Funkstain wrote:

Thanks Tin - that's certainly educated me, I was of the impression that 'flu epidemics in places like US killed more than 2% of infected. Maybe I was looking at demographically-sliced data regarding more vulnerable populations: elderly and babies and the like? I'm getting the implication that I should be more concerned than I am, then?

I wouldn't say you need to be too concerned yet. As I say, there's a lot we don't know about it. Even assuming that the mortality statistics are correct, they still mean precisely nothing if you haven't actually caught the virus. You can make a decent statistical argument that you are currently more likely to die from flu - simply because you're much more likely to catch flu at present. (And assuming you're otherwise fit and healthy the risk is low with both.)

My personal - and entirely unscientific - opinion is that Covid-19's likely less deadly and more widespread than current estimates.  (An opinion based partly on the growing evidence that some people are not terribly ill with it at all, and are therefore spreading it without reporting; and partly based on coming across possible cases that didn't quite fulfil the criteria for formal testing, making me think we may be under-diagnosing). I will stress that I may well be completely wrong, as it's little more than a "reckon".

The other really big unanswered question is how it's likely to behave when the weather changes. Seasonal flu is in part manageable because we can predict fairly reliably a drop in cases as the seasons shift. Indeed much of the strategy around Covid19 in the UK is to try and contain it until Spring in the hope that, like flu, it will struggle to get a foothold in the warmer weather - though again we don't actually know if this will work for this particular virus. If it does, that will buy us a convenient window in which to develop a vaccine. If not, it's going to be much harder to contain.

The bottom line is that with this, like all such viruses, the role of Public Health is to minimise spread as much as possible. If they succeed, people will inevitably announce it was all a huge fuss about nothing, and if they fail, well...

But yeah, in the meantime, don't worry about it unless you have any relevant travel/contacts and just follow the usual advice to reduce risk.  If you have any worries about it for any reason ring 111 first, and they'll direct you to the right people.

On a personal level I'm not bothered because I'm hard but I do fear if I contracted it to then pass it on to my elderly father.

But I don’t think Brexiters want rational debate. They just wanted it done at whatever cost. Now the disinformation will be who’s to blame for the mess and you can guarantee the Tories will blame the EU.

Yep definite agenda. The woman who vets the audience members is a supporter of UKIP and follows far right groups on facebook. She was caught distributing UKIP material at work. The production company is Mentorn Media so technically the BBC don’t actually make QT they just don’t have the guts to challenge those that do. Probably due to a sensationalist strategy that gains viewers.

Good.

Trump pardon on standby.

I highly doubt that.

g.man wrote:

poprock wrote:

That’s Harvey Weinstein convicted.

Let's hope they lock him up and throw away the fucking key.

Is that a euphemism for chopping his dick off? Cos that would be justice.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51612884

I’d always argue for thought and nuance rather than standard outrage on matters such as this. It’s real fucking thorny though.

My utterance included surprise, ftr. Thought the limit at 20/24 weeks was unconditional, but this shows what I know. And yup there's certainly sympathy for anyone faced with dilemmas like that, particularly at that late stage (which I don't imagine is taken very often, but shrug). Difficult territory for sure.

RedDave2 wrote:

I think the only issue I'd have is the doctor suggesting it (in the BBC article). That's pretty fucking horrible. But if someone did need a late term abortion, I'm guessing they have a very good reason to do it.

Basically, yes - I would expect there to be slightly more to the story, though the bottom line is it depends on the doctors involved.

(And if any of you are likely to find this a personally difficult topic, please read something else. Sorry.)

It's difficult - abortion law in the UK is surprisingly ambiguous, and whilst I'm broadly quite comfortable with how it's interpreted, I'm also pretty sure that the way it's implemented isn't necessarily how it was intended when written.  Most terminations under 24 weeks for instance utilise the "continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman" clause - which allows for some pretty flexible definitions.  (I have heard some argue that because pregnancy is inherently risky to physical health the clause is basically meaningless.)

The bit relevant here though is a different clause which can be applied at any gestation - namely: "there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped."  Again, the same problem surfaces - namely "define seriously handicapped".

Is Down Syndrome a serious handicap? In truth that's impossible to answer across the board. A child with relatively limited mental impairment, and little or no physical handicap would be unlikely to fit that description. A child with severe mental impairment, heart defects, hip dislocation, thyroid disease and bowel obstruction might well be considered to fulfil the criteria. Both could be presentations of a child with Down Syndrome. A bunch of those things aren't going to be obvious until birth - though some, heart defects for instance, can be detected antenatally, and might sway the decision.  It's also true that Down's may not be diagnosed until late into the pregnancy (though recent advances in screening might change that).

Late terminations are invariably awful for the parents - it's not a decision anyone, doctor or parent, takes remotely lightly. It would be very unusual for a doctor to suggest it without an extremely good reason (and even more unusual for a second doctor to sign it off). I am not quite precious enough to claim that such decisions never happen though.

I'm not sure how I feel about the suggestion to change the law - I understand it, but am not sure how it can practically be achieved as it would have to be extremely didactic. (The "life threatening conditions" clause they propose is every bit as open to interpretation as the existing one.)  

I guess my take on it, ultimately, is the same as it is for all attempts to limit abortion - set up a state funded service that completely supports these children, and their parents, no matter what their personal circumstances, and then we'll talk. Until then, allowing them to not go ahead with the pregnancy as safely as possible is the only alternative.

The good test of a complex issue is whether you can empathise or sympathise with the opposing view. tin robot has done a good job of illustrating how quickly this can get very confusing.

It is also a good example of the kind of case where the opinions of people who are not experts, informed, or have experience are often less than helpful.

Really really unconfirmed and take this with a grain of salt, but apparently there's been some sort of attack in Germany with a vehicle driven into a crowd. Info sparse because of *reasons.*

Anyone heard anything?

I'll flat out delete this post if it appears I'm actually talking bollocks.

In more real news. Shit in dehli appears to be a mess.

Populist bigotry is dangerous. Who knew.