Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to mark88man,stirlo,johnstevens77,Rhyd6,87investor, for Donating to support the site

Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

A virtual pub for off topic, light hearted pub related banter and discussion. No trainers
Bouleversee
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2987
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 675 times
Been thanked: 476 times

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

#340184

Postby Bouleversee » September 14th, 2020, 12:40 pm

vrdiver wrote:
Bouleversee wrote:They don't even check blood pressure or cholesterol levels until there is a problem, if then . Why don't we get an MOT once in a while?

The NHS do offer an "MOT" of sorts, for ages 40 - 74.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/nhs-healt ... lth-check/

Whether your local authority / GP surgery is on the ball with it is another question of course...

VRD


Well, I am over 74 and I really don't understand why it should stop at that age, not that I remember getting any before I reached 74. What is the rationale behind that other than they want you to drop off the perch at that point? I didn't have much wrong with me before then other than accidental damage and I think that what is wrong with me now could probably have been avoided with simple blood tests. Prevention is a heck of a lot cheaper than cure, which may not be available if found too late.

dealtn
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2021
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 701 times

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

#340187

Postby dealtn » September 14th, 2020, 12:47 pm

Mike4 wrote:
dealtn wrote:
Itsallaguess wrote:1. Given the long-COVID issues, where many younger people who have had the virus seem to have lingering long-term health issues that we simply don't know enough about at this stage, it's clear that we're not really in a position to say 'non-vulnerable' other that for it to perhaps mean 'you're unlikely to die from it' for large sections of younger society..

Like most things, it's a balancing act based on known data at the time, and I think those calling for encouraging large-scale herd-immunity in younger age-groups, with a view that a widespread immunity level in those age-groups would then automatically protect older, more susceptible age-groups, is perhaps risking the long-term health prospects of many within that younger section of society, given the lack of current knowledge around these 'long-COVID' issues..



Any links about this "many"? It's not something I've seen or heard about (other than in a few, seemingly rare, instances) so would be good to discover more about this.


The BBC programme "File on 4" claimed 10% of people who have had COVID-19 are now suffering from 'Long Covid'. Long term and serious sequelae. The programme was aired again this weekend. Will try to find you the link.

Here it is:

"Covid 19: The Long Road to Recovery"
After coronavirus, the survivors left with life-changing and long-term conditions.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000mczc


Well thank you for that, it was an interesting listen.

However it doesn't really touch on much of what (I think) is being talked of here. Maybe this comes down to what people mean by "young" and "many".

The programme only talks of one person who I would describe as young, being 37. In fact whilst she had "symptoms" she came back negative in her test. Her long term symptoms are described as Covid-like, but essentially that is tiredness/fatigue (admittedly lasting some months). Now I am not dismissing the claim she is unwell. Indeed I have been "diagnosed" as having the long term effects of a virus I caught back in November. I'm still not right, and am constantly tired etc. I wouldn't describe it as suffering, although I wish I was over it!

Elsewhere in the programme mention was made of 10% of people having long term, longer than a month, symptoms, but again these were vague and along the lines of tiredness etc.

It's clear that only time will reveal how many, and to what extent, Covid sufferers face long term health issues, and how different they are to other viruses. Sadly there really wasn't much in the programme to suggest serious long term effects exist except in rare cases, and even then they manifest mainly in the older, or those with other health issues. That's not to dismiss its existence, but the claim that a "rush" to herd immunity targeted at the young and healthy is in some way reckless doesn't stack up to any evidence presented here.

Mike4
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1378
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 216 times
Been thanked: 488 times

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

#340192

Postby Mike4 » September 14th, 2020, 1:06 pm

dealtn wrote:Well thank you for that, it was an interesting listen.

However it doesn't really touch on much of what (I think) is being talked of here. Maybe this comes down to what people mean by "young" and "many".

The programme only talks of one person who I would describe as young, being 37. In fact whilst she had "symptoms" she came back negative in her test. Her long term symptoms are described as Covid-like, but essentially that is tiredness/fatigue (admittedly lasting some months). Now I am not dismissing the claim she is unwell. Indeed I have been "diagnosed" as having the long term effects of a virus I caught back in November. I'm still not right, and am constantly tired etc. I wouldn't describe it as suffering, although I wish I was over it!

Elsewhere in the programme mention was made of 10% of people having long term, longer than a month, symptoms, but again these were vague and along the lines of tiredness etc.

