Re: Coronavirus
 

Good grief is that the highest daily total of deaths thus so far or was there a higher tally in the first lockdown.:shocked:

l fear these next few weeks are going to get very bad in terms of people lost to the virus.

Re: Coronavirus
 

1,224 was highest total in 24 hours according to WHO on 22/04/2020.

---------- Post added at 16:22 ---------- Previous post was at 16:18 ----------

BREAKING: Education Secretary says Majority of Primary Schools to reopen on 4/01/2021 and Secondary Schools and Colleges reopening on 18/01/2021

Re: Coronavirus
 

It seems that both the antivirus vaccinations available will have their 2nd booster shot at 3 months, delaying the Pfizer’s Covid Vaccine as well as the Oxford AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine. Although it appears that Pfizer never tested this extra delay in their research trials.
An insight into the move ....

https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/23/...rly-data-show/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Boris and the government ignoring the science again....

Re: Coronavirus
 

Now now it must be the civil servants fault...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Pretty much. Luckily, us armchair health policy don’t have to live with our decisions. Most of the policies are based on partial knowledge, modelling, assumptions, previous experiences and yes, best guesses.

Doing nothing was never an option here so the government had to decide what policies to out in place based on what it did know so far. This tends to be very poorly communicated as the government never wants to be found to be wrong. As more information comes in and policies change, the communications are muddled to the point where the public gives up.

On top of this is the publics attitude to risk. There’s no ‘on/off’ switch for risky behaviour. For example, wearing masks reduces but does not eliminate risk. Social distancing reduces but does not eliminate risk. All the mitigating behaviours and barriers will help to a greater or lesser extent and, in some cases can all add up but this is often poorly explained. I saw a paper a while back giving estimates for how much each change reduces the R value for this disease. I think this could be communicated better but then maybe if we said that social distancing reduced R by 0.2 or something, maybe people wouldn’t bother.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Hardly.

JCVI issues advice on the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/j...vid-19-vaccine

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think the post you are quoting was referring to schools but happy to stand corrected if I’m wrong.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Exactly my sentiments too.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Or, the populations.....

---------- Post added at 17:19 ---------- Previous post was at 17:05 ----------

Apologies, I must have missed the part where SAGE indicated that moving more of the population to Tier 4 would be enough to suppress the virus.

If you could provide the relevant link showing the above ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Prof Jonathan Van-Tam implying the NHS has not seen the impact of transmissions which will have occurred recently during households mixing over the festive period.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No Thanks.

T4 is basically lockdown anyway, and now we have to suffer it in the East Midlands again.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I can't see how they can't do a lockdown. Hospitals are overloaded more than last time and it's getting worse every day, it's this critical.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Just for the record, I am tired of all lockdowns, but they are here to stay and at least until May 2021. If the variant is as bad as SAGE says it is, in terms of how contagious it is and a Tier 4 lockdown is not enough, then it obvious this is going to get worse and Boris is not doing what he is being advised to do so by the SAGE experts, it is another delay and he will be forced to enact yet another full national lockdown, when case numbers and deaths rise further.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not often we agree, but spot on.

The longer we delay implementing a ‘proper’ national lockdown the longer we will need to be in said ‘proper’ national lockdown.

Re: Coronavirus
 

l also agree with you and Mick over this as its quite obvious the worse is yet to come in these coming weeks and months.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Opening schools and Universities will just allow the new variant virus to rip through them. Madness.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Too many activities are being allowed, even in Tier 4. Too many people still insisting on attending large gatherings.

---------- Post added at 18:12 ---------- Previous post was at 18:10 ----------

The Universities problem was more a product of the depraved way the students acted.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Depraved or just young people acting like we did at their age?

Re: Coronavirus
 

When Covid wasn't around.......

Re: Coronavirus
 

This is the problem we have. If we had a population of perfectly responsible blonde automatons (naming noone) we wouldn't need restrictions at all. And if we had an ultra authoritarian state we would have been sealed up in our houses we would have stomped it down already. We are unfortunately in this sort of middle ground.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As your post lacked context I assumed it was in response to the previous post.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...8&d=1609359932

Re: Coronavirus
 

Here's how you do things if you're not afraid of the covidiots in your Party.
https://news.sky.com/story/ireland-r...ation-12175864

Re: Coronavirus
 

Disagreeing with the way something is done does not make you a 'covidiot'. This is not Facebook/Twitter, Grow up.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well the "back to the office to save Pret" brigade certainly look like idiots in retrospect.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Lol, or 'eat out to help spread a deadly disease'. What a wonderful initiative....

