Penguin68

I agree. Actual cases could easily be 10x the official confirmed cases. The mortality rate is nothing like 6%. Well, the mortality rate for those testing positive on admission to hospital is around 6% - but this of course is not the overall mortality rate, which is unknown. Estimates of 1.0%-0.1% are based on guesses around the (probably 90%) of people with symptoms but who have not been hospitalised and the maybe many more entirely asymptomatic - which may include many children. What does seem clear is that those who become really ill are really, really ill - the death rate of those in intensive care is reported at 50% - seasonal flu intensive care mortality is reported at about 33%. Of course many of those who do die may well have died if they had got flu, as opposed to Covid 19 - so it is quite possible that the overall 'death rate' over this time will broadly match the anticipated rate. The other thing to say is that reports of e.g. sex bias in deaths need to be taken carefully. Although in China and Italy more men have died (proportionately) than women this correlation does not in and of itself imply causation. (Statistics 101). For instance Italian and Chinese men are reported to be heavier smokers than women, and in a respiratory disease this may be significant. What I am saying is that unless and until we have properly sampled national statistics, where the sample is not skewed through sampling bias (as it clearly was when virtually only those reporting to hospital sick were being tested) we will not know either infection, or death or recovery rates. And although we will now be seeing NHS staff tested (which changes the sampling basis) we are of course now only testing those most likely to have been exposed (and exposed on a high frequency basis). So not 'national population' figures either. It is good practice to challenge any published statistic to see how it was derived and what inherent errors are in it, but it is particularly important if 'headline' statistics seem scary (or indeed overly re-assuring - some countries are publishing 'death in hospital' figures but not deaths in other institutions such as care homes for the elderly).

If you have a smart phone there's an Evening Standard ap which will download the whole edition onto your phone. Guess it will also work on tablets (though possibly not Amazon Fires as they don't accept all android aps.)

There seems to be a general shortage of eggs all around, don't know why as they have limited shelf life I suspect that many people, perhaps not used to a lot of self-catering, find cooking eggs relatively simple and broadly nourishing. People working from home may suddenly want breakfasts, often egg based. So a run on eggs may not be wholly surprising.

Underhill South of Langton Rise went reasonably wild.

The point I was making (and it is one also made during a PM briefing) is that the virus has only been in the human population for 4 months or so - so no woman has come to term having suffered the virus in the first or most of the second trimester - which is when some viruses, of which Zika is a prime example, may do most damage. There is as I understood it, again from the PMs briefing, no evidence of any Covid-19 related issues with pregnancy, the warnings are on the precautionary principle that it's still too early to be sure. Certainly there is a lot of evidence that the impact of Covid-19 on children seems mild, and may frequently be symptomless. I was not advocating anything but care, I was trying to reassure the OPs that they shouldn't be massively over concerned - a very different position if they had been over 70 and with existing pre-conditions.

That would be, stop housebuilding as not necessary at this time, but keep on punishing car owners. And lucky man has got off the election hook for a year. Rejoice!

whilst the heir to the throne seems to have be able to be tested? Prince Charles is over 70 and was presenting symptoms - he is in a risk group (and the people he might regularly see, including the Head of State definitely are) - so testing isn't abnormal in these circumstances. I would also expect the (much younger) PM to have access to Covid testing as well.

I wonder if the rest of the Royal household has also been tested? Including the younger ones. I bet we will never know. And your medical details, tests and results of tests are readily available to the inquisitive public, are they Louisa? And I imagine you mean the Royal Family, not the Royal Household - which includes grooms and maids.

My guess is that there was a mass posting 3 weeks or so after they made the announcement, once enough people had responded to the flyer and paid up.

This is the start of the 'hayfever' (actually at this time tree pollen) season - which means that those susceptible (as I am) will start having symptoms not unlike some elements of Covid-19 - particularly breathing difficulties if your histamine response triggers asthma. Obviously don't panic - but also remember that other symptoms will include sneezing and watery eyes - all of which will bring your hands to your face more frequently than for others (and make you an annoying disperser if by chance you do have Covid-19). In Japan, where 50% of the population appears allergic to red cedar pollen - one of the iconic Japanese trees - many wear face masks to protect them from the pollen (quite large particles). Although simple face masks are not particularly encouraged as far as Covid-19 protection is concerned, they may help you if you are a tree pollen sufferer. And will help others if you are suffering both a pollen-triggered histamine response and Covid-19.

