Wow.
Covid: Wedding party in Stamford Hill broken up by police
The chief rabbi has described the event as a "shameful desecration of all that we hold dear".www.bbc.co.uk
Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!
- Thread starter bullybeef
- Start date
- Status
What people are also missing is that, regardless of mutations, as the years go by, even with the vaccine, pretty much every single one of us will get this virus. The vaccine will mitigate the effects of it, but there's a reason the vaccine is 60% to 90% effective at stopping you getting it, because you can and will at some point still get it.
But the key is that with the vaccine immune response and infection immune response, it leaves a marker in peoples bodies that will be able to adjust to and then diminish future infections, like the common cold and influenza. The reason COVID kills the elderly is because their immune systems aren't tuned to "new" infections any more; the reason COVID doesn't touch the kids is because their immune systems are tuned to dealing with new threats.
So over the next four or five years, COVID will be in circulation, but the threat of it due to repeated inocculation and infection in the community will be drastically diminished to the point where it will be no more deadly than a normal severe cold.
But the key is that with the vaccine immune response and infection immune response, it leaves a marker in peoples bodies that will be able to adjust to and then diminish future infections, like the common cold and influenza. The reason COVID kills the elderly is because their immune systems aren't tuned to "new" infections any more; the reason COVID doesn't touch the kids is because their immune systems are tuned to dealing with new threats.
So over the next four or five years, COVID will be in circulation, but the threat of it due to repeated inocculation and infection in the community will be drastically diminished to the point where it will be no more deadly than a normal severe cold.
Deckard2049
Player Valuation: £15m
I think there's two slightly different pessimistic points of view. The idea that vaccines won't work, mostly against a hypothetical new strain that could develop, is a little bit too pessimistic for me. The other however is that we won't see the effects of the vaccine for a substantial period of time meaning restrictions which everybody is sick of will continue for quite a bit longer.
Covid: Why won't vaccinating the vulnerable end lockdown?
Doubts have been raised about lifting Covid restrictions in the spring. What are the hurdles in the way?
www.bbc.co.uk
In the end, it is going to come down to what society is willing to tolerate. UK chief medical adviser Prof Chris Whitty has spoken about "de-risking" Covid. His point is that we will reach a situation at which the level of death and illness caused by Covid is at a level society can "tolerate" - just as we tolerate 7,000 to 20,000 people dying from flu every year.
Personally I do wonder now if we've reached a stage where some sections of the general public and the experts (definitely certain members of SAGE and other scientists in the public eye) are of the belief that there really is now no tolerable level of death that a society should accept. Therefore restrictions and social distancing measures should be in place in the future. I'm sure the vast majority of the public and those in government would reject this but it's definitely something which will be highlighted in the media. Especially if the focus turns to cases rather than hospitalisations and deaths. Then there will be renewed focus as well on the implications of long covid.
From the same article;
Modelling by the University of Warwick suggests that, even with 85% uptake, a complete lifting of restrictions in April could lead to very high levels of deaths. "Vaccines are not a panacea," says Prof Matt Keeling, who led the research. And for younger age groups, who are at little risk of dying from the virus, there is still the risk of long-Covid, he says.
This is why I've given up on optimism tbh. Yes, I know pandemics and viruses are ever changing situations, but at some point the government needs to lay out the criteria for when restrictions can be lifted. I would not want them to give a timeline, as that would place immense pressure on them as any deadline approached. But we really do need to know at what stage of vaccinations, hospitalisations and deaths can we begin to open things up and get back on with life. The goalposts keep moving and it's exhausting.
grandjoeblue
Player Valuation: £35m
If for example vaccines reduced covid deaths down to say 10,000 per year in the UK, in my opinion that would have to be accepted if it came down to that or continuous lockdowns. 600,000 people die per year in the UK and you cannot keep everyone locked down to prevent all deaths. Humans die its part of life.I think there's two slightly different pessimistic points of view. The idea that vaccines won't work, mostly against a hypothetical new strain that could develop, is a little bit too pessimistic for me. The other however is that we won't see the effects of the vaccine for a substantial period of time meaning restrictions which everybody is sick of will continue for quite a bit longer.
Covid: Why won't vaccinating the vulnerable end lockdown?
Doubts have been raised about lifting Covid restrictions in the spring. What are the hurdles in the way?
In the end, it is going to come down to what society is willing to tolerate. UK chief medical adviser Prof Chris Whitty has spoken about "de-risking" Covid. His point is that we will reach a situation at which the level of death and illness caused by Covid is at a level society can "tolerate" - just as we tolerate 7,000 to 20,000 people dying from flu every year.
Personally I do wonder now if we've reached a stage where some sections of the general public and the experts (definitely certain members of SAGE and other scientists in the public eye) are of the belief that there really is now no tolerable level of death that a society should accept. Therefore restrictions and social distancing measures should be in place in the future. I'm sure the vast majority of the public and those in government would reject this but it's definitely something which will be highlighted in the media. Especially if the focus turns to cases rather than hospitalisations and deaths. Then there will be renewed focus as well on the implications of long covid.
From the same article;
Modelling by the University of Warwick suggests that, even with 85% uptake, a complete lifting of restrictions in April could lead to very high levels of deaths. "Vaccines are not a panacea," says Prof Matt Keeling, who led the research. And for younger age groups, who are at little risk of dying from the virus, there is still the risk of long-Covid, he says.
This is why I've given up on optimism tbh. Yes, I know pandemics and viruses are ever changing situations, but at some point the government needs to lay out the criteria for when restrictions can be lifted. I would not want them to give a timeline, as that would place immense pressure on them as any deadline approached. But we really do need to know at what stage of vaccinations, hospitalisations and deaths can we begin to open things up and get back on with life. The goalposts keep moving and it's exhausting.