Re: Coronavirus
 

The what ? Who are they ?

That scheme ended in August, and only ran for 3 days a week.
No doubt it will have had an effect, but your obsession with blaming it for the current situation is just nonsese.
This second wave would have happened regardless (and people would still have eaten out was well, regardless).

---------- Post added at 23:22 ---------- Previous post was at 22:15 ----------

Just to lighten things up a little
(Shamelessly ripped from F/Book).

10 Points to Ponder as 2020 draws to a close ...

1. The daftest thing I ever bought was a 2020 planner.
2. 2019: Stay away from negative people. 2020: Stay away from positive people.
3. The world has turned upside down. Old folks are sneaking out of the house & their kids are yelling at them to stay indoors!
4. This morning I saw a neighbour talking to her cat. It was obvious she thought her cat understood her. I came to my house & told my dog.... We had a good laugh.
5. Every few days try your jeans on just to make sure they fit. Pyjamas will have you believe all is well in the kingdom.
6. Does anyone know if we can take showers yet or should we just keep washing our hands?
7. I never thought the comment, “I wouldn’t touch him/her with a 6-foot pole” would become a national policy, but here we are!
8. I need to practice social-distancing ....from the refrigerator.
9. I hope the weather is good tomorrow for my trip out to the bins!
10. Never in a million years could I have imagined I would go into a bank with a mask on and ask for money.

:)

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's the winner for me....:D

Re: Coronavirus
 

I wonder if the rush has anything to do with the South African variant, which some egg head said earlier might be resistant or more resistant to a vaccine,

He is so desperate not to upset anyone, delaying the inevitable will just cost lives

Re: Coronavirus
 

If I recall Iain Duncan Smith and Graham Brady were fairly prominent in August/September around a push to get people back into offices which was firmly against scientific advice.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Some are so desperate to keep the country locked down, delaying the virus will just cause more mutations.....

Re: Coronavirus
 

You do know the more the virus is transmitted, the more likely it is that mutations occur?

https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/co...irus-mutating/ Anyway, Pfizer aren’t happy that with the proposed 12 week gap for the 2nd dose of it’s vaccine.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-regimen.html

Re: Coronavirus
 

If there was an annual top ten list of crass Old Boy comments, this one would be up there.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Mutations are also coming in from overseas. On the one hand you might not want people to be excessively exposed to something from abroad, on the other it might be an advantage for as many people as possible to be immune ahead of a mutation from abroad. Another complication is where a mutation is less virulent or dangerous. No easy answers, whatever way you look at things. People keep forgetting that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

He obviously seems to find it hard to understand that tough measures are needed because if we don't have them the death toll would be much much higher then it is now and the NHS would be in complete and absolute meltdown and unable to cope.

Re: Coronavirus
 

A very polite way of saying ‘weapons grade spaffer’

Re: Coronavirus
 

This is a interesting read.

https://cmmid.github.io/topics/covid...in_England.pdf

Re: Coronavirus
 

How have banks, jewellers etc dealt with the requirements to wear a mask? They usually require a full face to be shown for obvious security reasons.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The socially distanced queue for service is outside where you don’t need a mask. Only 2 customers are allowed in the bank at a time and a member of staff comes outside to manage entry.

Re: Coronavirus
 

For the tl:dr’s amongst us...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Thanks. Bars & pubs, though closed at the moment, are going to be a problem though. Most town centre places don't allow hoodies, caps etc on police advice for CCTV recognition in case of any incidents. If people have to wear masks when inside these places, the whole concept of CCTV detection goes out of the window. You can bet that the perpetrators will realise this too. It's no coincidence that hoodies became fashionable just as CCTV technology was improving.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why are bars and pubs going to be a problem?

Re: Coronavirus
 

That may be correct, but without a viable vaccine, it would have been our best bet. The longer the virus is out there, the more likely it will mutate. That is pretty obvious. So delaying its spread through lockdowns is not a sensible long term solution.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The more bodies it is in, the more opportunity it has to mutate.

