Re: Coronavirus
 

R becomes less relevant IF people don't get really sick from the virus.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That was also true at the time. Now we have vaccines (and it was far from sure that we would actually see these delivered), the position has changed.

With vaccines being rolled out, delaying the spread of the virus is a viable solution. But without it, delaying was prolonging and risking more mutations along the way.

---------- Post added at 11:53 ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 ----------

I don’t see it happening either, but it should. Given that the vaccination rollout will have got to the stage it will have by Easter, hospitals will no longer be in danger of being overwhelmed, which was the justification for both lockdowns.

More people will still be advised to get vaccinated, sure, but these are the people who have a far lower risk of hospitalisation. You only have to look at the figures to see that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't think that's correct, Old Boy.

Everytime a virus reproduces, there's another chance for it to mutate. Locking down, social distancing etc all reduce the number of times the Coronavirus reproduces and therefore diminishes the number of mutations.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It categorically isn't correct.

This is, however, correct.

The clue is in the R number. R for Reproduction Rate. Lockdown reduces the R number. The fewer reproduction cycles the virus has, the few opportunities it has to mutate.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I understand your point. But time is also a factor. The longer we delay transmissions, the more chance of a highly dangerous mutation materialising.

Anyway, that debate has lost its urgency now that we have a vaccine. The annual boosters can sort out the mutations until it dies off of its own accord, which hopefully, it will.

---------- Post added at 12:41 ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 ----------

My point has always been that at the end of every lockdown, there will be another surge, so the number of times it transmits will ultimately be the same without a vaccine. The fact that this takes place over a longer period is my concern.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Time by itself is not a factor in new variants. It's a matter of chance. Eg The more times you throw a set of dice(ie new infection), the more likely it is to come up all sixes(ie new variant). If instead, you don't throw the dice at all(ie not allow it to infect and reproduce), you can't get a new variant.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No it isn't. If that were true, viruses that have been around a long time would be mutating at an amazing rate.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think what he's saying with regard to time is getting as many people vaccinated as possible before it mutates into something the vaccine is less effective against, the obvious aim being to stop that new strain getting a foothold amid an already virus riddled population and if that isn't what he meant, it probably should have been!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Post deleted.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Got my jab next week, surprised it's so quick considering I'm healthy and not too old at 52.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Good on you, but I'm amazed you're getting done so quickly being presumably in group 9 of first phase.

Re: Coronavirus
 

More people to be advised to shield:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56086965

Re: Coronavirus
 

Every UK adult could receive both jabs by August, says head of UK's vaccine taskforce
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...force-12220149

Re: Coronavirus
 

Correction: As per BBC 10pm news "Told to shield".

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why don't they send vaccine appointment as well?