Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[redsturgeon]

Does anyone here still think we will/should avoid a national lock down before Xmas?

If so what steps should we take to control hospital admissions and avoid overloading the NHS and thus minimise deaths?

John

[johnhemming]

I see no valid rationale for a national lockdown. What we should do is put more effort into protecting those people who are vulnerable. It may, however, be too late for that.

[Mike4]

How can you get any meaningful herd immunity if immunity is as short-lived as would appear to be tha case?

Watch Dr John's video on the subject today. Watch to the end then you'll feel much better about the prospects for long term immunity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awc0bN0 ... hnCampbell

[gryffron]

As regards lockdown, one is rather fascinated by the sudden obsession with Christmas. Have we suddenly rediscovered religion?

How is Chinese manufacturing industry going to survive without us buying all that Christmas junk?

[Mike4]

I see no valid rationale for a national lockdown.

What about once the ITUs are all full and there are thousands more patients all needing ITU? Would you still see no rationale for a national lockdown?

Because unless Something Is Done pronto, that seems to be where we are heading. And I can't see any other course of action available to those in charge.

[tjh290633]

I see no valid rationale for a national lockdown.

What about once the ITUs are all full and there are thousands more patients all needing ITU? Would you still see no rationale for a national lockdown?

Because unless Something Is Done pronto, that seems to be where we are heading. And I can't see any other course of action available to those in charge.

You have fallen into the "Something must be done" trap. This leads to headless chicken syndrome, such as we see now with the Labour Party. There are vast swathes of the country where Tier 1 is more than adequate. We do not need a national lockdown.

TJH

[redsturgeon]

OK so I hear a few "we don't need a National lockdown" views. But I have yet to hear what we should do instead. Nothing?
At the moment it seems in England we have the rules in place to take us all to tier 3 but that has been recognised as not being sufficient to halt the virus. So what do we do if not a National lockdown?

We know a lockdown will halt the virus so this is really not a case of "something must be done", more doing the right thing.

John

[redsturgeon]

I see no valid rationale for a national lockdown.

What about once the ITUs are all full and there are thousands more patients all needing ITU? Would you still see no rationale for a national lockdown?

Because unless Something Is Done pronto, that seems to be where we are heading. And I can't see any other course of action available to those in charge.

You have fallen into the "Something must be done" trap. This leads to headless chicken syndrome, such as we see now with the Labour Party. There are vast swathes of the country where Tier 1 is more than adequate. We do not need a national lockdown.

TJH

There are very few if any regions where the virus is not on the increase. A lockdown in a region that has low numbers will reduce those numbers even more. We will then be able to unlock for December and have a safer Xmas than otherwise. Do you think we should carry on as we are in England?

John

[gryffron]

There are vast swathes of the country where Tier 1 is more than adequate. We do not need a national lockdown.

But surely the problem with these regional variations is that people from high infection areas will simply hop in their cars and party in the neighbouring lower tier locations. It certainly feels like that to me (Tier 1 Lincolnshire with neighbours Tier 3 Notts and S.Yorks)

I too suspect another national lockdown (or at least tier3) is coming. I'd guess the govt are looking at their models to optimise release for Christmas. Probably followed by wave 3 after everyone crosses the country to visit their families.

Gryff

[redsturgeon]

There are vast swathes of the country where Tier 1 is more than adequate. We do not need a national lockdown.

But surely the problem with these regional variations is that people from high infection areas will simply hop in their cars and party in the neighbouring lower tier locations. It certainly feels like that to me (Tier 1 Lincolnshire with neighbours Tier 3 Notts and S.Yorks)

I too suspect another national lockdown is coming. I'd guess the govt are looking at their models to optimise release for Christmas. Probably followed by wave 3 after everyone crosses the country to visit their families.

Gryff

Indeed, my family lives about two miles outside the border of Nottinghamshire. They have a nice quiet pub in their village. I can only guess what it will be like over the next few weeks.

Yes I agree with the rest of the post too. It seems inevitable.

John

[Bouleversee]

How can you get any meaningful herd immunity if immunity is as short-lived as would appear to be tha case?

Immunity does not appear to be short term. The antibodies may fade, but the immunity memory lasts.

So how come people are getting infected again after quite a short time? And before you point out that the numbers are few so far, how do you know that people who had it but were never tested, either because they had no obvious symptoms or they were too mild to bother the overloaded NHS, aren't now getting it?

[johnhemming]

So how come people are getting infected again after quite a short time? And before you point out that the numbers are few so far, how do you know that people who had it but were never tested, either because they had no obvious symptoms or they were too mild to bother the overloaded NHS, aren't now getting it?

We now it is small because if there were large numbers of people being reinfected they would keep going to the hospital/GP and appear in the figures.

[dealtn]

How can you get any meaningful herd immunity if immunity is as short-lived as would appear to be tha case?

Immunity does not appear to be short term. The antibodies may fade, but the immunity memory lasts.

I think I would want to see more data for at least a year before being comfortable with that claim.

