Coronavirus

[Spy Bee]

2 minutes ago, Brownie said:

I think the idea of herd immunity is bonkers.

Why? That's how vaccine's work. This is why I said "call it what you like" because when Johnson first mooted "taking it on the chin" we were talking about 5% fatality rates etc, but now we know that on healthy young people the fatality rate is miniscule. With that knowledge, herd immunity is absolutely viable, and I would argue is for the greater good of society.

 

We cannot shut down society forever with all the collateral damage that causes, just because of Covid. Many other things cause suffering and death.

[Rico1304]

1 minute ago, Spy Bee said:

Why? That's how vaccine's work. This is why I said "call it what you like" because when Johnson first mooted "taking it on the chin" we were talking about 5% fatality rates etc, but now we know that on healthy young people the fatality rate is miniscule. With that knowledge, herd immunity is absolutely viable, and I would argue is for the greater good of society.

 

We cannot shut down society forever with all the collateral damage that causes, just because of Covid. Many other things cause suffering and death.

There you go.  

[Strontium]

9 minutes ago, Brownie said:

I think the idea of herd immunity is bonkers.

 

It's literally the only show in town.

[Brownie]

14 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

Why? That's how vaccine's work. This is why I said "call it what you like" because when Johnson first mooted "taking it on the chin" we were talking about 5% fatality rates etc, but now we know that on healthy young people the fatality rate is miniscule. With that knowledge, herd immunity is absolutely viable, and I would argue is for the greater good of society.

 

We cannot shut down society forever with all the collateral damage that causes, just because of Covid. Many other things cause suffering and death.

Because you are willingly allowing people to die. It might be minuscule but it’s still deaths that you could potentially prevent.

 

Call me an old fashioned lefty if you want but I believe that people should fundamentally be protected from something which is deadly.

 

We don’t yet understand the long term consequences of the disease which the virus causes. We’re learning about it all the time. That could have an impact on younger people in the long run, we don’t know.

 

A proper track and trace system along with testing would allow us to get back to some semblance of normality but the government have fucked that up despite having the time to sort it.

[Bjornebye]

11 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

We do churn out an incredible number of famous helmets. Saw a show last night advertised called 'John Bishop on Whales'. Like something out of Charlie Brooker's blag TV listings. 

 

 

 

The Grafton re-opened? 

[Mudface]

16 minutes ago, Brownie said:

No mate I don’t read the forums very often, can’t remember the last time I was on here.

 

I’m not touchy at all, it’s well known that people use speech marks for sarcasm so I was just asking. I could have made an assumption but thought it wise to check.

 

I think the idea of herd immunity is bonkers.

You and the vast majority of scientists- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/07/why-herd-immunity-strategy-is-regarded-as-fringe-viewpoint

 

Why herd immunity strategy is regarded as fringe viewpoint
Scientists say idea of ‘focused protection’ for vulnerable people is very hard to achieve and likely to lead to even higher death toll


 Many scientists are sceptical that the most vulnerable in society can be adequately identified and protected. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian
At first glance it sounds like a no-brainer. Coronavirus is most dangerous to older and unhealthier people, so why not protect them and let the rest of society return to life as normal? It would boost the economy and free the young and fit from the mental and financial burdens of Covid restrictions. In time, as the virus tears through them, they will acquire herd immunity that ultimately helps us all.

The strategy proposed in the Great Barrington declaration – a letter signed by an international group of scientists – is the latest salvo in an ongoing battle of ideas for how to tackle the pandemic. It calls on governments around the world to abandon strategies that suppress the virus until we can better cope – through working test-and-trace programmes, new treatments, vaccines and more – for the radically different approach.

The declaration was drawn up at the American Institute for Economic Research, a right-leaning organisation in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, that promotes individual rights, small government and open markets. It registered a web domain for the document.


Authored by Sunetra Gupta, a professor of theoretical epidemiology at Oxford, Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford, and Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine at Harvard, the declaration has received thousands of signatures. The appearance of Mr Matt Hancock, a “public health academic”, and the Rev Booker Clownn at Trump University suggest not all are serious, but the strategy is being listened to at the highest levels. On Monday the US health and human services secretary, Alex Azar, tweeted that the authors had provided “strong reinforcement of the Trump administration’s strategy of aggressively protecting the vulnerable while opening schools and the workplace”.

