Jump to content

Coronavirus Getting back to Normal


Recommended Posts

It has been suggested that it Could be a Year to get back to normal.

I cannot see us Ever getting back to Normal.

I cannot see a time when we will be able to go to the pub for a drink and meet people.

Possibly Restaurants will initially need to restrict people seated.

Remove tables to create Social Distancing. No Group Bookings.

Just Singles and Couples.

It's really is Grim. It's Global.

What the F*** can we do. We cannot continue like this for much longer,

This country is a lot better off than other parts of the World,

Donald Trump has absolutely No idea. Or perhaps he does. ???

Religious Fanatics in the States stating that No Virus can get to them while they have God on their side

and are refusing to Self Isolate.

Stay Safe..


Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no more normal

Everything will change.... Not necessarily for the best neither!

We are going through a traumatic time, across the globe

Life has made many of us selfish, this is not necessarily by our choices.

If this situation were to be an eye opener in a positive way it would be great

Unfortunately I feel we will become a more reclusive nation.

All we can do is try our best to protect ourselves by whatever means necessary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no doubting that this is the biggest challenge to our way of life in 100 years. And getting back to normal is going to depend on a lot of things we have no control over and many other things that we do.

Until we have a vaccine, or drug treatment that works, a lot of things are going to be framed by the risk we face. And when I say we, that is not going to be everyone facing equal risk. So what kind of society will that lead to? And what kind of protections will we have in place to level out the additional inequality created by that.

Then of course there will be the paranoia that will set in. Some people may never get too close to another person forever!

So my view is that a vaccine can not come quick enough, but they take years to develop. The fastest new viral vaccine ever developed is one for Ebola and that took five years. Bearing in mind that SARS Cov still has no vaccine, I would be cautious about any claim that says we can get there in 18 months, although there is a lot of existing research around SARS viruses and vaccine development to draw upon, which may help speed things up.

At the moment, we are simply trying to buy time and avoid a second wave. But in all honesty, I don't think life is going to be normal for some time. The virus is one thing, the economic damage is another.

As for Trump, his press conferences are just vacuous waffle most of the time. He is not very bright really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My short-term hope is that an existing drug(s) can be repurposed to minimise/ameliorate the effects of the virus to enable the body's own natural defensives to fight it more effectively and earlier. It appears that the virus is massively difficult to overcome when it starts damaging the lungs.

Chloroquine is one potential candidate and I suggest this is rushed into usage quickly for those with the early signs. Side effects are well known and limited.

Whilst living overseas I took it for 20 years and suffered no ill effects.

There are other candidate drugs under consideration and my view is it's a case of ? when push comes to shove...??..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

France has stopped its trials into Chloroquine for now because of the increased risk of heart failure in patients. How the body responds in a very sick patient, may be different to how the body responds in someone with mild symptoms. There is just so much going on when the body is fighting severe infection. Chloroquine may well become part of some combination drug treatment in a prescribed dose though. Essentially it works to reduce fever and inflammation.

My hope would be that by the end of the year, there is some combination drug treatment that works at the early stages, that prevents the need for ventilation and thereby lowering mortality rates. That will have to be accompanied by mass and continuous testing, until we have hard evidence of any long lasting immunity emerging in those who have recovered from the virus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a much bigger picture here beyond vaccines and tests, which I'd find really interesting to debate. Many of us have got time on our hands.

The situation probably reflects over population and intensive food production which makes us far more vulnerable to future diseases. But at the same time whilst Europe becomes older we need young productive people from those parts of the globe with high birth rates.

I think that globalism is generally a force for good but needs some re-balancing. The post Brexit dream of some greens of a controlled recession whilst we move to some sort of agrarian economy is nonsense but where will Britain be post Brexit when the dust settles? Financial markets and people making money out of this, can and will this be reformed?

The move to greater consumerism - will this be reversed as we've learned to buy less, make and mend, less food and other waste and the benefits this has on the environment?

Now that we don't need to use the internal combustion engine so much, and with the improvements to air quality as many of us walk and cycle more will be return to irresponsible motoring?

Geopolitics, the world has become more confrontational in recent years with moves to the right and nationalism, attempts to close borders, instability all over the world, some crazy people in charge.

On a national and local level, politics and communities. Will this help mend broken Britain? For every good news story there seems to be someone spying on their neighbours and it feels like we have the thought police and stasi on this Forum half the time. How will the Tories fare - there will be a lot of criticism post crisis but I'm not sure any other party would have handled it much better. But with a new and credible Labour leader will that change things in years to come. Will this all encourage greater engagement in politics and communities here and around the world when historically aren't involved?

And all this in the context of a massive financial hit, businesses going bust, unemployment (civil unrest?, possible collapse of property markets as the world gets warmer, more unstable and looking at irreversible damage to our environment. A wake up call? Lots of questions for debate. Trying not to give all the answers. The worry is that we will return to something nearish normal, boost our capabilities to handle future pandemics but no fundamental change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

edcam Wrote:


> Chloroquine is horrific.

From my experience I disagree. I took chloroquine for 17 years as a prophylactic against malaria and it didn't do any harm.

If administered EARLY ON, it has been proven to have beneficial effects against Covid-19. In the later stages however it may be be detrimental.

This suggests that careful administration is crucial. But then this applies to many drugs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a note of caution. It hasn't completed any trials yet, so drawing conclusions around how it might be of benefit is a bit premature. Malaria is not a viral condition. It is parasitic, and chloroquine phosphate works by stopping the growth of parasites in the red blood cells. If someone has liver or renal damage, there is a higher risk of side effects and in some people it can cause renal damage. So this is why it possibly won't be helpful to patients with serve symptoms, mainly because one of the worst impacts of COVID19 are those cytokine storms. The French trial stopped because it induced increased heart rates in patients.

So how might it help some COVID patients? Studies are looking for RNA suppression. In other words, does chloroquine inhibit the rate of viral RNA increase? And that is where there is some suggestion of effectiveness, up to as much as by 50%. Now while that is not stopping the virus completely, it is significantly reducing the viral load, which then gives the immune system more of a chance of producing the correct amount of antibodies - thereby lowering the risk of both developing more severe symptoms and those cytokine storms.

More studies need to carried out, and findings published and peer reviewed before any conclusions can be drawn as absolutes. Dosage is important as well as avoiding risks and side effects. Hydroxychloroquine is more soluble and less toxic and has less side effects than chloroquine phosphate. It also seems to achieve slightly better RNA inhibition rates so that might be where research focuses moving forward.

We don't have any tailored treatment at the moment, so anything that works in any way, even if only for a few patients, should be explored and used if safe to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign In

Sign In

Or sign in with one of these services

    Search In
  • Create New...