Thanks for posting and locking up the resources link.

Somebody on twitter did say (and I'm not sure if it's true) that the COVID-19 stats are collected in the same way annual flu figures are collected. I think, happy to stand corrected, that annual flu figures are also based on reports from GPs - but GPs are not involved in Covid-19 - which is handled through 111 and hospitals. GPs do treat flu, they don't treat Covid-19. I don't think there has been any attempt to collate self-reporting (or indeed just questions) posed to 111 - save where they have moved to testing in case of severe cases. There are a lot of 'worried well', I know, ringing or contacting 111.

Admin - since you have decided (quite reasonably) to place business posts in their own section and not in the Covid-19 special section, would it be possible to create yet another (I know, I'm sorry) Covid-19 Business section so that business posts specifically and only relevant to Covid 19 - i.e. about openings, stock, delivery, special services etc. could be included there. I've spent some time trawling through the business section looking for something specific and related to the current lock-down emergency. Again, hopefully this section could be locked down and closed before the end of the year (and would act, with the non business Covid-19 section, curiously, as a useful research resource for those who will be writing up, (for government or academia) responses to this crisis eventually (I write as a former trained historian!)).

The non-recyclable (green bin) waste was collected as normal on Underhill (south of Langton Rise) this morning.

but I think it's safe to assume the more hygienic shops are safer than the less hygienic ones. I think the issue may be more on circulation space within a store and the store's policy on numbers - most food is packaged so the problem is with proximity to other people. Most local/ corner shops have maximised their stocking space so minimising circulation. That may be their problem.

23/03, Number of reported UK covid 19 infections, 6650 23/03, Number of UK covid 19 deaths, 335 23/03, % of UK covid 19 deaths, 5.04%, 5 in every 100 infected people have died. It does not mean this, as only 10% of people with suspected Covid-19 are being hospitalised, and tests are only being conducted in hospitals on those 10% - so the likely actual number of infected in the UK is 67000 and the mortality rate is thus most likely around 0.5%. (The death figures are right, the 'infected' figures very wrong). The actual rubric, out of interest, is that xx people are dying 'with' Covid-19 - although we may assume that for most it is also 'of' it is worth remembering that most men over 80 who die, die 'with' prostate cancer - though most of these do not die 'of' it. We know that many deaths are of people with underlying medical problems - which are surely at least contributory. What the figures do mean is that for those ill enough to be hospitalised, the death rate is about 5% - but 90% or so of those who catch the disease are not ill enough to go to hospital. [indeed, there are numbers, it would appear, who have the disease, and may spread it, but who are asymptomatic and have no idea they are actually ill - it is these people in particular that the latest move to lock down the population is meant to be protecting us against]

There has been some evidence of scam private tests,or tests sold at 300% mark-ups. The 'solution' to your problem will be the anti-body test now being developed which will determine whether you have been infected by looking for Corvid-19 anti-bodies in your system. There is no evidence that the pregnant are at risk, this is just precautionary - and those most likely to be at risk (based on the fact that the virus is so new) are those in early term pregnancy - no one has yet gone through to term having risked early infection! This is merely a worst case scenario. If you have no symptoms - great - stay as isolated as you can if you are worried and carry on.