John

I think I would want to see more data for at least a year before being comfortable with either claim.

Maybe I am more open minded.

[johnhemming]

Maybe I am more open minded.

It is always important to learn from additional information which may incline people to take the view that they were wrong about something.

Initially, for example, I was a lot more worried about Covid than I am now. I am inclined personally to take precautionary steps which is why I did not need to buy any extra goods for Covid as I had already done so for Ebola. (and to be fair I tend to keep stocks of various goods such as baked beans).

However, when it comes to deciding what actions to take you need to do that without necessarily having all the possible information. Hence although we know that reinfection happens from time to time and we don't know how frequently and in what circumstances it happens we can assume that it is not that common because we don't see that much of it.

[redsturgeon]

Maybe I am more open minded.

It is always important to learn from additional information which may incline people to take the view that they were wrong about something.

Initially, for example, I was a lot more worried about Covid than I am now. I am inclined personally to take precautionary steps which is why I did not need to buy any extra goods for Covid as I had already done so for Ebola. (and to be fair I tend to keep stocks of various goods such as baked beans).

However, when it comes to deciding what actions to take you need to do that without necessarily having all the possible information. Hence although we know that reinfection happens from time to time and we don't know how frequently and in what circumstances it happens we can assume that it is not that common because we don't see that much of it.

We not not expect to see much of it yet, would we?

Give it a year or so and we may or may not see more.

John

[johnhemming]

We not not expect to see much of it yet, would we?

We know antibodies have faded. Hence we would expect to see it now if it arises as a consequence of the antibodies fading.

In fact we know that T cell learned immunity can last for 17 years for at least one coronavirus.

[dealtn]

Maybe I am more open minded.

It is always important to learn from additional information which may incline people to take the view that they were wrong about something.

Initially, for example, I was a lot more worried about Covid than I am now. I am inclined personally to take precautionary steps which is why I did not need to buy any extra goods for Covid as I had already done so for Ebola. (and to be fair I tend to keep stocks of various goods such as baked beans).

However, when it comes to deciding what actions to take you need to do that without necessarily having all the possible information. Hence although we know that reinfection happens from time to time and we don't know how frequently and in what circumstances it happens we can assume that it is not that common because we don't see that much of it.

We not not expect to see much of it yet, would we?

Give it a year or so and we may or may not see more.

John

Precisely. Which is why a claim such as "How can you get any meaningful herd immunity if immunity is as short-lived as would appear to be tha case" is just as disingenuous as an initial point. You appear to be in agreement given you wouldn't expect to see much of it yet.

[Lootman]

We have "experts", we should listen to them, rather than listening to self proclaimed "experts" claiming they know more than the experts do (or worse, that nobody knows "anything"). Which is precisely what I am not doing.

You are picking Experts that you wish to agree with. We have universities that provide qualifications for expertise, but you are not concerning yourself with that, but instead whether an expert is on a particular committee or not.

Exactly, XFool has decided which experts he prefers and then seeks to promote them over other experts whose views he likes less.

In other words he doesn't advocate that we listen to experts but rather that we should believe the experts he prefers. In other words he seeks to present himself as the expert on experts. But on what basis?

[johnhemming]

You appear to be in agreement given you wouldn't expect to see much of it yet.

I don't think we are in agreement.

I have the view that there is evidence for a long lasting immune response between Coronaviruses. Furthermore if there was not some form of lasting immunity we would have masses of reinfection going on.

Hence on a balance of probabilities I take the view that it is reasonable to assume that immunity lasts where people have a strong immune system.

John disagrees. (I think).

[Bouleversee]

It is always important to learn from additional information which may incline people to take the view that they were wrong about something.

Initially, for example, I was a lot more worried about Covid than I am now. I am inclined personally to take precautionary steps which is why I did not need to buy any extra goods for Covid as I had already done so for Ebola. (and to be fair I tend to keep stocks of various goods such as baked beans).

However, when it comes to deciding what actions to take you need to do that without necessarily having all the possible information. Hence although we know that reinfection happens from time to time and we don't know how frequently and in what circumstances it happens we can assume that it is not that common because we don't see that much of it.

We not not expect to see much of it yet, would we?

Give it a year or so and we may or may not see more.

John

Precisely. Which is why a claim such as "How can you get any meaningful herd immunity if immunity is as short-lived as would appear to be tha case" is just as disingenuous as an initial point. You appear to be in agreement given you wouldn't expect to see much of it yet.

My comment was not a claim; it was a question. I don't make any claims (there is still far too much to learn) but I do sometimes question other people's claims if they contradict what I have read/heard elsewhere from other people who claim to know it all and if at face value they don't seem to make sense and there appear to be flaws in their arguments.

I watched that U Tube video which was very informative but having had insufficient sleep last night dropped off before the end so will have to find time to listen again. I actually prefer to read rather than listen. One question it raised, however, was that if health workers are showing antibodies again after losing them earlier but are not showing symptoms, could they be unwittingly spreading the infection to others? Question, not claim!

I think it will be some time before the fat lady sings.