Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, no, simple mathematics tells us you're completely wrong.


lets say over an 18 month period of time with no lockdown in place there is an average death rate of 1000 per month giving us a total deaths count of 18,000

Now, lets say in 18 month period there is a three one month periods of lockdown which changes the death rate to 500 deaths per month. the months out of lock down the death rate stays as above at the initial example. 1000 per month. Do the maths?

Now, start using the something near the figures that are being presented to us on a daily basis and just think about how many lives are being saved over that time period.

We are going to be in and out of some sort of lockdown until if and when a successful vaccine.

Oh, and with regards to your earlier post about older people not being prepared to endure lockdown. Quite simply. Tough s**t, either do it, or face criminal proceedings.

---------- Post added at 16:51 ---------- Previous post was at 16:49 ----------



Oh Den.... ;)

You're allowed to buy luxury goods including alcohol. 'Essential purchases' went out of the window some weeks ago.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Now that is why l did not mention alcohol Mr T as because a lot of it is sold in the supermarkets and its pretty hard to stop customers buying it in there.;)

l also did not want to upset those on this forum who like the odd tipple or two either.;)

---------- Post added at 17:06 ---------- Previous post was at 17:02 ----------

As one forum member succinctly put the other day its not about "me" or "me" or "me" but more a case of making sacrifices for the greater good of this country.

Re: Coronavirus
 

you've never not been allowed to buy alcohol?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Thankfully.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Again this is demonstrably false. Either linked to the elimination of the virus, containment, herd immunity or a vaccine whichever theory you use relies upon keeping demand for intensive care facilities below supply and every potential infection of a vulnerable person you push the other side of the threshold is a life saved. Added into the mix is our daily increase in capacity to test, trace, isolate and shortly the roll out of a contact tracing app.

Again this is entirely subjective and not evidence led. People straying out into open public places on a sunny weekend does not constitute civil disobedience or not adhering to the rule as they stand.

Neither is your “noticeable” increase in the number of cars on the road.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That isn't proof of them ignoring the rules. With the weather having turned, maybe they are making essential trips by driving instead of walking or cycling.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No, but the College of Policing had to clarify the guidance issues to the police as some forces were getting over zealous.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You keep saying that - it isn’t true.

Flu is a Orthomyxovirus, while the others, such as some of the the common cold viruses*, SARS, and MERS are all Coronaviruses - coronavirus is the family of viruses, the others are types of coronavirus; Flu is a different phylum from the others**.

*other types of common cold are caused by rhinoviruses.

**I only know this because my brother-in-law is a Senior Research VP for a large US Biosimilars corporation, who has also worked in Pharma research for Pfizer, Teva, and others, and he corrected my assumption (which was somewhat like yours, except I thought they were all coronaviruses)

Re: Coronavirus
 

The roads have got busier here too, and that was before today's bad weather.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s also probably more people going back to work in "essential roles" after self-isolating for 14 days- this is what is happening at my wife’s work.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Exactly how many lockdowns do you expect?!!

Sorry, mate, but the public won't wear it. Unless you are going to introduce martial law, this is unenforceable.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/126675...ns-experts-say

---------- Post added at 19:30 ---------- Previous post was at 19:27 ----------

I disagree - I believe the majority will understand.

Re: Coronavirus
 

This video makes some interesting observations, but I do note there are comments that give it a bit of a roasting. So I am not particularly endorsing it but leaving it here for your own judgements

https://youtu.be/fCOkEXsfPoQ

Re: Coronavirus
 

More if we mess up the first one.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Will the public wear themselves or their loved ones dying?

Re: Coronavirus
 

There will be multiple dependant on the R0 number. my own personal pure guess? three to four over the next six to twelve months.

Anyone thinking that there would be just one lockdown is just plain delusional.

Martial law may well be whats coming

Also, as you haven't argued against the maths, Can we assume that you now understand that over a given period of time that lockdowns do in fact save some lives?

Re: Coronavirus
 

To be fair to Old Boy and the grief he’s been getting. He does have a point.

Many of our population that are classed as vulnerable will have to stay in lockdown for their own safety for potentially a long time, possibly a very long time.