Happy New Year, but sadly it's a start worthy of despair.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You need to watch Multiplicity as there's a scene where it explains on a level you may understand that copying a copy can have suboptimal results. I know a Michael Keaton film has nothing really to do with the pandemic but it's quite funny and Coronavirus really isn't but if it stops people spouting tripe then it's a worthwhile analogy.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Firstly, happy new year to you and to all on the forum. :)

Regarding your post, reproducton is the key element here. The more the virus reproduces, the more chances it has to mutate. Lockdowns reduce its chances to reproduce and therefore its chances to mutate.

The main benefit in delaying its spread through lockdowns until we achieve herd immunity through a vaccine is so the NHS can cope, and can continue to process non-Covid-related patients. Long-term NHS capacity is pretty fixed due to the training involved in healthcare.

Re: Coronavirus
 

erm, lockdowns slow the spread, reducing the mutations... :confused:

Anyway, about that vaccine thing...

https://twitter.com/DrDomPimenta/sta...244423680?s=19

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not at all. Your selective memory is failing to recall that I said protect the vulnerable and let the virus pass through the healthy population.

---------- Post added at 12:41 ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 ----------

You are forgetting that lockdowns only slow the virus - they do not eliminate it. It’s going to pass through the same number of people in the end.

Fortunately, the new vaccines are providing benefits for us that we did not have before, making lockdowns a more viable solution than they were before.

Re: Coronavirus
 

An idea that was terrible at the time and worse now as we have the imminent roll out of a vaccine.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, and the longer the virus is out there, the more it mutates as well.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, this is why your plan is flawed - it never gets eliminated it simply circulates and mutates.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Lockdowns slow the whole process. It will still infect something like 60-80% of the population but over a longer time period. Unless, of course we have a vaccine, which thankfully is now available.

Just as well, because we could not have carried on like this.

---------- Post added at 12:51 ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 ----------

What? The virus dies out or at least ceases to be the problem it currently is once it has travelled through the population. Lockdowns don’t eliminate the virus. The first lockdown proved that. How many more resurgences do you need before this fact dawns on you?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ah the Old Boy straw man.

How does the virus die out? Seasonal flu doesn’t die out. Your view that it dies out or “ceases to be a problem” is an assumption based on fresh air. No more credible than your assertion that it would die out in the warmth of summer and we know where that got us.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I can’t forget something that isn’t true (along the same lines as your previous untrue statement "they were all going to die anyway, they’re just dying sooner").

The whole point of the lockdowns were reduce the spread of the virus, reducing the impact on the NHS, and giving time for vaccines to be developed, and then the vaccine stops the virus affecting those vaccinated.

Re: Coronavirus
 

How about we just trust to the science experts and ignore keyboard warriors who have absolutely no idea what they are re-spouting.

I'm doing as I'm told and staying home and when I get called to be vaccinated I'll be there with my arm bared for the jab.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If the continued spread is inevitable, doesn't that imply that those countries and areas not yet badly affected, still will be badly affected in the future?:rolleyes:

The virus needs a host to spread to and be able to reproduce. Even within a host, it has a limited lifespan. That is the reason for self-isolating for a period of time.
It people stop spreading around, then it will "die" out.

Re: Coronavirus
 

At this point with a vaccine being distributed there's no point changing the lock down strategy.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Some may not agree.

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/1...s-left-to-say/

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...0&d=1609509949

Re: Coronavirus
 

A couple of other things from that ;

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well the problem is we’ve moved away from the real purpose of testing - which is to provide usable data to inform decision making and form the cornerstone of test, trace, isolate.

If we then go ahead and ignore the scientific advice so restrictions don’t match up to the recommended course of action based on the data then yes, mass testing is pointless.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Is he Old Boy?

He appears to be basically saying "let it rip".

Just did a bit of research - seems the guy likes being a "contrarian", and for a medic, really enjoys using emotive terms...

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/507587-covi...e-coronavirus/

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don’t disagree. However, it was by no means guaranteed, even a few weeks ago, that we would actually have a vaccine. It is only now that we have one you can make a good case for the emergency measures we have in place now.

---------- Post added at 16:49 ---------- Previous post was at 16:42 ----------

What planet are you on, jfman? I thought we all accepted that this was not seasonal flu. :D And you accuse others (wrongly) of using ‘straw man’ arguments.

