Coronavirus

[Stive Pesley]

Just now, Albert said:

It's worth noting however that the Swedish approach is different, not just the UK will less lockdowns

Funny that when you mention a country that has had great success controlling the virus through lockdowns and other stringent measures - you get hit with "ah but they are a very different country, different demographics etc etc"

But offering up Sweden as an example is apparently fine and doesn't warrant such comparisons (despite the fact that all the same arguments exist)?

Talk about picking and choosing your examples to fit your narrative

[richinspain]

3 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

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

 

I assumed it was, but as no one had put a laughing emoji I thought that either I was missing something or you were actually being serious. ?

[Eddie]

2 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Funny that when you mention a country that has had great success controlling the virus through lockdowns and other stringent measures - you get hit with "ah but they are a very different country, different demographics etc etc"

But offering up Sweden as an example is apparently fine and doesn't warrant such comparisons (despite the fact that all the same arguments exist)?

Talk about picking and choosing your examples to fit your narrative

Sweden's dangerous.

A Møøse once bit my sister... No realli!

[Spanish]

2 minutes ago, Albert said:

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. 

Isn't that the missing piece though.  Lockdowns are likely to control the pressure on health service facilities but is there any evidence yet that herd immunity actually exists which would make lockdowns progressively worthwhile?  Even if it does, how long does it last?  The flu vaccine is not 100% effective and needs another version every year.

You may realise that I am broadly in favour of controls to limit the spread of the virus but I am still struggling to see where this goes.

[Uptherams]

26 minutes ago, Albert said:

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. 

No they wouldn't. Jeez. 

[Norman]

47 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

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?

Ah, so you've never had the flu jab. You're killing old people. 

I've had mine this year, when I had my Hep B last week. I'm such a better person than you. 

[Albert]

9 minutes ago, Spanish said:

Isn't that the missing piece though.  Lockdowns are likely to control the pressure on health service facilities but is there any evidence yet that herd immunity actually exists which would make lockdowns progressively worthwhile?  Even if it does, how long does it last?  The flu vaccine is not 100% effective and needs another version every year.

You may realise that I am broadly in favour of controls to limit the spread of the virus but I am still struggling to see where this goes.

It's a complicated question, but the flu vaccine point is a bit of red herring. 'The flu' is a collective term for influenza viruses, there are absolute tons of them, and a certain set of them flare up each year. Given that they are endemic, they are spreading through a large number of people, and evolve over the course of years. It's not that the 'fluvax' wears off as such (though immunity can drop off over time), but rather, the new one covers the seasonal strains, which can include new influenza viruses. 

Covid-19 is caused by one virus, which is not endemic, and while there are some different branches, it isn't evolving rapidly enough yet for the concern of different strains to be the major concern. Coronaviruses (the family it's from) tend to be hard to vaccinate for, however, and no vaccine for a coronavirus of any kind exists to this point. There's a number of reasons for this, one being that immunity does indeed drop off, but the bigger issue is that most aren't that harmful, and the ones that have been (SARS, MERS) were well controlled. 

Equally, in the case that lockdowns are actually effective, you're not actually getting any herd immunity, that's the whole point. The idea of just slowing progression through controls is more of the Swedish model. 

Now, there are a number of scenarios, and we don't really know enough to say with certainty yet which way this will go:

1. Immunity is brief. 

2. Immunity declines quickly, but future infections are less harmful. 

3. Immunity lasts months to a year. 

4. Immunity lasts years. 

5. Immunity is virtually lifelong. 

From the papers I've read recently, 2-4 seem the most likely, with 4 being the hope. Given we're not seeing many reinfections, 1 is extremely unlikely. 

Now, 'herd immunity' through letting the fire burn basically acts as a slow vaccination program, with potentially deadly side effects. 1 renders herd immunity through any means virtually impossible, but 2 and 3 render the 'Swedish model' pointless for such a pursuit. A well planned and well executed vaccination program, however, would be effective in all but case 1. Without international cooperation, however, such a program would effectively be a shortcut to the 'New Zealand' scenario, where the virus is virtually gone from the country, but you can't have your borders freely open. 

