Coronavirus (OLD)

[denphone]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

Only read headline but was mentioning that though thousands have looked at or expressed interest in fruit/veg picking (tens of thousands of positions) only hundred or so have actually turned up.

Is this fear of mixing, unable to travel, or other reasonable reason or just that people don't want to do the job? Do the government need to be maybe firmer with those whose salaries they are picking up? My wife said she did the job one season while a student, lots of those not at college at the moment.

A Government minister has issued a statement about this a few minutes ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/li...latest-updates

The government is to step up its campaign to find British workers to pick fruit and vegetables during the coronavirus lockdown.

Environment, food and rural affairs minister Lord Gardiner of Kimble said farms currently had sufficient seasonal labour.

But he said the campaign to plug the gap left by having fewer pickers from abroad would be “escalated” next month.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Great, just point us to the evidence that herd immunity works for this virus?

Congrats on the vaccine call !

There's nothing positive OR negative yet on herd immunity. In animal tests, reinfection did not occur (link note, preprint and not peer reviewed) This gives some confidence.

There is clinical evidence that patients who tested positive and recovered tested positive again but it is not clear if this is a reinfection or a reactivation of the virus. There are growing suspicions that the sensitivity of commercial tests might be causing at least some cases of reoccurring infections (link)

There are a lot of unknowns here and when there are unknowns, there are risks

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

There's nothing positive OR negative yet on herd immunity. In animal tests, reinfection did not occur (link note, preprint and not peer reviewed) This gives some confidence.

There is clinical evidence that patients who tested positive and recovered tested positive again but it is not clear if this is a reinfection or a reactivation of the virus. There are growing suspicions that the sensitivity of commercial tests might be causing at least some cases of reoccurring infections (link)

There are a lot of unknowns here and when there are unknowns, there are risks

Precisely, so anyone claiming that we should just let 'herd immunity' take it's course is in fact a dribbling vegetable. and remains such until it's proven as a workable method.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Precisely, so anyone claiming that we should just let 'herd immunity' take it's course is in fact a dribbling vegetable. and remains such until it's proven as a workable method.

Herd Immunity is a proven concept, just that it carries a lot of Collateral damage with it, as to be effective over 80% of the population would have to be infected and have gained immunity.

Considering the death rate we have that would be a lot more deaths.

Also to know if we have reched anything like the percentage required we would have to test the whole population.

The best way is to develop a vaccine and then vaccinate everybody.

Until then restrictons wil continue, but i think restrictions will gradually be lifted but vulnerable peple and those that interact with vulnerable people will have to be very careful.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

To take your points in order.

1) Again, There is NO guarantee whatsoever that herd immunity will work. Nor is there a guarantee that a vaccine will work. What you have failed to understand yet again is that the lockdowns are designed to limit the pressure on services and to limit the deaths sustained over a period of time. I'll leave the maths here, there's really no point trying to keep explaining it. Most others seem to understand.

2) The virus has already mutated. Chinese scientists identified 33 strains of it. Link to this is here

3) This isn't the last lockdown, My guess is we're in for quite a few over the next twelve months. Until such time as an effective vaccine or if we can prove that herd immunity will work then life as we know will considerably change people will simply just have to accept it and get used to it or face the criminal/medical consequences.

If neither herd or vaccine are achievable, then all bets are off & EVEN IF one of those two methods prove successful then life as we know it will change irretrievably in many aspects.

---------- Post added at 11:09 ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 ----------



Great, just point us to the evidence that herd immunity works for this virus?

Congrats on the vaccine call !

Herd immunity is almost certainly going to work, and that is what we rely on with all existing vaccination programmes. However, the longer this disease is out there, the more likelihood of a major mutation which will put us back to square one.

We are fighting against nature here and on this one, nature is winning. Of course I understand that the lockdown was designed to relieve pressure on the NHS. I've acknowledged that throughout. However, what nobody seems to be coming to terms with is that lockdowns in themselves don't prevent deaths, they delay them. Germany has just relaxed its lockdown, and guess what? Infection rates are on the rise again. This will keep happening until either we find a vaccine that works and distribute it to everyone or herd immunity is achieved over this elongated period we are now looking at.

It is interesting that you say there is no guarantee that herd immunity will work, and so completely dismiss it. Then in the next sentence, you say there is no guarantee that a vaccine will work, then you embrace it as a solution.

I know that this is not easy, and everyone wants to do something, even if it won't work. Our choice really is whether to stop the lockdowns, let the virus spread while protecting vulnerable people OR have lockdown after lockdown (or one continuous lockdown) until a vaccine becomes available and distributed. That could be one or two years away.

Sooner or later, the government has a tough decision to make, but if they leave it too long, the public will make it for them. The lockdown cannot last too much longer now.

As for having multiple lockdowns ahead, forget it. There is no way we can keep paying people from our rapidly depleting government funds. Not only that, but businesses will start to fail in ever increasing numbers as the weeks go by, so we will end up with mass unemployment and no ability to pay dole money. Just think it through - we cannot let this go on and on.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Herd immunity is almost certainly going to work, and that is what we rely on with all existing vaccination programmes. However, the longer this disease is out there, the more likelihood of a major mutation which will put us back to square one.