According to the declaration, a “focused protection” approach is the most compassionate way to minimise deaths and social harm until we reach herd immunity – a situation where enough people are resistant to the virus that the pandemic shrinks. But among the scientific community, this is a fringe viewpoint.

“Their proposed strategy is outside the scientific mainstream,” said James Naismith, a professor of structural biology at the University of Oxford. The scientists risk making the same mistake as seen with test and trace, he said: it is easy to describe what is hoped for, but delivery is another matter.

Michael Head, a researcher at Southampton University, believes the declaration is based on the false premise that governments and the scientific community want extensive lockdowns until a vaccine arrives.

“Now that we have some knowledge about how best to handle new outbreaks, most national and subnational interventions are much lighter” than the full lockdown the UK imposed in the spring, he said. Head is among many scientists who are sceptical that the most vulnerable in society can be adequately identified and protected.

“It is a very bad idea,” he said. “We saw that even with intensive lockdowns in place, there was a huge excess death toll, with the elderly bearing the brunt of that.” In the UK, about a quarter of the population would be classed as vulnerable to Covid-19.

Jonathan Read, a biostatistician at the University of Lancaster and a member of the Sage modelling subgroup, shares the concern. “Shielding of the vulnerable was part of the UK policy since the start of lockdown. The deaths of the elderly, and others at high risk, in care homes and from community infection, even after the imposition of lockdown in March, suggest that a policy that entirely relies on a segregation of society isn’t going to go well,” he said.

The concept of herd immunity is that when enough people are immune to a virus, it no longer spreads. At the start of the pandemic, before mass lockdowns, a patient with Covid-19 might spread the virus to about three others. If two in three, or 66%, are immune, the outbreak soon fizzles out. What troubles many scientists is that with coronavirus no one knows how protected people are after contracting the virus, how long that protection lasts, and exactly what proportion of society needs to be immune to quell a pandemic.

“We know that immunity to coronaviruses wanes over time and reinfection is possible, so lasting protection of vulnerable individuals by establishing herd immunity is very unlikely to be achieved in the absence of a vaccine,” said Rupert Beale, a group leader at the Francis Crick Institute in London. He called the declaration “wishful thinking”, not least because it is impossible to fully identify who is vulnerable and it is not possible to fully protect them.

Infection rates in the UK reveal that as new cases rise in one age group, they spill over into older groups, and from there drive up numbers of people in hospital and, ultimately, deaths. “Individual scientists may reasonably disagree about the relative merits of various interventions, but they must be honest about the feasibility of what they propose,” Beale said.

William Hanage, a professor of epidemiology at Harvard, likens the strategy to protecting antiques in a house fire by putting them all in one room, standing guard with a fire extinguisher but simultaneously fanning the flames.

“If the blaze outside the room were adequately controlled then maybe, just maybe, they would be able to stamp out all the embers,” he said. “But this approach is to actively encourage the fire. The risk is that too many sparks make it through and all you’re left with is ashes.”

Another concern many scientists raise is the impact on the young and healthy. While the risk of death is low in people under 40, infection can still expose them to long-term complications that healthcare could be left dealing with for decades, Hanage said. “Quite large numbers of younger people are already becoming infected at present, whether or not they are being encouraged, and there are consequences to those infections.”

[Bjornebye]

 

15 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

Why? That's how vaccine's work. This is why I said "call it what you like" because when Johnson first mooted "taking it on the chin" we were talking about 5% fatality rates etc, but now we know that on healthy young people the fatality rate is miniscule. With that knowledge, herd immunity is absolutely viable, and I would argue is for the greater good of society.

 

We cannot shut down society forever with all the collateral damage that causes, just because of Covid. Many other things cause suffering and death.

I still haven't seen any data proving this 

9 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

It's literally the only show in town.

It 'literally' isn't. 

[Strontium]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

It 'literally' isn't. 

 

Well, yes it is. That's the only way all this is going to end.