That's the thing though, nobody really knows what's going to happen next. It's why I'm such a proponent of strategies that control the virus for now, and let a population live out of lockdowns, and let life go on in the new normal. Where I am could live under these conditions for years if we had to. The economy is recovering, and it is very much a new normal. Living through lockdown after lockdown, or just letting it burn, however, both lack that long term viability across all the possible scenarios. If people followed the Great Barrington Declaration by Prof. Gupta et al, but we were actually dealing with scenario 2, then all the suffering would be for naught. 

29 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Funny that when you mention a country that has had great success controlling the virus through lockdowns and other stringent measures - you get hit with "ah but they are a very different country, different demographics etc etc"

But offering up Sweden as an example is apparently fine and doesn't warrant such comparisons (despite the fact that all the same arguments exist)?

Talk about picking and choosing your examples to fit your narrative

I didn't say anything about 'different demographics' or otherwise, you seem very confused. I don't doubt that the UK could try Sweden's strategy and have it be 'just as effective'. I'm not convinced it's effective at all, for the record. They've performed worse than their neighbours on virtually every metric to this point, including economically. 

The point with Sweden is, however, that their strategy is usually vastly misrepresented. They've not done lockdowns, but they have had a lot of restrictions. My point is that 'the Swedish method' isn't the UK with less restrictions. So if, for ideological reasons, you wanted to adopt such an approach, it's worth noting that fact. To put that in blunter terms, saying 'we should do what Sweden is doing' isn't just saying 'we shouldn't do lockdowns'. 

[Albert]

9 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

No they wouldn't. Jeez. 

They would, that's what herd immunity is. Letting people choose risks not reaching a threshold high enough to reduce the reproduction number enough to force the numbers in a reasonable time, or worse, not even get it below 1. As a matter of public health, a mandated vaccine for a pandemic is well justified. 

[Chester40]

50 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

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?

Bit like Covid??  You have it to stop passing flu to vulnerable people...

The other year some people got ill from it and it wasn't effective.

Its just laziness really..or selfishness.. Or sensible precaution against something you don't value.. depending on how you view it. 

[Chester40]

18 minutes ago, Albert said:

It's a complicated question, but the flu vaccine point is a bit of red herring. 'The flu' is a collective term for influenza viruses, there are absolute tons of them, and a certain set of them flare up each year. Given that they are endemic, they are spreading through a large number of people, and evolve over the course of years. It's not that the 'fluvax' wears off as such (though immunity can drop off over time), but rather, the new one covers the seasonal strains, which can include new influenza viruses. 

Covid-19 is caused by one virus, which is not endemic, and while there are some different branches, it isn't evolving rapidly enough yet for the concern of different strains to be the major concern. Coronaviruses (the family it's from) tend to be hard to vaccinate for, however, and no vaccine for a coronavirus of any kind exists to this point. There's a number of reasons for this, one being that immunity does indeed drop off, but the bigger issue is that most aren't that harmful, and the ones that have been (SARS, MERS) were well controlled. 

Equally, in the case that lockdowns are actually effective, you're not actually getting any herd immunity, that's the whole point. The idea of just slowing progression through controls is more of the Swedish model. 

Now, there are a number of scenarios, and we don't really know enough to say with certainty yet which way this will go:

1. Immunity is brief. 

2. Immunity declines quickly, but future infections are less harmful. 

3. Immunity lasts months to a year. 

4. Immunity lasts years. 

5. Immunity is virtually lifelong. 

From the papers I've read recently, 2-4 seem the most likely, with 4 being the hope. Given we're not seeing many reinfections, 1 is extremely unlikely. 

Now, 'herd immunity' through letting the fire burn basically acts as a slow vaccination program, with potentially deadly side effects. 1 renders herd immunity through any means virtually impossible, but 2 and 3 render the 'Swedish model' pointless for such a pursuit. A well planned and well executed vaccination program, however, would be effective in all but case 1. Without international cooperation, however, such a program would effectively be a shortcut to the 'New Zealand' scenario, where the virus is virtually gone from the country, but you can't have your borders freely open. 