The last two coronaviruses did, in fact, die out naturally in the UK. However, I agree that we still have some things to find out about this particular virus. Nobody yet knows whether annual or less frequent boosters need to be given to protect the population.

---------- Post added at 16:54 ---------- Previous post was at 16:49 ----------

Yes, it does, unless the vaccine is rolled out across the world. Without it, New Zealand is only getting a stay of execution. They can’t isolate themselves forever.

How are you ever going to get people to stop ‘spreading around’ as you put it and what good would it do? We’ve already had a lockdown, and yet the perishing thing has returned already.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I was thinking specifically about SARS and MERS. Neither of those have returned since circulating around the UK a few years ago.

In terms of your example, I guess that if later variants of a virus are more deadly and/or more contagious, such variants will take away the hosts on which the original viruses rely.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Take away the hosts is a curious way of phrasing killing more people.

Re: Coronavirus
 

New Zealand appears to have reached a stage of where the virus has "died" out. If everybody else managed that, then worldwide there would be no problem.
Any lockdowns haven't worked because people ARE NOT BEHAVING THEMSELVES.
Although on a bigger scale, your New Zealand example PROVES that lockdowns can work. Self-isolation and controlled access with other countries is equivalent to a household situation.

Re: Coronavirus
 

New Zealand has a population of 5 million living in relatively low density at the ar$€ end of the world. Yes, an extreme lockdown works, but it is easier to achieve in some contexts than others.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There needs to be the political will. Whereas ours have demonstrated wanting every easy option going instead.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Still comparable to a household situation. Limit and control(eg mask, social distancing) contact with the outside "world". Enough households doing that will let the virus "die" out.
It needs to pass from A to B to C etc, all within a limited time frame. If it is unable to do that, it "dies" out.
If that wasn't true, then it would've still spread throughout the whole of New Zealand.

Re: Coronavirus
 

He's got a point you know.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It also includes those who have attained immunity. So if one of the variants tries to claim a host who has already had the more virulent strain, the individual’s anti-bodies and/or T-cells would fight it off.

---------- Post added at 19:16 ---------- Previous post was at 19:11 ----------

NZ is a much smaller country with only a relatively few large population centres, coupled with the fact that not many people travel there.

New Zealanders remain in danger of infection from this virus, particularly the new strain. It only takes one super-spreader to arrive in the country with Covid just recently acquired to set off a chain reaction.

---------- Post added at 19:19 ---------- Previous post was at 19:16 ----------

You cannot control the whole of the British population to do that. Even if your idea would work in theory, it would never work in practice.

Did you see how many fines had been handed out to partygoers on today’s news?

---------- Post added at 19:20 ---------- Previous post was at 19:19 ----------

What about travellers bringing it back into the country again?

---------- Post added at 19:22 ---------- Previous post was at 19:20 ----------

Here’s one!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-h...ong-will-take/

Marc Lipsitch, professor of Epidemiology at Harvard, has written eloquently on the possibility of reaching herd immunity through vaccination, noting that it is impossible to predict until we know the extent to which the new vaccines prevent transmission.

But he adds: “Sustained herd immunity is not the only value of a vaccine or the only way it could help us return to a more normal life. If high coverage can be achieved in those most at risk of severe outcomes, we could achieve a state where virus continues to circulate but the toll on the health system and the mortality toll is dramatically reduced.”

...Which is pretty well in line with what I’ve been saying all along. Take the vulnerable out of the equation and the problem pretty well disappears and the virus can be left to spread through the healthy population.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Auckland has 1.5m people. Were they ALL infected?
The question was about whether lockdowns achieve anything. They can and do, but ONLY if people stop behaving like depraved morons.
Fines are meaningless, because people are not going to pay them. Start jailing people, and perhaps they will start behaving responsibly.
Where a traveller brings it into the UK, if those and everybody else behaves themselves, then it shouldn't be able to spread further in the first place.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It might fight it off. It might not.

You're assuming immunity will be lasting and work across strains. Both of these are untested.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Spread through the healthy population until it mutates again possibly in to something worse - you know like the super contagious version we've got now except with a much higher mortality rate. Then how does your idea stack up when a much higher percentage of the population is suddenly vulnerable?

