I would hope it was given to those deemed as most vulnerable first such as the elderly .
SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
The problem is the way that this pandemic is being presented by media and governments. Rightly so we need an element of fear to ensure behaviour change but the risk is that the resulting perception is that there are two absolutes and nothing in-between. I.e. no spread/everyone locked down vs total danger because everybody is a spreader and shedder so we all need Dustin Hoffman's yellow suit; and if a passing jogger gets too close you will certainly die.
The truth is this is a risk/numbers game where some people are very vulnerable but many are hardly vulnerable; and where certain activities and settings are very low risk and others are very high risk.
In the absence of a vaccine, herd immunity is an inevitable consequence, not necessarily a deliberate policy.
Last edited:
I would have thought if it was a choice between otherwise young/fit/healthy medical workers and the vulnerable people like the elderly and those with medical conditions that it would go to the latter first surely.
Your friend has probably seen the specific guidance but just in case here it is to pass on (it's been out a good while):
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-symptoms-of-coronavirus-cov#ending-household
Should the "stay alert" message also include a duty to report people who violate the rules?
We have neighbours who have been having small groups of friends round for BBQs before the slight relaxation happened this week. Should I have been reporting this?
Yesterday I went for a lunchtime 20 minute cycle ride (I work from home) and, to take advantage of the option to now exercise/relax outdoors more than once, I then took my lads to the local playing field after finishing my work for a kick-about. There weren't many people there, just the odd few dog walkers and joggers but, on the way out, we had to pass five lads in their late teens/early twenties all on bikes in a close huddled group.
The rules are very clear and maybe I should be phoning crimestoppers but I am reluctant to do so, especially with neighbours. Government encouragement would probably change my mind....
Couple of my neighbours have had close friends round. They usually sit in the garden and have a couple of cans before walking home. It’s against the rules but it clearly cheers them up so I don’t see much of an issue. Extremely unlikely to catch anything doing that and if you’re getting it outdoors across the garden then we’re all fecked really.
obviously it’s a different issue if they’re round for hours and going in the house all night
obviously it’s a different issue if they’re round for hours and going in the house all night
We have neighbours across lane beyond our garden who have had people over for five hours and counting. Sounds like a shit-load of people. Babies crying, little kids babbling, the whole shebang. Trying hard not to be judgey. I’m convinced the risk of spread outdoors is minimal but there’s no way multiple people haven’t been in and out of their house all day. It’s going to be a long summer.
I go with an audible tut. As it happens my neighbours have also had a BBQ and there's been loads of kids socialising around these parts since last weekend. I can forgive the latter and don't think it's particularly an issue but BBQs with lots of people round just smacks of selfish to me.
My lads 16mnths now and started walking over 3 month ago and yet neither set of grandparents have seen him take a step. It's frustrating to be so disadvantaged by sticking to the rules whilst others don't care, especially when their behaviour on mass could contribute to further lockdown.
I'm very close to thinking i should just get in lots of visits now in case but i won't.
If they give it to the over 70's, the NHS staff, and the people who are 'shielding' just now, then as a rule the rest of the population can probably not worry too much about the timing of when they will receive it.
In addition, there's a proportion of the population (we don't know what that is yet obviously) who will have antibodies which will also have some effect, even if minimal, which all adds up.
I trust a Scot's refusal to listen to what the English say, even if the advice was "remember to breathe" but I don't trust them to stay at home as soon as McDonald's and KFCs start to reopen because their HQs demand them to.
Okay, so stupid question. Why doesn't the government give everyone the common cold then? All get a dose, then a few weeks later when immunity is working, a large amount of the population can go about their lives and if we all catch it, it will be a milder version. Then we all develop immunity to covid too?
Or is this not worth trying or pursuing?
The second wave being worse idea is mainly based on the second wave of the Spanish flu being worse. I don’t think it will be this time for the reasons you point out.
