Coronavirus

[Eddie]

18 minutes ago, Andicis said:

No - but if lockdown doesn't stop cases rising, we're killing the economy for little to no benefit. 

It certainly doesn't stop cases rising on its own - that requires people to cooperate fully with the 'rules', as distasteful as they might be.

If everyone had followed them as religiously as I had - and am still doing - then we would have been in the same situation as New Zealand are now.

However, they don't - so it now boils down to a choice between killing off the economy and either killing off a proportion or totally isolating 15% of the population from the rest. I suppose it has always boiled down to that.

[Andicis]

1 minute ago, Eddie said:

It certainly doesn't stop cases rising on its own - that requires people to cooperate fully with the 'rules', as distasteful as they might be.

If everyone had followed them as religiously as I had - and am still doing - then we would have been in the same situation as New Zealand are now.

However, they don't - so it now boils down to a choice between killing off the economy and either killing off or totally isolating 15% of the population from the rest. I suppose it has always boiled down to that.

It would not have been like New Zealand. I just don't buy it, there are too many differences between the countries. I honestly think most people are actually following the rules, but you'll never get 100% compliance. I also do think if the government were more transparent with their reasoning behind rules and just more open, people would be more inclined to follow.

Sadly, I think you're right on the last bit. 

 

[Comrade 86]

11 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Not going to go home until Christmas anyhow, but by ''I'll take my chances'' I mean, I'd rather take my chances without a vaccine. As much as I moan and groan about the rules, I have actually been sticking to them as of present. 

Good lad. Just took my lad and the old man on a road trip to Cornwall. The boy and I self-isolated for over a week before driving down. It's a pain in the arse but we both agreed we had no option. Imagine how it would feel to suspect you'd infected a family member. Not a risk any of us should be taking with those of a certain age.

And just for the record, my other half is not in the so-called 'vulnerable' age group but still ended up on a ventilator when she contracted Covid. I suppose it's easy to dismiss the virus when less than 300 people under 40 years of age have been taken, unless of course one of them is a friend, family member or partner. 

[Andicis]

1 minute ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Good lad. Just took my lad and the old man on a road trip to Cornwall. The boy and I self-isolated for over a week before driving down. It's a pain in the arse but we both agreed we had no option. Imagine how it would feel to suspect you'd infected a family member. Not a risk any of us should be taking with those of a certain age.

And just for the record, my other half is not in the so-called 'vulnerable' age group but still ended up on a ventilator when she contracted Covid. I suppose it's easy to dismiss the virus when less than 300 people under 40 years of age have been taken, unless of course one of them is a friend, family member of partner. 

Absolutely, I'd never willingly put anyone other than myself at risk of getting the thing, I can cope with the idea of myself getting it, purely to get it over with, but that'd be my choice not one to force on others. 

I remember reading the story when you first posted it, horrible. I hope she's doing much better now. 

[ariotofmyown]

1 hour ago, Norman said:

Sooooo. 

I'm fit, healthy, 32. Basically, no chance of dying from Covid. 

Say a vaccine comes out. It's obviously been rushed, not tested to the absolute standard of a normal vaccine. What would you do? Get the vaccine, knowing you probably don't need it, or wait to see if there are any mass side effects? 

Do we think the vaccine, if there ever is one, will be mandatory? 

This isn't some anti-vaccine conspiracy like some will try and twist it into. Just a question millions of us will probably ask ourselves towards the end of next year. 

Obviously, if we do all have the vaccine, our lives go back to normal quicker. Or should do anyway. 

I guess it depends if a vaccine also prevents you passing it on too. If you catch it, then pass it onto someone else who hasn't been vaccinated either, who subsequently dies, will you blame yourself?

When did everyone become so distrusting of vaccines anyway? Was it that MMR doctor about 20 years ago that was proven to have done fake research (and possibly jailed)?

A lot of people seem very anti them and not really sure what it's based on. 

[Norman]

4 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

I guess it depends if a vaccine also prevents you passing it on too. If you catch it, then pass it onto someone else who hasn't been vaccinated either, who subsequently dies, will you blame yourself?

