Re: Coronavirus
 

Because we locked down later I guess and got it over and done with in one.

---------- Post added at 19:25 ---------- Previous post was at 19:19 ----------

The difference is that the 'Beast from the East' didn't last for months.

Lockdowns are extremely damaging in so many ways, so it is sensible of the PM to rule out another one.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is absolutely no evidence for this, it is simply your latest line grasping at the straw that the virus will simply go away. None of the serology testing indicate that antibodies are more prevalent in the UK population than Spain, Italy or France. The Government advice is that we are 2-4 weeks behind Spain/France etc and that steps are required to prevent the situation becoming desperate.

Yet he hasn't ruled out another one - he's spending £100bn on his operation moonshot to desperately avoid one.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I have already pointed out that there is a school of thought that our late lockdown could have resulted in the peak of the virus being relatively unaffected by that lockdown.

Interesting that evidence that is out there you ignore if it doesn't suit your agenda. The experience of Sweden, with its minimal emergency measures, is particularly interesting in this regard.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But if a mask worn by an infected person, protects others, then that won't happen, ie the infected person has to NOT be wearing a mask for this alleged effect to take place. Then you also have spreading by contact.

Re: Coronavirus
 

A 'school of thought' - in other words idle speculation. You can continue to bury your head in the sand all you please, but when we follow France and Italy into the 10,000 infections a day category and it inevitably overspills into the at risk age groups you can't say you weren't warned.

Is that Sweden where they closed the high schools and everyone that can work from home is working from home? Sweden that is also taking a hit on GDP? All the data points towards people adhering in some respect to scientific recommendations. Behaviour that your average "I know better than scientists" Brit moron would be incapable of doing voluntarily.

You're once again living in a fantasy world based on selective use of information. The good news is it's impossible for us to go down the Sweden route without overwhelming the NHS, hundreds of thousands of deaths, and people will not stand for it.

The capitalist wet dream of normal isn't ever coming back.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Exactly how does not being exposed to something grant you immunity from it :confused:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Repeatedly, without evidence...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Blind optimism.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The mask still can expose you to the virus but under the theory they're talking about here the mask exposes you to a smaller viral load thus making the infection you subsequently catch less aggressive. Having the infection at all then grants you immunity.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You've not backed this up with any evidence, Old Boy. We were able to find one maths professor in Bristol who had modelled this but he was subsequently discredited.

I'm no fan of lockdowns due to the negative economic and social impact they have. But given the situation in UK hospitals, which presumably Sweden didn't have, we had no choice.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Anti-bodies are not the only metric, if you listened to the interview with the doctor that I posted, he put forward that a large % of the population would already have T-cell immunity.

So if anti-body test come in negative doesn’t mean you haven’t already had and combatted the virus.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/2018...-help-protect/

Re: Coronavirus
 

There's no solid evidence for this, merely optimistic speculation. A few of you do have a lot of immediate buy-in to anything that tells you what you want to hear - that the virus isn't serious/will go away by itself/we can go back to normal with little/no restrictions.

Hundreds are now testing positive every day in the 'at risk' age groups. Hospitalisations are creeping up. Test, trace, isolate is falling apart at the seams and the Government are preparing for telling 4.6 million people (customers?) to shield for an almost indefinite period of time.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Thank you Mr Doom & Gloom, you must be a real blast at parties. :erm:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Unless they're surgical masks, masks don't prevent or filter 100% of the mucus from your breathing from spreading, it just cuts it down quite a bit. Likewise if you're wearing one. The idea is that a tiny portion of the virus might still make its way into your system and your body will be able to fight it off before it takes hold (Asymptomatic) - and thus you've got the antibodies. It also suggests that even if you do develop symptons, the'll be much lesser than if you'd had a lot more exposure.

I mean it makes sense really. It might also explain why numbers were so high in the beginning and have dropped considerably. It would also explain why hospitalisation/death rates haven't gone up as much as recent infection rates.

But still, it's completely unproven at this point. Science, innit.

So this late lockdown results in both the peak being unaffected, but also prevents a second lockdown? So...did it have an effect or not?

You're peddling this one, you could just cite one source instead of gesturing broadly towards sweden.

Hey, the virus doesn't give a hoot if you're an optimist or a pessimist.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The way the immune system works is that antibodies disappear after a few months, so no antibodies doesn't meant you're not immune. It would be wasteful of the immune system to be constantly churning out antibodies for every single thing you've come across in your lifetime without the antigen(virus etc) being present.
Differences between Primary and Secondary Immune Response

Link