And members of their family and carers will have to be very precise in how they are around them.

But we will have to come out of these restrictions at some time, preferably before September if possible. I say restrictions because we are not in “lockdown” or anything like “lockdown”. We have been Asked to restrict our movements when and wherever possible, keep socially distancing and be sensible.

As long as we c@n keep the infection rate static and not overwhelm the NHS we can start opening up certain things. It will have to strictly monitored and managed, but for example if you can manage socially distancing and supermarket shopping, you can do it for any shop.

Cafes, restaurants and bars, will be an issue. Not impossible, but bars, especially when people have had a few will be tricky.

But I think throughout June, July & August we will see some relaxing of restrictions.

Oh and if your wondering why I chose September. I am a parent and a football fan.

I don’t see kids going back until the start of the new school year, and I would love the new season to start as normal. This season should be scrapped and expunged from the record books - Nil Satis Nisi Optimum.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ever since this virus started. We have been given 'nonsense' advice by the government. The general public are fed stuff from flowcharts, and 'we have just reached the peak' as they keep saying.

Each day when l am not working, enforcing the six feet rule. Everyone l see each day, is abiding by this rule. Yes, there is more traffic on the road, as people are returning to work.

People have to go back to work to live.

The government keep finding these 'pots of gold' to hand out a million here, million there. What we need is a government to treat us like adults and not kids.

Many shops are now starting to open. Mental Health has now gone through the roof. Domestic violence has gone up.
Due to this lockdown, we are being told to stay at home, and look after the NHS.

NHS staff are magical, but they need tp be protected properly.

As far as l am aware Sweden has the virus, but NO lockdown as they consider this virus as bad flu - which we have every year.

But this is the stink in the tail - There will NOT be a vaccine for at least 18 months. So therefore, how long is the lockdown going to run for.

Companies WILL go bust. Next year our taxes WILL go up to pay for this virus.

The government have to be honest and tell us when the lockdown will be released. And not keep coming out with the same stuff.


It is claimed that this virus was started in meat markets in Muhan. Well, the markets have reopened, and they don't scare if the virus starts up again.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Old Boy would get far less grief if he didn't stumble incoherently from one feeble excuse to open up the economy to another on an almost hourly basis.

This country survived two World Wars yet Old Boy tells us it can't stand a few months sitting in the house, getting out occasionally, and biding our time until the circumstances are right to gradually release the restrictions in place?

The economic arguments are hollow. As I've pointed out the role of Central Banks and Government is to stand behind economies in crises. The money it uses to support people now - furloughed staff, self employed, small business owners, etc. - pays rents, mortgages, pays bills and generally buys essentials. All these people want to do is get to the end of lockdown and be in the same position as before. We are the fifth largest economy in the world and that should easily be achievable and maintain a position where people have jobs to return to. This gets stability in the long run.

Make a mess of the current position - and give up the gains we have made to date - and consumer confidence remains low. Businesses will be reluctant to invest in anything for fear that we return to a further lockdown in deadly second or third waves of Coronavirus. Consumers will be wanting to save in case they have to cover a few months of lost earnings in future rather than spend.

The first tranche of restrictions could realistically be released in as little as 4 to 6 weeks. A gradual process that will take months, undoubtedly. However getting it right now yields dividends then. Getting it wrong now and we are in for months/years of turmoil.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, since the first 40 comments I read actively disagreed with him, with good reasoned comments (cherry picking data, ignoring actions that affect outcomes, plucking figures from thin air), it seems it’s a bit more than "there are comments that give it a bit of a roasting" - that’s like saying the inhabitants of Hiroshima got a bit of sunburn... ;)

Also, hard to take credibly when he has this under the video

Re: Coronavirus
 

Fair enough, I only gave it the time of day because it was posted by someone I respect on a professional social media platform, you can guess which.

Happy for you to exercise you mod powers and remove it if you wish.

---------- Post added at 22:19 ---------- Previous post was at 21:10 ----------

https://order-order.com/2020/04/29/h...-participants/

Re: Coronavirus
 

They will understand for a while, but that goodwill will start to wear out as time goes on.

