Coronavirus Thread (Off Topic, Politics) (11 Viewers)

[shmmeee]

So you don't understand what dangerous means?

If every time you crossed the road there was a good chance of getting hit by a car something drastic would have to change. That is dangerous. But you don't frequently get hit by a car but there is still a chance of it happening. So the choices are make drastic changes, use different methods like pedestrian crossings or accept the risk.

And this is where the cost comes into it. You wouldn't put pedestrian crossings on every road. You put them where they are needed the most. But it doesn't eliminate all risk.

Understanding a term and quantifying it are two different things. Dangerous is a relative subjective term. As is “drastic” “costly” “good chance”.

 

---

[Sky Blue Pete]

When my daughter had spinal surgery to straighten her spine I had to listen to her fear and discuss with a consultant friend of mine how medicine deals with risk

when the risk is 1% it happens to someone else. When it gets to 10% or more it’s an important discussion to have with the patient.

So the night before she was really upset and I asked her why and she said she’s scared she’ll die during the operation. She was 11.
I used crossing London road to school as a risk discussion.

so there’s a risk of being knocked over so you look, you press the button for the crossing, you cross at the right place, you learn to look at how fast a car is going etc etc and so you reduce the risk to pretty much zero and the benefit of getting to school

for her op I was able to say the risk of death or complications from the anastethjc was tiny and people train for years and check the instruments throughout

that the surgeon had done it numerous times before and was really good at what she did and although it was an option to not have the op it would lead to life limiting pain and physical issues for life.

It was really useful to have the conversation

With Covid the risk for many of us is as close to nothing as possible. The risk is to someone else and that’s hard to quantify and even more to act and miss out on life as we know it to reduce others risk

 

[LastGarrison]

Was thinking a while back I wonder when the uk will have its first day of no recorded cases, not going to be 2021 is it....

Surely it will be never?

COVID-19, once we get control of it, will sit alongside the flu etc. as something that we will have living with us going forward.

Vaccines will not get rid of COVID it will just stop the vast majority (even more so) of people dying from it.

 

[Astute]

Understanding a term and quantifying it are two different things. Dangerous is a relative subjective term. As is “drastic” “costly” “good chance”.

Would you expect a small company to pay 100k to take away a risk? Would you expect a worldwide company that makes billions a year to spend 100k to take away the same risk?

First of all it depends on levels of danger. If you can put a fix in place for reasonable cost then it should be done. But as I have tried to explain to you a company wouldn't be expected to pay 100k to stop a scratch. The more serious the possible injury the more that should be done/spent.

And you also have to consider stupid. As part of my health and safety training they brought up a case of a man who lost the end of a finger. During the investigation he was required to show what had happened. There was a hole in the guard to a machine. "I put my finger in like AAAARRRRGGGH'. He had put another finger in to show them and lost the end of that one as well

 

[speedie87]

Surely it will be never?

COVID-19, once we get control of it, will sit alongside the flu etc. as something that we will have living with us going forward.

Vaccines will not get rid of COVID it will just stop the vast majority (even more so) of people dying from it.

That was what I ended up thinking.I suppose the question is whether to aim for nil cases at this stage like New Zealand or not.

 

[Astute]

Surely it will be never?

COVID-19, once we get control of it, will sit alongside the flu etc. as something that we will have living with us going forward.

Vaccines will not get rid of COVID it will just stop the vast majority (even more so) of people dying from it.

We don't know which way this will go. As things stand it will always be around. But medical research is an amazing thing. Vaccinations have been produced in record time. An improvement will be looked for. Who would be surprised if something was found to eradicate the virus.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

We don't know which way this will go. As things stand it will always be around. But medical research is an amazing thing. Vaccinations have been produced in record time. An improvement will be looked for. Who would be surprised if something was found to eradicate the virus.

We were able to globally eradicate diseases in the past, key word being global. The difficulty is not here but in countries that don’t have the resources or infrastructure to vaccinate their populations.

 

[Astute]

We were able to globally eradicate diseases in the past, key word being global. The difficulty is not here but in countries that don’t have the resources or infrastructure to vaccinate their populations.

And also unable to eradicate others. The difference this time is the amount of effort going into defeating it.

