Re: Coronavirus
 

What, the risk of a holiday? It’s a risk I’ll take.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Fundamentally capitalism is why it can’t be left “down to judgment”. Unscrupulous individuals and employers will take the piss.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No need for any of it. Masks off, no distancing, or what’s the point? Vaccines work or they don’t.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Let’s not be silly. We will have pretty well all adults double vaccinated by 19 July, so there is no need for the restrictions to be in place any longer.

You don’t have a single bit of empathy for the businesses facing imminent closure and people being thrown out of work if the restrictions continue, and you couldn’t care less about the economy going down the pan.

The new Health Minister has made it clear - Covid will be around for some time yet - maybe forever - and we are just going to have to learn to live with it.

And don’t forget, jfman - you stated quite categorically that you don’t argue for the sake of it. We shall see.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I can't believe you'd risk a case of the sniffles to go on holiday.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That’s why we have the vaccinations, though. Have they ever done anything different to contain flu outbreaks?

Re: Coronavirus
 

The vaccine working or not isn’t binary - the question is the extent they work and how many people we vaccinate.

---------- Post added at 19:41 ---------- Previous post was at 19:39 ----------

This isn’t true. Even if it was - it’s still below the herd immunity threshold.

You are quite right I have absolutely no empathy for employers happy to risk the health of their staff and customers, who want to prolong the pandemic by driving up cases with reckless risk taking.

It’s an utterly indefensible position. No doubt you will try.

I’m not sure arguing with blatantly ridiculous points is “for the sake of it”.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Where does it say they want people who test positive to remain at work?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nope. The reason we have the vaccine is to get the virus under control so we can all get back to normality without a heightened fear of acquiring infection which is extremely unpleasant and can kill you.

This country has it under control now but some of you cannot bring yourselves to take that step to freedom.

Anyhow, nobody is forcing you on that plane. No-one is pressuring you to come out of that cupboard under the stairs where you have been hiding and no-one is telling you that you mustn’t step outside the door unless you are piped up to an oxygen tank.

It’s your choice. Although if after 19 July anyone crosses the road to avoid me, I shall exercise my right to be offended.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The implication in this statement is for those “not ill” to be at work. In other words asymptomatic cases.

---------- Post added at 19:53 ---------- Previous post was at 19:48 ----------

More absolute nonsense Old Boy.

Your callous disregard for health of employees in retail, hospitality and other customer facing sectors who have no choice but to work in this environment - who can’t just sit in retired with their 18 months of recordings on their Virgin set top box - is despicable.

You’ve been vaccinated twice but let’s get them out to work with no masks or distancing before they are.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Of course it’s not a callous disregard - it’s an acknowledgement that things have changed, which you are finding hard to take in.

Despite the increased infection rate, hospitalisations have scarcely increased.

You are scared of your own shadow.

Re: Coronavirus
 

A baseless statement at the end there, as ever you personalise it because you lack any substantive point.

If things have changed due to the vaccine why should young, taxpaying adults be denied the full protection of it before having to return to work in environments that leave them at risk without mitigations?

It’s completely a callous disregard. That said it isn’t particularly new for your input into the thread to understate the value of human health against the economy that simply isn’t going to recover while people rationally act in a risk averse manner.

Re: Coronavirus
 

1) a comment by ONE person.
2) Not showing symptoms doesn't preclude them getting tested.
3) Your ire should be reserved for those that were last year demanding weddings should be allowed to go ahead with 300-400 people from around the country attending. Especially when people were caught having weddings, funerals, and all sorts of gatherings, with dozens of people from around the country.

Re: Coronavirus
 

:D

:D:D:D:D:D


:rofl:

It’s the way you tell ‘em!

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’ve got plenty of ire to go round.

Not showing symptoms doesn’t preclude anyone getting tested but if people are to ignore test and protect in what circumstances would they get tested?

Almost certainly not where testing positive results in losing wages.

---------- Post added at 20:12 ---------- Previous post was at 20:10 ----------

If you’ve got a substantive point happy to discuss it, if not I’d call it a night at your end.