People I speak to locally, and at work, are starting to wonder whats going on.
We are told the incubation is 7 - 14 days, but we have been in lockdown well over twice that, and no one [we know] is infected.
We dont actually know of any cases [at all] between us.

I can imagine anyone queued outside a shop in the rain today is not going to be as happy about it as in the sunshine last week.

We have been quite fortunate really that almost the entire lockdown so far has been in [unusually] good weather. :Sun:

Re: Coronavirus
 

BBC article for those who like to keep comparing countries.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/52311014

Re: Coronavirus
 

In which case they'll just have to put their big-boy pants on and realise they'll have no choice but comply.

So...you're saying the self-isolation seems to be working? Who'da thunk it?

Then maybe they could use something like an umbrella. I'm sure a little rain never hurt anyone. I hate using the word "snowflakes" but....

Re: Coronavirus
 

The rain will keep the numpties at home..Then hopefully the curve will flatten quicker.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Only read headline but was mentioning that though thousands have looked at or expressed interest in fruit/veg picking (tens of thousands of positions) only hundred or so have actually turned up.

Is this fear of mixing, unable to travel, or other reasonable reason or just that people don't want to do the job? Do the government need to be maybe firmer with those whose salaries they are picking up? My wife said she did the job one season while a student, lots of those not at college at the moment.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No. They just slow things down. Only two things will stop this virus. A vaccine or herd immunity.

What worries me is that the longer this virus is out there, the more of a risk that it will mutate, which means we start all over again.

The lockdown is an understandable and yet panic reaction to this virus which may turn out to be recognised as a huge mistake when we look back on it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You can forget about herd immunity as the government went down that road to start with in March and quickly dropped it.

---------- Post added at 10:12 ---------- Previous post was at 10:08 ----------

Not sure where you get your thinking for that OB as it was the best option on the table unless you wanted the NHS and all the important relevant services to be completely overrun.

The government has to review the lockdown measures by next Thursday and the word is its unlikely to ease it much.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Probably need to up the salary, it's not an appealing job.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The government is paying 80% of my salary, I don't want to work ing a field picking fruit & veg, it has nothing to do with me being an office bod. It's the fact I live at home and I'm currently looking after may dad who is 76, so have no intentions of risking him.

My HR manager calls every Wednesday to see how my mum is doing (in the Nursing home),

I did have a shock when I got my pay slip it was over half of what I should have been getting, but he said sorry he made a mistake (I had taked 2 day unpaid when I took my mum to A&E and 2 SSP while in self-isolation before being furloughed).

When corrected I was within £5 of what I guessed I should have got.

I've only left my home to go to Sainsbury's to shop when bread or milk run short, luckily my Sainsbury's has a Lloyds pharmacy who look after our meds and I now phone when the next prescription is due.

I stand outside my mums nurising home window and talk to her, yes we speak daily on the phone, but she NEEDS to physically see us at least once a week. (Back in 2015 she was in a hospital which was a 4 to 5 hour round trip, and I struggked to see her twice a week, her mental suffered as a result, that will NEVER happen again)

Re: Coronavirus
 

In public, yes...

Old Boy is right in that herd immunity is the only way to effectively stop this, either by getting the disease or immunisation while still running a functioning society. You could prevent cases and let the disease 'die out' by the strictest of strict isolation but that simply isn't possible without a sanitorium/leper colony type setup.

It's a tough one, balancing out the disease rate, vs. the impact of economic inactivity..

---------- Post added at 11:05 ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 ----------

In other news, had my first COVID vaccine call today. Exciting times!

Re: Coronavirus
 

To take your points in order.


1) Again, There is NO guarantee whatsoever that herd immunity will work. Nor is there a guarantee that a vaccine will work. What you have failed to understand yet again is that the lockdowns are designed to limit the pressure on services and to limit the deaths sustained over a period of time. I'll leave the maths here, there's really no point trying to keep explaining it. Most others seem to understand.

2) The virus has already mutated. Chinese scientists identified 33 strains of it. Link to this is here

3) This isn't the last lockdown, My guess is we're in for quite a few over the next twelve months. Until such time as an effective vaccine or if we can prove that herd immunity will work then life as we know will considerably change people will simply just have to accept it and get used to it or face the criminal/medical consequences.


