Feeling a bit duped about the seriousness of Covid....

[mostwonderfultime]

Found out my district of 55,000 people there have been 156 confirmed covid cases since March. Now I hear there is an enquiry into the over reporting of Covid deaths in England. Average death rate has now lower than average indicating many people who died from Covid would probably died in the next month or so. No surge in Covid cases or deaths since relaxing lockdown measures (I know about Leicester, but we all know reasons why they have more cases and again they haven't had a spike in deaths).
In the meantime, the economy is screwed, Kids have been off school for months, best friends business has gone bust.

Penelope, when did WHO state that? The last studies I saw at best said it was unknown?

They said at the time that if they got it right then people would say they had over reacted.

'Positive' is not allowed on mumsnet though

It's not a question of being positive or negative; it's being factual and understanding science, not relying on tabloid headlines.

If you can give me an example of a vaccine being developed in under 2 years, please go ahead. In most cases, it takes more than a decade - and that's for existing diseases that have been studied and were fully understood before we tried to create a vaccine. With Covid, we don't even understand how natural immunity works, so trying to mimic that with a vaccine is 10 times as difficult.

Even the Ebola vaccine, which is held up as an example of a fast development process, took at least 5 years to develop, and that wasn't from a standing start.

I imagine you must feel 'duped' quite often in life if you think all the global experts are wrong.
Of course, someone with a hint of compassion or decorum may consider how hurtful threads like this are to people whose loved ones have died of Covid or people whose family/friends have been hospitalised or people whose family/friends are still struggling with effects of Covid pneumonia.
I must admit I feel quite nostalgic for the days when facts, experts and compassion were considered important.

It's pretty horrific that around 4000 people under 60 have died (probably more now that was early June ) and that probably around 40,000 would have died without lockdown.

It's pretty horrific that "old" people are seen as not worth anything. That we can cut short their lives happily, suspect when you get to 60 you might be less than happy to lose the last quarter of your life.

If you can give me an example of a vaccine being developed in under 2 years, please go ahead.

In this case they’ve got unheard of resources and money to throw at it. Plus the Oxford team had a significant head start because of all their work on SARs/Mers.

This is a very specific situation.

JRob,

'It is in the news today that HCPs and vulnerable people should be vaccinated by xmas'. Was it 'in the news'? if so, where?

This seemed reasonably even handed - www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53469839

@MrsNoah2020

'Positive' is not allowed on mumsnet though

It's not a question of being positive or negative; it's being factual and understanding science, not relying on tabloid headlines.

If you can give me an example of a vaccine being developed in under 2 years, please go ahead. In most cases, it takes more than a decade - and that's for existing diseases that have been studied and were fully understood before we tried to create a vaccine. With Covid, we don't even understand how natural immunity works, so trying to mimic that with a vaccine is 10 times as difficult.

Even the Ebola vaccine, which is held up as an example of a fast development process, took at least 5 years to develop, and that wasn't from a standing start.

www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31604-4/fulltext

Lancet, not tabloids. Says the vaccine produces an antibody and cellular response.

[quote Forgone90]@ClimbDad if that's all true, then surely we just needed to return to normal as a vaccine will be useless anyway? We can't hide forever.[/quote]
We can't hide forever. But we can change our behaviour to reduce risk.

The past 100 years of good public health in western nations are an anomaly in human history. For the previous few thousand years, people were very conscious of disease and sickness.

We've regressed to a world in which we have to live with an easily transmitted, lethal pathogen circulating the population. People will go out less and take fewer risks if they're able to. There will not be a return to the pre-Covid normal until the virus has been eradicated or mutates to be less virulent.

Two of my friends were Covid skeptics. Both caught it in April. Both were previously healthy, but are now suffering from Long Covid - one had encephalitis that seems to have caused mild brain damage, and the other now has a cardiac condition. Both wish they'd been more cautious.

The WHO have already stated that asymptomatic transmission is impossible, so if those who have symptoms isolate, there is no further risk to public health. I literally want to scream now in frustration.