Having said that, what could make it worse is loosening restrictions to near normality while there are still thousands of new cases every day. Don’t forget that the first wave was exponential spread from a dozen or so people arriving in the UK infected. We really don’t want to give the second wave a running start.
Actually makes sense to me. Although, as I said, the science on this one is still very speculative.
Would be quite funny an entire country all having a heavy cold at once. Buy your tissues early!
It was tending towards the latter but there have been reports of far worse obviously.
Maybe they should have dug a latrine for their guests.
Absolutely, the lack of an evidence base. It would be a very risky strategy to rely on.
For me it's a bit like the safety briefing on a plane. Put the mask on yourself before you help the person struggling next to you. Also, the health care professionals at the very front line are at very high risk too.
My concern stems mainly from the sheer volume of people with it but unaware of it. The first wave started with obviously a few folk and it went from there (of course no social distancing aided spread).
If restrictions are loosened and these folk push it, it may start over again except the starting number would be in the thousands, hence why part of me fears it being worse. Of course I hope it's not and the social distancing behaviours have been ingrained, but the risk is there. Not sure if I've explained it all that well.
Haha, yes, stock up on paracetamol, lemsips and tissues.. it would be another world first event wouldn't it, giving a whole country a cold at roughly the same time.
If everyone all sneezed at the same time, would three slates fall off a roof in paris..? or maybe a butterfly in Canada would suddenly say Bless you! and then turn back into a caterpillar in a puff of smoke.. I'll stop now.
Thinking about it, surely the scientists have already checked, tested or considered this as a possible thing? Where could we find out further info on this?
There’s bugger all evidence for efficacy. But you’d have to think it’s pretty safe. Really odd, Hail Mary sort of idea but does kind of make sense. Give the whole country a Coronavirus focused immune stimulation.
I meant risky in the sense of relying on it being effective for a time and then forgetting about the rest.
I hope the officers arresting him didn't break social distancing.
Of course and they should be receiving a possible vaccine before most, but i don't think i'm mistaken in saying that the elderly are at even higher risk from Covid19.
Healthy young people (who aren't medical workers) will be at the back of the queue for a vaccine and rightly so because it's clear we have next to no risk from this virus anyway. The virus will be trialled to an inch of its life and most of us will be waiting some time to receive get it when/if it gets here. So, I'd get it as soon as you become eligible.
Am I allowed to call Gavin Williamson a cnut for what he said in today's briefing?
That's what happens when families haven't been bred to lead.
Without the local epidemiological data we won't know which of the millions of elderly (plus ultra high risk immunocompromised etc) are at immediate risk. However we do know that the few thousands of the ITU and COVID ward staff are most definitely at immediate high risk. In a care home with an outbreak (and poor infection control) the, as yet, uninfected residents will most definitely be at an incredibly high risk but a vaccine's a bit late for them and the ones who already got it.
Edit: I can see high risk people in selected areas going before others on a vaccination programme though...
Last edited:
No but you sometimes wonder if it should be.
I understood the worries are that a winter pandemic could coincide with seasonal flu and it could end up just really overwhelming hospitals. Is that really something that might happen? A flu season with a resurgence of Coronavirus would be awful.
Vaccinating the old will reduce the death rate and those in hospitaks and old people's homes do disproportionately contribute to clusters of infection. However, if you have to vaccinate they you also want to target people who are prone to being infected e.g. medical workers and also those in occupations where you can't work from home and particularly those who work in occupations where there is a necessity for lots of contact e.g bus drivers. I'm not sure if governments, and the UK government in particular, are competent enough to organise something as complicated as a prioritised vaccine program, unless the priority was their base, but it would be a good idea.
It should also be compulsory and combined with a flu shot unless you have a signed medical certificate. Refuse a vaccination and you lose all government benefits and unvaccinated kids aren't allowed to attend schools or childcare.