If neither herd or vaccine are achievable, then all bets are off & EVEN IF one of those two methods prove successful then life as we know it will change irretrievably in many aspects.

---------- Post added at 11:09 ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 ----------

Great, just point us to the evidence that herd immunity works for this virus?

Congrats :erm: on the vaccine call !

Re: Coronavirus
 

So they said, but there was a an exChief Medical Officer on BBC this morning that implied that they are still progressing the Herd Immunity concept but over a longer period, amd he advised the BBC presenter that they should question the government on this.

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

If I had to, I would do it.

I did it when I was teenager, picking Strawberries on the outskirts of Liverpool in the mid-80's. Great when it's sunny, not so much when it isn't.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Could you clarify that, please?

What numbers of deaths, and for what length of time, do you believe are delayed?

Re: Coronavirus
 

If we do develop immunity once we have contracted the virius then Herd Immunity will work. There is very little in the way of reporting that says that once an otherwise healthy person has caught and beaten the virus that you can catch it again.

So based on that, you would summise that there is some immunity, we'll have to wait to an see. but it's the best option we have at the moment.

It is also possible that the Virus will mutate into a less damaging one for humans. A Virius that kills its host isn't doing its job properly.

As above, some worse than others, and it's quite possible that people will get some immunity to these other strains or that the strains may be milder.

It's all still a waiting game

As I've said before this isn't really a "lockdown". I'm not lockeddown. The only impacts this is currently having to my life is that the Kids are at home, and I can't go the pub.

Re: Coronavirus
 

A Government minister has issued a statement about this a few minutes ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/li...latest-updates

Re: Coronavirus
 

There's nothing positive OR negative yet on herd immunity. In animal tests, reinfection did not occur (link note, preprint and not peer reviewed) This gives some confidence.

There is clinical evidence that patients who tested positive and recovered tested positive again but it is not clear if this is a reinfection or a reactivation of the virus. There are growing suspicions that the sensitivity of commercial tests might be causing at least some cases of reoccurring infections (link)

There are a lot of unknowns here and when there are unknowns, there are risks

Re: Coronavirus
 

Precisely, so anyone claiming that we should just let 'herd immunity' take it's course is in fact a dribbling vegetable. and remains such until it's proven as a workable method.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Herd Immunity is a proven concept, just that it carries a lot of Collateral damage with it, as to be effective over 80% of the population would have to be infected and have gained immunity.

Considering the death rate we have that would be a lot more deaths.

Also to know if we have reched anything like the percentage required we would have to test the whole population.

The best way is to develop a vaccine and then vaccinate everybody.

Until then restrictons wil continue, but i think restrictions will gradually be lifted but vulnerable peple and those that interact with vulnerable people will have to be very careful.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Herd immunity is almost certainly going to work, and that is what we rely on with all existing vaccination programmes. However, the longer this disease is out there, the more likelihood of a major mutation which will put us back to square one.

We are fighting against nature here and on this one, nature is winning. Of course I understand that the lockdown was designed to relieve pressure on the NHS. I've acknowledged that throughout. However, what nobody seems to be coming to terms with is that lockdowns in themselves don't prevent deaths, they delay them. Germany has just relaxed its lockdown, and guess what? Infection rates are on the rise again. This will keep happening until either we find a vaccine that works and distribute it to everyone or herd immunity is achieved over this elongated period we are now looking at.

It is interesting that you say there is no guarantee that herd immunity will work, and so completely dismiss it. Then in the next sentence, you say there is no guarantee that a vaccine will work, then you embrace it as a solution.

I know that this is not easy, and everyone wants to do something, even if it won't work. Our choice really is whether to stop the lockdowns, let the virus spread while protecting vulnerable people OR have lockdown after lockdown (or one continuous lockdown) until a vaccine becomes available and distributed. That could be one or two years away.

Sooner or later, the government has a tough decision to make, but if they leave it too long, the public will make it for them. The lockdown cannot last too much longer now.

