flu as living memory as over 100 years ago.

The sensible ones amongst us, keep safe and well
ski holidays     
 You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
Far more people have had it than figures show, most have very few symptoms, was told fri that a friend of my wife has been tested positve as she is nhs she was actually tested so its fact not a possible case.
She caught it in Morzine while skiing symptoms started , three days after returning yet officially no cases there
ski holidays     
 Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
@robs1 airport? However, I strongly suspect there will have been cases in Morzine.
ski holidays     
 snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
abc wrote:
boarder2020 wrote:


I think we have to wait and see. It's still not known exactly how dangerous coronavirus is.

“Not known exactly how dangerous “?

Wait till you hear the news of someone you know is dead, then tell me how NOT dangerous it is!


Boarder2020 is correct that it's not known how dangerous coronavirus is - we don't know enough about things like the mortality rate or exactly how contagious it is. That's not the same as saying it's not dangerous.

That's true regardless of whether someone we know dies from it or not.
snow report     
 And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
brianatab wrote:
... Our Health experts have stated that if they restrict the total number of deaths in this Country to under 20,000 then they would consider that a success....

But you have to put that in the context of there being around 600,000 deaths annually. So if achieved that would only be an increase of 3-4%. And a number of those dying "from Covid-19" (or more correctly "with Covid-19") are likely to be acccelerated deaths of people who were sufficiently ill that almost any virus, e.g. a cold, would have resulted in their death. So the additional impact of Covid-19 is actually rather less.

Yes it is serious, particularly for any family directly affected, but at 20,000 it would be nothing like the scale of some of the past pandemics (plagues, spanish flu).
snow report     
 So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
ecureuil wrote:

Yes it is serious, particularly for any family directly affected, but at 20,000 it would be nothing like the scale of some of the past pandemics (plagues, spanish flu).

20,000???

Are you saying there will be no more death from the virus since ... last week???

Yeah, right. "nothing like the scale of some of the past pandemics". rolling eyes
snow conditions     
 You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
@abc, 20,000 in the UK.
snow conditions     
 Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
ecureuil wrote:
brianatab wrote:
... Our Health experts have stated that if they restrict the total number of deaths in this Country to under 20,000 then they would consider that a success....

But you have to put that in the context of there being around 600,000 deaths annually. So if achieved that would only be an increase of 3-4%.


So as long as it's only a small statistic, and we spread it out over the year to make it look better, that's ok then? If we ignore actual numbers, no one will realise the true scale?

20,000 deaths in a few short months from any disease like Measles, Chicken pox or TB would, quite rightly, cause public outrage, but it's ok if they are already ill or old?


[/quote]And a number of those dying "from Covid-19" (or more correctly "with Covid-19") are likely to be acccelerated deaths of people who were sufficiently ill that almost any virus, e.g. a cold, would have resulted in their death. So the additional impact of Covid-19 is actually rather less.[/quote]

Yes, a number of the victims may well have died from their existing conditions in the same year, but with their families able to visit and attend a funeral.

What about the fit and healthy victims? oh, it's ok, they may have been run over by a bus whilst going home from the pub?, so that's ok then


[/quote] but at 20,000 it would be nothing like the scale of some of the past pandemics (plagues, spanish flu).[/quote]

The last plague was centuries ago, and Spanish Flu before we knew what a virus was. No modern Heathcare, so not comparable, that's why I asked for examples in living memory


Can you give an honest answer to my actual questions?
ski holidays     
 Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
denfinella wrote:

Boarder2020 is correct that it's not known how dangerous coronavirus is - we don't know enough about things like the mortality rate or exactly how contagious it is. That's not the same as saying it's not dangerous.

He's correct we don't KNOW exactly how dangerous the virus is. It could also be MORE dangerous than we have seen so far.

For example, it's still too soon to see if most of the recovered patients also recover their lung function. Right now, many are still suffering some degree of lung capacity reduction. If there's a large scale permanent lung damage, the bills for caring for these newly disabled population will need to be paid by the rest of the workforce. We won't know till some months later at the earliest.