For various reasons many viruses seem to thrive more in winter. Probably due to quite a few combined reasons e.g. we live inside more, colder weather increases mucus production so we cough/sneeze more and therefore spread anything we have more often, some viruses prefer the cooler temperatures it would seem, vitamin D deficiency increases and may have an influence and once there is an increase in infections then without full herd immunity infections can spread quite quickly even if the Ro is only slightly above 1. So not a given but quite likely, or at least possible, if Coronavirus isn't under control by then.
I have more faith than you actually.
The obedience of the population indicates that the vast majority of people will want the vaccine which is what you need. Obviously there's going to be some nutters who will read some bonkers conspiracy and won't want it, but I'm optimistic they'll be small in number and won't derail the mass vaccination programme.
A more difficult question is this: What happens if we don't get a vaccine?
Obviously I'm no expert in vaccines and apparently it's 'so far, so good' However, there is no vaccine for SARS or MERS. So it's not unthinkable that we won't get a vaccine.
Last edited:
Seasonal flu virus wouldn't fare as well in these times of heightened alertness, fortunately.
Last edited:
Me too. The UK has one of the best public health systems in the world. Coupled with our research expertise we are also pretty likely to be involved in some part in any successful vaccine's development and testing.
It isn't unthinkable at all. It is not a given that we will develop one even if things are looking very promising so far. Far more promising that I would have predicted a month or two ago though. SARS and MERS vaccines are currently either in human trials (MERS) or close to it (SARS) despite there not being a hugely urgent need for them. So again there are reasons for optimism.
Without a vaccine we will have years of economic woes and restrictions to prevent health services becoming overwhelmed as we gradually build a herd immunity. And that would be hugely risky and costly in terms of $ and human lives. We don't even know what the Ro is yet and if it is in fact 5 as some studies have suggested then the HIT is 80-85% with antibodies. If 85% are infected with a death rate of 1% then that is 66,000,000 deaths. Even if the Ro is lower and we only need a HIT of 60% and the death rate is actually 0.5% that is still over 23,000,000 deaths. Scary stuff.
Australia's flu season has been suppressed by the restrictions due to SARS-CoV-2
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ase-in-flu-cases-due-to-coronavirus-measures/
But even a reduced flu season on top of any second/third SARS-CoV-2 wave in the Northern hemisphere winter wouldn't be good.
Sorry I meant 'Not unthinkable' silly typo.
Absolutely, there's been an assumption that a Vaccine is 12-18 months away. Obviously we all hope that's the case but it may not, we don't know.We also don't know how many people this virus has actually killed. Countries like the UK are obviously under-reporting because we'll only count people who've had a test confirmed in a lab. China have lied through their teeth and lots of countries just don't have the infrastructure.
There is a huge benefit. Without hugely restricting travel, of which shutting borders is a key part, small gains in any one place will be overwhelmed by new external sources of infection.
The news so far have been good, with many vaccines being on human trials. Obviously, it might happen that we won’t find a vaccine soon (after all there are no vaccines for other coronaviruses). However, I think that we will considering the incentive to do so (and consequently the number of people and the amount of money thrown at it). There was not much incentive to develop vaccines for SARS and MERS, considering that they were contained diseases. It would have been spending a shitload of money that won’t give any profit.
If in the end, we fail to get a vaccine, I guess the life will go on, like it has gone for many other diseases (Spanish flu, smallpox etc). Tens of millions will die during the years (maybe even in the region of hundreds of millions) with the virus coming and going like many other seasonal viruses. Those that get it and survive become immune (for at least some time) in turn limiting the spread of the virus, though next year would be even worse than this one.
I got what you meant and I was agreeing with you.
Increased death numbers from all causes suggest many counties in Europe are only capturing about 50% of the deaths so far
China may be under-reporting their numbers but I don't think that we should be too harsh on them as they were far quicker and more open about the virus than you might expect from past behavior. I think we should be congratulating them and encouraging them to be even more open rather than trying to scapegoat them as US/Australia/UK are trying to do, in many cases to distract from their own woeful performance.