I’ve been consistent throughout the pandemic that there are no short cuts out of it. Others have clutched at straw after straw for 16 months. The latest being to understate the sweet spot where vaccinations reduce the numbers and/or that topping up the reduced efficacy of the vaccines vs delta with a few million infections is a good idea.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, where is your evidence that young unvaccinated people are dropping like flies from Covid?

There is none, so your point about not caring for them is moot.

You are arguing for the sake of it. Virtual normality will strike on 19 July, and about time too. Just the overseas travel to worry about now, and we will soon have a workable solution.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I had loads of straws to clutch, all to no avail.

I had to get rid of them in the end, I found they were causing sniffles, slight soreness in the throat, runny nose and itching of various body parts. Apparently that *could, possibly, maybe* mean I had some of the (now many) symptoms of Covid-19 (or hay fever).

:D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well OB you’ve been wrong before. To that end I take comfort in your confidence.

“Dropping like flies” isn’t the only negative health effect from Covid. Something you absolutely know but you continue to deliberately portray incorrect information surrounded by hyperbole.

I don’t know how you propose to strike virtual normality while 40% of the workforce will, rationally, continue working from home rather than risk catching an airborne virus running rife through society in an air conditioned office. Their employers won’t want the sick days either.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think the answers to your non-binary questions are:

1. Over 90% &

2. Millions including all at risk groups.

So again, masks off, distancing binned, full return to normal with no restrictions.


Your 2 requirements have been met, surely you will join me in advocating an end to all restrictions.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Absolutely not.

You know the vaccines aren’t 90% effective at preventing infection and transmission, and this increases the risk of further mutation. If it was true (90%) we wouldn’t be seeing the figures we are seeing now. Nor would we be planning boosters so soon.

Reducing hospitalisations is welcome, but doesn’t mean we can permit unmitigated and uncontrolled spread. Do you plan on getting out of your ivory tower on 20th July and spending more in the environments presently closed? If you won’t, who will?

Re: Coronavirus
 

well we’ve been here before. Pretty sure vaccine efficacy is at 90%+ but happy for you to provide evidence to the contrary.

Me? I’ve been out and about throughout. Remember I’m in a privileged position, lockdown never really applied to me.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Vaccine efficacy against infection against delta simply isn’t 90%. Repeating erroneous statements doesn’t increase their likelihood of becoming correct over time.

You can find evidence on the PHE website all by yourself. You’re a capable individual.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Post it then.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Pathetic! I’m not debating this with you anymore. You are completely paranoid. 19 July looms. Bolt your doors immediately!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nobody is stopping the terminally paranoid from staying in the cupboard under the stairs for the rest of their lives. The rest of us will be glad to get back to some form of normality and get rid of those horrible masks.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Precisely.

This isn’t what Pierre is portraying with his unsubstantiated 90% efficacy claim - even AstraZeneca’s own papers to the FDA put the efficacy against infection figure lower based on the original variants. More infections = more hospitalisations = more deaths even if efficacy against those is higher. You are still dealing with a proportion of a much larger number on the latter two as a result of the first. Less than before but there’s enough in there for a bad winter ahead if we arbitrarily abandon all mitigations.


---------- Post added at 10:09 ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 ----------

In fairness OB you’ve not been debating since the start. You’ve only been clutching at straws.

---------- Post added at 10:20 ---------- Previous post was at 10:09 ----------

Unfortunately masks is the easy one. Costs nothing.

Distancing does reduce capacity at venues having an economic impact. Masks don’t. What the Government does have is this carefully crafted “legal requirements” which allows them to keep masks in guidance but not regulations.

If people don’t want these things to creep back in later they need to continue with them for now. If we are asking people to exercise “good judgement” then my point above about the numbers of infections is key. Good judgement when there’s a few hundred cases a day and you’re extremely unlikely to encounter anyone with the virus is different from where statistically the chances of encountering someone are much higher. A commuter train is now statistically likely to have a number of active cases on it on average. In an air conditioned tin can. A rational commuter wouldn’t commute given the choice.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The majority of those testing positive appears to be age groups that haven't had even one vaccination yet.