Until one large country choose NOT to do anything to contain it, we will never know EXACTLY how dangerous it really is. Looks like UK had chose NOT to be that country that experiment with a different approach than the rest of the world. I'm disappointed. I would think after Brexit, it maybe more willing to buck the trend. rolling eyes
latest report     
 Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
brianatab wrote:
ecureuil wrote:
brianatab wrote:
... Our Health experts have stated that if they restrict the total number of deaths in this Country to under 20,000 then they would consider that a success....

But you have to put that in the context of there being around 600,000 deaths annually. So if achieved that would only be an increase of 3-4%.


So as long as it's only a small statistic, and we spread it out over the year to make it look better, that's ok then? If we ignore actual numbers, no one will realise the true scale?

20,000 deaths in a few short months from any disease like Measles, Chicken pox or TB would, quite rightly, cause public outrage, but it's ok if they are already ill or old

It isn't spreading it out to make the figures look better. It's spreading it out to relieve pressure on intensive care beds. We know from Italy that too many critical! Cases per day means that people die because they can't get the treatment that may save them.

I don't think there's any doubt the UK is putting lives above the economy at all costs. In the US, there has been some slightly different thinking to this in certain areas.






And a number of those dying "from Covid-19" (or more correctly "with Covid-19") are likely to be acccelerated deaths of people who were sufficiently ill that almost any virus, e.g. a cold, would have resulted in their death. So the additional impact of Covid-19 is actually rather less.[/quote]

Yes, a number of the victims may well have died from their existing conditions in the same year, but with their families able to visit and attend a funeral.

What about the fit and healthy victims? oh, it's ok, they may have been run over by a bus whilst going home from the pub?, so that's ok then


[/quote] but at 20,000 it would be nothing like the scale of some of the past pandemics (plagues, spanish flu).[/quote]

The last plague was centuries ago, and Spanish Flu before we knew what a virus was. No modern Heathcare, so not comparable, that's why I asked for examples in living memory


Can you give an honest answer to my actual questions?[/quote]
snow conditions     
 Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Who the F knows. Surely we sit back and accept the advice given. I’ve read lots. I’m bright, a member of Mensa and run a big business. I have opinions. But I really ain’t q to know anything about this - and the people that the gov have put up seem v q so. I’ll quarantine for 13 weeks. I’ll do it for 6 months. Whatever I’m told. Do it too.
ski holidays     
 You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
@efsefs, +1
snow conditions     
 Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
cameronphillips2000 wrote:
brianatab wrote:
ecureuil wrote:
brianatab wrote:
... Our Health experts have stated that if they restrict the total number of deaths in this Country to under 20,000 then they would consider that a success....

But you have to put that in the context of there being around 600,000 deaths annually. So if achieved that would only be an increase of 3-4%.


So as long as it's only a small statistic, and we spread it out over the year to make it look better, that's ok then? If we ignore actual numbers, no one will realise the true scale?

20,000 deaths in a few short months from any disease like Measles, Chicken pox or TB would, quite rightly, cause public outrage, but it's ok if they are already ill or old

It isn't spreading it out to make the figures look better. It's spreading it out to relieve pressure on intensive care beds. We know from Italy that too many critical! Cases per day means that people die because they can't get the treatment that may save them.

I don't think there's any doubt the UK is putting lives above the economy at all costs. In the US, there has been some slightly different thinking to this in certain areas.




Quote:
And a number of those dying "from Covid-19" (or more correctly "with Covid-19") are likely to be acccelerated deaths of people who were sufficiently ill that almost any virus, e.g. a cold, would have resulted in their death. So the additional impact of Covid-19 is actually rather less.

Yes, a number of the victims may well have died from their existing conditions in the same year, but with their families able to visit and attend a funeral.

What about the fit and healthy victims? oh, it's ok, they may have been run over by a bus whilst going home from the pub?, so that's ok then


but at 20,000 it would be nothing like the scale of some of the past pandemics (plagues, spanish flu).

The last plague was centuries ago, and Spanish Flu before we knew what a virus was. No modern Heathcare, so not comparable, that's why I asked for examples in living memory


Can you give an honest answer to my actual questions?



AIDS.

30 million.
snow conditions     
 You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
Over 6000 people died in Congo with the measles outbreak there. Yellow fever kills around 27000 people each year in Africa. Both things we have a vaccine for and are unnecessary killing people but I guess people are not so bothered when it's not happening in Europe.

