The Covid19 thread

[DJ123]

Originally Posted by Ruffy

That does seem quite extreme. Thankfully I'm not convinced they're actually that organised to be able to pull it off without being found out.

The point about manipulation through 'fear of dying' is a legitimate one though. One of my top takeaways from the Covid situation in that the general populus didn't comprehend the numbers for how many people die on a daily basis in the UK (i.e. c.1500/day, 0.5million/year) so perspective was distorted from day one and debate at a macro-level became impossible for lots because of hysteria about any death numbers.

But I'm probably a heartless sod affected by losing both parents at a relatively young age (me and them).

I fully agree that people were unaware of how many people die every day as it is from various things. Which is why recording Covid deaths was a hard task. Trying to identify if Covid caused the death, or if it was simply there when they died.

I think the statistic was used as a scare tactic, to hit home to people the potential severe nature of what we were dealing with. Especially in the beginning when a lot was still unknown about it.

The vaccine drive in younger people will be the next hurdle to overcome, and then we'll see if they think a booster is needed this Winter . . . . . or if herd immunity has been achieved and things stabilise.

But i'd not write off another lockdown, either national or locals.

[Bibio]

Originally Posted by SV650rules

Everyone focusing on cases, which are being found in people with no symptoms because of massive testing. Hospitalisation and deaths are not following cases....

if you were to do the same with the "common" flu you would get the same results.

[SV650rules]

Originally Posted by Bibio

if you were to do the same with the "common" flu you would get the same results.

I agree, and in coming years probably going to be a lot fewer deaths from influenza as Covid has mopped up the vulnerable people. The flu virus does mutate a lot more than coronavirus, which is why they often do not get the correct flu virus even though they put 3 or 4 in the annual vaccine - it is a guessing game.

[svenrico]

This could go on for some time !
As if Brexit wasn't enough !

[Ruffy]

Originally Posted by Seeker

The main reason is that the relaxations are a gamble. The best way to create a new virus variant is to allow it to spread in a population. Even if it does not kill the host immediately, the act of viral replication allows the opportunity of a mutation. The WHO said this, 1200 virologists said it in a letter to The Lancet, many of own NHS staff have said this. Given enough replication time a covid version will emerge that will bypass the vaccines and we're back where we started.

The next reason is the mixed messaging. Initially it was said to be very important to wear a face covering, keep your distance and wash your hands. Suddenly, we are told it is no longer a legal requirement...ok, but then we're told we should do it anyway. Taking away the legal aspect makes it seem less important; it's a mixed, confusing message. Is it an attempt to transfer responsibility - I don't know, but I don't trust this government to act ethically.

What's the difference between a gamble and a professional judgement call? I absolutely get the mistrust of government but do we not believe in the ethics of their scientlific advisors any more?

The bit I can't square is that we're told vaccination doesn't prevent transmission. This virus is probably endemic so surely that means it will propagate anyway and the risk of a vaccine-tolerant mutation is just a matter of time? (I understand the other aspect of general virus mutation is that most mutations tend to result in less severe effects - a virus that gets too good at killing its host before it passes on will tend to self eradicate rather than self-perpetuate.)

I do agree about the mixed messaging. The law was to enable enforcement of the importance. If the importance is still there, why relax the law? If the importance is tolerably less, why the resistance to ditching the control measure? It's difficult for me to follow the logic of the thinking. It's been very badly explained. I think it's a macro vs. individual thing,driven by fear - i.e. it will happen to someone but not me please!

It leaves us with the residual 'when' question: If not now, then when? Hasn't 18 months+ been enough time to slow the really bad stuff down and create the enduring coping mechanisms?

[Ruffy]

Originally Posted by DJ123

For me, it's thinking/knowing that i'm doing something beyond the basics to try and protect myself and others. I do not have an issue wearing a mask in an enclosed environment around other people (my office included).
A private area like an office is about protecting employees, and making people feel safe/comfortable as we all have different levels of anxiety and vulnerability (either directly, or people we see outside of work).

