When will it all end?

CalamariFritti

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It wasn’t an argument, it was a question. And the poster declining to answer it, speaks volumes.

I’ll answer your question. The problem would be the prevalence of the virus int he community. Vaccinated people can probably still carry and transmit the virus (according to research reported today). So allowing the virus to run rampant in the community is not an option. So if some people decide to flout the rules, they will obviously help spread the virus to the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike, thus prolonging the whole problem.

Do you understand the issue now?

It will most likely be forever prevalent in the community no matter how many are immune and no matter how much time goes by. Just like the other corona viruses. It just wont harm people anymore. You may not realise it but you are saying we can never go back to normal.

Le Bruise

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/past-covid-19-infection-provides-some-immunity-but-people-may-still-carry-and-transmit-virus

Be sure to let me know what impact this new information has on your opinion.

That study seems to about immunity/transmission post-infection, not post-vaccination, which is what we were discussing.

El_Duderino 09

Le Bruise wrote: »

That study seems to about immunity/transmission post-infection, not post-vaccination, which is what we were discussing.

Yeah they’re going to do more work on the impact of the vaccine. It’s doesn’t bode well for the vaccine being more effective. But we’ll have to wait and see

Coybig_

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah they’re going to do more work on the impact of the vaccine. It’s doesn’t bode well for the vaccine being more effective. But we’ll have to wait and see

So the study has literally 0 to do with what you have been claiming. Nothing to do with post vaccine immunity.

Right.

Even if the vaccine works really well, I still wonder what will happen when an 85 year old nursing home resident tests positive and also has a severe illness such as cancer or COPD.

Surely we are still going to have Covid deaths.

The question is, at what point do we accept that?

mcsean2163

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Even if the vaccine works really well, I still wonder what will happen when an 85 year old nursing home resident tests positive and also has a severe illness such as cancer or COPD.

Surely we are still going to have Covid deaths.

The question is, at what point do we accept that?

20% of nursing home residents die in the first three months after entering a nursing home. Some people seem to have forgotten that people die even when there's no covid19.

...Ghost...

mcsean2163 wrote: »

20% if nursing home residents die in the first three months after entering a nursing home. Some people seem to have forgotten that people die even when there's no covid19.

What about the other 80%

mcsean2163

...Ghost... wrote: »

What about the other 80%

Well, the point I'm making is that people in nursing home tend to have a finite lifespan. In answer to the poster, covid19 will probably eventually be another thing to which elderly are susceptible but in much reduced numbers. With the vaccine as high as 70-80% will be protected, so in the worst case scenario 1 in 3 get covid19 and hopefully a smaller fraction are critically affected.

El_Duderino 09

Coybig_ wrote: »

So the study has literally 0 to do with what you have been claiming. Nothing to do with post vaccine immunity.

Right.

We’ll have to wait and see. The fact that the immunity from having covid faces after 5 months, doesn’t bode well for the vaccine. We’ll have to wait and see what the longer term studies say about the effects of the vaccine.

The fact that they can be immune and still carry an transmit the virus, is likewise not a good sign for then effectiveness of the vaccine. It wasn’t designed to stop transmission, only to give immunity.

...Ghost...

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Well, the point I'm making is that people in nursing home tend to have a finite lifespan. In answer to the poster, covid19 will probably eventually be another thing to which elderly are susceptible but in much reduced numbers. With the vaccine as high as 70-80% will be protected, so in the worst case scenario 1 in 3 get covid19 and hopefully a smaller fraction are critically affected.

We all have a finite life span, but I get what you mean. However, I would argue that within reason, that short time spent in a nursing home is precious BECAUSE their life is nearing its end. Being robbed of your last few months because some @rsehole nurse decided to go to a few parties over the Christmas period and risk/get covid is not something I find acceptable. Likewise for visitors to such places.

Aside from nursing homes, there are plenty of people that can't take the vaccine because of a high likelihood of severe reaction. I am one of those people.

Sadly, I do think we will have to live with this disease for a very long time, but I hope it has impressed on most people that we all need to be a little more mindful of what we could be passing onto others. I still see morons walking around the supermarket with no mask and its usually a group of 2 or 3 people, so the chances of them all being exempt is slim to nil.