The researcher behind the imperial model estimates 50-75% of the people that die with coronavirus would have died this year anyway due to their underlying health problems.

New study out of Bristol University suggests if lockdown results in a fall in GDP of more than 6.4 per cent more years of life will be lost due to recession than will be gained through beating the virus.

I'm not saying the government is wrong to impose lockdown. It's certainly a safer less risky option. There are however arguments to be made the virus is not as bad as first thought and the lockdown is going to hurt us more long-term. There is the other argument of why not just isolate the high risk and let the rest go about as normal.

Let's wait and see what the results are when we have antibody testing.

Quote:

it's still too soon to see if most of the recovered patients also recover their lung function. Right now, many are still suffering some degree of lung capacity reduction.


Many? Do we have a number? As far as I'm aware this is due to those with the virus developing viral pneumonia, which is more common in elderly people and those underlying health conditions (exactly the same groups we are seeing coronavirus posing more of a threat to). We have plenty of research on the long term effects of viral pneumonia, which should give us some indication
ski holidays     
 Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
@boarder2020, you’re still pretending to not know that the young are hospitalized a lot. In fact, the nimber coming out of New York is 40/60 for under/over 50!

The olds dying is getting all the headlines. But the health danger to the entire population is, as you put it, “not exactly known”.

However, you choose to ASSUME the unknown is less bad, when there’s a chance it can also be WORSE than we feared, which you discounted out of hand without question.

When the Titanic hit that iceberg, O wonder how many decided NOT to go into the lifeboat because they (correctly) deduced there’s also a good chance they may freeze to death.
ski holidays     
 After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
@abc again you might want to actually read my posts. I am saying it is right to be cautious and minimise risk, if I was in charge I'd stick with the current policy. However, I'm saying there is some evidence to suggest coronavirus is not as bad as first thought, and we know long term this kind of lock down is going to have some negative affects.

You say "a lot" but what percent of the young with coronavirus are hospitalised? (I.e. for every 1000 young people with the virus how many will be hospitalised?). Of course you don't know, nobody does. When we get antibody testing we will be able to have an idea of the risk. The only thing we can be fairly sure about is that our current numbers are skewed by the fact all those very sick people are being tested, whereas the asymptotic people (perhaps 50-75% percent according to findings) are unlikely to be tested.
snow conditions     
 You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
efsefs wrote:
Who the F knows. Surely we sit back and accept the advice given. I’ve read lots. I’m bright, a member of Mensa and run a big business. I have opinions. But I really ain’t q to know anything about this - and the people that the gov have put up seem v q so. I’ll quarantine for 13 weeks. I’ll do it for 6 months. Whatever I’m told. Do it too.

Dont take this the wrong way. But running a big business i'd like to think gives you some financial security compared to what others are facing. Some people being locked up in the home for 13 week could be absolute hell with an abusive partner/parent.
Your situation doesn't pan out the same for everyone
snow report     
 Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
@boarder2020, said
Quote:
There are however arguments to be made the virus is not as bad as first thought and the lockdown is going to hurt us more long-term.
There may be some good coming from the reaction to the pandemic - at a stroke the air/car transport; industrial output etc that climate activists have calling for limits on have have reduced or stopped.

Sites like this is show the actual reduction of pollution levels https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/emissions-impact-coronavirus-lockdowns-satellites/

However, this won't last but certainly shows what might be needed to combat the climate crisis - there's a great NYTimes article on this subject here ...(requires free registration to read)
Quote:
Coronavirus has led to an astonishing shutdown of economic activity and a drastic reduction in the use of fossil fuels. In China, measures to contain the virus in February alone caused a drop in carbon emissions of an estimated 25 percent. The Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air estimates that this is equivalent to 200 million tons of carbon dioxide — more than half the annual emissions of Britain. In the short term, response to the pandemic seems to be having a positive effect on emissions. But in the longer term, will the virus help or harm the climate?
...
As the United Nations’ secretary general recently noted, the threat from coronavirus is temporary whereas the threat from heat waves, floods and extreme storms resulting in the loss of human life will remain with us for years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/27/opinion/sunday/coronavirus-climate-change.html
ski holidays     
 snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Hells Bells wrote:
@robs1 airport? However, I strongly suspect there will have been cases in Morzine.