When did everyone become so distrusting of vaccines anyway? Was it that MMR doctor about 20 years ago that was proven to have done fake research (and possibly jailed)?

A lot of people seem very anti them and not really sure what it's based on. 

I'm not distrusting of vaccines. I'm distrusting of one that has been rushed through clinical trials etc. 

How long does a normal vaccine take? Then compare it to the time frame they have. 

So, no. No conspiracy. No anti-vaccination agenda. I tried to make that as clear as possible in my post. Oh well.

 

[ariotofmyown]

21 minutes ago, Norman said:

I'm not distrusting of vaccines. I'm distrusting of one that has been rushed through clinical trials etc. 

How long does a normal vaccine take? Then compare it to the time frame they have. 

So, no. No conspiracy. No anti-vaccination agenda. I tried to make that as clear as possible in my post. Oh well.

 

You didn't answer my first point about whether you would blame yourself if you infected others due to not taking the vaccine?

I trust that we won't be asked to take vaccines until they are proven to be safe. Although with liars like Johnson and Cummings, I can see your point.

Fair enough you aren't sceptical vaccines in general, I was talking about people rather than yourself.  I'm confused as to where people's distrust of vaccines come from. I don't know anyone who has had a bad experience with them.

[Eddie]

42 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

I guess it depends if a vaccine also prevents you passing it on too. If you catch it, then pass it onto someone else who hasn't been vaccinated either, who subsequently dies, will you blame yourself?

When did everyone become so distrusting of vaccines anyway? Was it that MMR doctor about 20 years ago that was proven to have done fake research (and possibly jailed)?

A lot of people seem very anti them and not really sure what it's based on. 

When they realised that vaccines were a mechanism for Bill Gates to inject his 5G mind control microchip, silly.

[Chester40]

5 hours ago, ariotofmyown said:

When did everyone become so distrusting of vaccines anyway? Was it that MMR doctor about 20 years ago that was proven to have done fake research (and possibly jailed)?

A lot of people seem very anti them and not really sure what it's based on. 

Not arguing, but I don't have a flu vaccine every year tbh.. (do you?) why? Because I just choose not to, its not 100% effective, I suppose I just fancy my chances I won't get it or if I do I won't feel that bad.. And so far its been the right decision... 

I thought the MMR conspiracy theorists were largely a bunch of annoying, look-at-me I've got (a really unsubstantiated) dangerous, unhelpful, new age opinion. They bugged the hell out of me. 

Hypocrite? Probably! Sometimes the risks just seem greater than the benefit to people. 

[Gone]

8 hours ago, jimmyp said:

What exactly do you mean by “the chain hasn’t been broken” ?

The purpose of a lockdown, is to reduce reproduction – in other words, to reduce the number of people each confirmed case infects.

 

 

Ah so when it doesn’t work it’s to reduce cases, when we get to no cases it’s to break the chain of infection and eradicate it. Talk about when the cap fits the narrative. 
I think If you look at the data you’ll see most if not all local lockdowns are failing on both counts of the narrative above. Anyway let’s continue to exist and not live eh. 

[Cardinal]

Regarding the speed at which the vaccine is being create at. I spoke with my sister about this and she said that it is going through all the same checks, trials, etc as every other vaccine. Her husband is part of the trials and hasn't had any side effects. The reason it is being done so much quicker than others is because 1. The urgent need for it, we don't tend to have as urgent a need, globally, for a vaccine as this time, so they can usually take their time with it. 2. Money. It costs money to develop a vaccine and in this case it has enough to be able to speed up the process, for others the money is not available to accelerate the process. 

Hope that allivates some concerns over the safety. Guess we won't know for sure until its out and in wide use. 

[secretsquirrel]

Whilst we have our borders open i don't think we will reduce the level of infection to a manageable level.New Zealand controlled things by doing this-much easier for them and in Australia they have closed borders between states.With all the trade coming in and out of the uk its not possible so a way of managing it has to be found until we have a vaccine.

[maxjam]

New day, new study that shows lockdowns aren't necessarily the answer;

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-short-term-lockdowns-could-result-in-more-covid-19-deaths-study-claims-12098766

Short-term lockdowns could result in more people dying with coronavirus, according to a new report.

