Re: Coronavirus
 

Schools are still open.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes for the children of key workers as they were in the initial lockdown. Nobody was disputing that would happen when discussing it in January.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And vulnerable kids plus those with no internet or computer access, in my sisters school that is 50% of the kids.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So the schools stayed open longer than January.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Anyone 70+ who has not yet been contacted to get the vaccine can now apply using https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/corona...s-vaccination/

Re: Coronavirus
 

A paywalled link, is that the best you can do?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I've not went over my quota of free articles on the Washington Post website this month so I can read it.

You could try another browser, device or private browsing if genuinely keen to read it.

It's not my fault that it's not been picked up elsewhere.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Interesting article on extraordinary drop in Covid numbers in India

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...=1612870507946

Lots of puzzles and ideas including hot/humid climate, young population (and generally healthy older people), exposure to lots of "nasties" (malaria, typhoid etc) bolsters immune system, mask wearing in public spaces including outside, Covid mutation to "weaker form".

Re: Coronavirus
 

Pretty sure that's the exact opposite of what has been reported.

---------- Post added at 11:54 ---------- Previous post was at 11:52 ----------

Likewise, my kids school is at 50-70% occupancy, depending on what day.

Primary schools could have easily stayed open. There wasn't any science or data behind the partial closure of primary schools.

I accept secondary schools is a different issue.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Where, by who and what's the scientific grounding?

It is a positive puff piece by a complaint media or something supported by data?

The clue is where you see "if" and "hope". "Should" is a bit dubious if projecting meaning that wasn't subject of the trial and "expect" can go either way.

Re: Coronavirus
 

This shared link should be free to read (I’m a subscriber, and can share articles).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/healt...-south-africa/

Re: Coronavirus
 

The following article is pretty informative. However, there is some question over the accuracy of original positive tests, which could skew the claimed re-infections. Plus there is no guarantee that immunity lasts beyond 8 months (as yet), or how effective any immunity built up by infection is?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Conservative estimates are that 1 in 3 people that have COVID are asymptomatic, and other findings in controlled groups have found that it can be as much as 80%.

Considering COVID is a novel virus we should have no protection from it so why is not affecting everybody? COVID is just a cousin of many other Coronaviruses our bodies deal with all the time.

It's accepted that T-Cell immunity is a real thing and that anti-bodies that we have established for various flu and common cold viruses also give us a degree of protection.

The cells that produce anti-bodies for Spanish Flu have been found in people 90years after that pandemic and T-Cells for SARS have been found in people 17years after that outbreak.

It's blindingly obvious that those with weaker immune systems and those that are generally unhealthy (older, unfit, obese) are the ones most at risk and vaccinations will help cover them.

and the younger fitter part of the population, in the main, will see it off as they have been doing.

There is every reason to expect us to be out of this much much sooner than later now have a vaccine(s) to cover those at most at risk.



https://www.advisory.com/daily-brief...3/asymptomatic

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52446965

Re: Coronavirus
 

Again, what about Long COVID - you appear to be ignoring this.