As for having multiple lockdowns ahead, forget it. There is no way we can keep paying people from our rapidly depleting government funds. Not only that, but businesses will start to fail in ever increasing numbers as the weeks go by, so we will end up with mass unemployment and no ability to pay dole money. Just think it through - we cannot let this go on and on.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Show me the evidence that you have that says herd immunity is going to work

I think we all agree that lockdowns don't prevent death, but they ensure that there are lower deaths over a given time period compared to if we let the virus continue unabated. If you actually seriously think that we would have the same tally of deaths lockdown vs normality you're seriously seriously wrong.

I don't embrace either as a 100% solution YET, they both have chances of success or failure. But a vaccine combined with lockdown(s) is our best way of minimising deaths.

How do you protect the vulnerable when some of those included are ones that you professed won't stick to the rules of a lockdown?

Multiple lockdowns will happen, just look at Germany. A country whose R0 number has increased since they eased. The government are preparing for a 2nd lockdown should the RO continue to increase. This is the Germany BTW that managed their outbreak far far better than we did.

Would you rather be dead? Or alive but worse of financially?

Oh, btw from various news snippets this morning it looks like the lockdown will continue until June with only minimal changes.

If you think that life is going to go back to normal in the next 12-24 months then you're off your rocker.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Did they ask to be protected?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Could you clarify that, please?

What numbers of deaths, and for what length of time, do you believe are delayed?

The Imperial College paper that convinced the Government to go to lockdown/social isolation, shows that the forecast number of deaths (between 410,000 and 550,000, depending on the R factor (higher the R factor, the more infections)), shows on pages 13 and 14, tables 4 and 5, that the deaths were forecast to be reduced, not delayed. Table 5 shows that, depending on the R factor and variation on the "off" trigger, deaths over 2 years could be reduced from between 85,000 and 100,000 to between 8,700 and 51,000 - reduced, not delayed.

Of course, if you have any scientific forecasts showing that the deaths are delayed, not reduced, that would be very useful/helpful in the discussion.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Herd immunity is unlikely to completely kill off the virus unless it was achieved by a very aggressive vaccine program. The natural herd immunity approach would have stopped it being able to spread effectively but given the world-wide spread of this virus outright stopping it is unlikely.

It's also unlikely the virus would ever have a likelihood of a 'major mutation which will put us back to square one.' It could mutate enough that it breaks though existing antibody responses but your immune system can adapt to variants of a disease.

Limiting the spread of the virus avoids overwhelming the NHS allowing the people that do catch it the ability to get medical intervention. If everyone got it at once people would die simply as a result of lack of care.

The longer we delay that spread the better the chances of more effective treatment courses being found as well. You want to catch this a year from now rather than now if given the choice. Chances are we'll be better at this, saving more lives, the more we learn.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Fine, Then let everyone who doesn't want to be protected get together with someone who is. (like a measles party. Then ship them off to somewhere nice and quiet (isolated) and they can fend for themselves. Those that survive can repeat the process ad infinitum

Re: Coronavirus
 

A piece of good news amongst the doom and gloom.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What if that number is greater than the number of those who wan't protecting,shouldn't they all just stay at home hiding until they think it's safe to come out. while the majority get on with life.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You'd better hope it does or you can kiss a vaccine goodbye. The whole point of a vaccine is to introduce and accelerate herd immunity.

In other news South Korea have no new cases of domestic cases and reinfection appears to be a false positive of tests.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...since-february

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Sorry, my point was made badly and you're of course correct.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's very easy to be absolutist about this whole issue. The whole argument about how locked down we are and where we are going in the short and longer term is all about management of risk. The level of risk associated with different activities is very much a science question and that still isn't 100% clear. We are learning all the time and taking lessons from previous diseases. It's all about balances of probabilities.

Once we have an idea of risk, then we get to the social sciences and risk management. This is either a personal choice or one decided for us by governments. Some times these are in conflict, we have all seen people driving without seat belts or using phones. The government says that is risky, but humans decide otherwise and here we are.

It's quite clear in this forum that the perceived risk is different from person to person. How much risk of contracting COVID are you willing to take? Would dropping the risk by 50% work, 90% or 100%?