Researchers have called for "different strategies for different age groups with more focus on shielding elderly and vulnerable people".

Researchers wrote: "The findings of this study suggest that prompt interventions were shown to be highly effective at reducing peak demand for intensive care unit (ICU) beds but also prolong the epidemic, in some cases resulting in more deaths long-term.

They point out that when the interventions are lifted, there is still a large proportion of the population susceptible and a substantial number still infected with coronavirus.

"This then leads to a second wave of infections that can result in more deaths, but later," they wrote.

The authors said that the final death toll from COVID-19 depends largely on the age of those infected and not the overall number of cases.

[Gone]

Relevant 

[Uptherams]

9 hours ago, Wolfie20 said:

Some posters have said that, given the choice, they wouldn't have a vaccine if one became available on the basis that the chance of catching Covid is small and even if it happened, the likelihood the symptoms would probably be quite mild.

There seems to be little thought, other than how it might affect them personally, about the potential effect on people they may come into contact with - people more vulnerable than themselves.

You get the vaccination then. Derrr. 

[ariotofmyown]

2 hours ago, Chester40 said:

Not arguing, but I don't have a flu vaccine every year tbh.. (do you?) why? Because I just choose not to, its not 100% effective, I suppose I just fancy my chances I won't get it or if I do I won't feel that bad.. And so far its been the right decision... 

I thought the MMR conspiracy theorists were largely a bunch of annoying, look-at-me I've got (a really unsubstantiated) dangerous, unhelpful, new age opinion. They bugged the hell out of me. 

Hypocrite? Probably! Sometimes the risks just seem greater than the benefit to people. 

No, never had flu jab. Probably due to ignorance to be honest, I just thought they were for the elderly.

What risks do you associate with the flu jab?

[Albert]

12 hours ago, maxjam said:

/sigh

Not going through it all again because its boring for everyone on this forum, including myself.  I'll give you your previous post as the last word, you seem to need it.  I will however pull this paragraph out though as its something we both agree on;

I always find it funny when people whinge about someone 'needing the last word', then going ahead and, in effect, having the last word about that point. 

12 hours ago, maxjam said:

I have never said the UKs response has been anything, let alone 'great' - in fact, as mentioned several times on this forum that I agreed with the first lockdown due to the coronavirus unknowns, it has now become farcical however.  As time has gone on and reading up on alternative approaches, improved data and thinking about how to apply it to the UK, I have now come to the conclusion that future lockdowns will severely damage the UK both socially and economically and we'd be better of switching to more of a Swedish approach.  Is that right or wrong?  We'll find out in a few years time.

I never said you did, rather I was pointing out how, at a fundamental level, our positions are coming from a similar place. It's worth noting however that the Swedish approach is different, not just the UK will less lockdowns. It also includes controls on a number of things relevant to discussion on this forum, most notably a limit on the size of gathers, and no fans in stadia. Going down the Swedish route would, unfortunately, not bring fans back to the Football. 

[Stive Pesley]

12 hours ago, richinspain said:

Am i missing something here? Was your comment a joke? It's just that I don't get it. You're saying that you used to go to your mum's on a Sunday, but because you could be asymptomatic that you now go on a Thursday? So you can only catch it on a Friday? Do you stay at home all week but go out on a Friday?

Sorry - yes. It was a joke.

Or at least an attempt as satire - trying to demonstrate ther sort of logic gaps you see all over social media from the hard-of-thinking

 

[Albert]

20 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

You get the vaccination then. Derrr. 

The point is that for 'herd immunity' strategies to work, everyone, except those with risk of serious adverse reaction, would have to get it. This is why many countries are talking about mandating one, should it become available. 

[EtoileSportiveDeDerby]

58 minutes ago, secretsquirrel said:

Whilst we have our borders open i don't think we will reduce the level of infection to a manageable level.New Zealand controlled things by doing this-much easier for them and in Australia they have closed borders between states.With all the trade coming in and out of the uk its not possible so a way of managing it has to be found until we have a vaccine.

No deal Bword will sort out the borders, just wait till 1st of Jan. That will then then fix the Cword. They got a plan, dont worry.