Coronavirus

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, and the longer the virus is out there, the more it mutates as well.

Yes, this is why your plan is flawed - it never gets eliminated it simply circulates and mutates.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

erm, lockdowns slow the spread, reducing the mutations...

Anyway, about that vaccine thing...

https://twitter.com/DrDomPimenta/sta...244423680?s=19

Lockdowns slow the whole process. It will still infect something like 60-80% of the population but over a longer time period. Unless, of course we have a vaccine, which thankfully is now available.

Just as well, because we could not have carried on like this.

---------- Post added at 12:51 ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Yes, this is why your plan is flawed - it never gets eliminated it simply circulates and mutates.

What? The virus dies out or at least ceases to be the problem it currently is once it has travelled through the population. Lockdowns don’t eliminate the virus. The first lockdown proved that. How many more resurgences do you need before this fact dawns on you?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Lockdowns slow the whole process. It will still infect something like 60-80% of the population but over a longer time period. Unless, of course we have a vaccine, which thankfully is now available.

Just as well, because we could not have carried on like this.

---------- Post added at 12:51 ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 ----------



What? The virus dies out or at least ceases to be the problem it currently is once it has travelled through the population. Lockdowns don’t eliminate the virus. The first lockdown proved that. How many more resurgences do you need before this fact dawns on you?

Ah the Old Boy straw man.

How does the virus die out? Seasonal flu doesn’t die out. Your view that it dies out or “ceases to be a problem” is an assumption based on fresh air. No more credible than your assertion that it would die out in the warmth of summer and we know where that got us.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Not at all. Your selective memory is failing to recall that I said protect the vulnerable and let the virus pass through the healthy population.

---------- Post added at 12:41 ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 ----------



You are forgetting that lockdowns only slow the virus - they do not eliminate it. It’s going to pass through the same number of people in the end.

Fortunately, the new vaccines are providing benefits for us that we did not have before, making lockdowns a more viable solution than they were before.

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").

The whole point of the lockdowns were reduce the spread of the virus, reducing the impact on the NHS, and giving time for vaccines to be developed, and then the vaccine stops the virus affecting those vaccinated.

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.

[nomadking]

If the continued spread is inevitable, doesn't that imply that those countries and areas not yet badly affected, still will be badly affected in the future?

The virus needs a host to spread to and be able to reproduce. Even within a host, it has a limited lifespan. That is the reason for self-isolating for a period of time.
It people stop spreading around, then it will "die" out.

[downquark1]

At this point with a vaccine being distributed there's no point changing the lock down strategy.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by downquark1

At this point with a vaccine being distributed there's no point changing the lock down strategy.

Some may not agree.

There is a special prize for anyone who can match up the severity of restrictions in various countries, to the Z-score. I say this, because no correlation exists.

So, again, what have I learned about COVID19? I learned that all Governments are floundering about, all claiming to have exerted some sort of control over this disease and ignoring all evidence to the contrary. In truth, they have achieved nothing. As restrictions and lockdowns have become more severe, in many cases the number of infections has simply risen and risen, completely unaffected by anything that has been done.

The official solution is, of course, more restrictions. ‘We just haven’t restricted people enough!’ Sigh. When something doesn’t work, the answer is not to keep doing it with even greater fervour. The real answer is to stop doing it and try something else instead.

I have also learned that, in most countries, COVID19 appears to be seasonal. It went away – everywhere – in the summer. It came back in the autumn/winter, as various viruses do.

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/1...s-left-to-say/

A couple of other things from that ;

If I were to recommend actions. I would recommend that we stop testing – unless someone is admitted to hospital and is seriously ill. Mass testing is simply causing mass panic and achieves absolutely nothing.

Hopefully, in time, we will learn something. Which is that we should not, ever, run about panicking, following the madly waved banners… ever again. However, I suspect that we will.

This pandemic is going to be a model for all mass panicking stupidity in the future. Because to do otherwise, would be to admit that we made a pig’s ear of it this time. Far too many powerful reputations at stake to allow that.

[jfman]

Well the problem is we’ve moved away from the real purpose of testing - which is to provide usable data to inform decision making and form the cornerstone of test, trace, isolate.