Deeper Blue

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The fact that the immunity from having covid faces after 5 months, doesn’t bode well for the vaccine.

Where's the evidence that immunity fades after 5 months? Don't give me some guff about antibodies either, they're not the body's only protection mechanism.

How you've deduced that this "doesn't bode well" for the vaccine is a stretch to say the least

Montage of Feck

In the night time.

bucketybuck

...Ghost... wrote: »

We all have a finite life span, but I get what you mean. However, I would argue that within reason, that short time spent in a nursing home is precious BECAUSE their life is nearing its end. Being robbed of your last few months because some @rsehole nurse decided to go to a few parties over the Christmas period and risk/get covid is not something I find acceptable. Likewise for visitors to such places.

Would you agree then that a priority should be actively targeting such places as nursing homes and investing in their safety? Should the government not be paying whatever it takes to ensure that they are given whatever they need to stop covid 19 getting past their doors?

Cerveza

Schools will be back soon, we are on the right track now.

...Ghost...

bucketybuck wrote: »

Would you agree then that a priority should be actively targeting such places as nursing homes and investing in their safety? Should the government not be paying whatever it takes to ensure that they are given whatever they need to stop covid 19 getting past their doors?

Yes, the vulnerable need priority. I also think stronger measures need to be taken against people who are recklessly flouting the rules and putting others at risk. Correct me if i'm wrong, but I believe it's a criminal offence to knowingly spread disease to another which could cause harm. There have been instances of people not isolating after a positive test and almost certainly people have become infected because of such recklessness. At the very least, everyone in public, or at a place of work should have to wear a face mask (covering mouth AND nose). Those not wearing one should have an exemption badge or charged. Might seem harsh, but if it saves others from being sick or dying of covid, it's worth it.

GT89

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That works in the same way that more testing leads to more confirmed cases.

I’d rephrase the question to ask whether you understand that mixing and spreading the virus will prolong the need for the restrictions?

There isn't a need for restrictions over a virus with a less than 1% death rate. No restrictions is best for me I'm happy to take my chances.

Paddygreen

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And there’s the problem.

I’m not telling you what to do, but do you acknowledge that your behaviour would be part of the problem and would help prolong the whole thing?

He sounds like a very naughty boy, very badly behaved. His poor suffering mammy.

...Ghost...

GT89 wrote: »

There isn't a need for restrictions over a virus with a less than 1% death rate. No restrictions is best for me I'm happy to take my chances.

I can't imagine a more self-centered response than that.

"I don't give a fcuk that other people die, as long as I'm alright"

GT89

...Ghost... wrote: »

I can't imagine a more self-centered response than that.

"I don't give a fcuk that other people die, as long as I'm alright"

Does my and many others mental health not matter too?

...Ghost...

...Ghost... wrote: »

I can't imagine a more self-centered response than that.

"I don't give a fcuk that other people die, as long as I'm alright"

Well, they’re not the only one, I’m afraid. Once the vulnerable are vaccinated, and the pressure on the hospitals is eased, I will be out and about again making the most of life.

...Ghost...

GT89 wrote: »

Does my and many others mental health not matter too?

Go'way with your mental health façade. Most people are making big sacrifices, myself included.

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, they’re not the only one, I’m afraid. Once the vulnerable are vaccinated, and the pressure on the hospitals is eased, I will be out and about again making the most of life.

That's different to what the other poster said. Atleast you're thinking of the vulnerable and the health service as a whole. The other poster doesn't seem to realise that 1% is a lot of death from corona alone. That doesn't include the deaths from delayed cancer screenings, elective surgeries and avoidance of hospitals for necessary care due the fear/risk of infection among other things.

douglashyde

Micky 32 wrote: »

LOL Ebola has a death rate of up to 90%, it just highlights the drivel you just posted :rolleyes:

I think you might have missed the sarcasm.

Hector Savage

Quazzie wrote: »

Why do you think the governement WANT lockdowns?