22/03, Number of reported UK covid 19 infections, 5683 22/03, Number of UK covid 19 deaths, 281 % of UK covid 19 deaths, 4.944% and gradually rising, tomorrow its likely to be in excess of 5%, i.e. 5 in every 100 infected people have died. No - this is simply wrong - the only people being tested at the moment, because of kit shortages, are those admitted to hospital and a few who are still at home but whose acute symptoms have continued for over a week. These are estimated to be about 10% of all actual cases (based on other countries' experiences)- so the UK infection rate is likely to be about 57,000 - with a death rate on that basis of around 0.5% - still dreadful of course, but not as dreadful. And as for the Southwark 'peak' - deaths are being registered for these statistics where they occur, I imagine - Southwark has a very important hospital in Kings and it is quite likely (I have no figures for this, but it's a reasonable assumption) that people are dying in Kings who aren't Southwark residents. So the actual Southwark figures may be less (other boroughs with high rates are also hosts to key hospitals, I have noticed). Until we have good statistics (which we don't at the moment, except for deaths) I wouldn't get too bogged down in the numbers - what we do know is that proper social isolation will reduce both infections and deaths, and that's what we should be focused on.

At the moment I fully understand why shopkeepers don't want cash transactions - not only is cash a more likely source of Covid-19 contamination, but if you've got cash takings you then have to queue up in a Bank (and how many of those are still open around ED?) risking infection from the people in the bank (or indeed Post Office). This does, of course, disadvantage those who are unbanked or don't like to use credit or debit cards. It's a balance of risk - and shopkeepers are deciding not to take too many risks (which is sort of what HMG is urging us all to consider). Maybe it is selfish, but understandable. How many need not to be ill for their family's sake? Would we want local shops to be closing because their owners or assistants are ill? So that nobody, and not just the uncarded, can shop in them? There are no easy answers here - just a balance of bad outcomes - which will be worse?

I posted this on Suzanne's James capitalised post on this thread, - reposting here in case you missed it Admin - as this directly supports those 'suffering' from Covid-19 issues - and this set-up will presumably have a short-ish shelf life - not 'business' we hope with any legs past July (fingers crossed symbol) I think it fits here, where people are looking for help, support advice etc. through this emergency. Clearly it is business, but not I hope as we know it, long term.

The queue management in DKH sainsbury's was poor (it was the first day doing this) - they needed to clearly separate out one queue of qualifying customers and one for non qualifiers for the 'first hour' - AND have good signage. They were good about catching 'multiple' buys and things were generally orderly - there was stock on the shelves although 'larder' items - long life - were in shorter supply than fresh - which was well stocked first thing. Of course, they didn't hold every brand and every size in particular categories, and you had to be prepared to substitute. When I drove back I saw normal specialist street shops - greengrocers etc. - with good stock levels.

As someone with weak lungs (as suggested by your asthma diagnosis) you could be more compromised if you get Covid 19 - and it moves into its second, lung impacting, stage, triggering pneumonia. Asthmatics are advised, if they have been prescribed this, to take the daily dose which is seen as prophylactic (as opposed to the medication to take when an attack occurs - which you should still take of course if an attack does occur). This suggests that you should avoid others, as catching the virus could be more dangerous for you (could be, not definitely would be). My asthma is triggered by e.g. grass pollens (linked to hayfever) - others will be linked to worse pollutants. My advice would be 'to keep your head down'. Not having to use hospital breathing apparatus (which could be necessary for you in the worst case scenario) allows someone else to use it whose needs may in fact be greater.

You're a star...

The sales activity is just mad - they are selling out of a day's supply in a couple of hours or less - but whilst mad it is not predictable, yet. I would rather they sold out than had to throw away fresh milk and eggs because they were unsold and past their date! Give them a break, what's happening is unprecedented. They will work out a system soon, you cannot expect them to magic one out of thin air.

They are stocking as they can - and things are being taken as soon as they're on the shelves. And deliveries aren't always timely. The sheer weight of panicking customers is now causing shortages - rather than simply greedy buying up of more than is needed - and 'need' takes on a different meaning when you might 'need' to buy in 14 days stores for, say, 4 people in case or if just one falls ill with Covid-19 - unless you want people from infected households then randomly going out and buying things - and it's worse for the chronically sick or over 70s who now may need to stock-up for far longer than just 14 days. Until proper supply-chains are put in for these housebound people it's not at all surprising they are trying to 'pre-solve' anticipated shortages. We are used to just-in-time buying - because of past availabilities and stores open long hours (and not being in a pandemic situation) - all this may become a thing of the past, at least for a time.