It is of course possible, not sure how she got to Morzine, but my wife saw lots of pics of her in bars etc, being young free and single there was lots of socialising
ski holidays     
 And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
We were in Chamonix until the French lockdown, and it was reported that there were then no cases in the Chamonix Valley. I find that completely unbelievable. Right through Jan/Feb/March we were transporting, in close proximity, people from all over the world, including from China, from Italy, and pretty much everywhere else. All these people mixed closely in Bars, Restaurants, Gondolas and Cablecars, then returned to their homes all over the world. Unless the virus is much more difficult to contract than we are being told I really cannot see how it could be possible that huge numbers of us have not already been exposed. Almost everyone we knew in Chamonix had at some point symptoms that could have been Coronavirus. Late Jan/early Feb one colleague even went to the doctor and asked if it could be Coronavirus, he was told that as he hadn't been to China the answer was no - despite the fact that he had been in a transfer van with people who had come from China.
ski holidays     
 So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
@RobinS, (Chamonix) sis in law went to GP yesterday (French Healthcare, eh?) - (as our usual gang had all been at hers Friday 13th and by Tuesday 17th we were all suffering some or all of the referred symptoms) - and s-i-l still didn't feel 100% (she's fine).

Discussion of symptoms, discussion of group symptoms/experience, GP's opinion (she is well regarded and very experienced),

"Oh, for sure, you've all had it. Frankly, most of the valley have probably had it." Edit - as this may come across as being too glib. I'm not suggesting that this is definitive, just a wee bit suggestive. We have all definitively had something.

AFAIK, or at least, as of reports Friday, there have been 10 hospitalisations from the valley. That said, apparently Sallanches hospital is now at capacity.

In slightly more rigourous data, a Dutch group test 1,353 healthcare staff from two hospitals who were exhibiting some symptoms two weeks after the first "official" NL case was identified.

6.4% infection rate...


Last edited by So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much on Mon 30-03-20 16:13; edited 1 time in total
snow report     
 You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
under a new name wrote:

"Oh, for sure, you've all had it. Frankly, most of the valley have probably had it."



The current estimation based on what testing has been done is 4.2 million infected in France as of the 27th March.
ski holidays     
 Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
davidof wrote:


The current estimation based on what testing has been done is 4.2 million infected in France as of the 27th March.


On an exponential curve, most of these will have been infected relatively recently, and many may not yet be showing symptoms.

The number of confirmed cases in France has quadrupled in the last 10 days. It is therefore feasible that the number on infections has followed a similar pattern.
ski holidays     
 Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Spreadsheet giving daily breakdown of UK statistics:

https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/documents/Historic%20COVID-19%20Dashboard%20Data.xlsx
ski holidays     
 Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
[quote="brianatab"]
davidof wrote:



The number of confirmed cases in France has quadrupled in the last 10 days. It is therefore feasible that the number on infections has followed a similar pattern.


possibly not, given that France has been in lockdown for 10 days now so the rate of infection should have dropped from the 2.5/3.0 rate to something closer to 1.*. The confirmed cases is largely based on people arriving at hospital with symptoms.

I would have expected the rate of infection to have slowed a lot over the last couple of weeks whereas the confirmed cases is laggy given the around 14 days to show symptoms from being infected.

Dr Catherine Hill (a French Epidemiologist) calculated the 4.2 million figure for anyone wanting to look further. She was talking about an extra 70,000 deaths for France from corona virus. However as the testing has been pretty limited for both the French and UK calculations you have to be careful about the figures: GIGO. However given the testing of health workers it seems unlikely that France (or the UK) has reached a 60% infection rate.

From April France should start testing around 2 million people - at first medical staff, police and key workers who've been circulating during the lockdown and potentially spreading the disease.

Well that's the theory.
latest report     
 Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
@davidof, crikey, that's a big mortality, from where we are now.