You're all able to decide what works for you, and what you're comfortable with as well as your family. Knowing my Mother works in retail and will have many customers in the store, i would like to think most people will continue to take extra steps to try and keep others safe. Which is why i do the same, as the people working in the shops are all Mothers/Fathers/Sons/Daughters/Brothers/Sisters etc to someone.

All very reasonable and I don't want to be a danger either. But does that mean masks forever? How do we trade that off against other reasonable functional requirements of human existence that are better without masks, e.g. general social interaction, communication and relationship building, dealing with criminal activity by identifying perpetrators?

Originally Posted by DJ123

But i'd not write off another lockdown, either national or locals.

I think this virus is now endemc globally, elimination is not an option, so herd immunity is the only realistic stable state, be that via mass jabbing or natural transmission. Sadly that also means some people will die or have lives disrupted much earlier than they might have expected pre-Covid. That's a tough sell, to say the least, because although the principle existed before it was never consciously contemplated on a widespread basis. Now it's been unavoidably forced on us, front and centre. Suddenly we're all mortal and life-limited. Reluctantly, we have to accept that not all deaths are preventable and unexpected bad things happen to many all the time. Life is a series of risk-taking events but we don't get to choose or control the triggers a lot of the time. Sad but true?

I think there are some very difficult considerations to be faced before we're stable: What is the tolerable annual level of death due to this virus? How much investment in the NHS is required to cope with a higher baseload of treatment requirements for those seriously affected? What changes are acceptable in freedoms of movements for all? How do we make sure we don't unfairly discriminate?

Personally, I don't think lockdown is the right tool for the job any more.

[SV650rules]

Viruses normally do get less potent as they mutate- for the simple reason that virulent ones that kill their host do not normally get to spread very well / far where less potent ones that keep their host alive and moving around get more chance to spread their DNA. Sweden did not lock down, had lower peaks than us and in about the same place now. There is a court case going to Spanish high court saying that lockdowns are against their constitution...

Originally Posted by Ruffy

I think there are some very difficult considerations to be faced before we're stable: What is the tolerable annual level of death due to this virus? How much investment in the NHS is required to cope with a higher baseload of treatment requirements for those seriously affected? What changes are acceptable in freedoms of movements for all? How do we make sure we don't unfairly discriminate?

Personally, I don't think lockdown is the right tool for the job any more.

+1


If people looking for zero deaths before easing restrictions then we will never get out of lockdown, C-19 needs to be added to the long list of things people need to be aware of in their daily life, which needs to get back to normal sooner rather than later..

.

[Seeker]

Originally Posted by Ruffy

It leaves us with the residual 'when' question: If not now, then when?

According to https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ 88% of the population have had one jab and 68% have had both. When 88% have had both jabs then relax lockdown.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/england-ma...083352028.html

_________

I may have discovered where the virus comes from. Here are the top virus rates...

Redcar and Cleveland: 1,421.8 infections per 100,000 people
Middlesbrough: 1,281
South Tyneside: 1,206.8
Sunderland: 1,100.4
Hartlepool: 1,081.5
Stockton-on-Tees: 1,073.2
North East Lincolnshire: 1,013

...it's the North Sea, that's where it's coming from.

[Seeker]

Originally Posted by SV650rules

Viruses normally do get less potent as they mutate- for the simple reason that virulent ones that kill their host do not normally get to spread very well / far where less potent ones that keep their host alive and moving around get more chance to spread their DNA.

Someone forgot to tell that to HIV.

[SV650rules]

Originally Posted by Seeker

Someone forgot to tell that to HIV.

HIV killed very, very slowly and allowed infectious people to carry on with what they were doing when they caught it in the first place ( often after they knew they were infected ) - Covid happens much quicker and the more virulent mutations take people out of general circulation pretty damned quick. The ones I really felt sorry for were the totally innocent people who got HIV from blood products that they needed regularly.


I think C-19 is spreading from Scotland - another dastardly plan by SNP to eventually reach Westminster.