If they can come up with something like a lifelong vaccination they will be able to eradicate it. If not then it will most probably stick around but only in the poor countries unless help is given.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

And also unable to eradicate others. The difference this time is the amount of effort going into defeating it.

If they can come up with something like a lifelong vaccination they will be able to eradicate it. If not then it will most probably stick around but only in the poor countries unless help is given.

Smallpox went through a successful global vaccination programme to the point where no more vaccinations against it are needed because it only exists in a lab freezer. In COVID’s case as it is an ever mutating virus and the risk to a good chunk of the population is so low they will likely focus on keeping the vulnerable protected by responding to changes in the strain each year

 

[Astute]

Smallpox went through a successful global vaccination programme to the point where no more vaccinations against it are needed because it only exists in a lab freezer. In COVID’s case as it is an ever mutating virus and the risk to a good chunk of the population is so low they will likely focus on keeping the vulnerable protected by responding to changes in the strain each year

Yes that is a way we might go.

Every disease/virus is different. Many viruses mutate to be able to pass in more easily. Most of the time they end up less dangerous but still kill about the sane amount as they get passed on more easily.

Immunity depends on many barriers. IIRC measles is one of the most contagious diseases. 95% need to be immune to keep it at bay. But others only need 75% to 80% immunity to stop them from spreading. If COVID only needs 80% immunity it would be relevantly easier to beat than if 95% immunity is needed.

And yes I know you are a science teacher who counts himself as a scientist. But would you like to call any of this wrong?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Yes that is a way we might go.

Every disease/virus is different. Many viruses mutate to be able to pass in more easily. Most of the time they end up less dangerous but still kill about the sane amount as they get passed on more easily.

Immunity depends on many barriers. IIRC measles is one of the most contagious diseases. 95% need to be immune to keep it at bay. But others only need 75% to 80% immunity to stop them from spreading. If COVID only needs 80% immunity it would be relevantly easier to beat than if 95% immunity is needed.

And yes I know you are a science teacher who counts himself as a scientist. But would you like to call any of this wrong?

I wasn’t trying to say you were wrong just voicing why I think it’s unlikely we will get to a zero COVID situation but also why that shouldn’t be a concern. The countries that have kept the case load very low will likely still have to pursue vaccination programs if they wish to open up to the world also.

 

[Astute]

I wasn’t trying to say you were wrong just voicing why I think it’s unlikely we will get to a zero COVID situation but also why that shouldn’t be a concern. The countries that have kept the case load very low will likely still have to pursue vaccination programs if they wish to open up to the world also.

Why qoute myself when I have already said similar then?

It wouldn’t surprise me if 25% of the UK had already had the virus. It then comes down to immunisation and how long it helps for.

Can it be caught again?

Is it less dangerous the 2nd, 3rd,4th time?

Will a vaccine be found that gives a lifetime of immunity?

There are many variations of what could happen. The only ones that know what will happen are those who know nothing. An educated guess at best. A lot of it could come down to my favourite subject.....mathematics.

25% some sort of immunity from having the virus. 80% needed. That doesn't mean 55% vaccinations needed. Up to 25% of who you vaccinate would already have had the virus. So 1 in 4 might not do a lot. Only 41% of those vaccinated might benefit. But on the other hand most of those getting the vaccines have been shielding so should be nowhere near the 25% level. And to add to this those who have/should have been shielding were much more at risk from the virus so had a much lower chance of surviving the virus.

 

[Skybluefaz]

Local authority in Cov limiting school bubble sizes to 15 to try and get a control in place that government guidance doesn't allow

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Why qoute myself when I have already said similar then?

It wouldn’t surprise me if 25% of the UK had already had the virus. It then comes down to immunisation and how long it helps for.

Can it be caught again?

Is it less dangerous the 2nd, 3rd,4th time?

Will a vaccine be found that gives a lifetime of immunity?

There are many variations of what could happen. The only ones that know what will happen are those who know nothing. An educated guess at best. A lot of it could come down to my favourite subject.....mathematics.