[Spy Bee]

3 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

I still haven't seen any data proving this 

You must be reading everything with your eyes closed then. I literally posted a link in the last half an hour.

[Brownie]

To those who advocate herd immunity, what would your suggestion be if the risk of death was the same for all ages? Can’t have full lockdown because of the impact to mental health, jobs, economy etc so what then?

[Spy Bee]

7 minutes ago, Brownie said:

Because you are willingly allowing people to die. It might be minuscule but it’s still deaths that you could potentially prevent.

An the alternative is willingly allowing people to die.

[Moo]

53 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

Call it what you like... protect the vulnerable as best as we can, but consider things holistically. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54442386

Click link to read full article

Coronavirus: Health experts join global anti-lockdown movement

 

Thousands of scientists and health experts have joined a global movement warning of "grave concerns" about Covid-19 lockdown policies.

Nearly 6,000 experts, including dozens from the UK, say the approach is having a devastating impact on physical and mental health as well as society.

They are calling for protection to be focused on the vulnerable, while healthy people get on with their lives.

The declaration has prompted warnings by others in the scientific community.

Critics have pointed out:

• a more targeted approach could make it difficult to protect vulnerable people entirely
• the risk of long-term complications from coronavirus mean many others are also at risk

But the movement - known as the Great Barrington Declaration - mirrors some of the warnings in a letter signed by a group of GPs in the UK.

Sixty-six GPs, including TV doctors Dr Phil Hammond and Dr Rosemary Leonard and a number of medics who have held senior roles at the British Medical Association, have written to the health secretary, saying there is insufficient emphasis on "non-Covid harms" in the decision-making.

What is the Great Barrington Declaration?

The movement started in the US.

And the declaration has now been signed by nearly 6,000 scientists and medical experts across the globe as well as 50,000 members of the public.

The UK-based experts who have signed it include:

• Dr Sunetra Gupta, an epidemiologist at Oxford University
• Nottingham University self-harm expert Prof Ellen Townsend
• Edinburgh University disease modeller Dr Paul McKeigue

They say keeping the lockdown policies in place until a vaccine is available would cause "irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed".

The health harms cited include:

• lower childhood vaccination rates
• worsening care for heart disease and cancer patients

And they point out the risk from coronavirus is 1,000 times greater for the old and infirm, with children more at risk

So who's going to plan and carry this out?  In the space of two posts you've questioned the Government's ability to show foresight and planning, but then advocated an approach that would require unprecedented (from this government) levels of foresight and planning.

How can your suggested approach work in this country?

[Spy Bee]

1 minute ago, Moo said:

So who's going to plan and carry this out?  in the space of two posts you've questioned the Government's ability to show foresight and planning, but then advocated an approach that would require unprecedented (from this government) levels of foresight and planning.

How can your suggested approach work in this country?

Well they can't fuck it up any worse than they are. 

[Bjornebye]

6 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

Well, yes it is. That's the only way all this is going to end.

"literally the only show in town" it isn't is it. It "literally' isn't. 

 

How it ends is irrelevant to your statement because nobody knows. Literally. 

[Brownie]

4 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

An the alternative is willingly allowing people to die.

How is it? People will die but that’s because you can’t completely control it, it’s simply not possible. People dying despite your efforts in trying to protect them is completely different to just sacrificing some people.

 

Completely different.

[Strontium]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

"literally the only show in town" it isn't is it. It "literally' isn't. 

 

How it ends is irrelevant to your statement because nobody knows. Literally. 

 

So how else can it end, then, if not through the population acquiring immunity?

[Bjornebye]

7 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

You must be reading everything with your eyes closed then. I literally posted a link in the last half an hour.

I usually do with you followed by a massive yawn. 

 

But yes you did, a few people have stated something fairly obvious although '1000 times' is exaggerated guess-work. I thought you were referring to the fella saying only 350 fit & healthy people have died. 

[Bjornebye]

Just now, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

So how else can it end, then, if not through the population acquiring immunity?

It "literally" could end differently. I'm not saying it wont end through people acquiring immunity but with no evidence to suggest that once you've survived it once you absolutely wont get it again then it might end through, you know, a vaccine maybe? 