Re: Coronavirus
 

This was discussed several pages back and the conclusion seemed to agree with OB’s statement

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=2105

Re: Coronavirus
 

** U-turn klaxon ** (a bit worn-out now)

https://news.sky.com/story/all-londo...-turn-12177017

Re: Coronavirus
 

Just my humble opinion but i think all schools should remain closed until February and then get re assessed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's not all of it though, that was discussing why other causes of deaths are falling. However excess mortality is up so more people are dying than otherwise would.

We're all going to die anyway unless something gets us sooner, and whilst this may kill people with co-morbidities/older people we're still talking about people that might have years of life left.

Re: Coronavirus
 

We might all get wiped out by a meteorite, both are nothing more than speculation.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There have been some cases of MERS in the U.K. since 2012.

https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov...d-and-treated/

Also, SARS wasn’t contagious until several days after symptoms appeared.

https://www.theweek.co.uk/105436/how...-start-and-end

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm certain about it. As a retired teacher I can attest to the fact that schools are just like a petrie dish.;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

U-turn! :rolleyes:

He listened to a reasoned argument put to him by the mayor.

Are politicians expected to ignore the advice received on a proposed option? He did the right thing, and he should be saluted for that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I wonder if a full lockdown based on more evidence and advice would also be clased as a U turn?

Meanwhile there is this from Adrian Boyle, vice-president of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...-b1781315.html

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, it was a u-turn. BoJo ignored evidence-based arguments and only changed his mind when a court case was threatened.

Per the Sky News article I linked to https://news.sky.com/story/all-londo...-turn-12177017

Re: Coronavirus
 

No evidence that our school has to close. Not one case of infection - ever.

Like I have always said, restrictions need to be proportionate and targeted.

So close as many schools you want in the south / midlands - but leave us rural/ semi-rural communities out of it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Every school and all schools are pertrie dishes in my experience. Keeping the lid on is the sensible solution. Also a few months being home schooled won't ruin their futures. I was home schooled until I was nearly 8(living in Nigeria) and I caught up and had 40 plus glorious years as a teacher.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I couldn’t disagree more, on every point

Edit, obviously not on your personal experience.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There’s been scientific evidence on school closures for weeks, including at three point they threatened legal action to keep schools open.

The question is now why we can now justify closing schools in London but ignoring the same scientific evidence in other Tier 4 areas.

---------- Post added at 09:41 ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 ----------

Schools don’t contribute to spread and keeping the lid on isn’t a sensible solution?

I suspect we are back at your own personal experience which, if I recall, if your preference to have your kids in school.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I suspect that majority of parents would wish to see their kids at school, and where there is little to no evidence of localised risk, why wouldn’t you.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don’t really think the national pandemic response should be led by localised anecdotal evidence, or individual preferences.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If there is no testing then the chances of finding evidence is drastically reduced. Don't one in three carriers have no symptoms or thereabouts?

---------- Post added at 10:30 ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 ----------

Will be interesting to see the outcome here.

https://news.sky.com/story/teaching-...hreat-12177145

Re: Coronavirus
 

Typical Union hysteria.

Proof that student health and well-being is far down on their list of priorities.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Whatever the outcome it won’t be a u-turn. :D

---------- Post added at 10:40 ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 ----------

Neither of these are justifications for their members to work in unsafe environments, or to ignore the wider public health implications of a “schools open at all costs” approach.

I do however welcome the renewed interest in child welfare. I trust that politicians and right wing talking heads will push for greater funding in schools, social work and to eradicate child poverty long after Covid-19 has been consigned to history.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The virus may mutate through transmission, but the longer it has to do that, the more likely mutations will occur. That should be blindingly obvious, surely?

The idea of letting the virus run through the healthy population is to achieve herd immunity, so that the more vulnerable people don't get infected. With the vaccine we now have, your question can be answered more confidently. Concentrate those inoculations on the vulnerable and the health workers and you've clinched it.

---------- Post added at 10:51 ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 ----------

But why do that if testing is introduced at the school gates?

Re: Coronavirus
 

The more people it infects the more likely it is for mutations to occur. Your flawed idea literally gives it billions more opportunities to mutate globally.

Is there a plan to have testing available at every school in January? If not then it’s purely theoretical and the point is moot.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The greater the number of people that get it, the greater the number of people that will be immune to any new variant that comes along. The basic method of vaccines is to "infect" people with a harmless variant.
Weaker variants can develop as easily as stronger ones.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55511662