25% some sort of immunity from having the virus. 80% needed. That doesn't mean 55% vaccinations needed. Up to 25% of who you vaccinate would already have had the virus. So 1 in 4 might not do a lot. Only 41% of those vaccinated might benefit. But on the other hand most of those getting the vaccines have been shielding so should be nowhere near the 25% level. And to add to this those who have/should have been shielding were much more at risk from the virus so had a much lower chance of surviving the virus.

My mate was hospitalised couple of months ago but still had the vaccine as no guarantee of antibodies

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Why qoute myself when I have already said similar then?

It wouldn’t surprise me if 25% of the UK had already had the virus. It then comes down to immunisation and how long it helps for.

Can it be caught again?

Is it less dangerous the 2nd, 3rd,4th time?

Will a vaccine be found that gives a lifetime of immunity?

There are many variations of what could happen. The only ones that know what will happen are those who know nothing. An educated guess at best. A lot of it could come down to my favourite subject.....mathematics.

25% some sort of immunity from having the virus. 80% needed. That doesn't mean 55% vaccinations needed. Up to 25% of who you vaccinate would already have had the virus. So 1 in 4 might not do a lot. Only 41% of those vaccinated might benefit. But on the other hand most of those getting the vaccines have been shielding so should be nowhere near the 25% level. And to add to this those who have/should have been shielding were much more at risk from the virus so had a much lower chance of surviving the virus.

In my view lifelong immunity is unlikely because of mutations that make it more akin to something like the common cold or the flu. That is all I meant.

 

[Astute]

My mate was hospitalised couple of months ago but still had the vaccine as no guarantee of antibodies

There are no guarantees with the vaccinations either. They have tested what they can in a short amount of time but the rest is to be seen still. What it looks like is you can get it again but it becomes less dangerous. You instead could become a spreader.

 

[shmmeee]

There are no guarantees with the vaccinations either. They have tested what they can in a short amount of time but the rest is to be seen still. What it looks like is you can get it again but it becomes less dangerous. You instead could become a spreader.

Vaccines have been tested to the usual standards.

 

[shmmeee]

Ex just called to say she’s tested positive. Don’t even know what protocol is here. I’ve not been in contact with her but the kids have. Nothing in the guidance I can see.

 

[Astute]

In my view lifelong immunity is unlikely because of mutations that make it more akin to something like the common cold or the flu. That is all I meant.

Which is what many of the experts are saying will probably happen. But others are saying we need to reach 80% immunisation or more to defeat it.

And then as I said earlier if they can come out with vaccines so quickly why won't they be able to come out with better in the future. And that is without at least one of the present vaccines doing the job. But I do err on the side that you say.

 

[Astute]

Vaccines have been tested to the usual standards.

So what are the long term projections?

Exactly. No tests have been long term as they haven't been used long term or tested long term.

 

[Astute]

Ex just called to say she’s tested positive. Don’t even know what protocol is here. I’ve not been in contact with her but the kids have. Nothing in the guidance I can see.

How long since you have both had contact with the kids?

 

[clint van damme]

Ex just called to say she’s tested positive. Don’t even know what protocol is here. I’ve not been in contact with her but the kids have. Nothing in the guidance I can see.

I think she has to try and isolate from everyone else in the house which is difficult enough when we're talking adults but how do you do it when children rely on you?

You're kids will also have to isolate for a fortnight. Really difficult situation mate.
Does your ex know where she contracted it?

 

[shepardo01]

Think your kids have to self isolate for 10 days (recently changed from 14)
If they develop symptoms, they go for a test.

 

[clint van damme]

Think your kids have to self isolate for 10 days (recently changed from 14)
If they develop symptoms, they go for a test.

That's right. And if one of them does contract it I'd imagine Shmmeee will have to isolate depending on when he last saw them.

 

[Astute]

That's right. And if one of them does contract it I'd imagine Shmmeee will have to isolate depending on when he last saw them.

Which is why I asked when they all had contact with each other. Might even have got it from the kids if they go to school.

Have known a few people get a positive result after getting a test after losing sense of smell and no other symptoms.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Ex just called to say she’s tested positive. Don’t even know what protocol is here. I’ve not been in contact with her but the kids have. Nothing in the guidance I can see.