That's the thing though, nobody really knows what's going to happen next. It's why I'm such a proponent of strategies that control the virus for now, and let a population live out of lockdowns, and let life go on in the new normal. Where I am could live under these conditions for years if we had to. The economy is recovering, and it is very much a new normal. Living through lockdown after lockdown, or just letting it burn, however, both lack that long term viability across all the possible scenarios. If people followed the Great Barrington Declaration by Prof. Gupta et al, but we were actually dealing with scenario 2, then all the suffering would be for naught. 

I didn't say anything about 'different demographics' or otherwise, you seem very confused. I don't doubt that the UK could try Sweden's strategy and have it be 'just as effective'. I'm not convinced it's effective at all, for the record. They've performed worse than their neighbours on virtually every metric to this point, including economically. 

The point with Sweden is, however, that their strategy is usually vastly misrepresented. They've not done lockdowns, but they have had a lot of restrictions. My point is that 'the Swedish method' isn't the UK with less restrictions. So if, for ideological reasons, you wanted to adopt such an approach, it's worth noting that fact. To put that in blunter terms, saying 'we should do what Sweden is doing' isn't just saying 'we shouldn't do lockdowns'. 

Its not a red herring in the context of understanding human behaviour. 

Every single year my work massively push the free flu vaccine and even have it arranged to be done en masse on training days. 

Most people still don't have one, those who do are generally older or have had a bad experience with flu or have an ill family member. 

You can explain the differences (as I'm sure you will) I'm not debating there are lots, but it's just an example of what people do. They think about themselves first. 

@ariotofmyownvery graciously and honestly showed how even people who express support of Covid vaccinations aren't really overly keen on vaccinations where they don't see it as important or relevant to their circumstances. 

[maxjam]

40 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Funny that when you mention a country that has had great success controlling the virus through lockdowns and other stringent measures - you get hit with "ah but they are a very different country, different demographics etc etc"

But offering up Sweden as an example is apparently fine and doesn't warrant such comparisons (despite the fact that all the same arguments exist)?

Talk about picking and choosing your examples to fit your narrative

I can argue that Vietnam for example is socially and economically worlds apart from the UK whilst offering up Sweden as an example of a different approach without being contradictory imo. 

Its less to do with picking and choosing examples to fit my narrative and more to do with not repeating myself or going through a long list of things we could have done differently to keep my reply short.

[ariotofmyown]

16 minutes ago, Chester40 said:

Bit like Covid??  You have it to stop passing flu to vulnerable people...

The other year some people got ill from it and it wasn't effective.

Its just laziness really..or selfishness.. Or sensible precaution against something you don't value.. depending on how you view it. 

I've never seen or read anything about how I should take flu jabs to prevent the spread and make sure it doesn't spread to the elderly. I've never been offered one either.

I genuinely thought they were something with limited supply and they prioritise elderly people first, or people who work with vulnerable people.

I certainly wouldn't turn one down based on some risks in my head.

What's the advice this year? Should we all be getting flu jabs this year regardless of age? Does someone contact you about getting one?

[ariotofmyown]

25 minutes ago, Norman said:

Ah, so you've never had the flu jab. You're killing old people. 

I've had mine this year, when I had my Hep B last week. I'm such a better person than you. 

I'll retake my place at the top of the leaderboard when you refuse the Covid vaccine.

[ariotofmyown]

Interestingly, the government is not even recommending that I take the flu vaccine this year.  Probably why I've not see or read anything about taking one to protect lives...

"

Each year the NHS prepares for the unpredictability of flu. For most healthy people, flu is an unpleasant but usually self-limiting disease with recovery generally within a week.

However, there is a particular risk of severe illness from catching flu for:

older people

the very young

pregnant women

those with underlying disease, such as chronic respiratory or cardiac disease

those who are immunosuppressed

This year you are also recommended to have the flu vaccine if you are:

the main carer of an older or disabled person

a household contact of someone on the shielded patients list for COVID-19

a child aged 2 to 11 years old on 31 August 2020"

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/annual-flu-programme

[Norman]

9 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

I've never seen or read anything about how I should take flu jabs to prevent the spread and make sure it doesn't spread to the elderly. I've never been offered one either.

