Coronavirus

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, it does, unless the vaccine is rolled out across the world. Without it, New Zealand is only getting a stay of execution. They can’t isolate themselves forever.

How are you ever going to get people to stop ‘spreading around’ as you put it and what good would it do? We’ve already had a lockdown, and yet the perishing thing has returned already.

New Zealand appears to have reached a stage of where the virus has "died" out. If everybody else managed that, then worldwide there would be no problem.
Any lockdowns haven't worked because people ARE NOT BEHAVING THEMSELVES.
Although on a bigger scale, your New Zealand example PROVES that lockdowns can work. Self-isolation and controlled access with other countries is equivalent to a household situation.

Officers in the West Midlands broke up some large New Year's Eve parties after finding some "shocking Covid breaches", the area's police chief said.

More than 150 fixed penalty notices were issued to people flouting the coronavirus restrictions on New Year's Eve, a police force has said.


Northamptonshire Police said officers attended more than 100 reports "related to parties or people meeting in houses".

More than 50 unlicensed music events and New Year's Eve parties were broken up by the Met in London overnight for being in breach of tier four rules.

New Zealand has a population of 5 million living in relatively low density at the ar$€ end of the world. Yes, an extreme lockdown works, but it is easier to achieve in some contexts than others.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

New Zealand has a population of 5 million living in relatively low density at the ar$€ end of the world. Yes, an extreme lockdown works, but it is easier to achieve in some contexts than others.

There needs to be the political will. Whereas ours have demonstrated wanting every easy option going instead.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Chris

New Zealand has a population of 5 million living in relatively low density at the ar$€ end of the world. Yes, an extreme lockdown works, but it is easier to achieve in some contexts than others.

Still comparable to a household situation. Limit and control(eg mask, social distancing) contact with the outside "world". Enough households doing that will let the virus "die" out.
It needs to pass from A to B to C etc, all within a limited time frame. If it is unable to do that, it "dies" out.
If that wasn't true, then it would've still spread throughout the whole of New Zealand.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Still comparable to a household situation. Limit and control(eg mask, social distancing) contact with the outside "world". Enough households doing that will let the virus "die" out.
It needs to pass from A to B to C etc, all within a limited time frame. If it is unable to do that, it "dies" out.

He's got a point you know.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Take away the hosts is a curious way of phrasing killing more people.

It also includes those who have attained immunity. So if one of the variants tries to claim a host who has already had the more virulent strain, the individual’s anti-bodies and/or T-cells would fight it off.

---------- Post added at 19:16 ---------- Previous post was at 19:11 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

New Zealand appears to have reached a stage of where the virus has "died" out. If everybody else managed that, then worldwide there would be no problem.
Any lockdowns haven't worked because people ARE NOT BEHAVING THEMSELVES.
Although on a bigger scale, your New Zealand example PROVES that lockdowns can work. Self-isolation and controlled access with other countries is equivalent to a household situation.

NZ is a much smaller country with only a relatively few large population centres, coupled with the fact that not many people travel there.

New Zealanders remain in danger of infection from this virus, particularly the new strain. It only takes one super-spreader to arrive in the country with Covid just recently acquired to set off a chain reaction.

---------- Post added at 19:19 ---------- Previous post was at 19:16 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

Still comparable to a household situation. Limit and control(eg mask, social distancing) contact with the outside "world". Enough households doing that will let the virus "die" out.
It needs to pass from A to B to C etc, all within a limited time frame. If it is unable to do that, it "dies" out.
If that wasn't true, then it would've still spread throughout the whole of New Zealand.

You cannot control the whole of the British population to do that. Even if your idea would work in theory, it would never work in practice.

Did you see how many fines had been handed out to partygoers on today’s news?

---------- Post added at 19:20 ---------- Previous post was at 19:19 ----------

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

He's got a point you know.

What about travellers bringing it back into the country again?

---------- Post added at 19:22 ---------- Previous post was at 19:20 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy

How about we just trust to the science experts and ignore keyboard warriors who have absolutely no idea what they are re-spouting.

I'm doing as I'm told and staying home and when I get called to be vaccinated I'll be there with my arm bared for the jab.

