Coronavirus (OLD)

Originally Posted by joglynne

Published to-day by Imperial College London.


https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/2018...ibody-testing/

Couple of interesting points from that ;

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.

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]

The shielded group would naturally be least likely.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

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]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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? 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]

Originally Posted by nomadking

All groups? So who operates all the essential services? 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]

Originally Posted by jfman

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 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

All groups? So who operates all the essential services? 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.

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]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Why?

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

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]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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]

Originally Posted by jfman

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?

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.

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

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]

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

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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.

We can't all be visionaries

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

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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.

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.