Cable Forum - Coronavirus (OLD)

The overall infection fatality ratio - the proportion of infected people who died - was calculated to be 0.9%, similar to other countries such as Spain.

Quote:

Trends were also observed with age, where young people aged 18-24 had the highest rates (8%) and were more than twice as likely to test positive than older adults aged 65 to 74, who were least likely to have had the virus (3%).

jfman

14-08-2020 00:48

Re: Coronavirus

The shielded group would naturally be least likely.

Pierre

14-08-2020 13:17

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36046594)

The shielded group would naturally be least likely.

which would suggest you can employ shielding of at risk groups as opposed to the blunt instrument of lockdown of all groups

jfman

14-08-2020 13:24

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36046626)

which would suggest you can employ shielding of at risk groups as opposed to the blunt instrument of lockdown of all groups

You could employ the strategy but it’d fail.

nomadking

14-08-2020 13:27

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36046626)

which would suggest you can employ shielding of at risk groups as opposed to the blunt instrument of lockdown of all groups

All groups? So who operates all the essential services?:rolleyes: The shielding group would still be at risk from uncontrolled contact with those supplying those essential services. For some sections of the shielding group, not even a vaccine is a viable solution. The only viable solution is for everybody else to gain "herd immunity", either with or without a vaccine.

RichardCoulter

14-08-2020 13:44

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36046630)

All groups? So who operates all the essential services?:rolleyes: The shielding group would still be at risk from uncontrolled contact with those supplying those essential services. For some sections of the shielding group, not even a vaccine is a viable solution. The only viable solution is for everybody else to gain "herd immunity", either with or without a vaccine.

Why?

Pierre

14-08-2020 13:55

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36046628)

You could employ the strategy but it’d fail.

Hasn't been put to the test, so thank you for your opinion. I disagree.

---------- Post added at 13:55 ---------- Previous post was at 13:51 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36046630)

All groups? So who operates all the essential services?:rolleyes: The shielding group would still be at risk from uncontrolled contact with those supplying those essential services.

Not if they're shielded from them, which is the whole point of shielding.

Quote:

For some sections of the shielding group, not even a vaccine is a viable solution. The only viable solution is for everybody else to gain "herd immunity", either with or without a vaccine.

We're still a long way off, I think estimates were al 3million exposed? approx. 4% of the population

nomadking

14-08-2020 13:58

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36046633)

Why?

A vaccine requires a functioning immune system, not everybody has one.
Link

Quote:

Clinically extremely vulnerable people may include:

solid organ transplant recipients
people with specific cancers:
- people with cancer who are undergoing active chemotherapy
- people with lung cancer who are undergoing radical radiotherapy
- people with cancers of the blood or bone marrow such as leukaemia, lymphoma or myeloma who are at any stage of treatment
- people having immunotherapy or other continuing antibody treatments for cancer
- people having other targeted cancer treatments that can affect the immune system, such as protein kinase inhibitors or PARP inhibitors
- people who have had bone marrow or stem cell transplants in the last 6 months or who are still taking immunosuppression drugs
people with severe respiratory conditions including all cystic fibrosis, severe asthma and severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
people with rare diseases that significantly increase the risk of infections (such as severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID), homozygous sickle cell)
people on immunosuppression therapies sufficient to significantly increase risk of infection
women who are pregnant with significant heart disease, congenital or acquired
other people who have also been classed as clinically extremely vulnerable, based on clinical judgement and an assessment of their needs. GPs and hospital clinicians have been provided with guidance to support these decisions

jfman

14-08-2020 15:21

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36046634)

Hasn't been put to the test, so thank you for your opinion. I disagree.

Not if they're shielded from them, which is the whole point of shielding.

We're still a long way off, I think estimates were al 3million exposed? approx. 4% of the population

Strategies “not put to the test”’ often fail at the desk based assessment. Either because they’re impractical, unworkable or frankly laughably bad.

4% of the population and 50,000 deaths. So are 800,000 deaths acceptable to get to 80% for a level of long term immunity that’s unknown?

As I’ve said before if any of these ideas were any good someone, somewhere would be putting them to the test and having neither the health nor soggnificant economic impacts. Yet, nobody does.

There’s work to zero or accept years of uncertainty and economic downturn.

In decades to come people will look back and ask why with all of human accomplishment to date they couldn’t keep 7 billion people apart as much as possible for 3 months give or take but instead accepted years of uncertainly and economic failure.

Madness.

Pierre

14-08-2020 16:53

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36046644)

41,000 dead, but let's not quibble over your 20% uplift. and of those only a very small number had no other contributing factor in addition to Covid.

I'm saying that we know the is a much lesser impact to the generally fit, not obese, younger (say u50 but not ltd to that) population.

Instead of Lockdowns which are just to much of a blunt instrument, These people should be able to go about their business, whilst still undertaking mitigations, if they are infected ride it out, it is unlikely they will die, or overwhelm the NHS.

Meanwhile all at risk groups should continue to shield.

Quote:

As I’ve said before if any of these ideas were any good someone, somewhere would be putting them to the test and having neither the health nor soggnificant economic impacts. Yet, nobody does.

We can't all be visionaries

Quote:

In decades to come people will look back and ask why with all of human accomplishment to date they couldn’t keep 7 billion people apart as much as possible for 3 months give or take but instead accepted years of uncertainly and economic failure.

Madness.

we tried the 3 months is up. time to think differently.

Sephiroth

14-08-2020 17:02

Re: Coronavirus

On a different note, the Oxford vaccine thing has gone very quiet for the past 4 weeks or so.

jfman

14-08-2020 17:32

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36046664)

We didn’t try hard enough for three months evidently. And we tied our hands behind our backs during herd immunity week with exponential growth in cases.

I look forward to further absurd propositions that fundamentally ignore the prime human instinct which is to survive and for their loved ones to survive.

There’s no normal without elimination or a vaccine and there never will be.

Middle class video conferencing users drive the hospitality sector. :)

---------- Post added at 17:32 ---------- Previous post was at 17:25 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36046665)

On a different note, the Oxford vaccine thing has gone very quiet for the past 4 weeks or so.

That’s because Oxford are essentially an arm of the British state. If there’s ever a story needed to deflect from Government scandal they will gratefully oblige.

Hugh	14-08-2020 17:36

Re: Coronavirus

Bolleaux - it’s because these things take time, and the last update was around 3 weeks ago, which isn’t very long in vaccine development time.

jfman

14-08-2020 17:37

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36046673)

Bolleaux - it’s because these things take time, and the last update was around 3 weeks ago, which isn’t very long in vaccine development time.

They do take time. But if you map news releases they’re mostly politically expedient. It got the alleged rapist off the front page for one.

It’s also statistically unlikely they’ll be successful with the vaccine anyway. But it’s patriotic.

Pierre

14-08-2020 17:52

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36046669)

We didn’t try hard enough for three months evidently. And we tied our hands behind our backs during herd immunity week with exponential growth in cases.

We rode out the wave, there is no second wave coming, we need to look a different ways of addressing fluctuations without primitive lockdowns.

Quote:

I look forward to further absurd propositions that fundamentally ignore the prime human instinct which is to survive and for their loved ones to survive.

it’s a sensible proposition to avoid lockdowns, which actually people are now just ignoring anyway.

Quote:

There’s no normal without elimination or a vaccine and there never will be.

I’m suggesting normal and never have, I’m suggesting different.

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:49.

Page 342 of 421