“No vaccine will prevent the virus entering the body” is a 100% correct scientific statement. The role of a vaccine is to stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies, T cells, etc. that either target the virus “after it entered the body” or target cells that have been infected by the virus “after it entered the body”.
The only way to 100% stop the virus entering the body is a hazmat suit, PPE as worn by health professionals is close to 100% and rags around the face are about 10%.
We want our Pubs open.
Nursing Home staff should live with occupants forever…
This isn’t the first time you’ve looked for a few quid here. You alright? We could have a whip round if you’re stuck.
If herd immunity cannot be established, we are wasting our time on vaccine development. The whole purpose of a vaccine is to (hopefully) safely develop herd immunity.
It looks like herd immunity can’t be achieved through naturally occurring infection. Not enough is known yet to devise any long term strategy. Governments are trying to balance economy and public health. I can’t see an alternative to what we have now with the information we have now. Some pain for all rather than all pain for some seems to be the approach.
What point are you trying to make here?
Malarkey was criticising Sweden, we are closer to that approach now than any other, even if we are taking a muddled path to it.
I don’t know what you mean by the last line. Those people may have long term issues due to Covid (we don’t know yet, and we cannot wait years to wait unfortunately). They will be out in society paying for others to stay at home. They will see increased taxes down the line. They will still see lots of restrictions on their lives. I don’t know what you are going for here.
Nope.
I have said this is unworkable.
What isn’t unworkable is stopping agency staffing with people moving around. And testing staff regularly.
The pubs being open is a separate issue.
But we can’t wait around for that, seriously.
The earliest studies on long term Covid issues was two years after SARS 1. They have tracked people for a decade and a half later and then released further studies.
I’m trying to get a cross section of what is actually happening now and what it is you actually propose, because for as wordy as you are, you say very little and you dont answer questions very well.
What is happening now that you don’t agree with?
What do you mean by we can’t wait around for that? What exactly do you mean by that.
I think I have got to the nuts and bolts of public policy a bit earlier than yourself.
Your bizarre posts on “after 200 it just goes off” and misrepresenting the Swedish stats being one.
I’ve given you what I suggest on “at risk” groups.
So what is your counter point to this?
We cannot wait 15 years to assess the long term impacts of Covid and build short term policy off that.
It’s pretty simple.
Exactly.
So natural conservatives like myself, who believe in caution and family life and the sovereignty of each individual life, feel we should be – well, you know, conservative.
These issues are not abstract. I grew up with my paternal grandmother in the house, 70 the year I was 24. I was an unflinchingly wild young fella but I think, if I was 24 in 2020 and she 70, I would have enough love of that kind, a higher kind in its way, to leave off being wild for a while. Anyhow, young people need to learn being cautious for economic reasons over medical reasons. Economic sap depends forever on the sap of youth. So this facet is the biggest challenge: how to prevent the young kissing risk, for richness.
Lads who hate the idea of the state being a positive agent will keeping sucking on the Swedish hind tit in hope of more brännvin.
That statement is so stupid as to beggar belief.
You have substituted slogans for thought.
Herd immunity, me hole…
So you want to take a shot in the dark, as opposed to managing the situation with the information that is currently available. Which isn’t enough to make a long term plan.
We simply can’t say that. Obviously people are developing immunity as >99% are recovering, and I am not aware of one individual who got re infected and seriously ill or died. So, the doubt is how strong the immunity is and how long it lasts, and we don’t have compelling answers there yet. My sense is that immunity in most people is pretty strong and the risk of serious illness in the future is greatly diminished, barring a mutation that results in a more virulent virus.
What we do know is that through all the measures that have been taken, good and bad, most of the people getting infected now are younger and the rate of hospitalizations and deaths has dropped significantly in almost all countries that had serious outbreaks and deaths earlier.
I’ll put my academic background and 30 years working in relevant science fields up against your long winded musings on stick ball any day.
You’re dealing with a savage intelligent fella here. Be careful. I’d be in awe of him personally
Nope, that’s what you appear to want to do.
We make lots of short term decisions to reflect long term issues, or at least we pretend to. On occasion we will discuss longer term demographics, and look at our pensions age (though this is typically avoided still). We do this because actuaries look at the future and the reality coming down the track. We also go through the motions on climate change and making some short term policies on that…because we have good science on that and predictive modelling.
What we do not have is any idea of the long term health consequences of Covid. Zero. We cannot go 15 years into the future, that’s the reality.
What we can do is build our public policy off what we do know. We know who the at risk groups are. We know what steps it takes to mitigate that risk.
Yourself and Harry are being obtuse. We do not expect this mitigates all risk for vulnerable groups, but we do our best. You can’t be perfect on this, you can take best practice from other countries though.
Even if a person who gets infected a second time with the virus is asymptomatic, the current evidence suggests they carry enough viral load to be a carrier and spread it.
This is obviously a problem long term for people with vulnerability and comorbidities as number 1 they may not have had an initial infection and number 2, the virus could remain as deadly.