I'm sure many more have/had it than have been tested positive, either for lack of testing or testing only indicates active infections. The sheer number of deaths attributed to it so far (again probably some fraction of the actual total) indicates it is so bad. Latest theory is asymptomatic infecteds (to borrow a term from Dead Island) probably spread it the most, since they haven't been self-isolating.

Quite likely since the level of testing on both sides of the pond has been abysmal. Over here it's been targeted at patients who have already been admitted to hospital with almost no subsequent contact tracing - which, in essence, means that it's incredibly ineffective. Hospital staff are rarely tested even when they have symptoms that make it extremely likely that they have contracted the disease. The government repeatedly lies and obfuscates about testing. It's a top priority, but then nothing happens. It's all down to a shortage of chemical reagents, but then the Chemical Industries Association says there's no shortage and besides, nobody has asked them for more. The government says what it wants. There's plenty of news and with a compliant press it won't be on the front page in a day or so.

Then there's this: "Hiding infections in the future is not the same as avoiding them"
 

The paper represents a rather flawed view of things though, doesn't it? In essence it's saying that if you practice isolation and distancing for a period and then stop, you get a pandemic at the end which is just as bad because your population doesn't develop resistance. In particular there's a very fuzzy piece of argument here 
But that's not true. Part of the reason for slowing the initial spread is to allow hospitals to prolong the lives of those with otherwise terminal infections by means of oxygenation, ventilation and anti-viral medication, so that there own immune systems eventually fight off the infection. This is described here as "the hopes of achieving a reduction in the mortality rate." Well, no! These aren't "hopes" these are actual reductions in mortality rates. So when the paragraph continues "mitigations themselves are not saving lives" this is wrong.

And, of course, the other thing you are doing during the delay phase is looking for 1) a vaccine 2) more effective treatments 3) allowing time so that the hospitals are not swamped with patients should they be required at the end of the isolation period for subsequent infections.

Of course, the UK govt and others are making a pig's ear of things, so we may well end up with the nightmare, but this associate professor seems to have been dazzled by a sexy bit of argument and rushed to print with it.

 

I haven't read that one, feel like I've exposed myself to too much info already at the moment, but I've got a feeling that was an article that was roundly debunked or derided for being quite wrong.

Something along the lines of the maths isn't epidemiology.

There are a lot of theories floating around. I try to limit my exposure to the 24/7 barrage of cv news because it can get really scary and depressing.

"Part of the reason for slowing the initial spread is to allow hospitals to prolong the lives of those with otherwise terminal infections by means of oxygenation, ventilation and anti-viral medication, so that there own immune systems eventually fight off the infection."

True, but I think the problem is that there aren't nearly enough ICU beds, equipment (ventilators, PPE) and staff to meet the escalating demand. As it is, the current mortality rate has been quoted as something the 50% ballpark for those lucky enough to get into an ICU -- factoring in people with pre-existing conditions who don't take much to tip over the edge.  :-@

I've never quite understood why some managers are so resistant to it. For my place of work I have a laptop and VPN (had that kind of setup for years). Works a treat and means that I can work from home just as effectively as I can in an office. And of course with no commuting it means I can do a full day of work and have plenty of time for family too.

We've started furloughing people at my place, but only some. I should be OK overall due to the nature of my role. Company policy is pretty decent on furlough anyway as they're topping up the 80% government rate to 90%, so not too bad really.

I’ve had my official furlough letter. 100% pay (well, basic so not what I’d normally expect as I have a decent chunk ‘incentivised’ but still good) for March and April then getting reviewed. My prediction is that unless sport happens in May I’ll be dropping to 80% at that point. I don’t think sport will happen in May. 

Aside from that my chest still improving so that’s nice, I feel almost better at times. Then attempt to do something like walk to another room and quickly discover I’ve a way to go yet. 

Sheesh! Hope you get better soon.

Finally, my son will be working from home. Also, this past week they have made proper working arrangements for those who will be going into the office, with properly spaced desks, markers all over the floor all 2M apart. Seems that somebody at head office realised they would be totally fucked if they suddenly lost half their case workers. The threat of smaller bonuses and so on.

I don't understand why some companies have been so slow to implement it. Where I work, we were planning weeks ahead of the lockdown - making sure all our guys had laptops, had remote access, had tested that access and were taking their laptops home every day. Anyone deemed "at risk" had WFH implemented ahead of the lockdown, then when it came along we shifted almost everyone immediately to WFH.

Now, only a bare minimum of the guys go to site, and as almost everyone else is WFH the risk is minimised, plus we've ordered all manner of PPE for them as well. It is as if some people don't seem to care about their employees, or think about what a wide-spread infection would mean to their companies.

We're a manufacturer, so sadly most of the staff have to be on site to work. Management are also hiding behind the 'essential worker' veil on the grounds that we make bits of fancy pipe for the oil and gas industry. Most of the shop floor workforce are over 55, many with underlying conditions due to decades of work in manufacturing and other shitty environments.

Bottom line is that there's a fairly reasonably chance that if we shut down for coronavirus we may never open again. The industry is not doing well, and our company was in incubation prior to this. Although sales have picked up this year, the impact from the combined factors of oil price and corona could kill us. So it's an awkward position.

Management have buried their head in the sand for as long as possible. I've been working from home for 3 weeks now, and that's only because schools closed. I spent two weeks before that pestering the IT department to find out what facilities were in place to work from home should it come to it, and was resoundingly ignored. It was only the school closures that made them move. The rest of the office staff were still in the building with no contingency in place until 3 days after Bumblecunt Johnson put the country in faux-Lockdown.

The majority of my work (design engineer) is PC based so it's fairly easy for me to work from home (except for distractions of kids, trying to get them doing school work, and a general feeling of 'can't be arsed'). Others aren't so lucky.

My partner does something clever with her biology degree, her company makes test kits for blood typing that's used in the NHS (like to identify what blood you need when you go in for emergency surgery etc), so she still has to go to work. Her employer has been much better, and they've all been issued with various items of PPE which must be worn at all times. They've even enforced 2m separation in the canteen and break rooms, and staggered breaks etc to limit the number of people in one area. Her team is fairly small and they've not quite worked out if there's a better way for them to work but it is being looked at.

All in all, it's a bit fucking strange right now.