It's clear that only time will reveal how many, and to what extent, Covid sufferers face long term health issues, and how different they are to other viruses. Sadly there really wasn't much in the programme to suggest serious long term effects exist except in rare cases, and even then they manifest mainly in the older, or those with other health issues. That's not to dismiss its existence, but the claim that a "rush" to herd immunity targeted at the young and healthy is in some way reckless doesn't stack up to any evidence presented here.


The thing I take away from all this is how important it has recently become to distinguish between people infected with SARS-CoV-2 and the (very small) subset of those infectees who develop COVID-19 the disease.

Dr Campbell did a detailed report on serious long term sequelae a few weeks back which highlighted that age or how seriously people get COVID-19 is NOT an indicator of whether they will have serious long term sequelae, but there is a lot of it about. Did the programme not say 60,000 people are now registered with the NHS COVID aftercare service for those with serious long term sequelae? ISTR they also said the service is only accessible to people who were hospitalised with COVID. I find myself wondering how many have long covid who were not hospitalised. I hear a lot of anecdotes but it is hard to get a feel for numbers.

dealtn
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2021
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 701 times

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

#340196

Postby dealtn » September 14th, 2020, 1:19 pm

Mike4 wrote:
dealtn wrote:Well thank you for that, it was an interesting listen.

However it doesn't really touch on much of what (I think) is being talked of here. Maybe this comes down to what people mean by "young" and "many".

The programme only talks of one person who I would describe as young, being 37. In fact whilst she had "symptoms" she came back negative in her test. Her long term symptoms are described as Covid-like, but essentially that is tiredness/fatigue (admittedly lasting some months). Now I am not dismissing the claim she is unwell. Indeed I have been "diagnosed" as having the long term effects of a virus I caught back in November. I'm still not right, and am constantly tired etc. I wouldn't describe it as suffering, although I wish I was over it!

Elsewhere in the programme mention was made of 10% of people having long term, longer than a month, symptoms, but again these were vague and along the lines of tiredness etc.

It's clear that only time will reveal how many, and to what extent, Covid sufferers face long term health issues, and how different they are to other viruses. Sadly there really wasn't much in the programme to suggest serious long term effects exist except in rare cases, and even then they manifest mainly in the older, or those with other health issues. That's not to dismiss its existence, but the claim that a "rush" to herd immunity targeted at the young and healthy is in some way reckless doesn't stack up to any evidence presented here.


The thing I take away from all this is how important it has recently become to distinguish between people infected with SARS-CoV-2 and the (very small) subset of those infectees who develop COVID-19 the disease.

Dr Campbell did a detailed report on serious long term sequelae a few weeks back which highlighted that age or how seriously people get COVID-19 is NOT an indicator of whether they will have serious long term sequelae, but there is a lot of it about. Did the programme not say 60,000 people are now registered with the NHS COVID aftercare service for those with serious long term sequelae? ISTR they also said the service is only accessible to people who were hospitalised with COVID. I find myself wondering how many have long covid who were not hospitalised. I hear a lot of anecdotes but it is hard to get a feel for numbers.


https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/s ... -activity/

According to this there have been only 25,428 hospital admissions in England due to Covid. It's hard to see how 60,000 could be registered for NHS Covis aftercare if it were the case they had to be "hospitalised with COVID".

I agree though that there will likely be many thousands that were not only not hospitalised but also not even tested positive who probably have long term symptoms. The problem with this though is for that to be true also there requires a large percentage of the population to have had it, which doesn't suit the argument of those claiming we are a long way from herd immunity (and the risks to the many yet to get it on the journey to it).

What I don't like about a lot of the claims is the language. "Serious" when used in this context simply seems to mean "long-term", which isn't to trivialise it (as someone with a long term virus reaction myself), but "serious" is usually meant to indicate towards the upper end of the health consequences spectrum (such as "serious" head injury - potentially life threatening).

UncleEbenezer
Lemon Half
Posts: 5389
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 688 times
Been thanked: 1093 times

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

#340202

Postby UncleEbenezer » September 14th, 2020, 1:44 pm

scotia wrote:You mean that at 76 I'll need to reiterate the words of Lonnie Donegan "You've missed me, am I too late?"
(apologies to youngsters who haven't a clue as to what I'm referring)

I'm firmly within that age range. I've never been MOTd by the NHS, despite having asked a few times.

Indeed, I was already firmly within the age range ten years ago, when my then-employer paid for a private health MOT. Nuffield performed extensive tests, but then just said "refer to your GP" when one of them wasn't fully all-clear. Yeah, right.

vrdiver
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2311
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 2:22 am
Has thanked: 422 times
Been thanked: 796 times

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

#340204

Postby vrdiver » September 14th, 2020, 2:08 pm

Bouleversee wrote:
vrdiver wrote:
Bouleversee wrote:They don't even check blood pressure or cholesterol levels until there is a problem, if then . Why don't we get an MOT once in a while?