Hence the open-doors walk-in centres that have been opened.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Efficacy against infection is an irrelevance, efficacy against serious illness, hospitalisation and death is what matters and the vaccines are 90+% effective against that metric.

Also not “unsubstantiated” you have a short memory

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=5957

Rejoice.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Your decision to describe it as an irrelevance does not make it so. Indeed, you have thought much is irrelevant since the start so forgive me if I doubt your scientific or intellectual vigor in relation to this subject.

My memory is not short - you are simply misrepresenting facts to suit your own agenda. Anyone can freely read the source you have linked to. You have quoted efficacy against hospitalisations, not infections. If more people get infected, more people will get hospitalised by comparison to a highly effective vaccine that prevents both.

I personally wouldn’t be rejoicing if I were you, as you’ve been disappointed before.

Seph’s question on transmission is also pertinent to how and when we get out of the pandemic.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well yes, Seph, however for them it’s been ideological from the start against state intervention. Regardless of the question the answer has always been no restrictions then a flimsy evidence gather to justify it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Like these ones?

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n888

Rejoice.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You know that doesn’t compare against the delta variant. And doesn’t count the AstraZeneca vaccine.

It’s somewhat ironic I accuse you of misrepresenting facts then you misrepresent facts in a clear and obvious manner. So I do thank you for providing context in that regard. It saves me making the effort.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Facts are facts, by the very definition of that I cannot mis-represent them. They are what they are, objective irrefutable facts.

You, however, can mis-interpret them. That’s subjective. Which you do, pretty much all the time.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Anyone can see that those figures do not present efficacy against infection, which as you say is an objective fact.

You almost acknowledged the difference above.

So to that end realise that efficacy against infection is not 90%+, but you don’t think it matters anyway.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, that and it being a study in the United States (so not against Delta) and without the AstraZeneca vaccine involved at all.

PHE figures are 88% for Pfizer and 60% AstraZeneca (2 doses) against the delta variant. Which is the real world situation on the ground in the UK. This drop is what’s pushed the UK further from the herd immunity threshold than it expected to be. The choice is between making the effort to plug the gap or not bother at all. Now we know some would have chosen option 2 regardless.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

An interesting read from outside the bubble of British Exceptionalism. Vaccine evasion in action and risks going forward.

https://assets.researchsquare.com/fi...f?c=1624377344

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s a good job I’m neither a clinician or a media stenographer. My conclusion was “an interesting read”.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Had you left it at the end of the first sentence I'd agree. As usual though you also had to add to it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

My second sentence merely addresses the subject at the heart of the paper so I fail to see why it’s so objectionable.

Time will tell as evidence arises elsewhere as to the veracity of the paper. Hopefully not in our hospitals.

Re: Coronavirus
 

For gods sake Don’t mention the F word.

You’ll have Hugh, pulling you up in July 2022 about it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I should have met my sister to restart or Saturday morning breakfasts in McDonald's.

But she called me to say her hubby did a LFT, and it said positive, so he's isolated himself in their bedroom that has on-suite, and she is on the sofa, her and the kids did a test, and it was negative, they will do another one on Monday.

So I'm on stand by to do their food shops.

My niece called her work, they are OK with it.

So until his LFTs show negative, or they test positive they won't join him, but if my sister goes positive she will join hubby and the kids will have to do the food.

Re: Coronavirus
 

They should all arrange to have PCR test, LFT's are OK but the PCR tests are better.

Re: Coronavirus
 

They should definitely get a PCR test ;

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/corona...e-test-result/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Also
A negative LFT doesn't mean he's clear of the disease. He needs to self-isolate as per the rules.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And the rest of the family too for 10 days, though it seems sensible to have the husband living slightly separately.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Wearing masks protects others from you, as long as other people are wearing them I'll extend the same courtesy, it'd be rude not to.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And while they could do as heero_yuy suggests it’s economically undesirable. People took that much personal responsibility in Sweden they went into recession anyway despite “no restrictions”.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Restrictions, especially those enforced via the law, do need to end at some point though. If the legal requirement isn't removed now then when? The summer strikes me as a useful point because any surge can happen now rather than the winter.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-57718061 I suspect that most champions of ‘personal freedom’ really mean only "their own personal freedom" and aren’t prepared to ensure that vulnerable people maintain their "personal freedom", or worry/care about the impact of Long COVID or further variants.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That’s assuming this government have the competence, or the will, to control said surge. If they’re just going to throw their hands up and let it rip so be it.

