Re: Coronavirus
 

I think it's possible. Let's not forget covid is basically a milder but more transmissible version of SARS from what, 2003? In reality it had to get milder and infect more people but then we had also MERS and other coronaviruses which have become endemic so it wasn't a total surprise.


So in reality, there are a few kind of distinct ideas spinning off of that situation:
1. that covid as we know it will reset the response we have.
2. that the above will lead to govs implementing extreme measures as opposed to more targeted response to try and slow it down, as opposed to allowing it to spread
3. that something else will come along and that govs will respond in the same way


Covid didn't cause the destruction to the economy and other effects. The government response/restrictions did. Whether the same effect would have happened from staff sickness and other factors such as people avoiding mixing situations, we have no idea.



So what scenario would you come up with, which would (based on a cost/benefit/impact analysis at the most primitive level) result in basically lockdown measures needing to be done again?

Re: Coronavirus
 

There’s no money for furlough, the economy is on its arse only a lunatic would consider lock down. Not for this virus anyway.

I doubt that many would take any notice of it.

Hospitality is fighting to get it’s head back above the water, a lock down will kill it.

There would be civil unrest, as people lose their jobs with no furlough.

Any PM overseeing it wouldn’t be PM for very long.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The key word here is ‘this’ should the virus be able to mutate to such a degree that it can escape the vaccine or immune response and is as transmissible and has the same levels of serious illness, hospitalisations or death then what options are there apart from to lockdown again?

Without it healthcare services globally would collapse which in turn destroys everything else.

Perhaps the better question to ask is how do we minimise the chances of this occurring again?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm not sure that's really possible. You can neither control the spread of an existing virus (within certain conditions) nor the evolution of a virus mutating. In essence it's likely that this is some sort of evolution of the original SARS virus anyway, they don't come out of nowhere even if this came over from bats, pangolins, labs or whatever you believe... it still came from something.


Lockdown isn't the only option we have, and it should be an absolute last resort, I can't see how anyone should think it's the first thing we should turn to.


In that situation what would you try and do to keep everything open but try and stop people dying in hospital car parks?


Certainly I'd say we'd need to be going back to testing people with symptoms and their contacts, providing them with the free tests to do that, educating people when they need to test and have this as clear guidelines, and when to isolate, what this means etc. Knowing who has the virus at any point and how they can minimise spreading it will keep it under control without needing to impact on those who don't (except where it's necessary).

Re: Coronavirus
 

Don’t remember anyone recently stating that lockdown is the only or first option we have, just that it maybe an option…

Re: Coronavirus
 

Meanwhile, lockdown is being blamed for an outbreak of Hepatitis amongst young children, who are lacking immunity that would normally have been acquired by natural exposure while infants.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-61269586

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nobody has said it in so many words.


But when the hypothetical "vaccine evading & serious" variant has come up then some people are mentioning it without then mentioning other possibilities as though it's possible but it's the only way and not really discussing any alternative options.


So if they're not mentioning anything else, they clearly hold less faith it is going to be an answer.

Re: Coronavirus
 

"It has mutated down to a mild cold". I hear that a lot. The Influenza virus mutates, and certainly hasn't become any less lethal to those most at risk.

So it'll be an annual 'Flu-Covid jab for those most at risk, and the rest will possibly end up feeling like crap for a few days. Unless the unvaccinated get hit by the Delta variant that is still around, and the hospitals fill up with the weakest of them.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I really don't see a lockdown now. The purpose was to avoid huge numbers of A&E admissions when the virus was at its worse. Even now when cases can go sky high the vaccine means the numbers of admission don't get anywhere near the path it was heading for back in March 2020.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The Flu is still as deadly as ever, but has had to take a back seat in the news in the last two years.

Recent ONS figures show that there were 148,606 deaths where Covid was identified as the underlying cause of death in England and Wales between the weeks ending 13 March 2020 and 1 April 2022, at the same time there were 35,007 deaths due to flu and pneumonia.

However, in that same time period there were 170,600 deaths where Covid was mentioned anywhere on the death certificate [as a cause or factor] but 219,207 deaths where flu and pneumonia were mentioned as a cause or factor.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Did we not just learn that lockdowns did more harm than good?

The answer is to have more temporary accommodation and bring the Army in.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-62344902

Re: Coronavirus
 

Being blamed being a rather apt description.

Notably absent: any assessment on whether it could have been Covid.

