Thats Kildare for you.
Whatâs also interesting about India is Pfizerâs application for approval of its vaccine (under emergency circumstances) has been rejected due to concerns over certain serious adverse events (SAEs) and the fact that additional safety information had not been generated from local trials in the country.
The committee noted that incidents of palsy, anaphylaxis and other SAEâs have been reported during post marketing and the causality of the events with the vaccine is being investigated. Further, the firm has not proposed any plan to generate safety and immunogenicity data in Indian population
Youâve none. Thanks for clearing that up
Was speaking to a rural based contact today. The general vibe is that the lockdown has been a rip roaring success. PUP payments for all and plenty of work still going on.
Speculation that the local publican is better off than heâs ever been. PUP for himself & the wife, no one on payroll and a four figure business support payment every week. Could this be right? No wonder people want LIDTF.
If the vaccine had not have been found or if it does not work like it is in Israel for some reason then how long would you lock down for? Obviously a question I hope we wonât have to answer.
Heard the same ,some publicans getting 5k a week in business supports with no staff to pay âŚ
Lockdown or not, there is going to be serious questions on how some businesses creamed off of this and others didnât get what they needed.
This is a global thing though. In Australia they just handed out a grant to businesses with no questions asked.
The PPP loans in the US seem to be joke. I know a Company President who was laughing over it helping his bottom line this year. They kept changing the terms and they donât think they will have to give any of them back, not sure if things have changed there.
Iâm not on about Irish experts. Countries that have adopted your favoured approach (one that is at odds with the general consensus of medical experts) have had far more fatalities than those that have implemented restrictions. Brazil UK and US being prime examples. Youâre on record as saying youâd be happy to let it rip with little regard for the lives of the elderly. In my opinion that is mental hence the label.
How many deaths would you find acceptable before agreeing with restrictions? Round to the nearest 500 if it makes it easier.
Would you accept that there is a possibility that tight restrictions may have unintended consequences in the long run. India is seeing a huge drop off in cases after it ran rampant through the population. Momentary gain for long term pain could be the result of our severe lockdowns and leave our population more susceptible to mutations.
Youâve no idea of fatalities from Covid. You are counting deaths with covid not from covid.
Yes - thatâs a fair point. But I donât honestly think there is an appetite in this country for the level of deaths that would occur if there was a movement towards herd immunity strategies.
Sure it took us 800 years to get rid of the Brits because every time we tried a rebellion half the fellas would run off and tell them the plans in exchange for a few guineas.
The virus is pretty much endemic now. ECDC and WHO have said there is no getting rid of it. Vaccines wont give you full coverage. You will still have anywhere from 5%-20% of vulnerable groups exposed even with full roll out. If you have lockdowns you can interrupt the flow of transmission. Interrupting the flow is important for healthcare settings but arguably stores up problems or kicks the can down the road. You can only really tell in 5 or 6 years time the true cost benefit of lockdowns and how many lives they saved or indeed cost. It is a really blunt instrument that should not be used indefinitely. I think once over 60âs are vaccinated we should be back to as near possible as normal. Maybe not full stadia, concert venues etc but certainly on our way to that. The correlation in infection rates between those countries who locked down and didnât looks to be negligible. âWhat happened at Christmasâ should not be predeterminant for what will happen in summer.
Isânt that the crux of the argument though. Do everything in your power to protect the vulnerable and a level of immunity will naturally build in everyone else over time leading to less deaths in the long run. Thankfully we now have a vaccine which should mean that once the vulnerable are vaccinated there should be no need for severe restrictions.
It will be interesting post covid, once lads can go to the pub again, if theyâll be so concerned with the fate of the country and peopleâs livelihoods if they are threatened by socioeconomic causes down the road
There seems to be a huge uptake in concern for other peopleâs jobs and mental health and what not from people who are 100% against lockdowns.
Itâs fascinating to watch.
I asked you the question. Now that you ask I will answer that IF there was no cure I would be happy to allow for the excess mortality of .3% maximum if it meant life would go on.
Your strategy simply means a permanent lockdown for years until it can be proved 70% of the population has had it.