I genuinely thought they were something with limited supply and they prioritise elderly people first, or people who work with vulnerable people.

I certainly wouldn't turn one down based on some risks in my head.

What's the advice this year? Should we all be getting flu jabs this year regardless of age? Does someone contact you about getting one?

The ignorance. 

The selfishness. 

*puts back of hand in brow dramatically*

The line is for as many people as possible, of varying ages, to go and get it. This stops the NHS from potentially being crippled. 

I've done my bit, i find your ignorance horrfying.

I don't. You have a normal attitude towards the flu vaccine. 

Still, you're a bad person. Or are you? Who knows. I don't know what you are anymore.

[Norman]

2 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Interestingly, the government is not even recommending that I take the flu vaccine this year.  Probably why I've not see or read anything about taking one to protect lives...

"

Each year the NHS prepares for the unpredictability of flu. For most healthy people, flu is an unpleasant but usually self-limiting disease with recovery generally within a week.

However, there is a particular risk of severe illness from catching flu for:

older people

the very young

pregnant women

those with underlying disease, such as chronic respiratory or cardiac disease

those who are immunosuppressed

This year you are also recommended to have the flu vaccine if you are:

the main carer of an older or disabled person

a household contact of someone on the shielded patients list for COVID-19

a child aged 2 to 11 years old on 31 August 2020"

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/annual-flu-programme

So your ignorance is proven right by luck. 

Not good enough, mate. Not good enough. 

Mind you, you could replace the word 'flu' with 'Covid' in that segment. 

[GboroRam]

[Stive Pesley]

27 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I can argue that Vietnam for example is socially and economically worlds apart from the UK whilst offering up Sweden as an example of a different approach without being contradictory imo. 

By all means offer it as an example, but we either agree that all countries are very different or we don't

Sweden is also worlds apart from the UK in terms of size, population density and culture

Examples are interesting, and contain useful ideas - but they are what they are.

The idea that the UK should follow the model that Sweden adopted is as invalid as the idea that it should follow the model that Vietnam did

The 2 are not mutually exclusive. We should be looking at ALL the countries that have done better than us and be cherrypicking the bits that could work here

 

 

 

[Albert]

43 minutes ago, Chester40 said:

Its not a red herring in the context of understanding human behaviour. 

Every single year my work massively push the free flu vaccine and even have it arranged to be done en masse on training days. 

Most people still don't have one, those who do are generally older or have had a bad experience with flu or have an ill family member. 

You can explain the differences (as I'm sure you will) I'm not debating there are lots, but it's just an example of what people do. They think about themselves first. 

@ariotofmyownvery graciously and honestly showed how even people who express support of Covid vaccinations aren't really overly keen on vaccinations where they don't see it as important or relevant to their circumstances. 

The red herring point was more about there being no one 'flu', which is why there is a new vaccine each year. Covid-19 is a disease caused by a single virus, even if there are some minor genetic differences (which will always happen as a disease spreads). 

[Albert]

26 minutes ago, Norman said:

The ignorance. 

The selfishness. 

*puts back of hand in brow dramatically*

The line is for as many people as possible, of varying ages, to go and get it. This stops the NHS from potentially being crippled. 

I've done my bit, i find your ignorance horrfying.

I don't. You have a normal attitude towards the flu vaccine. 

Still, you're a bad person. Or are you? Who knows. I don't know what you are anymore.

Is the messaging really this unclear in the UK these days? 

In Australia, it is a recommended vaccine for all people who can take it (notionally anyone >6 months old), with some groups highly recommended (ie the elderly, the young, people with occupations dealing with people in these categories, etc). The reason it's recommended for all is to slow the spread, especially after 2019 was a particularly bad year for the flu. 

If the messaging really is that inconsistent, it's not wonder there's so much distrust around public health around Covid-19.