---------- Post added at 18:32 ---------- Previous post was at 18:31 ----------

We haven’t learned any such thing, indeed restrictions followed by vaccinations are credited with saving millions of lives globally.

Economies remain in tatters regardless. No glorious rebound.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, some of us have. I accept you don’t, jfman.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...says-scientist

[EXTRACT]

. “We did serious harm to our children and young adults who were robbed of their education, jobs and normal existence, as well as suffering damage to their future prospects, while they were left to inherit a record-breaking mountain of public debt,” he argues. “All this to protect the NHS from a disease that is a far, far greater threat to the elderly, frail and infirm than to the young and healthy.

“We were mesmerised by the once-in-a-century scale of the emergency and succeeded only in making a crisis even worse. In short, we panicked. This was an epidemic crying out for a precision public health approach and it got the opposite.”



Not to mention the increased deaths and suffering that occurred through a failure to review the medical position of those who should have regular reviews, failure to carry out countless operations, the waiting lists for which will take years to recover.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Let's have another couple of paragraphs from further down the article, because sometimes the bits you select can say something quite different to whatever follows ;).

However, Woolhouse is at pains to reject the ideas of those who advocated the complete opening up of society, including academics who backed the Barrington Declaration which proposed the Covid-19 virus be allowed to circulate until enough people had been infected to achieve herd immunity.

“This would have led to an epidemic far larger than the one we eventually experienced in 2020,” says Woolhouse. “It also lacked a convincing plan for adequately protecting the more vulnerable members of society, the elderly and those who are immuno-compromised.”

Re: Coronavirus
 

What I have advocated is opening up society, but protect the vulnerable, particularly those in hospital and in care homes.

Incidentally, the advice given to the PM some weeks prior to the lockdown was in fact to let the virus circulate. Given that no inoculations were in sight, that was a sensible approach. But then, as Woolhouse says, they panicked as infections rocketed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Given it nearly did for the idiot PM (allegedly), and it did take thousands of other lives, letting it rip wasn't the best advice.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Who gave the PM the advice and when? Just interested.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It was Whitty!

---------- Post added at 20:46 ---------- Previous post was at 20:45 ----------

It was always known that some would die. Couldn’t really be avoided, could it?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Some? Nearly 200,000 now.

If we'd locked down sooner like other countries thousands more would have survived and we not have had the highest number of deaths in Europe. Our Govt. let us down, but scientists dug us out ( and still get abuse from right wing nutters).

Re: Coronavirus
 

Can you back that assertion up?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Which one ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

It was Whitty who gave Johnson the advice to "let it rip"…

Re: Coronavirus
 

Apparently Johnson's admitted he was in no danger.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It was like feigning a injury in a football match to buy time for him ! Just a jolly game.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Except we haven't had the highest number of deaths in Europe.


https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/15...hael-fabricant
[EXTRACT]

The study referred to an analytical model that is described as "the most comprehensive assessment of excess mortality due to COVID-19 to date".

After factoring in excess deaths during the pandemic from all causes, the UK is now 29th in Europe and ninth in Western Europe in terms of death rate from the deadly pathogen.

Clinical Epidemiologist Dr Raghob Ali tweeted: "Far from the UK having the worst death rate in Europe, or even Western Europe, as many still think, it is actually 29th in Europe and 9th in Western Europe.


Lockdowns delay transmission but they don't prevent it. The lockdown has to end sometime, and then it starts all over again.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Erm, already previously shown that info from the Express to be faulty/misleading/a lie, when you posted it on the 24th July…

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...0#post36129330

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is information in different sites on the web - this is one of them. You could have Googled it yourself, Hugh. Vallence and Whitty advised on the herd immunity option, and that is what the PM followed initially. I remember seeing this on the news at the time.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...ohnson/608065/

[EXTRACT]

With the peak of the pandemic still weeks away, the time hadn’t come yet for stricter measures, Johnson and his advisers said. They worried about “behavioral fatigue”—if restrictions come into force too early, people could become increasingly uncooperative and less vigilant, just as the outbreak swings into high gear. (As of yesterday, the U.K. has identified 1,391 cases, although thousands more are likely undetected.) And while suppressing the virus through draconian measures might be successful for months, when they lift, the virus will return, said Sir Patrick Vallance, the U.K.’s chief scientific adviser.

