Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
tsubaki said:
Tubey you are arguing for COVID to become endemic. There’s no reason why it should, and it being endemic here causes many problems beyond just hospitalisations and deaths (and it absolutely would still kill people).
Click to expand...

Of course it will be. We have several coronavirus strains endemic in the UK. It's unavoidable. Its too widespread, too contagious to not be endemic.

The alternative is never returning to anything like normal life. Which again, of this isn't killing or seriously harming tens of thousands of people, would be bonkers.

You aren't taking into account how the world works beyond COVID. The mantra "we need to learn to live with it" exists for a reason - because we do.
 
Neiler said:
The data goes up to four weeks mate, 60% at that mark. It pretty much followes what Pfizer recommend. I don’t know why the data stopped there, it’s public health England so you can draw any conclusion on that really. The 4 week to 12 week data , would be really useful not just for the UK, but the rest of the world if it proved to be a master stroke!
Click to expand...
It's only been 8 weeks since the change in strategy so it's going to be a while til we have reliable data on 12 weeks.
 
www.bmj.com

Covid-19 will become endemic but with decreased potency over time, scientists believe

The SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus will not be eradicated but will become endemic, continuing to circulate in pockets of the global population for years to come and causing outbreaks in regions where it had been eliminated, scientists working in the field believe. But the impact of the virus on the...
www.bmj.com www.bmj.com


The SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus will not be eradicated but will become endemic, continuing to circulate in pockets of the global population for years to come and causing outbreaks in regions where it had been eliminated, scientists working in the field believe.

But the impact of the virus on the world in terms of deaths, illness, and the need for social isolation will lessen, they say, as more of the population acquires some immunity to it through exposure to the virus or from vaccination.

The predictions come from a survey carried out in January by the journal Nature of more than 100 immunologists, infectious disease researchers, and virologists working on SARS-CoV-2.1 Almost 90% of respondents said that they expected the coronavirus to become endemic, although more than a third thought that it would be possible to eliminate SARS-CoV-2 from some regions of the world.
Click to expand...

This is common sense. The idea it'd be eradicated from the UK, a global transport hub with 60m+ people with high regions of population density, is a non-starter of an aspiration.
 
Neiler said:
.

You mention new variants, a concern I have is the gap in dosing is giving the virus more of an exposure and chance with our current vaccines to evolve within a limited measure of protection, it’s an ideal environment to progress evolution.
Click to expand...
Simple maths would mean if you give double the amount of people over 50% protection (say 50 to 60%) over a period of time say 4 weeks then you end up with a percentage of immunity within vulnerable groups that would be greater as a whole than even giving half as many 90%.

The greater spread would be in continuing to have the vast majority with zero protection, especially in the scenario faced were the virus was threatening exponential growth and the situation worsening by the day.
 
Tubey said:
Of course it will be. We have several coronavirus strains endemic in the UK. It's unavoidable. Its too widespread, too contagious to not be endemic.

The alternative is never returning to anything like normal life. Which again, of this isn't killing or seriously harming tens of thousands of people, would be bonkers.

You aren't taking into account how the world works beyond COVID. The mantra "we need to learn to live with it" exists for a reason - because we do.
Click to expand...

Tubey you keep saying “how the world works” like it’s an absolute truth.

If anything, “how the works” - people in insecure jobs, without proper sick pay, living and working cheek-by-jowl, with public health systems underfunded and ignored - is how we got in this mess. We’ve got to change it.

As for it being endemic - it might be eventually, but for now loads of countries, certainly all the “successful” ones, are doing their best to try and prevent it getting to that stage. They’ve used their systems to do that and it’s saved loads of lives, jobs and prevented governments having to print money to survive. What we should be doing is focusing on getting that sort of system in place, not going back to the failure we were before.
 
Chris O'Connor said:
Simple maths would mean if you give double the amount of people over 50% protection (say 50 to 60%) over a period of time say 4 weeks then you end up with a percentage of immunity within vulnerable groups that would be greater as a whole than even giving half as many 90%.

The greater spread would be in continuing to have the vast majority with zero protection, especially in the scenario faced were the virus was threatening exponential growth and the situation worsening by the day.
Click to expand...