However I don’t think anyone should be acting under the pretence that this is a positive for the economy and/or wider public health to do so. If the response to an inevitable surge ends up with a significant number of people acting in a risk averse manner for a sustained period of time the businesses (and staff) many profess to be acting in the concern for will go to the wall anyway. All we’ve done is withdraw the financial support packages that have been in place for 17 months. That said for some I suspect that’s entirely the point.

I’ll be the first to put my hands up and say businesses need financial support and I’m happy for the state to do so. I wonder how many join me?

---------- Post added at 10:24 ---------- Previous post was at 09:51 ----------

https://www.timesofisrael.com/minist...s-delta-cases/

Israel considering limits on large gatherings and bringing back Covid certificates to access certain venues/events. Just as well we’re exceptional.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Hopefully we're on the same trajectory to have Covid as threatening as normal flu once enough people have been jabbed and/or have had Covid.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Notably Singapore announced this over a week ago, and described it as a process “over the next few months”.

While The Sun are presenting this as if our Government are doing the same/similar it’s quite a significant difference from let it rip. Their starting point - for as and when they move to this - is also significantly better with cases averaging in the low double digits per day across the whole population. We have the low treble digits per 100k.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You can't get long flu but you can get long Covid though.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Strange how 'long covid' has become a major talking point, yet the health issues reportedly known (and some as yet unknown) by the vaccines are seemingly classed as a risk worth taking . . .

Re: Coronavirus
 

When they say “live with it like the flu” and we say it we mean fundamentally different things. When they say they plan to not publish daily figures it’s because figures in the low tens across an entire population are meaningless. At the point of vaccine maximisation the chances of meeting an infected person with prevalence that low is near-zero.

The chances of a vaccinated person catching Covid reduces the chance of infection even further, with a greater chance of asymptomatic infection, lower risk of hospitalisation, death and onward transmission.

They don’t mean 150,000 or more people getting infected per week is acceptable.

When they say they won’t report daily testing figures it’s because the effective monitoring will be hospital admissions. If half a dozen people rock up on the same day to the same hospital you’d quickly find that area and region back in SARS response mode - test, trace, isolate etc.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Post-viral syndrome.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Of course you, you can get long term after affects from contracting any virius.

"Long Covid" is just a catchy name

Long term after affects of a recent novel flu virius researched here

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17497-6

---------- Post added at 16:02 ---------- Previous post was at 15:59 ----------

I think the younger generation have done their bit.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Whatever rules are put in place, I will still wear a mask inside for the foreseeable future.


I know that people on my town's FB page that there will be no difference, as they have refused to wear them since day one.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Boris along with some comforting words ignoring the science any minute now to the glee of many. Let’s hope the dice roll is two sixes or it’s lockdown by September.

At this stage Israel had vaccine certification, retained masks, distancing etc. to support opening up in a safe manner.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No matter how the dice rolls, we'll be in lockdown again soon . . . haven't you heard of the four new variants being readied for release? ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

The government have been suckling on the teet of these new powers for a long time now, and they like it. The sooner they can get back on the tit, the better for them.

Re: Coronavirus
 

They’ll be using emergency powers again soon enough, Pierre so I’d not worry too much.

The problem with leaving things to personal judgement - e.g. distancing, masks is that it puts wider public health at the mercy of the stupidest people in society. Those who at worst are covid-deniers and at best are just going to take risks regardless downplaying symptoms they have in their own mind and neither testing nor isolating.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Agreed and, if infections get out of hand, it will allow the Government to blame the public.