I think the government has done a reasonable job so far at advising us on the risk. They have maybe been not so good at their own risk mitigation, especially in terms of timeliness (lockdown, PPE procurement, test procurement for example)

Re: Coronavirus
 

And, how long do you think that would last for before businesses were unable to cope with employees being on the sick, huge rises on the amount of people requiring hospitalisation and potential ICU care. The country would be in an even worse state than it is now.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Some thoughts by James Forsyth of The Spectator.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...wont-be-smooth

Re: Coronavirus
 

Good find/article.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Most definitely.

---------- Post added at 18:06 ---------- Previous post was at 17:59 ----------

A entire new public health infrastructure is something that l hope does come to fruition for the reasons written in the article as this country cannot afford to get into a position like this again.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is an opportunity here for wholesale reform not seen since 1945. The possibilities are exciting but the stakes are high.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No need to worry any more. Trump has it in hand.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1255611768258387973

Re: Coronavirus
 

:erm: :dozey:

---------- Post added at 21:34 ---------- Previous post was at 20:55 ----------

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52493500

Re: Coronavirus
 

One of the reasons South Korea was good at dealing with the virus will be because they've experienced it before. The Government had the infrastructure to help and importantly the public reacted with the seriousness it deserved. I imagine the same will be true here too. Nothing helps like first hand experience. Hopefully it's the kind of thing that can have some flex to it as well, be more generic, to avoid a 'fighting the last war scenario'.

Other than healthcare and pandemic response though I think the amount of people expecting a different society to emerge will be disappointed. I believe that the public desire for normality will be so strong and the Government so pre-occupied with economic recovery alongside Brexit and the aforementioned healthcare reforms that anything that can continue in the same vein will do so.

I am seeing a lot of talk of how society's relationship with work, each commerce and with each other will change and we'll all take the time to understand what's important and what isn't. Nah, most people will just want to go back to the pub.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Really enjoyed reading that, thanks for sharing the link.

Captain Tom
 

Final totals, what a splendid fundraiser.

Total raised £32,794,071.50
+ £6,173,301.98 Gift Aid
Grand Total £38,967,373.48

Re: Coronavirus
 

This was what I found most worrying:

IMO this is exactly what he would do and sums up why he's so dangerous. Oxford seems to be doing well with developing a vaccine/treatment, I really hope they beat America to it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes l read that and that is why we should build a entire new public health infrastructure which makes us less reliant on leaders like that.

l never agreed with Brexit but if there is hopefully one good thing to come out of it is a great realisation as a sovereign nation that we must build our own futureproof infrastructure from from the ground up so we don't get into the position that we are currently in.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So then you'd be quite happy if Oxford exported any vaccine/treatment before treating UK citizens? If not which UK citizens get treated before the vaccine/treatment is exported?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Woah, settle back down.

In my limited imagination I’m sure the most vulnerable would receive it first whilst a plan for export would be developed. Then other prioritised groups would receive it and I think then it would be sent around the world

Given Trump’s ignorance I can’t see him having any interest in other countries getting it until all Americans have access to a vaccine.

Re: Coronavirus
 

In your limited imagination do you think that if a vaccine was found only one country would manufacture it?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think if America found it first Trump would ensure it was kept in-house until his country was safe first.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And then sell it to the rest of the world at an inflated ruinous price.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think that’s an absolute certainty.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Difficult when research is being shared worldwide.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...8&d=1588323161

Re: Coronavirus
 

If American big pharma can screw a profit out of this they will, if any the rest of the words countries find a solution i believe the formula will be given freely for the good of mankind.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Difficult perhaps but not impossible when it comes to Trump's infinite arrogance.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But that one is being managed in New York...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Surely, it is the duty of every country to put its own population first, be that country China, the UK or USA?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I would think that's correct, as is the duty to ensure the safety and welfare of its citizens . . . which is why we're still flying people 'back home' from all corners of the world ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Absolutely but not to the detriment of other countries.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's like queuing at a supermarket, you have to wait until the customer in front has been served until you get your turn.