I note that the "new" numbers seem slowly to be slowing down, as you would hope they would given lockdown.
snow conditions     
 You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
@under a new name, the Netherlands study here: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.23.20041913v1.full.pdf (public, not paywall)

"Screening was performed in two large teaching hospitals in the southern part of the Netherlands. HCWs who suffered from fever or mild respiratory symptoms were tested for SARS4CoV42 by RT4PCR on oropharyngeal samples. Structured interviews were conducted to document symptoms. Eighty-six (6.4%) out of 1,353 HCWs were infected with SARS4Cov42. "

All of the staff concerned were symptomatic to some extent. 92% of them met a case definition of fever and/or coughing and/or shortness of breath, so although at that point they were a hidden reservoir, they shouldn't be now under current definitions.

7 of them were already symptomatic before Feb 27 which was the day of the first diagnosis in the Netherlands.

However, note that over 90% of those tested (who I think would all have met the UK requirements for self-isolation) were negative, so I'm not sure I'd take the "you've all had it" to mean "you can safely visit your 90-year old relatives".

I'm not sure about the 30% false negative rate on PCR; it should be _much_ better than that, but I don't know the details for the protocol they're using. Antibody testing _probably has a much worse accuracy, but I haven't seen anything good published on that.
ski holidays     
 Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Whilst it is, conceivably possible, that a large percentage of small alpine community with a large transient ski population could have been infected during the early part of the outbreak, I doubt that this is the case. The vast majority of infected visitors would have left the area before thenselves becoming infectious. Therefore local transmission between local residents would have been similar to any other area.

If a large % of locals had the virus, then there should have been many hundreds more cases taken home by visitors, and a hot spot identified very early.

Even if it was the case, this cannot be translated over larger populations, some areas of which might have not have had any cases until weeks later, if at all.

As I understand it, the antibody tests are yet to be validated, and so are not available. They would then take time to be produced in the quantities required.

When they are, I would support screening of all front line workers first, then work outwards with other key workers, and their families, and known contacts of confirmed cases (family etc) as the most likely to have come into contact with the virus and had an infection with mild symptoms. This will give us an idea of unidentified cases.

Even if the French estimate of 4.2 million infected is correct, this only represents 6% of the population, and is a factor of 10 short of providing even a minimum herd immunity.

Until we can be sure that a large % of the general population could have been infected, mass use of antibody screening would be a waste of valuable resources.

There is always the danger that even a small number of false positives could lull us into a false sense of security, and reduction of restrictions too early, allowing a rampant second wave.
snow report     
 You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
@snowdave, that's the one. That teaches me not to just skim the abstract. I hadn't paid attention to the pre-testing symptoms. I̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶"̶v̶e̶r̶y̶"̶ ̶s̶i̶g̶n̶i̶f̶i̶c̶a̶n̶t̶?̶ Interesting, what can be extrapolated from that into the wider population? I wonder what date the NLs are using for day zero?

The PCR number came from elsewhere, can't recall where, maybe one of the chinese papers (or a review thereof).

Haha, aged relatives are all in UK, oh, errr, ooops. Anyway, I wasn't really suggesting that my GP has an unusually good handle on just how many infections there really are. But I understand her sentiment. Moar testing required.

@brianatab, who knows? Your suggestion for prioritisation is of course quite sensible.
ski holidays     
 Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
brianatab wrote:
... Has any virus in living memory* killed 10,000+ people in any 1 European Country, and over 23,000 in Europe in the first month?

There are typically around 20-30,000, occasionally as high as 50,000 "excess"winter deaths in the UK. Every year. Most occur in the elderly population, and often from complications (pneumonia etc) following more minor issues. Some underlying causes are slips, falls, etc, but the majority are probably from flu, cold or other viruses.

So I still think if the UK can keep Covid-19 deaths down to 20,000 it will be a remarkable success.
snow report     
 After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
Looking on the bright side, just seen this. Smart, but not clever comes to mind Very Happy Very Happy

At least he was trying to do something useful rolling eyes

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/coronavirus/astrophysicist-gets-magnets-stuck-up-nose-while-inventing-coronavirus-device/ar-BB11Tl5K?li=BBoPWjQ
latest report     
 You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
@brianatab, PMSL. " At this point I ran out of magnets"
ski holidays     
 Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
@brianatab, useful, as in every time you go to touch your face you get a stabbing pain in the sinuses?

It might work ...
latest report     



Terms and conditions  Privacy Policy