The NHS do offer an "MOT" of sorts, for ages 40 - 74.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/nhs-healt ... lth-check/

Whether your local authority / GP surgery is on the ball with it is another question of course...

VRD


Well, I am over 74 and I really don't understand why it should stop at that age, not that I remember getting any before I reached 74. What is the rationale behind that other than they want you to drop off the perch at that point? I didn't have much wrong with me before then other than accidental damage and I think that what is wrong with me now could probably have been avoided with simple blood tests. Prevention is a heck of a lot cheaper than cure, which may not be available if found too late.

I'd love to be able to answer that, but have no logical answer other than the one you imply (i.e. cost saving over life quality and/or quantity). I need to try my own GP's approach to this, as I'm in the right age bracket (previously employee health insurance covered similar tests); just a case of waiting for the Covid-19 situation to dissipate first, as I can't imagine this being a priority in normal times, let alone currently :(

johnhemming
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3591
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 410 times

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

#340210

Postby johnhemming » September 14th, 2020, 2:42 pm

dealtn wrote:According to this there have been only 25,428 hospital admissions in England due to Covid.

This currently says 114,523.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthc ... me=England

swill453
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4047
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 309 times
Been thanked: 1388 times

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

#340214

Postby swill453 » September 14th, 2020, 3:22 pm

vrdiver wrote:
Bouleversee wrote:Well, I am over 74 and I really don't understand why it should stop at that age, not that I remember getting any before I reached 74. What is the rationale behind that other than they want you to drop off the perch at that point? I didn't have much wrong with me before then other than accidental damage and I think that what is wrong with me now could probably have been avoided with simple blood tests. Prevention is a heck of a lot cheaper than cure, which may not be available if found too late.

I'd love to be able to answer that, but have no logical answer other than the one you imply (i.e. cost saving over life quality and/or quantity). I need to try my own GP's approach to this, as I'm in the right age bracket (previously employee health insurance covered similar tests); just a case of waiting for the Covid-19 situation to dissipate first, as I can't imagine this being a priority in normal times, let alone currently :(

I suppose statistically the older you get the more likely it is that they'll find something wrong if they go looking for it. But also statistically there's a fair chance that some hidden condition isn't actually going to harm or kill you (because something else gets you first, to be blunt!).

So on balance the quality of life might be reduced if they start some invasive treatment, rather than not looking for a condition in the first place.

And of course they save money by not doing it too.

Scott.

dealtn
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2021
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 701 times

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

#340216

Postby dealtn » September 14th, 2020, 3:26 pm

johnhemming wrote:
dealtn wrote:According to this there have been only 25,428 hospital admissions in England due to Covid.

This currently says 114,523.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthc ... me=England


it seems my dataset splits Covid in hospital into 2 classes. Those admitted with it and those diagnosed with it (when in hospital). I was only quoting the former. This adds another 88,765, almost the same as yours. Thank you.

It doesn't alter the point though that 10% of (hospital admitted) sufferers have long-Covid, and that being 60,000, aren't compatible. Indeed given the number that died on hospital from that 114,000 an estimate of 60,000 is closer to 100% than it is 10%.

Bouleversee
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2987
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 675 times
Been thanked: 476 times

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

#340240

Postby Bouleversee » September 14th, 2020, 4:52 pm

swill453 wrote:
vrdiver wrote:
Bouleversee wrote:Well, I am over 74 and I really don't understand why it should stop at that age, not that I remember getting any before I reached 74. What is the rationale behind that other than they want you to drop off the perch at that point? I didn't have much wrong with me before then other than accidental damage and I think that what is wrong with me now could probably have been avoided with simple blood tests. Prevention is a heck of a lot cheaper than cure, which may not be available if found too late.

I'd love to be able to answer that, but have no logical answer other than the one you imply (i.e. cost saving over life quality and/or quantity). I need to try my own GP's approach to this, as I'm in the right age bracket (previously employee health insurance covered similar tests); just a case of waiting for the Covid-19 situation to dissipate first, as I can't imagine this being a priority in normal times, let alone currently :(

I suppose statistically the older you get the more likely it is that they'll find something wrong if they go looking for it. But also statistically there's a fair chance that some hidden condition isn't actually going to harm or kill you (because something else gets you first, to be blunt!).

So on balance the quality of life might be reduced if they start some invasive treatment, rather than not looking for a condition in the first place.

And of course they save money by not doing it too.

Scott.