Here’s one!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-h...ong-will-take/

Marc Lipsitch, professor of Epidemiology at Harvard, has written eloquently on the possibility of reaching herd immunity through vaccination, noting that it is impossible to predict until we know the extent to which the new vaccines prevent transmission.

But he adds: “Sustained herd immunity is not the only value of a vaccine or the only way it could help us return to a more normal life. If high coverage can be achieved in those most at risk of severe outcomes, we could achieve a state where virus continues to circulate but the toll on the health system and the mortality toll is dramatically reduced.”

...Which is pretty well in line with what I’ve been saying all along. Take the vulnerable out of the equation and the problem pretty well disappears and the virus can be left to spread through the healthy population.

[joglynne]

FactCheck Q&A: how much coronavirus vaccine do we have?

By Patrick Worrall
1 Jan 2021
Britain is about to begin the mass vaccination of its citizens against the coronavirus.

But there’s confusion about how much of the two vaccines that are available – those made by drug companies AstraZeneca and Pfizer – are ready to be injected into people’s arms now.

Here’s what we know and what we don’t know.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...ine-do-we-have

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It also includes those who have attained immunity. So if one of the variants tries to claim a host who has already had the more virulent strain, the individual’s anti-bodies and/or T-cells would fight it off.

---------- Post added at 19:16 ---------- Previous post was at 19:11 ----------



NZ is a much smaller country with only a relatively few large population centres, coupled with the fact that not many people travel there.

New Zealanders remain in danger of infection from this virus, particularly the new strain. It only takes one super-spreader to arrive in the country with Covid just recently acquired to set off a chain reaction.

---------- Post added at 19:19 ---------- Previous post was at 19:16 ----------



You cannot control the whole of the British population to do that. Even if your idea would work in theory, it would never work in practice.

Did you see how many fines had been handed out to partygoers on today’s news?

---------- Post added at 19:20 ---------- Previous post was at 19:19 ----------



What about travellers bringing it back into the country again?

Auckland has 1.5m people. Were they ALL infected?
The question was about whether lockdowns achieve anything. They can and do, but ONLY if people stop behaving like depraved morons.
Fines are meaningless, because people are not going to pay them. Start jailing people, and perhaps they will start behaving responsibly.
Where a traveller brings it into the UK, if those and everybody else behaves themselves, then it shouldn't be able to spread further in the first place.

[jfman]

It also includes those who have attained immunity. So if one of the variants tries to claim a host who has already had the more virulent strain, the individual’s anti-bodies and/or T-cells would fight it off.

It might fight it off. It might not.

You're assuming immunity will be lasting and work across strains. Both of these are untested.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

...Which is pretty well in line with what I’ve been saying all along. Take the vulnerable out of the equation and the problem pretty well disappears and the virus can be left to spread through the healthy population.

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?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I can’t forget something that isn’t true (along the same lines as your previous untrue statement "they were all going to die anyway, they’re just dying sooner").

This was discussed several pages back and the conclusion seemed to agree with OB’s statement

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=2105

[1andrew1]

** U-turn klaxon ** (a bit worn-out now)

All London primary schools to remain closed for start of term in government U-turn

All London primary schools will now be closed at the start of term for most pupils.

It comes two days after the government said only those in 22 of London's 32 boroughs would be affected by closures amid surging COVID-19 rates in the capital.

Earlier, the leaders of eight London boroughs called on the government to make a U-turn as they were "struggling to understand the rationale" behind the move

It will mean around a million pupils aged between four and 11 will face remote learning from Monday, after youngsters in 27 other local authorities outside the capital were told on Wednesday they would be taught online for an indefinite period.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson said the decision about when they could return to school would be reviewed by 18 January.

https://news.sky.com/story/all-londo...-turn-12177017

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

** U-turn klaxon ** (a bit worn-out now)


https://news.sky.com/story/all-londo...-turn-12177017

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

Originally Posted by Pierre

This was discussed several pages back and the conclusion seemed to agree with OB’s statement

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=2105

That's not all of it though, that was discussing why other causes of deaths are falling. However excess mortality is up so more people are dying than otherwise would.

We're all going to die anyway unless something gets us sooner, and whilst this may kill people with co-morbidities/older people we're still talking about people that might have years of life left.

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

Spread through the healthy population until it mutates again possibly in to something worse

We might all get wiped out by a meteorite, both are nothing more than speculation.