Coronavirus

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Pierre

The government has just used the new travel RAG list


Amber

Amber +


Amber ++

Amber Ultra

I can’t believe it’s not Amber

Double secret Amber.

That should clear up any confusion.

It's a bit amberbiguous

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Yawn. We did this tedious nonsense last year.

Who is trying to exaggerate the pandemic? To what end?

The Conservative Party? Honestly?

One day, you'll actually answer the point being made instead of making derogatory, often unrelated comments on every post you want to argue with.

If you had an answer to the issues I raised, no doubt you would have explained them.

Come on people.This is not a chat thread and the subject is a serious one.Stick to the topic or leave.

[OLD BOY]

Daniel Hannon in today’s Telegraph has summed up the position I take on lockdowns, vaccinations and face masks. It’s common sense to me.


‘…of the three lockdowns we’ve had, the one that made the most sense was the second, designed to slow the infection rate while vaccines were rolled out. It cannot be repeated too often that the various prohibitions do not, in themselves, save lives; they simply push the peak into the future. A lockdown must have a purpose, an end point. So, too, must every other form of restriction, from facemasks to pings.’

The trouble is, I think, that some have been scared witless over this pandemic, not without good reason, but are finding it hard to climb down from that high level of fear and agitation.

You agreeing with a Lockdown Sceptic in the Telegraph?

<shocked face>

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

You agreeing with a Lockdown Sceptic in the Telegraph?

<shocked face>

It makes perfect sense. Lockdowns only delay, they do not prevent.

If the waves of infection once lockdowns end don’t prove that, what does?

Australia thought they were being very clever by having lockdowns with relatively few infections, but they are now finding out that unless they get their acts together with their vaccination programmes, those infections will just keep coming back and with their current policy they are subjecting their citizens to a lifetime of lockdowns. The country is becoming like a massive prison.

The riots in Sydney indicate that people are getting sick and tired of this nonsense.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It makes perfect sense. Lockdowns only delay, they do not prevent.

If the waves of infection once lockdowns end don’t prove that, what does?

Australia thought they were being very clever by having lockdowns with relatively few infections, but they are now finding out that unless they get their acts together with their vaccination programmes, those infections will just keep coming back and with their current policy they are subjecting their citizens to a lifetime of lockdowns. The country is becoming like a massive prison.

The riots in Sydney indicate that people are getting sick and tired of this nonsense.

India disproved your theory. The virus mutated into a more contagious variant and people became re-infected.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

India disproved your theory. The virus mutated into a more contagious variant and people became re-infected.

There is a very big difference, Australia vs India and that is obvious, transmissibility became rampant in India and I’d say it’s colossal population had something to do with it.

[1andrew1]

I do agree that Australia should have got its vaccination plan together as it can't cut itself off forever.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

India disproved your theory. The virus mutated into a more contagious variant and people became re-infected.

No it doesn't, the Delta variant could just as easily have mutated into a less contagious variant.

When viruses infect you, they attach to your cells, get inside them, and make copies of their RNA, which helps them spread. If there’s a copying mistake, the RNA gets changed. Scientists call those changes mutations.

These changes happen randomly and by accident. It’s a normal part of what happens to viruses as they multiply and spread.

Because the changes are random, they may make little to no difference in a person’s health. Other times, they may cause disease. For example, one reason you need a flu shot every year is because influenza viruses change from year to year. This year’s flu virus probably isn’t exactly the same one that circulated last year.

If a virus has a random change that makes it easier to infect people and it spreads, that variant will become more common.

The bottom line is that all viruses, including coronaviruses, can change over time.

https://www.webmd.com/lung/coronavirus-strains#1

But it didn’t….

We’re not concerned about the less harmful mutations.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I do agree that Australia should have got its vaccination plan together as it can't cut itself off forever.

Sorry, but that post gave me a vision of 5000 'flying doctors' all merrily buzzing about in their Piper Cubs

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It makes perfect sense. Lockdowns only delay, they do not prevent.

If the waves of infection once lockdowns end don’t prove that, what does?

Australia thought they were being very clever by having lockdowns with relatively few infections, but they are now finding out that unless they get their acts together with their vaccination programmes, those infections will just keep coming back and with their current policy they are subjecting their citizens to a lifetime of lockdowns. The country is becoming like a massive prison.

The riots in Sydney indicate that people are getting sick and tired of this nonsense.

But you have consistently, and persistently, been against lockdowns in the UK because of this "logic".

But in reality, because we locked down, we delayed the infections enough to get working vaccines, which have avoided/prevented greater numbers of deaths, infections, and hospitalisations in the UK.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Hugh

But it didn’t….

We’re not concerned about the less harmful mutations.

And what were the odds on that? Get a life FFS.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Hugh

But you have consistently, and persistently, been against lockdowns in the UK because of this "logic".

But in reality, because we locked down, we delayed the infections enough to get working vaccines, which have avoided/prevented greater numbers of deaths, infections, and hospitalisations in the UK.

Don't, this gives credence to OB's theory that the quantity of people infected would remain the same, only the time period over which they became infected would change. Which, is of course, utter gibberish.