Very good question, I don't understand it, but there seems to be a lot of people in that just want to completely destroy society and peoples lives to minimise the covid deaths.

The same people don't give a sh*t about non covid deaths, seems only deaths from covid are a tragedy.

Hector Savage

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And there’s the problem.

I’m not telling you what to do, but do you acknowledge that your behaviour would be part of the problem and would help prolong the whole thing?

What problem would it be at that stage ? tell us ?
When most are vaccinated and hospitals wont get slammed whats the problem?

You are part of this problem - people like you love this and want it to go on and on and on and on ....

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/past-covid-19-infection-provides-some-immunity-but-people-may-still-carry-and-transmit-virus

Be sure to let me know what impact this new information has on your opinion.

Be sure to read it properly

SIREN study leaders are clear this first report provides no evidence towards the antibody or other immune responses from COVID-19 vaccines, nor should any conclusions to be drawn on their effectiveness. The SIREN study will consider vaccine responses later this year

You actually don't understand the science here, or how scientific documents are worded. I would read that document as saying that antibodies are very effective in stopping the disease from infecting the person again, or in the few cases where it does, infecting them severely. So if everybody has the antibodies, either from the vaccine or from being infected, we are golden. The virus will always be endemic but not pandemic. We may need vaccines every year or second year, but so what.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

We’ll have to wait and see. The fact that the immunity from having covid faces after 5 monthsy.

Doesn't say that. This is why scientific reports need to have some kind of abstract for non technical readers.

The link itself says:



PHE has been regularly testing tens of thousands of health care workers across the UK since June for new COVID-19 infections as well as the presence of antibodies, which suggest people have been infected before.

PHE scientists working on the study have concluded naturally acquired immunity as a result of past infections provide 83% protection against reinfection, compared to people who have not had the disease before. This appears to last at least for 5 months from first becoming sick.

Notice the at least there? This study was published in November so they are saying that most of the participants had immunity but they couldn't say if it lasted past 5 months as the study started in June and ended in November.

You have taken a scientific study showing that the antibodies conferred immunity for as long as the study lasted, 5 months - and read it as saying that the immunity only lasted 5 months.

Hector Savage

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That sounds realistic. Anything better than that would be a bonus. And they will be working on better and more effective Vaccines so hopefully they will keep ahead of it.

Hard to know how it will work out. Hopefully the mutations which arise in the future like the Kent, South Africa and Brazilian variants are all covered by the vaccine. Otherwise it will be a completely differ timescale

Completely different timescale ?
If new variants are resistant to vaccines timescales go out the window as vaccines will never work!

So we will just need to learn to live with it.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

Would you agree then that a priority should be actively targeting such places as nursing homes and investing in their safety? Should the government not be paying whatever it takes to ensure that they are given whatever they need to stop covid 19 getting past their doors?

They are being vaccinated first. Not sure what else is needed.

Hector Savage

CalamariFritti wrote: »

It will most likely be forever prevalent in the community no matter how many are immune and no matter how much time goes by. Just like the other corona viruses. It just wont harm people anymore. You may not realise it but you are saying we can never go back to normal.

Exactly, even if 100% of the human population was vaccinated magically NOW ... with his logic we can still not open fully up as people can still carry/transmit and iummunity is only temporary .
I think one to add to the gnore list

FintanMcluskey

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

1st heard this in March 2020

And in the summer we were back to normal, except for the poor "wet pubs". This year we will have the vaccines. We need to wait and see how long lasting they are.

Hector Savage

Hector Savage wrote: »

Exactly, even if 100% of the human population was vaccinated magically NOW ... with his logic we can still not open fully up as people can still carry/transmit and iummunity is only temporary .
I think one to add to the gnore list

Horse putty for two reasons:

There is no evidence that there is transmission. The only thing that they are saying, again out of an abundance of caution, is that we can't say yet if people don't transmit. In general vaccinated people don't transmit which is why we have got rid of smallpox and polio. And there is more than one vaccine here.

If that wasn't true and everybody transmitted and the severity was reduced to a cold we would still be open up. We don't close down society in a normal flu season, or a cold season.

you people seem to think that we can never open up again.