There’s a difference between asymptomatic and presymptomatic.

Asymptomatic - never develops symptoms
Presymtomatic - the period of time between being infected and getting symptoms. Presymptomatic COVID patients do transmit infection - possibly with the most infection period being just before symptoms start and the first few days.

I don’t think asymptomatic transmission is impossible either. It’s just less likely and not thought to be driving the pandemic.

@LaurieMarlow

If you can give me an example of a vaccine being developed in under 2 years, please go ahead.

In this case they’ve got unheard of resources and money to throw at it. Plus the Oxford team had a significant head start because of all their work on SARs/Mers.

This is a very specific situation.

As I said above, billions have been thrown at HIV and malaria vaccines, with no useful outcome. And I have lost track of the number of 'A malaria vaccine is just around the corner' stories I have seen.

What people need to understand is that everyone researching the Covid vaccine is competing for funding, so they all have a huge interest in hype-ing up what they have done so far, so that they attract more money. I am not saying that they are lying, but they will be putting the most positive spin possible on what they have produced.

I think it's possible that we may be able to piggy-back on the MERS/SARS work to develop a vaccine in under 2 years on this occasion. But we sure as hell won't have been able to mass-produce and mass-administer it by then. We're more likely looking at it being given to handful of rich Americans.

@PenelopePitstop49

There is still a very strong wave of Covid Hysteria on MN. And for that alone, you won't get a balanced view on this OP.

The enquiry into this pandemic in years to come will show the huge over reaction to what is little more than a seasonal flu that's taken out people in their last stages of life. The bulk of deaths have been people over 80 who were either hospitalised or in care homes.

The lockdown was nothing more than to protect the shit show that is the NHS. We had already passed the peak, as the virus was getting weaker with transmission. Just like seasonal flu.

Sadly, even when the High streets have finally died, millions are unemployed, millions have died due to lack of medical care and diagnosis, we are in a deep recession and have to live through decades of austerity measures - people will still argue that it was justified.

The WHO have already stated that asymptomatic transmission is impossible, so if those who have symptoms isolate, there is no further risk to public health. I literally want to scream now in frustration.

This is probably one of the most ignorant posts I've ever seen on MN or anywhere else.

Almost every statement you've made is incorrect, but let's just focus on the most glaring error: asymptomatic transmission. You are probably basing your statement on having read a headline somewhere without bothering to look at the detail of what was actually said.

Here is what the WHO lead Maria Van Kerkhove meant when she made her statement about asymptomatic transmission:
www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/who-comments-breed-confusion-over-asymptomatic-spread-of-covid-19-67626

Some people will only realise the severity of this virus when they actually catch it. Unfortunately, the policies of this government mean you will probably get your chance.

Jrobhatch29

Do you have a link to that? Only the last I read was similar to what's been posted on here - efficacy is still being questioned and they were considering applying to deliberately infect volunteers in attempt to test it (something that is usually considered unethical I believe?)

How do they plan vaccinating the vulnerable this winter if they aren't sure that it works, or for how long immunity might last for? Surely that puts the most vulnerable at very high risk if they believe they are immune and it turns out they aren't?

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

Jrobhatch29

Do you have a link to that? Only the last I read was similar to what's been posted on here - efficacy is still being questioned and they were considering applying to deliberately infect volunteers in attempt to test it (something that is usually considered unethical I believe?)

How do they plan vaccinating the vulnerable this winter if they aren't sure that it works, or for how long immunity might last for? Surely that puts the most vulnerable at very high risk if they believe they are immune and it turns out they aren't?

I just posted the link to the lancet article that came out yesterday up there ^^

As I said above, billions have been thrown at HIV and malaria vaccines, with no useful outcome.

There’s never been anything like a problem with the urgency of this though. The resources, money, kudos significantly dwarfs what’s been thrown at your examples.

I am not saying that they are lying, but they will be putting the most positive spin possible on what they have produced.

