Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Original poster

Loads of cases and thousands self isolating but how many are actually really ill?

89 replies

Marcellemouse · 03/10/2020 09:39

I'm interested to know this. I know there's thousands self isolating after being in close contact plus thousands of positive cases. Mass disruption to education and work places but is this proportional to how ill most people are?

OP posts:
HesterShaw1 · 03/10/2020 09:52

I'm interested too, OP

No one seems to be able or willing to say.

I'm of course not downplaying the fact that the virus can be very nasty for some.

Original poster
Marcellemouse · 03/10/2020 09:56

I work within a small online company. If one of us tests positive we'd all have to self isolate for 2 weeks at home which the business would not recover from. If non of us got really ill that would be a business ruined and 10 people unnecessarily unemployed.

OP posts:
DianaT1969 · 03/10/2020 10:17

I believe that the number in the South East is very low. Under 120 people in a hospital bed due to Covid. I heard that from someone who works in hospitals (not in a medical role). Is there any way to know?

namechanged984630 · 03/10/2020 10:18

The issue this this virus is deadly to older people. So even if you're not ill, you isolate to contain it so you don't spread it to someone else

WellyBootsAreYouFrom · 03/10/2020 10:20

15 deaths in Scotland this week. Not many given the disruption the lockdown is causing.

Original poster
Marcellemouse · 03/10/2020 10:21

The issue this this virus is deadly to older people
That's quite a generalisation.

OP posts:
Cleebope2 · 03/10/2020 10:22

770 positives in Northumbria uni ,only 78 symptomatic and possibly not sick at all. These students are not spreading it to older people if they are in halls. Too much over reaction is my view. 3 pupils where I teach have tested positive this week, all asymptomatic.

KitKatastrophe · 03/10/2020 10:22

Most of them are not ill. Even those who have tested positive, most are not ill for 2 weeks. And those who contacted a positive case, most wont have contracted the virus and for those who did most will not become seriously ill. Unfortunately the test and trace system we have is a blunt tool and there is no way to know which of the close contacts will have got it and become ill, so everyone has to isolate as a precaution. Ite a shambles but without a better testing system theres not much we can do.

Looneytune253 · 03/10/2020 10:24

To be fair tho OP you need to be working now on a contingency plan for your small company where all staff can work remotely. It may not be ideal but if you're all well you can work on maybe a slightly different role while you're away from the office. It's just basic rules to isolate when there's a pos test

KitKatastrophe · 03/10/2020 10:24

@Cleebope2

770 positives in Northumbria uni ,only 78 symptomatic and possibly not sick at all. These students are not spreading it to older people if they are in halls. Too much over reaction is my view. 3 pupils where I teach have tested positive this week, all asymptomatic.
Why were they tested if they were asymptomatic? Not accusing just wondering as I thought people were struggling ti get tests even with symptoms.
Newgirls · 03/10/2020 10:25

It seems half the school kids and families in my town were tested for covid in the last fortnight and 99% were negative. The usual colds then.

PinotLovesMomma · 03/10/2020 10:26

@namechanged984630

The issue this this virus is deadly to older people. So even if you're not ill, you isolate to contain it so you don't spread it to someone else
The thing is for some there are other implications of having to isolate which no one seems to give a shit about. Children miss school, adults lose wages, businesses lose productivity all have a collective massive impact for what is for most a mild illness. Its all good isolating to save someone else but you are in some cases damaging yourself to be able to do so. Long term repeated isolating just isn't sustainable but I dont know what the alternative is.
BigBlueHouseBear · 03/10/2020 10:30

I read something recently, I can't remember the source now, but it did make me think.

That never before in medicine have we tested people with no symptoms, found them to be positive and called it a case.

In the example of the 770 students, I assume the uni is doing mass testing wether symptomatic or not. So they had 770 cases from an unknown group size. But if only those with symptoms were tested the number would be much much smaller.

HesterShaw1 · 03/10/2020 10:31

Good post @PinotLovesMomma. .