We are fighting against nature here and on this one, nature is winning. Of course I understand that the lockdown was designed to relieve pressure on the NHS. I've acknowledged that throughout. However, what nobody seems to be coming to terms with is that lockdowns in themselves don't prevent deaths, they delay them. Germany has just relaxed its lockdown, and guess what? Infection rates are on the rise again. This will keep happening until either we find a vaccine that works and distribute it to everyone or herd immunity is achieved over this elongated period we are now looking at.

It is interesting that you say there is no guarantee that herd immunity will work, and so completely dismiss it. Then in the next sentence, you say there is no guarantee that a vaccine will work, then you embrace it as a solution.

I know that this is not easy, and everyone wants to do something, even if it won't work. Our choice really is whether to stop the lockdowns, let the virus spread while protecting vulnerable people OR have lockdown after lockdown (or one continuous lockdown) until a vaccine becomes available and distributed. That could be one or two years away.

Sooner or later, the government has a tough decision to make, but if they leave it too long, the public will make it for them. The lockdown cannot last too much longer now.

As for having multiple lockdowns ahead, forget it. There is no way we can keep paying people from our rapidly depleting government funds. Not only that, but businesses will start to fail in ever increasing numbers as the weeks go by, so we will end up with mass unemployment and no ability to pay dole money. Just think it through - we cannot let this go on and on.

Show me the evidence that you have that says herd immunity is going to work

I think we all agree that lockdowns don't prevent death, but they ensure that there are lower deaths over a given time period compared to if we let the virus continue unabated. If you actually seriously think that we would have the same tally of deaths lockdown vs normality you're seriously seriously wrong.

I don't embrace either as a 100% solution YET, they both have chances of success or failure. But a vaccine combined with lockdown(s) is our best way of minimising deaths.

How do you protect the vulnerable when some of those included are ones that you professed won't stick to the rules of a lockdown?

Multiple lockdowns will happen, just look at Germany. A country whose R0 number has increased since they eased. The government are preparing for a 2nd lockdown should the RO continue to increase. This is the Germany BTW that managed their outbreak far far better than we did.

Would you rather be dead? Or alive but worse of financially?

Oh, btw from various news snippets this morning it looks like the lockdown will continue until June with only minimal changes.

If you think that life is going to go back to normal in the next 12-24 months then you're off your rocker.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Show me the evidence that you have that says herd immunity is going to work

I think we all agree that lockdowns don't prevent death, but they ensure that there are lower deaths over a given time period compared to if we let the virus continue unabated. If you actually seriously think that we would have the same tally of deaths lockdown vs normality you're seriously seriously wrong.

I don't embrace either as a 100% solution YET, they both have chances of success or failure. But a vaccine combined with lockdown(s) is our best way of minimising deaths.

How do you protect the vulnerable when some of those included are ones that you professed won't stick to the rules of a lockdown?

Multiple lockdowns will happen, just look at Germany. A country whose R0 number has increased since they eased. The government are preparing for a 2nd lockdown should the RO continue to increase. This is the Germany BTW that managed their outbreak far far better than we did.

Would you rather be dead? Or alive but worse of financially?

Oh, btw from various news snippets this morning it looks like the lockdown will continue until June with only minimal changes.

If you think that life is going to go back to normal in the next 12-24 months then you're off your rocker.

Did they ask to be protected?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Herd immunity is almost certainly going to work, and that is what we rely on with all existing vaccination programmes. However, the longer this disease is out there, the more likelihood of a major mutation which will put us back to square one.

We are fighting against nature here and on this one, nature is winning. Of course I understand that the lockdown was designed to relieve pressure on the NHS. I've acknowledged that throughout. However, what nobody seems to be coming to terms with is that lockdowns in themselves don't prevent deaths, they delay them. Germany has just relaxed its lockdown, and guess what? Infection rates are on the rise again. This will keep happening until either we find a vaccine that works and distribute it to everyone or herd immunity is achieved over this elongated period we are now looking at.

It is interesting that you say there is no guarantee that herd immunity will work, and so completely dismiss it. Then in the next sentence, you say there is no guarantee that a vaccine will work, then you embrace it as a solution.

I know that this is not easy, and everyone wants to do something, even if it won't work. Our choice really is whether to stop the lockdowns, let the virus spread while protecting vulnerable people OR have lockdown after lockdown (or one continuous lockdown) until a vaccine becomes available and distributed. That could be one or two years away.

Sooner or later, the government has a tough decision to make, but if they leave it too long, the public will make it for them. The lockdown cannot last too much longer now.

As for having multiple lockdowns ahead, forget it. There is no way we can keep paying people from our rapidly depleting government funds. Not only that, but businesses will start to fail in ever increasing numbers as the weeks go by, so we will end up with mass unemployment and no ability to pay dole money. Just think it through - we cannot let this go on and on.

Could you clarify that, please?

What numbers of deaths, and for what length of time, do you believe are delayed?