They’re professionals. They know what’s at stake. They’re not in the business of radically misleading because that would backfire spectacularly and trash their scientific credibility. But they do know a lot more than randoms on the internet.

But we sure as hell won't have been able to mass-produce and mass-administer it by then.

Everything I’ve read indicates huge resource and effort is being put into this also. If the Oxford one is successful the government already have commandeered stocks. And we don’t need everyone vaccinated anyway, prioritising the most vulnerable will be a great start.

I guess there were no easy options, but I don’t think we will look back and think we handled it well or that the disruption was worth it. Easy to say with hindsight I guess.

In my town of 40,000 144 people have died and 740 have had “confirmed” cases. Given I’m sure only a small percent have had the virus due to lockdown (5-10%) that feels pretty bad!

So basically you're pissed off because lockdown worked? If you follow the same reasoning then anyone who survived cancer because of chemo should be pissed off because they had chemo. Or anyone who was resussitated and broke a rib should sue because their life was saved.

Lockdown saved lives, you onlh have to look at brazil to see what would have happened without it.

On the other dide you can look at new zealand where they were really strict and now their economy is doing well. So if you won't believe in it for other peoples lives, maybe you woulc support stricter regulations to save the economy.

Lancet, not tabloids. Says the vaccine produces an antibody and cellular response

That is not the same as inducing immunity. What they have shown is that their product creates a response in the immune system. And they have shown that no one in their small group of healthy volunteers dropped dead as a result of being given it. Those are both good things, but they are very much preliminary steps. They have not shown that they have induced immunity. Your body produces antibodies to all sort of things, but this doesn't mean you are immune to them all.

This is the key bit:

The correlation of neutralisation assays with IgG quantitation indicates that, if confirmed, a standardised ELISA might be sufficient to predict protection, should neutralising antibody also be shown to be protective in humans

They are saying that the antibody production might have a protective effect, but that this is not yet clear.

@LaurieMarlow

As I said above, billions have been thrown at HIV and malaria vaccines, with no useful outcome.

There’s never been anything like a problem with the urgency of this though. The resources, money, kudos significantly dwarfs what’s been thrown at your examples.

I am not saying that they are lying, but they will be putting the most positive spin possible on what they have produced.

They’re professionals. They know what’s at stake. They’re not in the business of radically misleading because that would backfire spectacularly and trash their scientific credibility. But they do know a lot more than randoms on the internet.

But we sure as hell won't have been able to mass-produce and mass-administer it by then.

Everything I’ve read indicates huge resource and effort is being put into this also. If the Oxford one is successful the government already have commandeered stocks. And we don’t need everyone vaccinated anyway, prioritising the most vulnerable will be a great start.

What she said there are a subset of people on here that cannot accept any signs of hope though. I am not a covid skeptic, it worries me. But I choose to look for the positives. The new nebuliser treatment looks very promising too.

Sorry, I should say my local authority includes circa 100K people, my town is 40K.

They’re professionals. They know what’s at stake. They’re not in the business of radically misleading because that would backfire spectacularly and trash their scientific credibility. But they do know a lot more than randoms on the internet

LOL. Unfortunately, the higher the stakes, the greater the incentive to be selective about sharing bad news. If you think that researchers never mislead, you don't know much about the history of medical research! There is actually little risk of reputational blowback, as any later disappointing results will be written down as 'Initial promise in vitro failed to materialise in vivo', which is normal.

As for 'randoms on the internet', plenty of posters on this thread have given scientific explanations of why a vaccine won't be ready any time soon. I haven't seen a single poster produce scientific argument as why one will be. The fact that the media and Government want you to believe it does not make it true.

A lot of the people reporting "long term lung issues" are actually just psychosomatic.

Source?

Wasn't it the Lancet which published Andrew Wakefield's MMR and Autism bullshit?

I think people don't want to believe there's a vaccine or treatment in the pipe line because they're afraid it might make sense to wait for it if that were the case and they want to go shopping today.