Re: Coronavirus
 

Leading expert says issue of long COVID 'slightly overblown'

Some more now from Professor Sir John Bell, regius professor of medicine at Oxford University, who's been giving his thoughts on the pandemic today.

He said he believed the issue of long COVID "has been slightly overblown", with "proper epidemiological studies" finding the incidence of it is "much lower than people had anticipated".

Sir John told Times Radio he agreed with England's chief medical officer, Professor Chris Whitty, that the vast majority of children would get infected without a jab.

But he added there are "no bad consequences" in children with COVID and "I don't think there's any reason to panic".

He said: "I don't think we're going to have a lot of children in intensive care units. And in fact, the evidence is we don't, we never have."

The likelihood of severe disease is quite small, he added.
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-new...emand-12406800

Re: Coronavirus
 

I always question the credibility of people who contradict themselves within a mere few sentences.

“No bad consequences”. Makes a great headline. Clear. Definitive. Absolute.

“I don't think” feature twice in the follow up. Speculation. Guesswork.

“a lot of children” subjective.

“is quite small” subjective and sounds very likely to be non-zero. Quite a climbdown from “no bad consequences”.

What he means to say is there’s some bad consequences but as long as the coin keeps coming in for saying the right things at the right time he thinks that’s a price worth paying.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Since there are 13 million under-16s in the U.K., ”quite small" could be "quite a lot"…

Re: Coronavirus
 

Professor Chris Witty reckons half of children have already had it:



Seeing as they're not queueing round the block to get into ICU suggests that the effects are mild.

Re: Coronavirus
 

or it could be 6,but what does he know he's only a leading expert.

Re: Coronavirus
 

2016 mate. We’ve had enough of experts.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You are far too word-pedantic, jfman. I’d stick to ranting about ‘linear’ if I were you.

The number of children who even know they’ve had Covid is vanishingly small. Nothing to see here, let’s move on.

---------- Post added at 15:01 ---------- Previous post was at 15:00 ----------

Quite, Heero.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If there’s ever someone to wade in with speculative nonsense upon speculative nonsense it’s you OB.

I take it Covid will go away by itself next summer as it didn’t last, nor this.

I’m not being pedantic. Those are his actual words presented in context from the quoted article.

If he believes mass transmission between children is a price worth paying then he should say that. Not the words he actually said.

We know where you stand regardless with your persistently discredited shield the vulnerable.

Re: Coronavirus
 

All of us on here, I think, know what was meant by the words used.

As for me, I stand by the things I have said previously on this subject, jfman, based on what was known at the time I said them.

Why would we not want to shield the vulnerable?

You really are a hindsight visionary of the first order.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As others have said, there are some words doing some heavy lifting there that don't inspire confidence. It also assumes that the sole reason to vaccinate children is to stop them getting ill which is not necessarily the case. Yes, it stops kids getting sick, it may also lower the number of kids being kept at home due to positive test but most importantly, it will lower the chances of infecting those that will get seriously ill if they get it.

That's a decision we have had to make in our house. My mother (in her mid-70s) lives at the other end of the country and we have not seen her in real life for getting on for two years. She's double jabbed and so am I and my wife but the kids weren't and the infection rate in kids is pretty high. Knowing that they will get the jab next week gives me the confidence that the chance of giving her COVID that sneaks past her vaccination is much lower. It's the old 'Swiss cheese' for lowering risk. Getting the kids vaccinated adds another layer of 'cheese'.

This was also how I sold the vaccination to my kids. One hates jabs but lowering the risk of infecting their nan was incentive enough. I also used the example of HPV jabs for boys as they are of that age. My two are girls who really need the HPV jab. Boys don't, they get warts, not cervical cancer but jabbing boys lowers the risk for girls on top of their own jabs.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Rubbish.

I’ll stick to jonbxx and others insights on this subject as opposed to your Covid denialism.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Singapore moving to tighten restrictions due to a spike in cases/release pressure on healthcare

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-p...ns-2021-09-24/

Re: Coronavirus
 

I have never denied Covid exists, and I think it is now clear to most people with their eyes open that immunisation by infection is the only way we are going to rid ourselves of this disease.

Fortunately, we now have vaccines, which enable most of us to acquire the infection without major ill effects. Infection provides a so much better immune response than vaccination alone, and it lasts longer.

Ultimately, there is a prospect that this virus will die naturally as long as we don’t actually stop the virus from infecting people. That is why further lockdowns would do more harm than good.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Anything to add on the substantive point OB or is it Friday night and you are just bored? Was I being pedantic or offering reasonable comment?

Re: Coronavirus
 

According to the British Society for Immunology, that statement is not true.

https://www.immunology.org/coronavir...ection-vaccine https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1632516536

Also…

https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/co...us-vaccination