If we then go ahead and ignore the scientific advice so restrictions don’t match up to the recommended course of action based on the data then yes, mass testing is pointless.

Originally Posted by pip08456

Some may not agree.



https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/1...s-left-to-say/

Is he Old Boy?

If I were to recommend actions. I would recommend that we stop testing – unless someone is admitted to hospital and is seriously ill. Mass testing is simply causing mass panic and achieves absolutely nothing. At great cost. We should also just get on with our lives as before. We should just vaccinate those at greatest risk of dying, the elderly and vulnerable

He appears to be basically saying "let it rip".

Just did a bit of research - seems the guy likes being a "contrarian", and for a medic, really enjoys using emotive terms...

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/507587-covi...e-coronavirus/

As I remarked to a friend recently, the moment anyone says ‘vaccine’, the only acceptable response is to leap to your feet and salute, whilst singing Ode to Joy. Followed by fifteen minutes of enthusiastic clapping. Failure to do so, means you are taken out and shot for thought crimes. Doubleplusgood, indeed.

[OLD BOY]

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").

The whole point of the lockdowns were reduce the spread of the virus, reducing the impact on the NHS, and giving time for vaccines to be developed, and then the vaccine stops the virus affecting those vaccinated.

I don’t disagree. However, it was by no means guaranteed, even a few weeks ago, that we would actually have a vaccine. It is only now that we have one you can make a good case for the emergency measures we have in place now.

---------- Post added at 16:49 ---------- Previous post was at 16:42 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Ah the Old Boy straw man.

How does the virus die out? Seasonal flu doesn’t die out. Your view that it dies out or “ceases to be a problem” is an assumption based on fresh air. No more credible than your assertion that it would die out in the warmth of summer and we know where that got us.

What planet are you on, jfman? I thought we all accepted that this was not seasonal flu. And you accuse others (wrongly) of using ‘straw man’ arguments.

The last two coronaviruses did, in fact, die out naturally in the UK. However, I agree that we still have some things to find out about this particular virus. Nobody yet knows whether annual or less frequent boosters need to be given to protect the population.

---------- Post added at 16:54 ---------- Previous post was at 16:49 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

If the continued spread is inevitable, doesn't that imply that those countries and areas not yet badly affected, still will be badly affected in the future?

The virus needs a host to spread to and be able to reproduce. Even within a host, it has a limited lifespan. That is the reason for self-isolating for a period of time.
It people stop spreading around, then it will "die" out.

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.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

<SNIP>

What planet are you on, jfman? I thought we all accepted that this was not seasonal flu. And you accuse others (wrongly) of using ‘straw man’ arguments.

The last two coronaviruses did, in fact, die out naturally in the UK. However, I agree that we still have some things to find out about this particular virus. Nobody yet knows whether annual or less frequent boosters need to be given to protect the population.

---------- Post added at 16:54 ---------- Previous post was at 16:49 ----------



<SNIP>

If you mean the last two variants (original +1) of CV-19, then you've made an interesting point.

From what I read, plus application of logic, if the current variant (original +2) is dominating, then the older variants should eventually die out.

However, this cycle could continue indefinitely until brought under control by a competent vaccine.

So, as I see it, fingers need to be crossed that no mutation occurs that defeats the vaccine.

OB, what's your take on my assessment?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

If you mean the last two variants (original +1) of CV-19, then you've made an interesting point.

From what I read, plus application of logic, if the current variant (original +2) is dominating, then the older variants should eventually die out.

However, this cycle could continue indefinitely until brought under control by a competent vaccine.

So, as I see it, fingers need to be crossed that no mutation occurs that defeats the vaccine.

OB, what's your take on my assessment?

I was thinking specifically about SARS and MERS. Neither of those have returned since circulating around the UK a few years ago.

In terms of your example, I guess that if later variants of a virus are more deadly and/or more contagious, such variants will take away the hosts on which the original viruses rely.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I was thinking specifically about SARS and MERS. Neither of those have returned since circulating around the UK a few years ago.

In terms of your example, I guess that if later variants of a virus are more deadly and/or more contagious, such variants will take away the hosts on which the original viruses rely.

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