It’s a bit to simple maths mate. If you vaccinate (partially protect) 100% of vulnerable groups or front line healthcare workers once at 50%, there is still a huge and continued risk, you are just hoping to half it. We know that the over 70s and frontline healthcare workers make up a significant proportion of fatalities. Again we don’t have the data to know what happens between week 4-12, or for that matter, what the second dose will do after those 12 weeks - we do with AZ of course.

If you take Ireland as an example, over 85s and frontline workers groups have seen a decline in case incidence of 90% (in line with Pfizer data) since those groups have been vaccinated. So maybe it’s a moral question as opposed to a mathematical one.

I think you have to look at individual contexts though, like I say the U.K. have had one of the highest case incidents per capita and deaths globally. You can understand why they went the route they did - if you accept the science (which is still unsupported). Ireland has about 500+ cases a day at the moment, with about 50 deaths on a bad day and 0 on a good one. Perhaps the context of the impact of the country is a mitigation in terms of strategy, decisions and risk.

Some data on the fall of infections for front line health care staff in Ireland after double dosing vaccines, it’s absoutley incredible the drop in the rate of infection.

HSE: 'Severe drop' in cases in hospital staff and care homes 'must be attributed to the vaccine'
 
Last edited:
Neiler said:
It’s a bit to simple maths mate. If you vaccinate (partially protect) 100% of vulnerable groups or front line healthcare workers once at 50%, there is still a huge and continued risk. We know that the over 70s and frontline healthcare workers make up a significant proportion of fatalities. Again we don’t have the data to know what happens between week 4-12, or for that matter, what the second dose will do after those 12 weeks - we do with AZ of course.

If you take Ireland as an example, over 85s and frontline workers groups have seen a decline in case incidence of 90% (in line with Pfizer data) since those groups have been vaccinated. So maybe it’s a moral question as opposed to a mathematical one.

I think you have to look at individual contexts though, like I say the U.K. have had one of the highest case incidents per capita and deaths globally. You can understand why they went they route the did - if you accept the science (which is still unsupported). Ireland has about 500+ cases a day at the moment, with about 50 deaths on a bad day and 0 on a good one. Perhaps the context of the impact of the country is a mitigation in terms of strategy, decisions and risk.
Click to expand...

You can only compare like with like, with much lower numbers if you vaccinate at the same rate you vaccinate a far higher percentage and can make a massive difference.

England is 67 million people, around 23 or 24 million in vulnerable groups

A tiny percentage offered 90% immunity can make very little difference at all compared to vaccinating far more quickly even if giving something significantly under 90%.

I think sometimes these percentages are given far more extra meaning than they actually confer in practice tbh, for example vaccines offering 60% are generally considered extremely worthwhile. The annual flu vaccine will offer different protection rates against different strains and have seasonal and yearly variations too. Generally though the figures can vary from 30 odd percent against some types to greater than 60% against others.

To say something offering 50-60% leaves a huge risk is inflammatory language but probably unjustified imo. Even if the vaccine had no affect on transmissibility, which isn't likely to be the case, the protection for individuals would offer a fair protection against the likely severity of any infection.
 
tsubaki said:
Yes, I think it is. If someone feels better after 24-48 hours then they’ll just go back to whatever when the results they are expecting comes back during that period. It’s not like they are going to get better after 24/48 hours and then spend the next week quarantined, unless they actually have something.
Click to expand...

But this is the thing - people do just get on with their life feeling run down. As they should do, too, or you'd have half of the population never bothering to do anything.

I just don't think it's at all realistic to think that people would bother.
 
tsubaki said:
Tubey as I said above - if taking two days sick leave, when you are actually sick, puts people’s livelihoods at risk then this country has a serious problem. I don’t think that’s the case for most people, and wouldn’t be the case for even more than that if this was part of something the state was asking everyone to do.
Click to expand...

That's not the fault with your plan, though.
 
BlueToff said:
But this is the thing - people do just get on with their life feeling run down. As they should do, too, or you'd have half of the population never bothering to do anything.

I just don't think it's at all realistic to think that people would bother.
Click to expand...

Again, this isn’t the sort of thing that people would call up to report they are run down. It would have to have a low threshold for people to call, but not that low.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top