To avoid a second peak in the winter, Vallance said the U.K. would suppress the virus “but not get rid of it completely,” while focusing on protecting vulnerable groups, such as the elderly. In the meantime, other people would get sick. But since the virus causes milder illness in younger age groups, most would recover and subsequently be immune to the virus. This “herd immunity” would reduce transmission in the event of a winter resurgence. On Sky News, Vallance said that “probably about 60 percent” of people would need to be infected to achieve herd immunity.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That says Sir Patrick Vallance - Whitty isn’t mentioned (I had looked in this site and others, couldn’t find any Whitty references, which is why I asked).

Anyway, if you read the "Coronavirus: lessons learned to date: Sixth Report of the Health and Social Care Committee and Third Report of the Science and Technology Committee of Session 2021–22", you would see your interpretation in error.

https://committees.parliament.uk/pub...78687/default/

Page 33

Re: Coronavirus
 

Fair enough, but Whitty was there, on camera, when Boris made that announcement. From my recollection, he didn’t demur.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Everything in that post is incorrect.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think this is a great example of why it's always a good idea to support assertions with links.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think you should watch the clip. The two were in agreement. It should still be on You Tube - I saw it just a few months ago.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Oh, the irony…:D

Re: Coronavirus
 

What's happened has google gone offline:spin:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Oh, the pettiness. Please, let's move on. :rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

It must have done, along with OLD BOY’s browser history…

Re: Coronavirus
 

Was that meant to be in the irony thread

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

So what? It was an emergency. Remember?

Re: Coronavirus
 

True. So what?
Our Govt doesn't believe in following the law, so anything goes. The plebs however had better do as they are told.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No need to be rude.

An emergency requires the best talent. Not the last person who WhatsApp'd you.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It wasn’t rude, Andrew. I’m asking why you are so exercised about a decision that had to be taken without delay. Lives were at stake.

I suppose you expected them to do a time consuming tendering process! My God!!

Re: Coronavirus
 

This was a national emergency. Yet judging by the way you're happy for the roles to be recruited, you judge them as being equal in skill to pulling the winning raffle tickets out at the village fair!

Headhunters move rapidly and would doubtless have pulled out all the plugs for Hancock had he been less corrupt and used their services. There's no reason apart from cronyism not to be professional in recruitment of such important roles.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nice theory. The point is, time was of the essence and to go through the usual rigmorole would have used up too much precious time. The virus was moving very quickly and there were a lot of unknowns. Everyone was panicking over what to do. It's easy for you to sit there calmly criticising others. Life just isn't as easy as many CF members seem to think.

The latest figures for England are here. The infection rate is decreasing, but the big question is, will there be a resurgence when the schools go back - and will there be any more virulent variants that give cause for concern?

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

So I was travelling back from Spain and a bunch of 5 teenagers who had most likely (from listening in to their conversations) been on a shag-fest / party holiday were sitting on the plane coughing and spluttering everywhere.


So sad to see some people don't care about anyone anymore....Not even wearing a mask!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why would they ? Its not 2020 anymore.
You dont need one any more than you did in 2019 (or before).

Re: Coronavirus
 

Because that's still the guidance.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/people-w...uding-covid-19

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm sure it is, I think they call it covering your ass.

Guidence is just something you can do, if you want, its not a requirement.

There is guidence everywhere, probably for most things you ever do, doesnt mean you have to follow it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

After 2 and a bit years of having somehow avoided catching COVID I finally caught it last week! Quite confused as to how I avoided it for so long - and I was hardly being careful to avoid it - only to get it now.

Hit me slightly more than I assumed it would. The fatigue/lightheadedness is the worst whereas the cold symptoms were minor.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Its still avoided me, despite everyone else in my house having it at one time or another. :smokin:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Immune escape. The BA.5 variant says "Pah, I speet on your vaccine".

It got me last week too. Worse fever, aches and sore throat than any cold or flu I've ever had. I'd rate it alongside mumps and hepatitis A for the misery factor.

Re: Coronavirus
 

During the initial outbreak I was still commuting into central London right up until the very last night. When we reopened I was at the barbers the very first day, at the pub at midday on the first day they reopened :D and so on. All before the vaccine. Just find it odd i avoided it until now. TBH I had reached the point where I didn't get the first wave, I avoided the Delta wave, and everyone but me seemed to get Omicron so I kinda thought I was invincible to COVID.

