Coronavirus

[jfman]

Whatever the outcome it won’t be a u-turn.

---------- Post added at 10:40 ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Typical Union hysteria.

Proof that student health and well-being is far down on their list of priorities.

Neither of these are justifications for their members to work in unsafe environments, or to ignore the wider public health implications of a “schools open at all costs” approach.

I do however welcome the renewed interest in child welfare. I trust that politicians and right wing talking heads will push for greater funding in schools, social work and to eradicate child poverty long after Covid-19 has been consigned to history.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

Spread through the healthy population until it mutates again possibly in to something worse - you know like the super contagious version we've got now except with a much higher mortality rate. Then how does your idea stack up when a much higher percentage of the population is suddenly vulnerable?

The virus may mutate through transmission, but the longer it has to do that, the more likely mutations will occur. That should be blindingly obvious, surely?

The idea of letting the virus run through the healthy population is to achieve herd immunity, so that the more vulnerable people don't get infected. With the vaccine we now have, your question can be answered more confidently. Concentrate those inoculations on the vulnerable and the health workers and you've clinched it.

---------- Post added at 10:51 ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Just my humble opinion but i think all schools should remain closed until February and then get re assessed.

But why do that if testing is introduced at the school gates?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The virus may mutate through transmission, but the longer it has to do that, the more likely mutations will occur. That should be blindingly obvious, surely?

The more people it infects the more likely it is for mutations to occur. Your flawed idea literally gives it billions more opportunities to mutate globally.

But why do that if testing is introduced at the school gates?

Is there a plan to have testing available at every school in January? If not then it’s purely theoretical and the point is moot.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

The more people it infects the more likely it is for mutations to occur. Your flawed idea literally gives it billions more opportunities to mutate globally.

Is there a plan to have testing available at every school in January? If not then it’s purely theoretical and the point is moot.

The greater the number of people that get it, the greater the number of people that will be immune to any new variant that comes along. The basic method of vaccines is to "infect" people with a harmless variant.
Weaker variants can develop as easily as stronger ones.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55511662

Dr Bousted told BBC Breakfast she hoped a closure of all schools would give time for a mass-testing system to be set up, but called for this to be led by public health bodies.

"In secondary schools for 1,000 pupils you will need about 21 volunteers to do this testing because teachers can't do it and the support staff can't do it because they will be teaching and supporting children's learning."

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

I don’t really think the national pandemic response should be led by localised anecdotal evidence, or individual preferences.

Yes, why not just ignore the electorate altogether, jfman? There’s a need for a balanced view, but you are taking an unrealistic hard line medical approach, which just won’t wash.

Anyway, time to get positive, if this forum can muster up enough positivity. We have a vaccine, it’s being delivered in order of priority and the virus will be under control within weeks.

I get Maggy’s concern about infections being rife in schools, but children are largely unaffected by the virus. Vulnerable people need to keep isolated as much as possible in the meantime until they get their jabs, which will be administered within weeks.

We will be able to look forward to a return to normality this spring/summer, with the removal of all restrictions. Good news at last, just waiting now for all your downsides....

---------- Post added at 11:21 ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

The more people it infects the more likely it is for mutations to occur. Your flawed idea literally gives it billions more opportunities to mutate globally.

My flawed idea?

The idea of protecting the vulnerable reduces the number of people it infects! Lockdowns only slow the virus, but it will go on to infect the same number of people in the end, (when the lockdown measures are relaxed again) but over a longer timescale, which is more dangerous.

Fortunately, the vaccine gives us more options now.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, why not just ignore the electorate altogether, jfman? There’s a need for a balanced view, but you are taking an unrealistic hard line medical approach, which just won’t wash.

Anyway, time to get positive, if this forum can muster up enough positivity. We have a vaccine, it’s being delivered in order of priority and the virus will be under control within weeks.

I get Maggy’s concern about infections being rife in schools, but children are largely unaffected by the virus. Vulnerable people need to keep isolated as much as possible in the meantime until they get their jabs, which will be administered within weeks.

We will be able to look forward to a return to normality this spring/summer, with the removal of all restrictions. Good news at last, just waiting now for all your downsides....

It’s your perpetual defeatism over lockdown/waiting for vaccines that contributes most of the negativity, Old Boy.

You claim that treating a pandemic as a health issue won’t wash when restrictions are still well supported by the public as a whole. I must have missed the referendum on it, but as I’m sure you are aware we aren’t a direct democracy in any case.

