Re: Coronavirus
 

Kids can spread Covid amongst themselves and their parents can still go to work. This will go well I am certain of it.

It’s almost as if there’s more money for hedge funds to make while the economy flounders in the next lockdown. What did Mogg’s mob say? Once in a generation opportunity? Now twice in two years.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It will, because their parents are vaccinated and the people they work with are vaccinated.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, the vaccinated will catch Covid in significant numbers and self isolate.

For businesses forced to close as a result of inevitable Covid outbreaks do you support financial support schemes for them and their workers? I didn’t catch you or OB responding to my question the last time so apologies if I missed it. After all we do want the economy to recover, don’t we?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Doesn't completely prevent the transmission of the virus, won't stop all serious illness or death due to Covid. As per my earlier post, we have now modelling data to suggest what will happen once the band aid has been ripped off the wound.

Every serious hospitalization or death is someone's loved one

I kind of agree with what you're saying in this instance, but I think you're being incredibly blase in the way you're saying it. Almost sociopathic.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You're both on the road to constant lock down . . one hopes you don't run out of fuel and end up thumbing a lift :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Britain is on the road to lock down. I'm trying to tell everyone how to avoid it.

There's no magic return to 2019.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not at all, I recognise that we're through the most dangerous part of the pandemic (so far) and that we need to now get the country going.

The difference being i think we should act with a degree more caution than we are doing. Boris last night to me acted like it's all or nothing when it's not a binary choice.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why will there be covid outbreaks, if the vast, vast majority of people are vaccinated and stay vaccinated?

---------- Post added at 16:10 ---------- Previous post was at 16:09 ----------

As already answered it is less than 10% of an already small number.

---------- Post added at 16:12 ---------- Previous post was at 16:10 ----------

If that doesn't work out you can always hold a sign for a "golf sale"

Re: Coronavirus
 

You’ll never stop the argument, Pierre. I don’t know whether they seriously do take this stance or are just spoiling for an argument. Even the government’s scientific advisors recognise that the benefits of ending the restrictions now outweigh the disbenefits, and that it is better to do it now rather than in the autumn.

I wonder why these same people are not campaigning to have men and women with red flags walking ahead of every car on the road, given the number of accidents causing death or serious injury each year on the roads.

In the UK, the number stands at 26,610 killed or seriously injured. I don’t hear those same people bleating on about that. We tolerate it because we need to get about and live our lives.

I can only think that the lockdown enthusiasts are on furlough or otherwise lead very boring lives.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think you are really referring to Scotland, not Britain. Little Jimmy Crankie is doing such a wonderful job.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-57712737

Re: Coronavirus
 

660,000 is not a small number…

And the 1% referred to infection fatality rate, not infection fatality & hospitalisation rate…

Re: Coronavirus
 

They get infected. Infected leading to varying outcomes including death.

All that’s happened is we have nudged the dial on these numbers. However as Hugh points out across the entire population that can still be a considerable number.

However in fairness you didn’t believe the original figures were enough to merit restrictions or lockdowns therefore it’s improbable that you’d reach a different, evidence based, conclusion this time.

---------- Post added at 16:58 ---------- Previous post was at 16:57 ----------

Exponential growth means they’ll catch up soon enough without mitigations.

---------- Post added at 17:01 ---------- Previous post was at 16:58 ----------

Coming from the man who has offered the worst input consistently throughout the pandemic. You must be really bored to go out your way to come back with wholly inaccurate and speculative retorts so frequently. It’s ironic you accuse others of “spoiling for an argument” when nobody - anywhere in the thread - is advocating a lockdown.

What I’m assuring you is that it’s absolutely inevitable without any other mitigations in place to prevent the spread of the virus. As it always has been.

Re: Coronavirus
 

1% is a small number.

0.19% of total population have died from Covid in total

0.25% die from cancer every year (and that will increase on this year as cancer sufferers have been sacrificed due to Covid)

of the "known" infections 4.93 million 128K have died, that's a mortality rate of 2.6% (and that's a bottom end estimate as there will have been millions infected and not tested. You could probably half that easily and more.)

367K get cancer every year and 166K die. that's a mortality rate of 45%.

I know what I would be scared of getting.

No matter what way you try to carve it up. COVID still is a relatively mild infection, that still mainly affected the elderly and those with co-morbidities and kills a very small % of those it infects, and now with Vaccines offering 90%, and other anti-viral and anti-inflammatory treatments that are available the chances of very serious illness and death is low, in fact they're at rates as low as the "flu" yes, I said it again.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You put this one best yourself when you described your privileged position, Pierre. You’ve been unaffected by restrictions.

Fortunate indeed, but as the restrictions are to protect people from “at risk” situations then it’s clear they aren’t designed to protect people like you. While it’s perfectly rational for you to have concern for medical conditions that aren’t contagious (e.g. cancer) not everyone is in that situation. It’s also a bad way to manage public health at a population level.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Also including "not death" & "not getting ill" & "getting slightly ill" & "getting seriously ill" and several other states in between before, in a fully vaccinated population, you get to the very small number of people that may die, which in great scheme of things probably wouldn't even make the UK mortality top 20.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...auses-of-death

It certainly didn't make the top 10 in England & Wales last month.