Coronavirus

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Because you're changing people's behaviours and how they can interact, person A catches virus but doesn't go to work (ie a restaurant) because it's shut, they therefore don't have a significant chance of passing the virus onto colleagues B,C & D and onto customers E-Z


It's called chains of transmission.

Absolutely.

Now let's go to the next stage and examine what happens when the lockdown ends.

---------- Post added at 16:50 ---------- Previous post was at 16:46 ----------

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

No, he's not, allowing the virus to run riot from day one would have done significantly more damage to the economy than lockdowns ever have. We also would not have a health system anymore.

the belief that the same amount of people would be infected & that we would experience the same levels of hospitalizations & deaths regardless of iwe locked down or not, is at best dumb ignorance and at worst a deliberate attempt to spread misinformation.

Where are you coming from?!!

Yes, the lockdowns were imposed to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed. But where do you get the idea that when the lockdown ends, it doesn't all start up again? Did you not notice the second wave? Or the third...

I think the scientists are all agreed that lockdowns delay, rather than prevent transmission.

[Sephiroth]

Again - OB is correct.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

No he isn’t. Scientists have not been working on a vaccine for Covid-19 for “decades”. It’s a novel virus first described in 2019. The clue’s in the name. A great many people with relevant expertise stated early on that if a viable candidate could be prepared, changing the usual testing and approval regimes could significantly accelerate its availability. Some of those working on the cutting edge of vaccine design were confident that they could produce candidate vaccines quickly. Oxford university had its candidate ready for human trials on 23 April 2020, having received a complete copy of the virus genome on 11 January. This is because scientists learned how to combat coronaviruses during the earlier SARS and Mers outbreaks.

There was no point, at the outset of the first lockdown, when it was reasonable to assume a decade-long wait for a vaccine, quite regardless of how long any other vaccine in history has taken to design.

If you want to know how the Oxford-AsraZeneca vaccine was made and just how it was able to be formulated so quickly, read here: https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n86

Or here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55041371

Chris, when I said we were working on an inoculation for decades, I was referring to coronaviruses, not specifically COVID-19.

And is all very well being wise after the event, but there was no confidence that we'd have an effective vaccine in the foreseeable future. It was a hope, that was all.

---------- Post added at 16:56 ---------- Previous post was at 16:53 ----------

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

I'm not saying that we don't have significant issues within the NHS Mick, I'm saying without locking down last year (Apr) we would in my opinion have caused the NHS to collapse which subsequently would have lead onto even more cases,hospitalizations & deaths than we've already sustained.

All those Nightingale hospitals seem to have been made available for nothing as we decided to have an enjoyable lockdown instead.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Again - OB is correct.

Are you being mischievous, Seph?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Are you being mischievous, Seph?

Where was I not correct, then?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Are you being mischievous, Seph?

No, Andrw. OB is right. The early days mantra was "save the NHS" which had a corollary "Save Lives". His central point is that at the time of the first lockdown, the Guvmin did not know how quickly a vaccine could be produced. In other words, they were putting us into a potentially bottomless pit and killing the economy at the same time. Once a vaccine was on the cards, then the Guvmin could act with certainty.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

No, Andrw. OB is right. The early days mantra was "save the NHS" which had a corollary "Save Lives". His central point is that at the time of the first lockdown, the Guvmin did not know how quickly a vaccine could be produced. In other words, they were putting us into a potentially bottomless pit and killing the economy at the same time. Once a vaccine was on the cards, then the Guvmin could act with certainty.

Chris puts that argument to bed quite neatly here and even reads it a bed time story.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=6717

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Absolutely.

Now let's go to the next stage and examine what happens when the lockdown ends.

---------- Post added at 16:50 ---------- Previous post was at 16:46 ----------



Where are you coming from?!!

Yes, the lockdowns were imposed to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed. But where do you get the idea that when the lockdown ends, it doesn't all start up again? Did you not notice the second wave? Or the third...

I think the scientists are all agreed that lockdowns delay, rather than prevent transmission.

I'm coming from the point that not everyone is predetermined to get the virus, lockdowns have changed the environment we live in and also people's behaviours.

what you're suggesting is that even if you were nearly involved in a car crash it doesn't matter, because you'll be in one eventually.

---------- Post added at 17:26 ---------- Previous post was at 17:25 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Chris, when I said we were working on an inoculation for decades, I was referring to coronaviruses, not specifically COVID-19.

And is all very well being wise after the event, but there was no confidence that we'd have an effective vaccine in the foreseeable future. It was a hope, that was all.

---------- Post added at 16:56 ---------- Previous post was at 16:53 ----------



All those Nightingale hospitals seem to have been made available for nothing as we decided to have an enjoyable lockdown instead.

I don't disagree we had fantastic nightingale hospitals.

Shame we didn't have the required personnel to staff them....

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Chris, when I said we were working on an inoculation for decades, I was referring to coronaviruses, not specifically COVID-19.

And is all very well being wise after the event, but there was no confidence that we'd have an effective vaccine in the foreseeable future. It was a hope, that was all.

Incorrect - as you would know if you bothered to read either of the links I provided. Immunologists were confident they could produce a vaccine quickly because they knew coronaviruses’ vulnerability is their spike protein. It requires this in order to infect a host; this is also something that can be programmed into a vaccine relatively easily.

Earlier you inferred that decades of research into coronaviruses meant the production of a specific covid-19 vaccine would be a slow process. In fact, that research made it a rapid process - and the rapidity with which a vaccine could be produced was indicated by Oxford and others at a very early stage. Sorry but your argument simply doesn’t hold water.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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

Australia's problem is that they didn't cut themselves completely.
Link

Australia will halve the number of international arrivals it accepts after Covid outbreaks put half the population in lockdown this week.
The country's strict border rules have only allowed Australians and people with exemptions to enter.
...
Virus leaks from hotel quarantine - which is mandatory for all arrivals - have been the source of numerous outbreaks across the country.
...
The country has recorded about 250 cases, with most tied to a cluster in Sydney, its largest city.
The outbreak there stemmed from an unvaccinated driver who transported international arrivals, and the virus then spread in the community.

250 cases, just from one person.

[Taf]

The daily case numbers, right from the start, suffered dips and rises on a 7-day basis due to the way each area subjected its figures.

Then this last week, this happened. An almost perfect descending graph line.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Taf

The daily case numbers, right from the start, suffered dips and rises on a 7-day basis due to the way each area subjected its figures.

Then this last week, this happened. An almost perfect descending graph line.

Too perfect, it's almost as if a large section of the population was no longer being routinely tested, ie schoolkids.

Testing numbers seem to be holding up according to the dashboard.

Originally Posted by Damien

Testing numbers seem to be holding up according to the dashboard.

Looks as if the testing numbers are reducing…

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/testing

[Pierre]

Since restrictions were lifted, infections have declined………….

I’m sure there are lots of other underlying reasons, but imagine if it was the other way around…………how that would be reported!