We cannot continue to live like this forever. Its not even living its just keeping going in the hope that normality will resume. I think everyone has done well to stick to these rules for a year, never mind for multiple years.
I think there's two slightly different pessimistic points of view. The idea that vaccines won't work, mostly against a hypothetical new strain that could develop, is a little bit too pessimistic for me. The other however is that we won't see the effects of the vaccine for a substantial period of time meaning restrictions which everybody is sick of will continue for quite a bit longer.
Covid: Why won't vaccinating the vulnerable end lockdown?
Doubts have been raised about lifting Covid restrictions in the spring. What are the hurdles in the way?
In the end, it is going to come down to what society is willing to tolerate. UK chief medical adviser Prof Chris Whitty has spoken about "de-risking" Covid. His point is that we will reach a situation at which the level of death and illness caused by Covid is at a level society can "tolerate" - just as we tolerate 7,000 to 20,000 people dying from flu every year.
Personally I do wonder now if we've reached a stage where some sections of the general public and the experts (definitely certain members of SAGE and other scientists in the public eye) are of the belief that there really is now no tolerable level of death that a society should accept. Therefore restrictions and social distancing measures should be in place in the future. I'm sure the vast majority of the public and those in government would reject this but it's definitely something which will be highlighted in the media. Especially if the focus turns to cases rather than hospitalisations and deaths. Then there will be renewed focus as well on the implications of long covid.
From the same article;
Modelling by the University of Warwick suggests that, even with 85% uptake, a complete lifting of restrictions in April could lead to very high levels of deaths. "Vaccines are not a panacea," says Prof Matt Keeling, who led the research. And for younger age groups, who are at little risk of dying from the virus, there is still the risk of long-Covid, he says.
This is why I've given up on optimism tbh. Yes, I know pandemics and viruses are ever changing situations, but at some point the government needs to lay out the criteria for when restrictions can be lifted. I would not want them to give a timeline, as that would place immense pressure on them as any deadline approached. But we really do need to know at what stage of vaccinations, hospitalisations and deaths can we begin to open things up and get back on with life. The goalposts keep moving and it's exhausting.
Scientists work to worst case scenarios. They will, of course, always suggest caution beyond a political and social reality, because their focus is purely epidemiological.
It's a fact that if you want to mitigate deaths from COVID or any airborne disease by 99.9%, you live in perpetual lockdown with social distancing forever.
However, it's a non-issue, because of this one line.
In the end, it is going to come down to what society is willing to tolerate.
That's the key. Politically, once infections are low like the summer, and when death figures are in their dozens rather than hundreds, it becomes politically impossible for the government to continue to restrict civil liberties. People simply won't tolerate it - there'd be riots, millions of people uprising, because we're a culture that simply isn't used to being oppressed in terms of our rights. Not only that, economically it makes absolutely no sense to continue this a moment longer than needed, because again the possibility of widespread civil unrest rises by the day.
Realistically, the country opens up pretty much in full by around May/early June, with things like stadia/arena gigs being back by around August/September as the last measures to be released, whilst generally hygiene measures like masks will continue to be strongly encouraged but not mandated for at least the next 12/24 months.
I invited someone to vault me on that the other day; you can do so too if you wish. I'm 100% confident of it because the goalposts haven't actually really moved; they've always been driven by symptomatic infection rates, deaths, ICU capacity and - now - vaccine uptake.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
They're vermin. But it wont do to go after the minnows.Covid: Wedding party in Stamford Hill broken up by police
The chief rabbi has described the event as a "shameful desecration of all that we hold dear".
The Tory Death Cult have allowed millions to stay at work and undermine their own "lockdown" costing thousands more lives.
So there's no personal responsibility now?
Do we need the government to wipe our bums for us?
BigMick
Player Valuation: £20m
Big problem with haredi community in Israel as well. On Monday there were 4,000 covid diagnosed out of the roughly 1 million haredim in the country. The ultra-orthodox are a law unto themselves in Israel, and with another election coming up it seems that politicians are reluctant to get involved for fear of losing crucial votes.Covid: Wedding party in Stamford Hill broken up by police
The chief rabbi has described the event as a "shameful desecration of all that we hold dear".
mrb85
Player Valuation: £35m
You serious?
grandjoeblue
Player Valuation: £35m
Haha..
Current media cycle:
NEW VARIANT... COULD IT BE MORE DEADLY?
NEW LOCKDOWN MEASURES REQUIRED
CAN LONG COVID HAVE LIFE CHANGING CONSEQUENCES
.. etc etc
All of it
R-rate has fallen to 0-8 to 1
Sure somebody on here can convert into something negative though
Sure somebody on here can convert into something negative though
When times are good there's 'stuff' people won't put up with
When times get worse they'll still not put up with 'stuff+1'
When times get really bad, people, reluctantly, end up with 'stuff+3'...some, not too many mind, might even cotton on to the fact they should've took 'stuff+1'
Short term pain for long term gain does not feature in most peoples outlook...trouble is politicians have even less grasp of the concept.
There will be a new normal...vaccine + social distancing + masks as required + any other 'stuff the Govt. can get away with...people will put the old normal to the back of their minds.
Covid deaths will become just another thing people die of.
A Goodison night with a full house, rocking in full bear pit mode is a thing of the past...BMD, will be capped at 40,000, if we're lucky.
I'm off to bed, I'm depressing myself.
ForeverBlue92
Player Valuation: £80m
The vaccines will work mate wouldnt worry about it. And even if it doesn't the virus will eventually become less deadly in the coming years.
- Status