When we've served 'our' customers, we'll serve theirs ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes but, no but, yes but.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Oxford should release the formula/spec (whatever it is for a vaccine) to everyone so that every capable factory can make it at scale. No need for U.K production capacity to be used for anyone else but the U.K.

It would be important to beat the Americans to it in that case if their plan is to withhold both the work behind the vaccine rather than simply any vaccines created. There is a moral duty for whichever research team finds the successful one to tell everyone else how they did it, it's contemptible for Trump to withhold it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It'a quite legal to restrict exports of medicines. The UK holds a list of medicines that cannot be exported that is updated weekly.

Here's what the law says;

(Regulation 43(2) of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012)

Things might only get sticky if countries either refuse to export to certain countries without a reason (trade sanctions for example) of they are hoarding beyond what s necessary to ensure public health.

We had a good call today on manufacturing capacity. Pharmaceutical companies tend to work at as close to 100% utilisation as possible. There is very little floor space and manufacturing equipment spare. To build new plant from nothing can take years. Even building a prefab plant takes a minimum of 18 months. It looks like, at least in the short term, that existing plant will need to repurposed for vaccine production. What plant and where will depend very much on what vaccine(s) work well.

If this is done, there will be shortages of other drugs which could have health implications elsewhere. As well as health implications, there could be lost sales implications for pharma companies and those costs might well be factored in to a vaccine cost at least in western economies. This is on top of development costs ($200-500m)

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't think anyone is disputing that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

This I would agree with. This is a global issue and we need to help out each other. This is a good test - the Bible continually says that we ignore the poor to our detriment and some of the poorest are not in the West. A vaccine that can be sent worldwide and help especially those nations that do not have the healthcare we do would be good to do and likely to our benefit. Both with God's blessing but because those countries we do help will remember it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Thank you for that clarification - your wit is matched by your coherence.

Just to be clear, the USA Defense Production Act allows the US Government to to allocate materials, services and facilities to promote national defense; it also authorizes the president to control the civilian economy so that scarce and critical materials necessary to the national defense effort are available for defense needs - I'm pretty sure that data that could be used to create a vaccine comes under that heading, and the data from your effort is being managed in the USA.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Given how long it takes to develop a vaccine, there is a chance Trump will no longer be in power to stop anything.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You can't catch it twice.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...twice-11981721

Re: Coronavirus
 

You probably can't catch it twice within a month or two. We have no idea yet what happens 6 months or a year down the line. Any immunity may be temporary.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But what if "it" has mutated?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I posted this a couple of days ago, which gives more detail.

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/126675...ns-experts-say

Re: Coronavirus
 

<removed>

Let’s deal with the facts and not idle speculation.

Read the article?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Can we debate the points raised, please, and not make personal attacks on posters.


Edit: To add to this. Anyone doing so risks a 7 day ban from the topic. [Paul]

Re: Coronavirus
 

It already has mutated.

https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/11/coron...-far-12542619/

Re: Coronavirus
 

But importantly

Re: Coronavirus
 

Quite.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Viruses go though minor mutations all the time is my understanding

Re: Coronavirus
 

But if the changes are internal to the virus particle, then it will appear to be the same thing to the immune system.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The mutations that mainly concern us are the external ones, the "surface pattern" that the virus uses to get in to the cell and that the immune system recognises after infection.


We don't fully understand the antibody response over time yet, which is one of the issues being looked at in the national survey of 20,000 households that started last week and one reason why there isn't currently a totally reliable test to confirm if people have previously had the disease.

Re: Coronavirus
 

'People aged over 50 should remain under lockdown for longer than younger Brits and fined if they can't prove their age when they are out, experts claim.

Researchers at the University of Warwick believe a "rolling age-release strategy" to let younger people out earlier combined with social distancing is the safest way out of the UK's lockdown':

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/115138...gn=sharebarweb

Re: Coronavirus
 

Here’s the summary(without the Sun’s inflammatory interpretation), and the actual paper.

https://warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/..._young_adults/

https://www.andrewoswald.com/docs/ne...vee2020(1).pdf

Not all 20-30 year olds... So nearly half of all 20-30 year olds couldn’t go out, while their friends could.

Yeh, I can see that working...