I’d hoped you’d learned not to clutch at optimistic straw after optimistic straw throughout the pandemic but evidently not. The removal of all restrictions is very unrealistic in the timeframe you propose.

My flawed idea?

The idea of protecting the vulnerable reduces the number of people it infects! Lockdowns only slow the virus, but it will go on to infect the same number of people in the end, (when the lockdown measures are relaxed again) but over a longer timescale, which is more dangerous.

Fortunately, the vaccine gives us more options now.

As I say, your flawed idea.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Yes, it was a u-turn. BoJo ignored evidence-based arguments and only changed his mind when a court case was threatened.

Per the Sky News article I linked to https://news.sky.com/story/all-londo...-turn-12177017

I know you like Bojo bashing but read the article you linked to and come back and tell me who threatened who with a court case.

It certainly wasn't the Government being threatened with one.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The virus may mutate through transmission, but the longer it has to do that, the more likely mutations will occur. That should be blindingly obvious, surely??

It is all a bit statistical but mutations happen when the virus reproduces so the more generations of virus reproduction that occur, the more mutations will be seen. However, mutations are random (on the whole, some sites are more likely to have issues than others in the virus genome) A mutation can happen at generation 1 or generation 1 billion. Some mutations will be silent with no change whatsoever in the virus, some will render the virus inactive and some can change the virus behaviour.

Here are some numbers...

The SARS-COV-2 genome is roughly 30,000 letters long and the mutation rate is 10^-4 per letter per year so, on average, there will be 3 mutations across the whole genome in 1 year. BUT, this assumes that the disease is not infectious. If one person infects another, then you double the number of virus reproductions and so the numbers of mutations double. If they infect others, the number of reproductions increase along with this.

Because lockdowns reduces the number of infections, it reduces the number of viral reproduction cycles and will therefore reduce the numbers of mutations. If someone catches the disease and the virus develops a really nasty mutation but they don’t infect anyone due to lockdowns and isolation, that strain becomes extinct.

Hope this makes sense!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, why not just ignore the electorate altogether, jfman? There’s a need for a balanced view, but you are taking an unrealistic hard line medical approach, which just won’t wash.

Anyway, time to get positive, if this forum can muster up enough positivity. We have a vaccine, it’s being delivered in order of priority and the virus will be under control within weeks.

I get Maggy’s concern about infections being rife in schools, but children are largely unaffected by the virus. Vulnerable people need to keep isolated as much as possible in the meantime until they get their jabs, which will be administered within weeks.

We will be able to look forward to a return to normality this spring/summer, with the removal of all restrictions. Good news at last, just waiting now for all your downsides....

---------- Post added at 11:21 ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 ----------

My flawed idea?

The idea of protecting the vulnerable reduces the number of people it infects! Lockdowns only slow the virus, but it will go on to infect the same number of people in the end, (when the lockdown measures are relaxed again) but over a longer timescale, which is more dangerous.

Fortunately, the vaccine gives us more options now.

Really?

Even if we vaccinate at the rate of a million per week, it will take over a year to hit 70% of the population (herd immunity levels)

And the CMOs say there will be vaccine shortages for the next couple of months.

https://www.ft.com/content/d97c72c5-...c-9cc10b21f007

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Really?

Even if we vaccinate at the rate of a million per week, it will take over a year to hit 70% of the population (herd immunity levels)

And the CMOs say there will be vaccine shortages for the next couple of months.

https://www.ft.com/content/d97c72c5-...c-9cc10b21f007

Let him clutch at his straw, Hugh!

[Carth]

All these arguments about closing schools . . . can we apply the same to food factories please?


see how far that gets you

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Carth

All these arguments about closing schools . . . can we apply the same to food factories please?


see how far that gets you

We all appreciate the hard work done by our food factory hero's

Now shut up and get back to work that food won't make itself

[Mr K]

*Deleted* Just trolling again.

[Carth]

but . . but . . a third of us could/may/potentially be asymptomatic and spreading it merrily among our colleagues friends and families

Surely that's reason enough to shut everywhere down for at least 3 weeks to eliminate the potential spread of this virus . . and the good news is that it could/may/potentially lead to a lowering of the transmission risk when warehouses and delivery drivers are laid off too

oh, and bugger all to buy in shops would mean less shoppers spreading it, what could possibly go wrong?


Maybe we should stop all football matches too . . oh hang on *££ kerching ££*