I'll buy the last sentence but not the rest. You might, for instance, be edging towards type 2 diabetes through a raised cholesterol level which could be brought back to normal with a better diet, as in the case of my ex=cleaner) or be at risk of one of umpteen other conditions which can be alleviated with minimal cost and no invasive treatment, resulting in better quality of life, longer lifespan and less work and expense for the NHS. Just dishing out info. by email increasing awareness of what one needs to do as one gets older could achieve a lot. I didn't know, for instance, that one does not absorb Vit D (which is essential for a healthy immune system) so readily as one gets older, or how important exercise is for the imnune system as well. It would be interesting to know how many of the increasing number of centenarians have private medical insurance and regular check-ups.

redsturgeon
Lemon Half
Posts: 6070
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:06 am
Has thanked: 619 times
Been thanked: 1256 times

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

#340265

Postby redsturgeon » September 14th, 2020, 6:25 pm

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... ntine.html

Latest article from Tomas Pueyo ...long but interesting.

John

johnhemming
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3591
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 410 times

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

#340269

Postby johnhemming » September 14th, 2020, 6:57 pm

He (Tomas Pueyo) makes the mistake of thinking that following lockdown the virus comes in via visitors rather than from the community. He also ignores evidence (Sweden) that does not fit his analysis.

Whoever does the UK's coronavirus website has had problems with Microsoft Azure, but some how the next three days figures have crept into the website so that it has data to 12th September.

Although hospital admissions have gone up they are currently on a plateau. To be fair to the government the North West has gone up, but the Midlands has not. Admissions are running at around the rate in July.

Mike4
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1378
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 216 times
Been thanked: 488 times

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

#340288

Postby Mike4 » September 14th, 2020, 8:56 pm

redsturgeon wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/14/opinion/politics/coronavirus-close-borders-travel-quarantine.html

Latest article from Tomas Pueyo ...long but interesting.

John


A phenomenally detailed version of what Dr Campbell points out. "The virus didn't get here by walking, it came in an aeroplane."

Closing borders is basic step No 1 in the Gold Standard for pandemic handling. "Halt inbound infections".This was figured out over 100 years ago and totally ignored by our stupid government.

Image

johnhemming
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3591
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 410 times

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

#340289

Postby johnhemming » September 14th, 2020, 9:01 pm

Mike4 wrote:Closing borders is basic step No 1 in the Gold Standard for pandemic handling. "Halt inbound infections".This was figured out over 100 years ago and totally ignored by our stupid government.

So stop all international travel for ever?

redsturgeon
Lemon Half
Posts: 6070
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:06 am
Has thanked: 619 times
Been thanked: 1256 times

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

#340293

Postby redsturgeon » September 14th, 2020, 9:12 pm

johnhemming wrote:
Mike4 wrote:Closing borders is basic step No 1 in the Gold Standard for pandemic handling. "Halt inbound infections".This was figured out over 100 years ago and totally ignored by our stupid government.

So stop all international travel for ever?

Did anyone say that?

Mike4
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1378
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 216 times
Been thanked: 488 times

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

#340295

Postby Mike4 » September 14th, 2020, 9:15 pm

johnhemming wrote:
Mike4 wrote:Closing borders is basic step No 1 in the Gold Standard for pandemic handling. "Halt inbound infections".This was figured out over 100 years ago and totally ignored by our stupid government.

So stop all international travel for ever?


Well not for ever, but until the epidemic subsides.

But broadly speaking yes, you want to stop the virus entering your country, obviously yes stop all incoming travellers. It's obvious, and has been known for centuries.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... 665-plague

redsturgeon
Lemon Half
Posts: 6070
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:06 am
Has thanked: 619 times
Been thanked: 1256 times

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

#340342

Postby redsturgeon » September 15th, 2020, 8:02 am

Mike4 wrote:
johnhemming wrote:
Mike4 wrote:Closing borders is basic step No 1 in the Gold Standard for pandemic handling. "Halt inbound infections".This was figured out over 100 years ago and totally ignored by our stupid government.

So stop all international travel for ever?


Well not for ever, but until the epidemic subsides.

But broadly speaking yes, you want to stop the virus entering your country, obviously yes stop all incoming travellers. It's obvious, and has been known for centuries.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... 665-plague


Yes, of course but we know that is not realistic in this interconnected world. This week, my wife is in Madeira, my daughter in Greece and my son in the US! My other son and girlfriend have just come back from her home in Denmark via a week in the Algarve!

Is there any country who is doing it better than we are in this country though?

Pueyo goes through the options, there is a spectrum from total shut down to completely open travel.