I suspect it won't be too long before they have no choice but to reintroduce restrictions or even a lockdown again.

This is all about Johnson wanting to appear the good guy as well as curtailing the financial cost of furlough etc.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You could be a virologist - the more people who get infected, the greater the likelihood of more variants appearing.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So why send kids back to school then, or allow fans back into sporting events, and why did we let Biden and the rest in a few weeks ago?

Oh, and what's the point of a vaccine if we can still catch and spread Covid? (careful how you answer that one) :p:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Because the vaccine has been proven to reduce deaths and hospitalisation - it reduces the impact, it doesn’t eliminate it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes it does reduce (and has reduced) serious illness & deaths. In fact I'm sure that it's done this so effectively that 99.99% of those who were at risk are no longer at risk.

I believe most of the infections now are among the younger generation, those who are believed to be at a low risk of developing a severe bout, and 'apparently' shouldn't get vaccinated anyway.

https://www.who.int/emergencies/dise...accines/advice
Then there are those who are unfortunate to have a condition that prevents them from being vaccinated, or introduces more risks to their health if they are. I guess 'trials' are ongoing with this group also.

Finally we have those who, for whatever reason, have decided they can't be bothered to get vaccinated, and unless it becomes mandatory they will always pose a risk . . or die trying.

So (ha) it seems to me that although the vast majority of those at risk of serious illness & death are covered, we still have the ongoing scenario of new variants because everyone - vaccinated or not - can still spread it around.

In a year or two's time, when eventually there is a safe vaccine developed for kids and those currently unable to vaccinate, we will still have the same situation . . . everyone can catch it and spread it . . more variants incoming.

Masks for life :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

So just like every other virus we live with (and always have).

So why are we still hiding, and still following pointless restrictions ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Who is hiding?

If anything folk are more likely to selectively withdraw their discretionary spending in the economy against a backdrop of 350,000 infections a week and knuckle draggers start burning their “muzzles”.

Re: Coronavirus
 

*350,000 infections a week*

Are we talking world wide figures or just the UK?

and by infections, are we talking definite "oooh I'm poorly and gone to hospital" or simply "I got a text telling me I'm ill" :D


edit: as an example 'there are currently 279,000 children at home self-isolating in England because they were deemed to have close contact with an infected person at school'

Re: Coronavirus
 

I just used the figure Boris used of 50k a day by July 19 - that figure would be a positive test not a contact of one.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That position was taken on here a long time ago.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There are over 60 strains of flu virus circulating. I don't think we should be so hung up over coronavirus 'variants'. The vaccinations will be adjusted to cope with these over time, just as happens every year with flu vaccines.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Back full circle eh Old Boy it’s just a flu?

Unfortunately due to no mitigations at all even the most competent Government with the most efficient vaccine rollout will find that (once developed) the logistics of distribution will be slower than the spread of the virus.

Get your next line ready are we going for “it’ll go away in the summer” or “just shield the vulnerable”?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

How about, 'As high as 100,000 per day'

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b1878770.html

It will be interesting to see the deaths data in a couple of weeks from the current data so a very crude extrapolation can be made

Re: Coronavirus
 

Interesting write-up of yesterday's press conference on Sky News.
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...amble-12349497

Re: Coronavirus
 

How about realising that these figures are speculative guesswork of a 'worse case scenario' type.

Much the same as changing my Gas supplier *could* save me *up to* £14 Trillion a year . . . but probably won't :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

You're aware I directly quoted 'As high' , right? At no point did i say they would definitely reach that level.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Javid’s quoting that figure now.

The question is with figures growing what will slow it if we aren’t using masks, isolating when close contacts of positive cases etc. If the answer is nothing, then as Vallance says we are doubling every 9 days and that’s likely to get worse.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Reduces deaths and hospitalisations by 90%, against a virus were deaths and hospitalisations amongst the population were already less that 1% of the population.

Re: Coronavirus
 

1% of U.K. is 660000 - doesn’t sound so small then…

10% of 660000 is 66,000 - not a small figure.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Let's not forget those on the site who have been personally impacted by Covid for whom statistics are of far less concern.