Yeah for me the aches and fatigue were the worst I've had but the cold symptoms were nothing really. Very minor cough, a small blocked nose.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't think I've had it and I worked right through the lockdowns thanks to the government classing me as a key worker, it claimed three people in my firm as well and put another on a ventilator and I used to have to get on the tube regular to go to Moorfields, i did take precautions as the other half has cancer so did that help, was I just lucky or did i as some in our office suspect have it in the February before first lockdown when the whole office went down with a nasty cold, one things for sure, it's only a matter of time before we've all had it

Re: Coronavirus
 

Some excellent news !!

https://news.sky.com/story/uk-is-fir...riant-12673637

Re: Coronavirus
 

Great a dual vaccine. Hope it's better than the others that:

Don't stop you catching it.
Don't stop you spreading it.
Don't stop you getting ill from it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Great news, well done to all concerned with this achievement including the current government.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Indeed it is. For me the value of popping doses of the original vaccine in when we have omicron was always going to be limited efficacy and even more so when we keep doing it.


If they are going to use this as the booster this winter, then we have every chance of being in more control of any omicron variants, provided they don't mutate past the protection of the newer vaccines further.


Realistically think they should also make this roll out open to everyone, as well, once they have protected the older people and those with the at-risk conditions, of course. If we get another covid spike the amount of under 50s who are ill with it and not able to work might cause issues in its own right.

Re: Coronavirus
 

They do lessen the chances of you getting seriously ill
They do lessen the chances of those that get seriously ill subsequently dying

Is that not enough ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not really no.

I'm also looking forward to seeing the studies, if any are produced, that show the effectiveness of the above in fit and healthy <50 year olds, and subsequent age ranges.

I think it's clear the vaccines for the elderly and infirm helped, what's less clear is their effectiveness for younger fit and healthy people.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think the studies showed in general that with two doses of original AZ, Moderna or Pfizer vaccine, against the original strains and similar variants such as Alpha, which were widely circulating at the time of the initial roll out and lockdown easing, the effectiveness against symptomatic infection (not just hospitalisation and death) was very high, certainly in the 90s with the mRNA vaccine.


When we got the Delta variant which was more contagious than Alpha but also had some immune escape from it, the efficacy dropped, but a third dose of the mRNA vaccine restored the efficacy to that of 2 shots against earlier variants.



By rolling out vaccine to all those people and triple dosing the vulnerable they were able to keep serious illness down though there was still significant spill over of Delta into double-vaccinated people who hadn't received a booster or third dose.


The mutations in original omicron (and the lineage variants aren't too dissimilar to be considered separate) meant that the spike protein protection most people had was much less recognisable to the immune system which is why we are now seeing plenty of vaccinated people get ill, but even then, the response from the vaccines is keeping plenty more out of hospital. Hopefully a more targeted vaccine will indeed erode at the infections and not just at the serious illness aspect and that this will be rolled out to all ages. Though I disagree that people should basically be coerced into vaccination and if they don't want it that choice should be respected.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I wish they offered it in chemists to buy if you're willing like they do with the flu vaccine.

I am fine if I get COVID (again) but it was very annoying. A few days lost with fatigue and then another few days of feeling a bit sluggish. I would happliy pay £15/20 whatever it is to avoid that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

First again! Good old Boris!

Sorry to see him go yet?

Re: Coronavirus
 

How was he involved? Did he call in from Slovenia or Greece to approve the US developed vaccine?

Actually, no, because it was approved by the UK's Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, not Johnson…

Re: Coronavirus
 

I mean, OB, even I can’t get on that bandwagon.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Beware, Old Boy may be tempted to repeat his previous line "You are getting as cynical and downbeat as the socialist-minded posters on here! Please don’t encourage them, it is extremely depressing to hear all this negative nonsense."
:D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Um .... not really. :erm:

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think there may be a job for you in North Korea's Ministry of Communications

Re: Coronavirus
 

Even they have a degree of standards as to what gibberish they’ll publish and think people will believe….

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...21.758294/full

https://observer.com/2021/04/covid19...a-jj-biontech/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not for me. They get blown up if they tell the truth.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You’d be safe…

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Got an invite to book my autumn booster today.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Make sure it’s the new one that can also deal with omicron.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There’s two (so far) - Moderna and Pfizer.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/p...ines-regulator

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'll have whatever they give me, which is a good job as I don't think they give you a choice.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I wonder what the uptake will be.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Is this attempt no4-5 or 6 I've lost count.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Just had my booster (and flu) jab - Pfizer bivalent this time, so I’ve got the Trifecta (first two were Astra Zeneca, and the previous booster was Moderna).

