Covid19 Is Here For Years to Come

[ClimbDad]

Today, Sir Jeremy Farrar, a member of Sage, the government advisory body, said the world would be living with Covid-19 for "very many, many years to come".

"Things will not be done by Christmas. This infection is not going away, it's now a human endemic infection.

"Even, actually, if we have a vaccine or very good treatments, humanity will still be living with this virus for very many, many years.... decades to come."

Prof Sir John Bell, of the University of Oxford, said he thought it was unlikely that Covid-19 would ever be eliminated despite the positive news announced on Monday that trials by his university had triggered an immune response - an important step in developing a vaccine.

"The reality is that this pathogen is here forever, it isn't going anywhere," he told MPs.

"Look at how much trouble they've had in eliminating, for example, polio, that eradication programme has been going on for 15 years and they're still not there.

"So this is going to come and go, and we're going to get winters where we get a lot of this virus back in action.“

If these highly respected scientists are right, how will your life change? Do you believe we can go back to normal while the virus is circulating?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53488142

Try r/COVID19 instead of r/coronavirus on reddit. It is full of actual scientists reviewing actual coronavirus developments. As an ex-scientist who has also actually studied actual molecular virology at an actual university I can recommend it as someone who has actually studied coronaviruses, possibly also as much as ClimbDad (why do the mansplainers always assume there are no female doctors/scientists/politicians/engineers/experts on MN?)

Jeremy Farrar (with us for decades)

Yes, as I said, this coronavirus is now endemic in the human population - entirely expected behaviour for this coronavirus and indeed every other one that crosses over from other species. Nothing new or unexpected there and nobody has tried to deny that. Makes no difference to my optimism about vaccines/treatments to control SARS-NCOV2.

Sir John Bell (immunity might be temporary)

Might be, but very unlikely to be the case. See the same source that you quoted OP:
www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.14.20151126v1
And even if it is (relatively) short-lived, so what, doesn't make any difference once an effective vaccine is available, you can have it annually, like flu, or more likely, regular booster shots. Again, 3 months or 3 years, doesn't affect my optimism about effective vaccines and treatments.

@ClimbDad

Sir John Bell doesn’t believe vaccines will offer long term immunity. It really hasn’t dawned on some people what this means. Read some books about what life was like for societies that had to live with highly transmissible disease. The things we’ve taken for granted, large indoor gatherings, concerts, air travel, cinemas, pubs, large schools - will all pose a risk. Some people will accept that risk. Others won’t. Most businesses can’t survive a significant decline in customers. If this virus becomes endemic it will lead to structural social and economic changes.

What - you mean like cold, flu, chickenpox, tb, hepatitis, typhoid, HIV, rabies, etc etc.

This isn't any different, the likelihood is we will develop a partial immunity, there will be immunisation for some that will be partially effective and we already know better how to treat people.

Thousands die of flu every year. Many, many more die of cancer every year and we all die one day.

Oh and in the past that you were talking about, still more lived than died, life went on and we have still managed to hugely increase the world population.

Oh my god what exactly is your point op?

Even if you're right and we're all stupid and just don't understand, what is your point?

Have you just come to tell us all that we don't understand and life is going to be terrible forever?

Thanks for informing us, so glad we've got you to explain everything to us.

"Can You Get Covid Again? It’s Very Unlikely, Experts Say"

"Reports of reinfection instead may be cases of drawn-out illness. A decline in antibodies is normal after a few weeks, and people are protected from the coronavirus in other ways."

<a class="break-all" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/health/covid-antibodies-herd-immunity.html#click=t.co/OCbnhXfkqw" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/health/covid-antibodies-herd-immunity.html#click=t.co/OCbnhXfkqw

poor decisions made now cannot be reversed

This is absolutely how I feel about closing schools and significantly interfering with education for every child in the country. (Especially those in state schools).

@GabriellaMontez

poor decisions made now cannot be reversed

This is absolutely how I feel about closing schools and significantly interfering with education for every child in the country. (Especially those in state schools).

Good think OP isn't in charge then because schools would be shut forever more

I guess OP is meaning we need to learn to live with it long term, like mentioned here..

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/07/23/viral-second-wave-fear-will-drive-us-another-lockdown/?icid=editorial_editorial_nav-bar_particle_article-playlist-fte-2307&WT.mc_id=e_DM1269351&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_Edi_New_Reg&utmsource=email&utm_medium=Edi_Edi_New_Reg20200723&utm_campaign=DM1269351

I read the article. It will includes nonsense about masks being 'muzzles' but I read on.

It won't be 'fear' of a second wave that drives us back into lockdown, it'll be rising cases and evidence that the UK government hasn't got the systems in place to protect the population properly.

I agree about there not being enough in place to protect the vulnerable, as mentioned in the article. That the government should step up on that.

We're all vulnerable to covid tbh it is just a matter of scale, the govt doesn't seem to have the slightest interest in the possibly considerable percentage of people who don't need hospital treatment but don't fully recover. That group will face serious financial hardship long term.

What would ‘protecting the vulnerable’ look like in the sense that the author wants? Not suppressing the virus because that includes ‘face muzzles’ and people trying to avoid spreading it, which means they are living in fear and this is bad(?)

So we just.. what? Tell everyone who is over 70 or otherwise vulnerable to stay in their homes and not see people for the next two years? Yeah how supportive and lovely of us that would be. “Never mind the solitary isolation, Granny, we’re ever so generous, we’ll sort you a Tesco delivery slot!”

And never mind that we WERE trying to ‘protect the vulnerable’ and even during lockdown loads of the vulnerable in care homes died. The countries that avoided this and actually DID protect the vulnerable are countries that stamped hard on the virus from the start, and didn’t decide that we’d all just have to live with it so a Telegraph columnist wouldn’t have to wear a ‘face muzzle’

I suppose they mean more financial and practical support.

Life will go on, we will manage clusters, a vaccine or treatment plan found in time.

I'm off to the footy tomorrow
With 20,000 others in South Australia so life is returning, even if slower than I'd like

@Orangeblossom78

I suppose they mean more financial and practical support.

Financial and practical support to stay in their homes for years and not mix with wider society? I suppose that’s ‘protecting’ but not in a very humane way. It would be like keeping everyone in lockdown forever - yeah you’re ‘safe’ but at what price?

Of course we'll go back to normal.

And yes, it'll be here for years.

Just like Spanish flu is still around. Just like bubonic plague is still around.

It's not the existing that's an issue for a virus. It's high community presence and transmission alongside very low community immunity that causes epidemics and pandemics.

“You can have your fun discrediting me on MN, but it's harder to ignore the mounting number of experts saying we're facing profound social change and long-term health impact from this virus.“

Indeed it is. Thing is, they tend to produce peer reviewed /recognised studies and papers, advise Governments and Pharma, be invited to speak publicly on Newsnight with a tag line giving their name, title and expertise, etc. . They tend not to pronounce as an anonymous random using a parenting website as their vehicle of choice.

You can see why posters may be a tad sceptical about your expertise, no?