Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread
- Thread starter GingerBeerMan
- Start date
Yeah, about that...
1. A vaccine is not guaranteed, but with the number in phase 3 trials already and the success rate of all drugs that reach phase 3, the likelihood that none of those in phase 3 will prove effective is very low. And should that happen, there are a whole load more progressing through trials too.
As such our Plan A has to be to try and keep a lid on viral spread for what could be a relatively short timeframe now, ie 3-4 months, when a vaccine or vaccines can start to end this whole bloody nightmare.
2. We all want to return to normality as soon as we possibly can. But if you mean, before a vaccine is available, we open up all the things and return to a 2019 version of life then you almost certainly will be consigning many people to death who wouldn't/shouldn't otherwise be dying - both those with Covid-19 and those with other illnesses, and untold economic damage. With an overwhelmed health service, many people will reduce their risk as much as they possibly can, effectively locking down through choice, as getting sick could mean no health care available to help you recover. That's not a normality I want.
COVID-19: The Search for a Vaccine - UK Government Podcast
Spotify
No doubt available from other Podcast places.
Spotify
No doubt available from other Podcast places.
Jesus - you're wrong on almost every aspect there. There is absolutely no point me replying at all. Good luck chap.
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 72,321
Soon be time to re-restrict personal newsfeed to Channel 4 evening news, like in the Spring. Other MSM back up to absolutely GORGING on every aspect of this shit, often for no other obvious reason than to justify their budget. There's no random Benny too dim to not give expended airtime to. It's pathetic. IMHO, like
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp..../oct/21/covid-vaccine-immunisation-protection
He seems less than certain about the impact of a vaccine
He doesn't say that at all.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp..../oct/21/covid-vaccine-immunisation-protection
He seems less than certain about the impact of a vaccine
Odd.
As I responding to this
Hanging on for 3-4 months like you suggest would be a further catastrophe for the above. But realistically, a logistical and social challenge like you describe is likely to take years.
But you know, we are all holocaust deniers for pointing out flaws to the plan
darkwolf666
Well-known member
Ive largely not responded to anything you've written on this because I have you filed under the "seems to be a decent chap who seems to have completely changed in Covid-world" tag. The mental burden of the last few months has been tough on many.
But, please, tell me - do you really believe that all the things should be open right now? Full pubs with no social distancing, cinemas packed to the rafters showing the latest movies, offices populated as they were a year ago, trains to Falmer packed like sardines and Albion playing in front of 30,000+ this weekend?
If not, then what?
Green Cross Code Man
Wunt be druv
I would love to give that more than one thumbs up. That was very well expressed.
Nope, I don’t - I’ve not said anything should be open 100 percent - I think we had it right in the summer and we should have seen if the cases calmed down before panicking into another lockdown - cases are already looking like they are decreasing in areas before lockdown x 2.
Before you even look at the economy, there is no balance between other illnesses/deaths and covid - The NHS is semi closed.
Wales and Scotland have completely shit the bed and the reactions in those areas are way ott
Every decision the Gov has made or not made has made the situation worse - only today they are talking about stopping people working in more than one care home because of spread of infection
30 percent of outbreaks are in care homes - check the average age of the deaths and you can see the knock on that affect is having.
We are again targeting the wrong areas, it doesn’t take a track and trace system to see that.
Green Cross Code Man
Wunt be druv
That article talks about targeted vaccination which the government stated would happen at first but then move onto the less vulnerable once that had been achieved. So his point is rendered null.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,014
why protect anyone from a harmless virus? what is it you really believe?
I see. So how many people are you prepared to see die for your plan? How many of your own family are you offering up as a sacrifice on the altar of the economy?
I'm actually in the process of being made redundant at the moment. Not gonna lie, it sucks. But I'd rather lose my job than my Mum. Thanks.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,014
i was asking you to clear up your contradiction. now if as you say you want to minimise avoidable deaths, you would support some level of lockdown. the consequence of no lockdown would be very bad for a large proportion of the population, with effects on economy, mental health and general health. there is no "normal" scenario here. unless of course you believe there is no virus and its all a grand conspriacy?
The problem with this virus is we are driving blind. The next 2, 3, possibly even 4 weeks of deaths are now locked in place. Today there will be people who don't even know they have the virus who are going to die of it in weeks to come:
The amount of virus in our body begins to peak the day before we begin to get sick.
But it takes at least a week before Covid progresses to the point where people need hospital treatment.
"This is a really brilliant evolutionary tactic - you don't go to bed, you go out and have a good time," says Prof Lehner.
So the virus is like a dangerous driver fleeing the scene - the virus has moved on to the next victim long before we either recover or die.
In stark terms, "the virus doesn't care" if you die, says Prof Lehner, "this is a hit and run virus".
Source: Covid: Why is coronavirus so deadly?
But it takes at least a week before Covid progresses to the point where people need hospital treatment.
"This is a really brilliant evolutionary tactic - you don't go to bed, you go out and have a good time," says Prof Lehner.
So the virus is like a dangerous driver fleeing the scene - the virus has moved on to the next victim long before we either recover or die.
In stark terms, "the virus doesn't care" if you die, says Prof Lehner, "this is a hit and run virus".
Source: Covid: Why is coronavirus so deadly?
It's very easy for anyone to sit at home and criticise governments for actions taken as our pretend decisions don't impact huge numbers of lives. Look back at this thread at the beginning of March - there's all manner of "what is the fuss all about?", "hardly anyone has it" and "only a handful of people have died - more people die of <insert ridiculous way to die here> than this coronavirus thing" comments. A few weeks later, as exponential growth does what it does, hundreds were dying day in and day out.
As I said in an earlier post - there is no painless route out of this. Trying to minimise harm across Covid-related health, all other health and a vast array of economic factors is ridiculously difficult.
It seems quite obvious earlier this year that the NHS, dealing with something unprecedented, could not maintain BAU services as well as large volumes of Covid-19 sickness. Indicators are they were getting back on track, albeit with a sizeable backlog, when Covid-19 started to take hold again.
The very best way for all other health concerns to receive the treatment they need and deserve is to have low levels of Covid-19 in the community. When levels rise, when anyone walking in the door could be infected, when those having treatments are highly vulnerable, when healthcare workers have to isolate in great number due to being infected themselves - something has to give. It's not just here in the UK, it's happened everywhere that has suffered with sizeable outbreaks.
Maybe, maybe not. Once again - weeks worth of hospitalisations and deaths are already baked in - we won't know how bad they are until they happen - there's nothing we can do about it now.
Yet almost every measure taken is broadly similar to those taken by almost every other country in the world. That's quite a consensus. I could be critical of the timing of some measures, but very few of the measures themselves.
I have no idea what point you are making here, but with current infection levels, it strikes me as sensible to have staff work in just the one home in order to try and prevent spread. I imagine this could present significant logistical problems for some homes, but surely we should aspire to take actions that can help keep people alive?
What areas should we be targeting?
All lives are of equal value.
The best chance for everyone to receive the health care they need and deserve is to keep community virus infection rates low. When they soar, as they have been, choices have to be made. People will suffer.
Your "just return to normal" tactic is likely to consign people suffering with all illnesses, Covid-19 and otherwise, to worse outcomes than they should have.
I agree it’s not so much the measures, more the timing and especially the implementation which is the issue.