I'd disagree strongly, of course. The antibody tests show that millions of people in Spain havd had Covid-19 and they don't seem to be a nation reeling with ill-effects as a result.

Hopefully when antibody testing is rolled out at scale here there will be a questionnaire regarding after effects along with it - so we can build a bigger picture. I would expect that only a tiny, miniscule minority end up with lasting ill effects from it - much as like regular flu.

Well it is a step up from the implied "sod the elderly" which seems to be a subliminal message in some quarters!

We don't yet know this for sure. If you only had mild symptoms, then you will probably be ok, but you may also not have enough antibodies to ward off a second attack

Of course you would, Darren. For some reason you are on a mission to prove that Covid-19 is a storm in a teacup.

My 48yo neighbour caught it in Feb skiing in Italy. She was very ill for three weeks. She has permanently impaired lung function with doctors estimating she has lost 20% of capacity.

She used to run half marathons. 

/shrug.

She got unlucky, is all.

If everyone of the millions who recovered from Covid suffered similarly, believe me you'd know about it!

Being fit is no gaurantee that you didn't have an underlying condition or genes which made you more susceptible. Hopefully there will be more testing of these unfortunate people so that we can gain a better understanding of both the visible and invisible risk factors.

My wife, who is good at sewing, has made a couple of masks. The elastic was so strong that it bent my already ample ears back double on themselves! Working on mark 2 now.

That may be so, but the idea of posting links to comments made on it is that you agree with the point being made and want to share the point.

Morgan getting ripped into by hundreds of supposed Twitter followers for exposing the government's ineptitude and lies was used by more established right-wing media outlets to try to create the narrative that Morgan's views are unpopular (the inference being that they should be dismissed and him not watched/listened to because he's a joke).

There is a massive war taking place and the battleground is information and communication.

The faction that seems to be winning hands-down peddles a hard-right, anti-regulation, nationalist, anti-liberal, populist, anti-'Big State' message. They use misinformation, smeers, 'fake news' as their weapons, whipping up hate against the organisations, individuals and policies that they despise. The likes of Bannon, Cummings, Peterson etc are the better-known participants. The impact of their methods has been seismic, helping get Trump elected to winning the Brexit vote. Both by harnessing through misinformation a wave of discontent amongst the general public. In both cases IMO the public were manipulated through sustained misinformation and propaganda to target their anger in totally the wrong direction.

Yet the deeper question to ask yourself is: who is funding all this?

I know 7 people who've had it. 5 of them, in some cases 2 months on, still cannot breath properly. A small sample, but one that is reflected by what I have seen elsewhere. I'd suggest you can't see it because you're not looking. The idea that this is just like regular flu is dangerous nonsense. There are serious long-term effects here that are not properly understood. To plough on with flu-based assumptions rather than recognise that there are signs this could have serious repercussions beyond mortality is just bewildering.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52630412 

Apologies if that's been posted before but encouraging to see them looking at why some people are at a higher risk of serious illness than others.

The only person I know personally that has had he was 72, slim and fit. Hospitalised on oxygen and is now at home recovering. Ok but still tired six weeks from getting. Also on blood thinners because of blood clot on lungs.

I suspect a lot of research will be about what exactly it is about ageing dna this thing likes and also  genetic differences between those severely and lightly affected.

Sounds horrendous and there is quite a lot of evidence of blood clotting with Covid-19.

When we stop laughing, especially at ourselves, we really will have lost a British strength that will help us get through this 

I hope you are correct but other opinions differ...

Virus Survivors Could Suffer Severe Health Effects for Years

More than one million people around the world have been deemed recovered from the coronavirus, but beating the initial sickness may be just the first of many battles for those who have survived.

Some recovered patients report breathlessness, fatigue and body pain months after first becoming infected. Small-scale studies conducted in Hong Kong and Wuhan, China, show that survivors grapple with poorer functioning in their lungs, heart and liver. And that may be the tip of the iceberg.

The prospect led Nicholas Hart, the British physician who treated Prime Minister Boris Johnson, to call the virus “this generation’s polio” — a disease that could leave many marked by its scars and reshape global health care.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-12/covid-19-s-health-effects-can-last-long-after-virus-is-gone

Has anyone on TWO had COVID-19? If so, I'd be keen to know their experience.

I find it hard to believe that nobody on here has had it. 

https://www.health.com/condition/cold-flu-sinus/flu-long-term-effects 

Appears you're making assumptions too though?

I know it's not a view widely shared on here but to me there's a large amount of concern about covid-19 that whilst understandable is totally lacking when it comes to all the other things out there that kill people and in some cases make them unwell or permanently worse even after the illness has cleared through.

Flu - mild illness, deaths from it uncommented on, long term affects not even acknowledged.

Covid-19 - it's horrific, kills you, if it doesn't it may well lead to permanent damage. 

Just one example.