But governments do have to work at the statistics level and if the figures are showing that while infections are growing the pressure on the NHS is far less so than before is there need to maintain all the rules currently in place?


This is a novel virus, we aren't used to it so it hits us hard (like smallpox/common cold on native Americans). I think part of the hope is that vaccinations will help build up a more general immunity to the Covid19 type virus so it does become more like the flu (I'm sure this keeps coming round) and it's then a balancing act of building up that herd immunity and keeping death/hospital case lower.


At government level it is a balancing act between economy, health, individuals, groups, science, politics and so on. And lots of vested interests in each or various of these. And for some no matter what and whoever make decisions it will be the wrong one.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I wonder why no modelling has been released (perhaps it has and i haven't seen it) which shows predicted hospitalisations, deaths etc. on Aug 19th based on on 'Freedom Day'

Re: Coronavirus
 

Let's break that down then shall we?

UK population - 67million

Total that have had at least one Jab - 45.5 million

= 21.5 million (now some of them may have already had Covid and have antibodies but we'll ignore that)

50,000 infections a day + 77,000 vaccinations a day = 127,000 people per day that will have antibodies either through infection or vaccination.

just based on that in a 170 days statistically the "entire UK population" would have Covid antibodies.

There is nowhere for the Virus to go.

---------- Post added at 10:25 ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 ----------

Unfortunately, in the great scheme if things.........it is.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I realise this following information was published by Yale University on June 15, 2021 but I have only just seen it and thought it could be of interest to other people on here.

Maybe suffering from a Cold may have a beneficial side effect against both Covid 19 and Influenza during the coming winter months.

https://scitechdaily.com/common-cold...ovid-19-virus/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Maybe because it's hard to model cases on the likely behaviour of people suddenly released to "party". Even putting aside injury, if crowds behave differently to "normal" because of lockdown (i.e. closer, more "intimate", distant, less "intimate") and that impacts spread in ways we don't know.


There is probably a worst case scenario being planned for and Boris time and again has urged people to be sensible.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think you're may be possibly missing a point here, immunity/antibodies don't last forever, whilst there are plans for booster jabs in the autumn, there will be parts of the population whose immunity is probably on the wane already. couple that with those who refuse the vaccine and those that cannot have the vaccine leads to the virus always having somewhere to go.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Looks like the opinion of most people - whether experts or not - is that Covid19 is not going away, either with or without booster vaccinations.

Add to this that opinions are divided on whether new variants will be more transmissible with greater severity, but let's err on the side of caution and say they will be.

We now have a scenario where Covid19 is progressing steadily (or rapidly) into a highly contagious killer that cannot be controlled.
Once the death rate surpasses the birth rate, the human population is on a downward spiral to oblivion - the much favoured worst case scenario.

We're doomed, so the only advice I have to offer is borrow as much money as you can and spend it with glee, quit work and do whatever takes your fancy, don't bother mowing the lawn, decorating, or building that new kitchen extension, binge watch all the TV you've been putting off, and drink/eat anythingl you like . . there is no tomorrow :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Assuming no overlap between infections and those vaccinated which in Israel they are now reporting efficacy of Pfizer has dropped - there’s an emerging link between more opportunities to be infected reducing the efficacy of vaccines.

170 days and millions of chances of a new variant emerging against partially effective vaccines, I can’t wait to see what happens next.

---------- Post added at 11:02 ---------- Previous post was at 11:01 ----------

It’s certainly not going to go away if we don’t try - that’s for sure.

Re: Coronavirus
 

How much of any reduction in deaths and hospitalisations are simply because of lockdown and people taking precautions(eg wearing masks)?
Will that reduction persist after those limiting factors are removed? No guarantee either way.

Altogether too many unknowns to give a certain answer of any sort. The only possibility of certainty is with zero cases in circulation.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm not buying that at all, we were able to model the 'let it rip' scenario which led to the 1st lockdown, I'm pretty sure the boffins can come up with some sort of scenario planning to include behavior modification based on varying percentages of society.