[Spy Bee]

3 minutes ago, Brownie said:

How is it? People will die but that’s because you can’t completely control it, it’s simply not possible. People dying despite your efforts in trying to protect them is completely different to just sacrificing some people.

 

Completely different.

Suicide rates up

Depression rates up

Death by cardiac problems up

Undiagnosed cancers up

Treatments and scans down

Dental treatment down

 

I could go on..

 

My missus works in a doctors, and someone died last week because they didn't take the advice to go to hospital with a blue light because they were scared of Covid.

 

Open society up for those that are willing, build a level of herd immunity quickly and thereby protect the vulnerable. 

 

 

[Strontium]

2 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

It "literally" could end differently. I'm not saying it wont end through people acquiring immunity but with no evidence to suggest that once you've survived it once you absolutely wont get it again then it might end through, you know, a vaccine maybe? 

 

A vaccine.

 

Remind me again, what is it that a vaccine confers on people?

[Spy Bee]

4 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

It "literally" could end differently. I'm not saying it wont end through people acquiring immunity but with no evidence to suggest that once you've survived it once you absolutely wont get it again then it might end through, you know, a vaccine maybe? 

If you get it and are then vulnerable to get it again, the same would apply to a vaccine. Both being infected and being vaccinated work by the same method.

[Sugar Ape]

57 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

Call it what you like... protect the vulnerable as best as we can, but consider things holistically. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54442386

Click link to read full article

Coronavirus: Health experts join global anti-lockdown movement

 

Thousands of scientists and health experts have joined a global movement warning of "grave concerns" about Covid-19 lockdown policies.

Nearly 6,000 experts, including dozens from the UK, say the approach is having a devastating impact on physical and mental health as well as society.

They are calling for protection to be focused on the vulnerable, while healthy people get on with their lives.

The declaration has prompted warnings by others in the scientific community.

Critics have pointed out:

• a more targeted approach could make it difficult to protect vulnerable people entirely
• the risk of long-term complications from coronavirus mean many others are also at risk

But the movement - known as the Great Barrington Declaration - mirrors some of the warnings in a letter signed by a group of GPs in the UK.

Sixty-six GPs, including TV doctors Dr Phil Hammond and Dr Rosemary Leonard and a number of medics who have held senior roles at the British Medical Association, have written to the health secretary, saying there is insufficient emphasis on "non-Covid harms" in the decision-making.

What is the Great Barrington Declaration?

The movement started in the US.

And the declaration has now been signed by nearly 6,000 scientists and medical experts across the globe as well as 50,000 members of the public.

The UK-based experts who have signed it include:

• Dr Sunetra Gupta, an epidemiologist at Oxford University
• Nottingham University self-harm expert Prof Ellen Townsend
• Edinburgh University disease modeller Dr Paul McKeigue

They say keeping the lockdown policies in place until a vaccine is available would cause "irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed".

The health harms cited include:

• lower childhood vaccination rates
• worsening care for heart disease and cancer patients

And they point out the risk from coronavirus is 1,000 times greater for the old and infirm, with children more at risk from flu than Covid-19.

 

It’s hilarious that declaration, should have known you’d be all over it. 
 

Anyone can sign it and self declare as a medical professional with no checks. Here are some examples of the names on there, in fact I’ve just taken the time to sign it myself...

 

 

[Bjornebye]

2 minutes ago, Stront19m Dog™ said:

 

A vaccine.

 

Remind me again, what is it that a vaccine confers on people?

You were implying 'herd immunity' without a vaccine. That was the discussion. Nice try though shifty. 

[Bjornebye]

4 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

If you get it and are then vulnerable to get it again, the same would apply to a vaccine. Both being infected and being vaccinated work by the same method.

A vaccine vaccinates against getting it. Getting infected isn't a vaccine. 

[Spy Bee]

3 minutes ago, Sugar Ape said:

It’s hilarious that declaration, should have known you’d be all over it. 
 

Anyone can sign it and self declare as a medical professional with no checks. Here are some examples of the names on there, in fact I’ve just taken the time to sign it myself...

So some planks sign it to try and undermine it. There is a growing groundswell of opinion that our mechanism for dealing with this needs to change.