I view it as the acceptance of death/illness/risk because we're all used to it and because the media doesn't have it front page it's a background thing that probably won't affect you, whereas covid-19 is new and newsworthy. Personally, I like to be able to get a feel for how bad something is versus the other risks I accept and versus the consequences of the action I'd need to take to avoid it and I struggle to do that with Covid-19 because of the way it's reported. By way of an example I cycle a lot, including commuting, and a lot of people view this as really risky because of the way the media reports on cycle deaths (and behaviour, different argument though!) - the evidence though shows the positive physical and mental effects of cycling far outweigh the risk of injury or death from doing it. Do I want a very low risk of injury/death or to exercise less or not at all and increase my risks of heart disease, diabetes, stroke, dementia etc? 

I think one thing everyone can agree on though is we need more testing, more antibody testing and a massive amount of research in to why the disease impacts people as it does, what the best current treatments are and to develop new ones to at least mitigate the worst affects and reduce the death toll. We also need to continue to work on possible vaccines, albeit acknowledging the last bit may not ever be a success.

Just had a reminder from my accountants that their disproportionate fees are outstanding 

I'm thinking of advising them that I'll consider settling the account when I manage to secure a delivery slot with Waitrose for home delivery...that should delay them until about July.

I think the F5 button will need replacing soon.

As you say, it's all about risk at the end of the day. The Telegraph has an article about it today:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/13/analysis-danger-coronavirus-compares-risks-everyday-life/

Some bits from it:

"While the overall death rate of those in hospital is hovering at around 1.3 per cent, or about one in 77, it falls dramatically to 0.66 per cent, or one in 152, when mild and asymptomatic cases are included.

The same lowering of risk holds true for all age ranges, and means that the chance of dying for children contracting coronavirus is miniscule, approximately 0.0069 per cent for 10 to 29 year olds – one in 14,492. 

For the under-10s, there is even less risk – around 0.0016 per cent, or one in 62,500. Those in their 20s have a one in 1,666 chance of death, while for 30-somethings it is one in 1,190. For people in their 40s it is approximately one in 625, in their 50s one in 169 and in their 60s nearly one in 50. Over-70s have a roughly one in 23 risk of death."

...

The avoidable mortality rate in Britain, which includes accidents, unintentional injuries and some preventable diseases, is currently 228 people per 100,000, or 0.2 per cent.

But the risk from coronavirus for the general population does not rise above that until people hit their 50s – so for anyone under that age the disease is less risky than the general underlying chance of death from preventable causes.

...

In Britain each year, 280 people in 100,000 die of cancer, and there are an estimated 40,000 deaths per year linked to outdoor air pollution, with dirty air linked to lung cancer, stroke, heart disease, Alzheimer's and fatal asthma.

The risk from depression is also high, particularly for young people. The leading cause of death for 20 to 34-year-olds in the UK is suicide and injury or poisoning of undetermined intent for all years observed, accounting for 27.1 per cent of male deaths and 16.7 per cent of female deaths for this age group.

Of course, this only covers deaths and not the after effects of Covid which, I make no apology in saying, also occur with flu and other illnesses. More research is needed into the prevalance and severity of such effects, but based on the lack of reported effects from countries which have had millions of cases of Covid - it's still going to be a tiny amount. (The alternative is that 20, 40% of people are suffering but nobody's reporting it - an unlikely scenario, IMO).

Definitely! The Telegraph has updated its front page and now says that the NHS and care staff will be prioritised for the antibody tests. Hopefully the rollout will continue much as the main testing has, with other key workers following behind.

This just doesn't make sense, what price exactly is S.Korea paying? They will continue to deal with any new clusters in the same way, by using their excellence surveillance and the test-trace-isolate strategy. This way they have avoided both a bad health outcome and a bad economical outcome.

If only 2-10% of our population has been infected, it doesn't really make a material difference to our susceptibility to the virus. If we open our clubs, bars, pubs etc. then we'll get many more new infections than the Koreans did and a new surge.

If you could lower your standards to Tesco or Iceland, I've had no problem with getting slots. Indeed, I now get orders from the neighbours each week, so my Tesco deliveries have been getting bigger and bigger!

They're paying the price of having to be always scared of it lurking undetected. A completely naive population is at greater risk than one which has a buffer of 1-in-20 or 1-in-10 being immune. All it takes is one case (as in that nightclub, made more awkward because it was a gay nightclub and people use fake IDs there due to homophobia) and you have problems.

Remember that graph showing spread, then repeating with "this guy stayed home"? Even a 5% immunity rate means that transmission will be slowed, of the 20 people someone comes into contact with, one now won't transmit it forwards. With a 10% immunity rate, that means two wouldn't transmit it and so on - again, figures are averages here.

The benefit of having these immune folks is that they reduce R over and above of all the other things we're doing... it's like compound interest, it all adds up.