In the UK we seem to be in one of the worst possible places with this. Rules and regulations that change frequently and with little warning (just enough to provide time to panic and for the wealthy to avoid some of the impact). No real sense that the rules are being policed. Disharmony between the devolved nations that serves to make a mockery of the whole thing.

Taiwan, South Korea and New Zealand, among others seem to have a better handle on things.

The USA seems even worse than the UK, my son flew in a few weeks ago, ostensibly to 14 days of isolation but in practice nobody cared.

The USA with its different states applying different rules should prove an interesting case study in future, although with pretty much no restriction on interstate travel the picture will remain a hotch potch.

It may even be that Trump will be seen as a visionary in years to come for his rallies providing the ideal incubators for herd immunity when all the vaccine research failed...stranger things have happened.

John

johnhemming
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3591
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 410 times

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

#340348

Postby johnhemming » September 15th, 2020, 8:34 am

There will be different susceptibility rates between countries which need to be taken into account when doing assessments.

sg31
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1261
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:35 am
Has thanked: 723 times
Been thanked: 529 times

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

#340383

Postby sg31 » September 15th, 2020, 11:02 am

dealtn wrote:
scotia wrote:Admissions figures are a poor indication of the growing infection rate.


That might be true, but they are probably a better indicator of likely fatality numbers. So, it depends on what you deem important to measure.

Rising "cases" might in fact be a good measure, and predictor of lower overall deaths, and a speedier "end" to the pandemic. As you point out it depends on who those cases consist of.

One of the best outcomes would be if everyone that won't be medically affected by it were to catch it at the earliest opportunity, spreading amongst themselves, whilst everyone who would suffer medically was kept safe and isolated. Clearly difficult to achieve in practice (or for any politician to claim as an aim). A slow spread that ultimately gets to all the vulnerable, particularly during the regular flu season when immune systems might be naturally low, could be a worse outcome.

That's before even considering what the preferred outcome would be economically, and importantly all the other "non-Covid" medical problems society is suffering from as a result of the priorities given to Covid health.


Intersesting suggestion but are you sure...

That catching it gives immunity from future infection other than for the short term.

That those who have had the infection can't become carriers if they are infected again even if they are 'immune ' themselves.

I've been waiting for research papers on both issues but haven't seen any so far. I'd be interested in reading them if you can post links

dealtn
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2021
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 701 times

Re: Beerpig's Snug No Politics Coronavirus Thread

#340389

Postby dealtn » September 15th, 2020, 11:13 am

sg31 wrote:
dealtn wrote:
scotia wrote:Admissions figures are a poor indication of the growing infection rate.


That might be true, but they are probably a better indicator of likely fatality numbers. So, it depends on what you deem important to measure.

Rising "cases" might in fact be a good measure, and predictor of lower overall deaths, and a speedier "end" to the pandemic. As you point out it depends on who those cases consist of.

One of the best outcomes would be if everyone that won't be medically affected by it were to catch it at the earliest opportunity, spreading amongst themselves, whilst everyone who would suffer medically was kept safe and isolated. Clearly difficult to achieve in practice (or for any politician to claim as an aim). A slow spread that ultimately gets to all the vulnerable, particularly during the regular flu season when immune systems might be naturally low, could be a worse outcome.

That's before even considering what the preferred outcome would be economically, and importantly all the other "non-Covid" medical problems society is suffering from as a result of the priorities given to Covid health.


Intersesting suggestion but are you sure...

That catching it gives immunity from future infection other than for the short term.

That those who have had the infection can't become carriers if they are infected again even if they are 'immune ' themselves.

I've been waiting for research papers on both issues but haven't seen any so far. I'd be interested in reading them if you can post links


No I'm not sure, and I don't think anyone is, but I too would like to see research.

I think it probable (but only as a layman's opinion). The virus has been around for over 6 months, and I've not seen multiple stories of people "having it twice" etc. which I am sure the media would be looking out for. So it suggests, at least, that such possibilities are low in probability.

I don't think I am alone in thinking, that absent an effective vaccine, it is likely that the vast majority will be exposed to it at some point so, at least some of the focus should be on managing the exposure, not just limiting it. If you can shield the vulnerable for a short, not too inconvenient time (a month?) whilst allowing (encouraging?) the non-vulnerable to spread amongst themselves the virus, then the net result will be a shorter pandemic, less economic cost, and possible less mortality.

In practice I can't see any medical expert, and certainly not a politician, advocating such an approach, even if the vulnerable/non-vulnerable distinction was "self-selecting".


Return to “Beerpig's Snug”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests