OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote:Will a vaccine be the end of this virus though? Afterall we've had a flu vaccine for many years?
Also vaccines against measles and mumps. They are all still prevelent

No vaccine can be 100% successful.There are 17000 deaths in England every year from the winter flu virus,how many of those deaths were of people who had the vaccine isn’t clear.More worrying is that the flu vaccine has so called safe levels of Formaldehyde and Mercury in them so who knows what will be in this rushed through Covid vaccine.It normally takes 5-8 years to fully test a vaccine before it is deemed safe to use.

Percy plunkett wrote:

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote:Will a vaccine be the end of this virus though? Afterall we've had a flu vaccine for many years?
Also vaccines against measles and mumps. They are all still prevelent

No vaccine can be 100% successful.There are 17000 deaths in England every year from the winter flu virus,how many of those deaths were of people who had the vaccine isn’t clear.More worrying is that the flu vaccine has so called safe levels of Formaldehyde and Mercury in them so who knows what will be in this rushed through Covid vaccine.It normally takes 5-8 years to fully test a vaccine before it is deemed safe to use.

I’d suggest a small amount of formaldehyde and mercury would be the least of our problems, after all it is thought that immunity to this virus doesn’t last long so even if we get a vaccine, how long it would confer immunity is a big ponder.

Percy plunkett wrote:

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote:Will a vaccine be the end of this virus though? Afterall we've had a flu vaccine for many years?
Also vaccines against measles and mumps. They are all still prevelent

No vaccine can be 100% successful.There are 17000 deaths in England every year from the winter flu virus,how many of those deaths were of people who had the vaccine isn’t clear.More worrying is that the flu vaccine has so called safe levels of Formaldehyde and Mercury in them so who knows what will be in this rushed through Covid vaccine.It normally takes 5-8 years to fully test a vaccine before it is deemed safe to use.

The amount of mercury in a vaccine is the same amount as a tin of tuna, and the amount of formaldehyde is tiny compared to the amount that naturally occurs in the body.

Serious question for those with a bit more knowledge than me

Quite a few experts are saying we should isolate the vulnerable and the rest of us should basically get on with our lives because the country can not afford to go on locking down
Economically they are probably right

Thoughts

I guess it depends on whether you think There's No Such Thing As Society. And EVERYONE is vulnerable, vast numbers in their 20s might be looking at lifelong impaired health if they get it.

UPTHEPORT wrote:Serious question for those with a bit more knowledge than me

Quite a few experts are saying we should isolate the vulnerable and the rest of us should basically get on with our lives because the country can not afford to go on locking down
Economically they are probably right

Thoughts

I have big doubts about this mate especially those who advocate ignoring all precautions, I’ll say why after the next sentence. I also have some sympathy with those who say we must keep the economy going, they’re right we must, with the proviso we do it in as safe a fashion as possible. What I was getting to is that some of the very young and even of those, some of whom are super fit get “ long Covid “ which is still debilitating them six months later. It’s a mistake to trivialise this infection, it may have long term consequences even in those who appear to have had a relatively mild bout of initial disease from SARS-CoV-2. I was listening yesterday to a young man who run marathons who six months after catching Covid is still barely able to stir a cup-a-soup.

UPTHEPORT wrote:Serious question for those with a bit more knowledge than me

Quite a few experts are saying we should isolate the vulnerable and the rest of us should basically get on with our lives because the country can not afford to go on locking down
Economically they are probably right

Thoughts

Again, it's an argument based on false equivalence.

They cite the undoubted economic damage being done now because of the restrictions imposed, but they do not reference what the economic damage will be if the infection is allowed to run relatively unfettered in the population.

They perhaps "all too conveniently" forget that as the number of cases of COVID-19 rises so will the number of people unable to work because of incapacity (and possibly long-term disability) due to disease symptoms or because they are a primary carer. As happened when the second wave of Hong Kong flu struck, there was a measurable impact on UK GDP, as transport, deliveries, schools, and general industrial production ground slowly for about 3 or 4 months. COVID-19, left to run relatively unfettered, would have that effect on GDP in spades, and you'd likely get a similar level of economic damage but a much larger number of deaths than following the current restrictions situation.

Also, as the number of cases rises, so the NHS will become rapidly unable to deal with the case load of COVID-19 cases, flu cases, and COVID-19+flu cases, and consequently any normal NHS activities too. This is still the main (generally unstated) reason for the recent increasing restrictions.

Then there is the law of unintended (or unplanned for) consequences. Who goes into work if the kids are off because of COVID-19 in school? The nurse looking after a general ward or his partner driving the van picking up pillar 2 or 3 COVID-19 test samples for delivery?

Doctors and nurses will be off work, and/or dying. Teachers will be off work. Amazon, Ocado,Tesco et al. delivery drivers will be off work. Postal workers will be off work. Production-line workers will be off. Meat-packing plants will be down. The list goes on. And it will all have an effect on GDP (as will the Brexit fallout from January if there is no deal).

If we had this "world class" regular mass testing, track and trace system that Boris promised then I'd be more inclined to listen and probably even agree with their argument.

We don't have a "world class" test system, and we won't during the pandemic because all you can generally do is firefight. And because of the very high number of asymptomatic COVID-19 carriers, you really have to test the general population regularly, not just those suspected of having the disease. But we can't test enough of the suspected cases, let alone test asymptomatics.

Hence, IMHO, their argument deserves being given short shrift.

NearlyDead wrote:

UPTHEPORT wrote:Serious question for those with a bit more knowledge than me

Quite a few experts are saying we should isolate the vulnerable and the rest of us should basically get on with our lives because the country can not afford to go on locking down
Economically they are probably right

Thoughts

Again, it's an argument based on false equivalence.

They cite the undoubted economic damage being done now because of the restrictions imposed, but they do not reference what the economic damage will be if the infection is allowed to run relatively unfettered in the population.

They perhaps "all too conveniently" forget that as the number of cases of COVID-19 rises so will the number of people unable to work because of incapacity (and possibly long-term disability) due to disease symptoms or because they are a primary carer. As happened when the second wave of Hong Kong flu struck, there was a measurable impact on UK GDP, as transport, deliveries, schools, and general industrial production ground slowly for about 3 or 4 months. COVID-19, left to run relatively unfettered, would have that effect on GDP in spades, and you'd likely get a similar level of economic damage but a much larger number of deaths than following the current restrictions situation.

Also, as the number of cases rises, so the NHS will become rapidly unable to deal with the case load of COVID-19 cases, flu cases, and COVID-19+flu cases, and consequently any normal NHS activities too. This is still the main (generally unstated) reason for the recent increasing restrictions.

Then there is the law of unintended (or unplanned for) consequences. Who goes into work if the kids are off because of COVID-19 in school? The nurse looking after a general ward or his partner driving the van picking up pillar 2 or 3 COVID-19 test samples for delivery?

Doctors and nurses will be off work, and/or dying. Teachers will be off work. Amazon, Ocado,Tesco et al. delivery drivers will be off work. Postal workers will be off work. Production-line workers will be off. Meat-packing plants will be down. The list goes on. And it will all have an effect on GDP (as will the Brexit fallout from January if there is no deal).

If we had this "world class" regular mass testing, track and trace system that Boris promised then I'd be more inclined to listen and probably even agree with their argument.

We don't have a "world class" test system, and we won't during the pandemic because all you can generally do is firefight. And because of the very high number of asymptomatic COVID-19 carriers, you really have to test the general population regularly, not just those suspected of having the disease. But we can't test enough of the suspected cases, let alone test asymptomatics.

Hence, IMHO, their argument deserves being given short shrift.

Totally agree , as you can probably work out from my post above. What is winding me up atm is the anti-mask anti-vaccination lot who see the behaviour rules on these and distancing as some kind of government conspiracy. What on Earth they think these conspirators are getting out of trashing the economy absolutely defeats me. They probably also think Elvis is sitting on the top deck of a double-decker bus on the dark side of the moon.

Isn't he

Yes, I gathered as much. I expanded the economic argument, which is what the initial question was about. But it's all interlinked.

There's a meme starting to surface among right-wing commentators (Julia Hartley-Brewer, Toby Young) and politicians (Redwood) that uses anti-VAX-type arguments promoted by ex-Pfizer's Dr Mike Yeadon to suggest that the number of false positives in the PCR test is "half or nearly all", so there's nothing to worry about!

Patent nonsense. If it gains much more traction I may opine on it.

Excellent post, Nearlydead. The first lockdown was a breeze, we had everything we needed - unlimited internet, outdoor space, no dependents, didn't have to go anywhere.

But if you took out of the equation that we've been getting Ocado grocery deliveries since they started up so had priority access, it would have been a completely different picture. Lockdown 2 will also be a doddle - but only if that service can be maintained. (Other delivery services are available. )

George Street-Bridge wrote:Excellent post, Nearlydead. The first lockdown was a breeze, we had everything we needed - unlimited internet, outdoor space, no dependents, didn't have to go anywhere.

But if you took out of the equation that we've been getting Ocado grocery deliveries since they started up so had priority access, it would have been a completely different picture. Lockdown 2 will also be a doddle - but only if that service can be maintained. (Other delivery services are available. )

That's the problem. For many who do have dependants and don't have large gardens or priority deliveries it was far from a doddle. Lockdown two, without the furlough is going to be a lot harder for those people.

I've maintained that wearing masks puts people into a false sense of security and you watch people they take masks off in their pockets bags etc and don't wash hands

Its drumed into us in NHS you wash hands before taking mask off and once mask is removed and putting on

I very rarely see anyone washing hands donning or doffin

Carry a bottle of sanitiser

UPTHEPORT wrote:I've maintained that wearing masks puts people into a false sense of security and you watch people they take masks off in their pockets bags etc and don't wash hands

Its drumed into us in NHS you wash hands before taking mask off and once mask is removed and putting on

I very rarely see anyone washing hands donning or doffin

Carry a bottle of sanitiser

Jim, I've worked for and in the NHS on several contracts over the years and have to say that, up until Covid getting out of control, hygiene standards amongst clinical staff was poor, would often see theatre staff wandering into canteens wearing their crocs and surgical greens.