The issue this this virus is deadly to older people. So even if you're not ill, you isolate to contain it so you don't spread it to someone else. Yes we all know this. It's been talked about since March. Whitty also said back in March that for the vast majority of people this is not a serious illness, nor one that even makes us feel ill.

It just doesn't stack up. How can we run and fund a country if people keep having to stop work when they're not ill? Yes the alternative isn't palatable. But frankly nothing is palatable about this.

I don't know what the answer is either, but we can't keep doing this.

Original poster
Marcellemouse · 03/10/2020 10:34

@Looneytune253 due to the type of business it is simply not possible for most to work from home. We have obviously thought about it.

OP posts:
loutypips · 03/10/2020 10:35

@Marcellemouse

I work within a small online company. If one of us tests positive we'd all have to self isolate for 2 weeks at home which the business would not recover from. If non of us got really ill that would be a business ruined and 10 people unnecessarily unemployed.
Well your company needs to plan appropriately so that if one of you is positive then not everyone will have to isolate. The simple thing is not to be closer than 2 metres. Other than that split shifts so not everyone is in at the same time.
HesterShaw1 · 03/10/2020 10:37

Well your company needs to plan appropriately so that if one of you is positive then not everyone will have to isolate. The simple thing is not to be closer than 2 metres. Other than that split shifts so not everyone is in at the same time.

Many companies and work places simply can't operate along those lines.

Cornettoninja · 03/10/2020 10:41

I sympathise with your business position but I also agreed with @loutypips. Have you looked into the government support available to maybe operate in two or more separate bubbles (so the office isn’t fully staffed every day and if anyone triggers isolation it doesn’t affect the whole company). It would mean running at a reduced capacity but that’s better than the alternative surely?

I can see you don’t think the restrictions are necessary but dealing with the situation as it is you do have options.

Cornettoninja · 03/10/2020 10:48

How can we run and fund a country if people keep having to stop work when they're not ill

The alternative is either a self-imposed lockdown when people decide work/leisure just isn’t worth the risk or another government lockdown when they simply loose control of infections and the infrastructure can’t cope.

It’s all a compromise at best but it’s not going anywhere in the near future.

cardibach · 03/10/2020 11:04

@BigBlueHouseBear

I read something recently, I can't remember the source now, but it did make me think.

That never before in medicine have we tested people with no symptoms, found them to be positive and called it a case.

In the example of the 770 students, I assume the uni is doing mass testing wether symptomatic or not. So they had 770 cases from an unknown group size. But if only those with symptoms were tested the number would be much much smaller.

I don’t think we’ve encountered a disease quite like this before though - where someone can transmit while not being ill and random people they infect, not entirely predictable by age/precious health, will get so ill they die.
cardibach · 03/10/2020 11:07

@Cleebope2

770 positives in Northumbria uni ,only 78 symptomatic and possibly not sick at all. These students are not spreading it to older people if they are in halls. Too much over reaction is my view. 3 pupils where I teach have tested positive this week, all asymptomatic.
They don’t stay in halls permanently without some sort of isolation. They go to shops, cinemas, lectures, gyms, bars, etc, etc,etc where they come into contact with more vulnerable people. How/why have asymptomatic children been tested at your workplace? Mine has had children off self isolating with symptoms for a full 2 weeks unable to get a test for all that time and therefore not triggering and other isolations. We now have a whole year group off after a child did manage to get a test while symptomatic (frontline worker parents being the reason the test happened)
Dannn · 03/10/2020 11:08

341 patients in intensive care vs 256 this time last week.

paintmywholehousepink · 03/10/2020 11:09

If you work for an online company, why can't you work from home op?

Original poster
Marcellemouse · 03/10/2020 11:13

@paintmywholehousepink because we have an enormous amount of stock we have to pick pack and post to thousands of peopleHmm

OP posts:
paintmywholehousepink · 03/10/2020 11:16

I see.
Well if one if you did have it, I suppose it would be best not to pass it on to 1000's of people Hmm