Re: Coronavirus
 

I've just had my 4th. Moderna bivalent this time, Pfizer last tme and AZ for the first two.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I had my 4th jab back in September, not sure why when I'm only 55. Maybe I'm on a list that the GP hasn't told me about. Also, Mrs G had hers at the same time and she's not 50 until late December :confused:

Re: Coronavirus
 

I won’t be having anymore jabs, now that they’re not required for travel.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Haha.

We actually agree on this although a slightly different rationale. I’m not having a vaccine that doesn’t work.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Please elaborate.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Really, and on what medical evidence do you base that ?


Since its free, and does work (help) i'll be taking up the offer on Oct 19th.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’ll stick my neck out and say he’s making the same sort of fatalistic comments in this thread since early 2020.

Meanwhile in the real world, vulnerable people are now getting the new bivalent vaccine, though the MRHA still considers the original vaccine to provide good protection.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well I needed them to go to Spain to play golf. ( or go through the pain of testing every 5 mins). But not required now. I certainly didn’t let the kids have it.

It was a vaccine that:

Didn’t stop you from catching it
Didn’t stop you from transmitting it
Didn’t stop you from getting sick from it

They say “well you didn’t die from it. Or get seriously ill” But there is no way of telling if I didn’t take the vaccine if I would have died or gotten seriously ill, as it appeared to affect everybody on an individual basis.

There is emerging data on side affects to younger people, that are not conclusive yet, but they are just emerging.

I look forward to the inquiries on how this pandemic was managed, though I fear the outputs will not be transparent.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And I've had three of those. I'm not in an at risk group, my risks are reduced and reduced and reduced. I can still catch COVID, I'll still be able to catch future variants of COVID that will further evade the vaccine, just as further variants are evading therapeutics. Very much in the real world.

Give mine to someone who hasn't had any, or is at risk. In fact you can't, even the behavioural scientists on the JCVI have deemed I'm not eligible, or the benefits don't outweigh the risks, or something.

Re: Coronavirus
 

My partner and l had our fourth jab last week.

A bit of pain in the arm and feeling under the weather for a couple of days but then it settled down.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'll take everything I'm offered.At 70 I'm not going to be picky.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Personally I think they should at least offer this to under-50s when they have had take up from the more at risk groups.


The first vaccinations might have worked against other variants but they don't protect as well from Omicron, probably only preventing the more severe illness, given how many people have been 3x jabbed and still ended up with covid.


Even though there isn't going to be any massive impact on the NHS from most under 50s (who aren't already in a target group) getting it, with people basically returning to work at least part of the week in most cases now, and with most people largely able to do and behave pre-pandemic, the impact of workplace outbreaks and the like could be prevented by allowing anyone who wants to, to get vaccinated with one of the new bivalent vaccines.


Personally I don't see the point if the vaccine isn't bivalent now but people should have the choice to get that extra protection.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Is there a source that the new vaccines prevent either infection or transmission in workplaces?

Re: Coronavirus
 

The entire household had the flu vaccine a couple of weeks ago. The one that is modified annually to give the best protection against the most prevalent strains.

I suspect the covid jabs are being tweaked too, to give the best protection against the prevalent strains.

The unvaccinated are still in the majority in covid-ICU's. I suspect they will be on the flu-ICUs too.

---------- Post added at 12:53 ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 ----------

Vaccines never prevent infection, but they do reduce transmission.

https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o298

Re: Coronavirus
 

I must have misread all those big pharma press releases when they announced them.

There’s been a notable shift from efficacy to effectiveness against (insert whatever measure you please).

Re: Coronavirus
 

Care to share one that said that, please?

I remember Pfizer saying their coronavirus vaccine was more than 90% effective in preventing Covid-19 among those without evidence of prior infection, not that it stopped all infection…

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/09/covi...infection.html

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think you’re being slightly pendantic here Hugh. Indeed nobody claimed 100% efficacy against infection but there were many 70%+ to 98% claims that don’t stand up in the real world against current variants. I’ve not seen anything on the bivalent ones, however by the time the JCVI approve me for one chances are they’ll be two or three variants out of date if they aren’t already.