The Imperial College paper that convinced the Government to go to lockdown/social isolation, shows that the forecast number of deaths (between 410,000 and 550,000, depending on the R factor (higher the R factor, the more infections)), shows on pages 13 and 14, tables 4 and 5, that the deaths were forecast to be reduced, not delayed. Table 5 shows that, depending on the R factor and variation on the "off" trigger, deaths over 2 years could be reduced from between 85,000 and 100,000 to between 8,700 and 51,000 - reduced, not delayed.

Of course, if you have any scientific forecasts showing that the deaths are delayed, not reduced, that would be very useful/helpful in the discussion.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Herd immunity is almost certainly going to work, and that is what we rely on with all existing vaccination programmes. However, the longer this disease is out there, the more likelihood of a major mutation which will put us back to square one.

Herd immunity is unlikely to completely kill off the virus unless it was achieved by a very aggressive vaccine program. The natural herd immunity approach would have stopped it being able to spread effectively but given the world-wide spread of this virus outright stopping it is unlikely.

It's also unlikely the virus would ever have a likelihood of a 'major mutation which will put us back to square one.' It could mutate enough that it breaks though existing antibody responses but your immune system can adapt to variants of a disease.

However, what nobody seems to be coming to terms with is that lockdowns in themselves don't prevent deaths, they delay them.

Limiting the spread of the virus avoids overwhelming the NHS allowing the people that do catch it the ability to get medical intervention. If everyone got it at once people would die simply as a result of lack of care.

The longer we delay that spread the better the chances of more effective treatment courses being found as well. You want to catch this a year from now rather than now if given the choice. Chances are we'll be better at this, saving more lives, the more we learn.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Did they ask to be protected?

Fine, Then let everyone who doesn't want to be protected get together with someone who is. (like a measles party. Then ship them off to somewhere nice and quiet (isolated) and they can fend for themselves. Those that survive can repeat the process ad infinitum

[heero_yuy]

Quote from The Sun:

A new antibody test which checks if people have already had coronavirus is said to be 99 per cent accurate.

The tests has been certified for use across Europe.

Accurate antibody tests could be game-changing for countries under lockdown.

It would allow experts to look at how many people have already had the virus, and potentially let people out if they have immunity.

Global diagnostics specialists Abbott, which has a UK base in Maidenhead, has said it is expecting to have shipped millions of the new lab-based tests across the UK by the end of May.

Abbott has claimed the product showed a sensitivity greater than 99 per cent in 73 coronavirus-positive patients, 14 days after symptoms developed.

It was also more than 99 per cent accurate in identifying 1,070 negative samples.

A piece of good news amongst the doom and gloom.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Fine, Then let everyone who doesn't want to be protected get together with someone who is. (like a measles party. Then ship them off to somewhere nice and quiet (isolated) and they can fend for themselves. Those that survive can repeat the process ad infinitum

What if that number is greater than the number of those who wan't protecting,shouldn't they all just stay at home hiding until they think it's safe to come out. while the majority get on with life.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Show me the evidence that you have that says herd immunity is going to work

You'd better hope it does or you can kiss a vaccine goodbye. The whole point of a vaccine is to introduce and accelerate herd immunity.

In other news South Korea have no new cases of domestic cases and reinfection appears to be a false positive of tests.

A clinical expert panel on Wednesday also concluded that recovered coronavirus patients who later test positive for the virus again were not “reactivated” or reinfected, but were false positives.

The head of the committee said the false positives were due to technical limits of PCR testing. The country has so far reported 292 such cases.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...since-february

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Show me the evidence that you have that says herd immunity is going to work

<SNIP>

Never mind herd immunity, a vaccine must be found to protect those who will suffer in line with this article and note the selective quote:

https://www.clinicalcorrelations.org...es-a-weakness/

Most influenza viruses are warded off by the immune system before they gain a solid foothold in the lungs, halting the virus in the upper respiratory tract. Scientists believe that what made the influenza of 1918 unique was the virus’s ability to make its way down the respiratory tract to the epithelial cells of the alveoli. Killer T-cells then became active. The capillaries surrounding the alveoli dilated and poured out fluid composed of white blood cells, antibodies, and cytokines. Cytokines and enzymes effaced the capillaries. More fluid poured into the lung. The cells lining the alveoli were damaged, and hyaline membranes formed. Surfactant production ceased. The body produced fibrous connective tissue, entangling the lung in debris, fibrin, and collagen. Burnet himself noted that “continued exudation of fluid in areas where blocking of smaller bronchi had occurred would produce eventually airless regions.” There was no space for oxygen exchange to occur. The body effectively drowned itself, and death quickly ensued.



---------- Post added at 16:35 ---------- Previous post was at 16:34 ----------

Originally Posted by pip08456

You'd better hope it does or you can kiss a vaccine goodbye. The whole point of a vaccine is to introduce and accelerate herd immunity.

In other news South Korea have no new cases of domestic cases and reinfection appears to be a false positive of tests.



https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...since-february

Agreed, Pip.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by pip08456

You'd better hope it does or you can kiss a vaccine goodbye. The whole point of a vaccine is to introduce and accelerate herd immunity.

In other news South Korea have no new cases of domestic cases and reinfection appears to be a false positive of tests.



https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...since-february

Sorry, my point was made badly and you're of course correct.