Suppose we should all be acting as if we’re positive. Kids would need to isolate you don’t

[Withdrawn] [Withdrawn] Stay at home: guidance for households with possible or confirmed coronavirus (COVID-19) infection

www.gov.uk

Don’t know about two household stuff with shared kids though

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Suppose we should all be acting as if we’re positive. Kids would need to isolate you don’t

[Withdrawn] [Withdrawn] Stay at home: guidance for households with possible or confirmed coronavirus (COVID-19) infection

www.gov.uk

Don’t know about two household stuff with shared kids though

Hope she’s ok

 

[fernandopartridge]

So what are the long term projections?

Exactly. No tests have been long term as they haven't been used long term or tested long term.

Like any vaccine then

 

[fernandopartridge]

Suppose we should all be acting as if we’re positive. Kids would need to isolate you don’t

[Withdrawn] [Withdrawn] Stay at home: guidance for households with possible or confirmed coronavirus (COVID-19) infection

www.gov.uk

Don’t know about two household stuff with shared kids though

I read that early on in the pandemic that it was the best advice to everybody. Why the government didn't just adopt simple messaging like this I don't know

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Which is what many of the experts are saying will probably happen. But others are saying we need to reach 80% immunisation or more to defeat it.

And then as I said earlier if they can come out with vaccines so quickly why won't they be able to come out with better in the future. And that is without at least one of the present vaccines doing the job. But I do err on the side that you say.

Of course, and it can be defeated while still being around. If we get to a point where society can fully function again, with it around, we've won. A vaccine providing permanent immunity would be perfect of course, but this family of viruses mutates very readily which means you will need to keep tinkering with the vaccine every now and then.

Which can be done pretty quickly now and is infinitely easier than researching a vaccine from scratch as the scientific community has managed this time.

 

[Wyken Sky Blue]

Sounds like it's possbiel could become more aggressive.

What countries adopted curfews and is it a realistic option this country should explore?

Sent from my I3113 using Tapatalk

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I read that early on in the pandemic that it was the best advice to everybody. Why the government didn't just adopt simple messaging like this I don't know

Agreed

 

[CCFCSteve]

Sounds like it's possbiel could become more aggressive.

What countries adopted curfews and is it a realistic option this country should explore?

Sent from my I3113 using Tapatalk

Pretty sure if people followed current restrictions properly (and those that can WFH, actually do), numbers should start to decrease. Unfortunately the main word in that sentence is ‘if’ ! Only caveat is then minimising hospital spread which has been high

Looking at the movement stats for first three days of current lockdown v March lockdown both driving and walking are up c50% !

ps BSB and Astute (and others obviously) following your immunity chat above you might be interested in reading the article/interview in Sunday times with Neil Ferguson regarding immunity/vaccinations etc. Interesting

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Pretty sure if people followed current restrictions properly (and those that can WFH, actually do), numbers should start to decrease. Unfortunately the main word in that sentence is ‘if’ ! Only caveat is then minimising hospital spread which has been high

Looking at the movement stats for first three days of current lockdown v March lockdown both driving and walking are up c50% !

ps BSB and Astute (and others obviously) following your immunity chat above you might be interested in reading the article/interview in Sunday times with Neil Ferguson regarding immunity/vaccinations etc. Interesting

By way of example I took in some books for marking before Christmas because we weren't told anything pre-emptively and to assume we were coming back in. Now got to go into school just to put the books in so they can be posted back out again.

 

[hill83]

Which can be done pretty quickly now and is infinitely easier than researching a vaccine from scratch as the scientific community has managed this time.

The vaccines for Covid weren’t even from scratch were they? I’m sure I read they were changes from an already agreed method.

Edit: Found it

Oxford vaccine: How did they make it so quickly? - BBC News

Good fortune and scientific brilliance were behind the Covid-19 vaccine being developed so quickly.

www.google.co.uk

The biggest misconception is the work on the vaccine started when the pandemic began.

And they had already developed a ChAdOx1 vaccine for Mers , which could train the immune system to spot the spike. The Oxford team were not starting from scratch.

"If this had been a completely unknown virus, then we'd have been in a very different position," Prof Pollard added.

And it obviously bodes well for any changes in the virus as any changes to the vaccine will be “easy”.