Coronavirus

[roughbeast]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Then why is everybody encouraged to get the jab against the flu virus?

Not everybody is encouraged to get a flu jab. It is recommended for older people and the otherwise vulnerable. Covid-19 is a different matter.

Flu has been around for generations so we have a good amount of herd immunity, which is bolstered by updated vaccines and by good hygiene and self-imposed isolation when ill. None of these measures and factors are enough on their own, and not even 100% collectively, so we lose up to 20,000 vulnerable people a year to flu.

Covid-19 is still a novel virus, a virus where no immunity and no vaccines were present at the outset. Potentially everyone could have caught it in a very short time with devasting results if all the 1%ish (800,000+) of fatalities happened within twelve months and all those that needed treatment needed it during the same period. The measures taken, albeit rather late, prevented the worst case scenario of many more than 1% dying through lack of treatment from an overwhelmed health service.

The situation now, barring highly lethal variants, is getting closer to being comparable with flu, but until we have the virus at a less than endemic level worldwide and until the vast majority have some level of immunity, Covid-19 has to be treated differently.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Having COVID wouldn't protect you from getting the flu unfortunately.

But it was stated at the very start of the pandemic that exposure to other Corona Virus such as the flu or common cold could afford you some protection against covid and/or other such corona Virius.

restated in this study

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art...id-19-severity

“Our study shows that a strong antibody response to human coronaviruses increases the level of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. So someone who has gained immunity to harmless coronaviruses is therefore also better protected against severe SARS-CoV-2 infections,” says Prof. Trkola.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

But it was stated at the very start of the pandemic that exposure to other Corona Virus such as the flu or common cold could afford you some protection against covid and/or other such corona Virius.

restated in this study

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art...id-19-severity

Any evidence that it did?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Any evidence that it did?

Ask Prof. Alexandra Trkola. He says it does. I haven’t conducted any studies myself.

[Taf]

I remember some saying that flu and cold viruses basically strong-armed their way into our cells, preventing covid-19 from getting in and replicating.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Ask Prof. Alexandra Trkola. He says it does. I haven’t conducted any studies myself.

So if it did, and we still needed three lockdowns plus the upcoming one it doesn’t sound like it had much more than a marginal impact. Probably less than masks.

---------- Post added at 20:15 ---------- Previous post was at 20:13 ----------

Originally Posted by Taf

I remember some saying that flu and cold viruses basically strong-armed their way into our cells, preventing covid-19 from getting in and replicating.

Haha yes. Optimism lacking in evidence.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

So if it did, and we still needed three lockdowns plus the upcoming one it doesn’t sound like it had much more than a marginal impact. Probably less than masks.

Well whether we “needed” three lockdowns is a matter of opinion.

Also the fact that we have had 10.5M recorded cases in the U.K. and probably a more accurate figure many multiples of that and only 146K deaths.

Perhaps the reason COVID is ultimately a very survivable illness is due to a level of pre-existing population immunity gained by exposure to other less harmful coronavirus?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well whether we “needed” three lockdowns is a matter of opinion.

Well what’s the alternative, collapsing the health service? When that rationale is used for the next one I doubt the keyboard warriors will take to the streets.

Also the fact that we have had 10.5M recorded cases in the U.K. and probably a more accurate figure many multiples of that and only 146K deaths.

Deaths within 28 days

Perhaps the reason COVID is ultimately a very survivable illness is due to a level of pre-existing population immunity gained by exposure to other less harmful coronavirus?

Hypothetically. But as you acknowledged above these hypotheses could be bullshit.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Well what’s the alternative, collapsing the health service?

Well we didn’t, you can debate if the lockdown facilitated that. You can debate whether two more were required. We built several Nightingale facilities - not used.

Deaths within 28 days

not sure of your point here?

Hypothetically. But as you acknowledged above these hypotheses could be bullshit.

Absolutely

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well we didn’t, you can debate if the lockdown facilitated that. You can debate whether two more were required. We built several Nightingale facilities - not used.

Because the NHS is already short of nurses and doctors so couldn't really spread them out any more thinly by moving some of them to new hospitals.


It was, like a fair amount this Gov did (and I'm usually a tory), more hot air and publicity bluster than something which was actually going to make a difference.



They do seem to be responding a lot better with the new HS compared to his predecessor who I never really liked. Javid seems to be more proportionate and considered in his actions and considers more than the "OMG we must get rid of covid" stance. I just wish they would mandate WFH as it's a lot more effective than the things they have done (aside from the travel controls, but they're little use if as is suspected there is community spread now).

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well we didn’t, you can debate if the lockdown facilitated that.

There is no debate. The evidence is clear.

As we follow Gauteng and their trends with Omicron the same rationale will justify the next lockdown.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by jfman

There is no debate. The evidence is clear.

As we follow Gauteng and their trends with Omicron the same rationale will justify the next lockdown.

Do you have next Saturday's lottery numbers too?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

As we follow Gauteng and their trends with Omicron the same rationale will justify the next lockdown.

I just can’t see another lockdown. The initial response to Omicron was the absolute least the government could do, to be seen to be doing something, and they probably didn’t want to do that.

Another lockdown? To quote someone, you’d have to see the bodies piling up first.
Of course the bodies won’t pile up. Because without vaccines it’s a very survivable illness, with vaccines it’s more of an irritation than anything else.

Also, Dishy Rishi isn’t going to pay for you to toss off the new year. No, the U.K. gravy train is not leaving the station. Therefore the economy needs to, and will, stay open.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nffc

Do you have next Saturday's lottery numbers too?

No but the lottery is entirely random. The growth rate of Omicron is not on the other hand.

---------- Post added at 22:30 ---------- Previous post was at 22:27 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

I just can’t see another lockdown.

With the best will in the world, Pierre, you didn't see the obvious school closures.- to all but the children of key workers - in January.

You persistently see what you want to happen, not what's happening in reality. Omicron is here and unstoppable. The growth rate is baked in. The vaccines alone aren't enough.

As for the rest of your post - hopeless optimism, quoting a proven liar and petty insults against furloughed workers aren't worthy of reply.

Comrade Rishi will fund what is required when the time comes - it's inevitable.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

With the best will in the world, Pierre, you didn't see the obvious school closures.- to all but the children of key workers - in January.

I didn’t because they were unnecessary. Schools didn’t close. Many schools still had over 50% occupancy just with key workers and vulnerable children. There is no evidence that restricting children attending school helped whatsoever. As a school governor, there is an abundance of evidence that restricting access to school has had a very measurable impact to development of children and the impact is not academic as you might expect especially in KS1/KS2 but emotionally especially in KS1. The kids are just not equipped to cope with school.

If anything comes of any inquiry, it will be that in closing schools the negatives far outweighed any perceived benefit.

Omicron is here and unstoppable. The growth rate is baked in. The vaccines alone aren't enough.

Optimus Prime will sort it. Given that there is no real data atm. Your certainty is misplaced. Or is Hypothetical at best

it's inevitable.