We cannot cancel life, to preserve every life

[Slytherin]

I actually find myself agreeing with a Tory for once...we’ve given up so much and the goalposts keep moving, yes it’s an unpredictable situation, but it’s also unsustainable long term. The idea that this summer will be possibly worse than last summer makes zero sense, when we have a vaccine roll out that far exceeds any other nation (except Israel) currently.
First it was let’s get the elderly and vulnerable vaccinated, then it was let’s get the over 50s vaccinated, now we’ve got members of SAGE suggesting restrictions have to continue until everyone, including children are vaccinated and beyond, because of the possibility of new variants. Professor John Edmunds said some would have to stay “forever” last night on Peston.

We must at some point live with an element of risk. I’m in no way suggesting we lift lockdown yet, but suggesting that things won’t have much improved by the summer, is, in my opinion encroaching into dangerous territory.

The government were over promising before, now they’re under promising. There’s got to be a middle ground, people’s mental health cannot sustain this level of pessimism and not having a single thing to look forward to. Everything gets dangled like a carrot, then taken away at the last minute. It’s beyond cruel.

Then it’s the mixed messages, Matt Hancock telling us he’s going on a summer holiday to Cornwall and he’s all booked up and Grant Shapps then telling nobody to even consider booking a holiday abroad or domestically this summer.

Yes, I support restrictions to save lives and support the NHS, but I don’t support the way the government are handling this once again. And I don’t support these restrictions indefinitely, especially when the majority of the at risk groups have been vaccinated.

www.channel4.com/news/we-cannot-cancel-life-to-preserve-every-life-tory-mp-sir-charles-walker-on-lockdown?fbclid=IwAR2RnQNKwJoQ4FSBxT9oTbwbFOCTWcIU9wD9WdYkTEA2sVlJ1posWZAfmsU

Dr John Campbell was saying on his YouTube channel the other day that sars cov 2 immunity could, conceivably, last as long as it has for people who had sars cov 1 which people still have after, I think, 18 years.

"There are different immune responses for different people for one thing"

Isn't that anecdotal?

The scientific consensus from jvt and Patrick Ballance etc is that we will need annual boosters for a few years at least. Whether that is due to immune response or mutations it irrelevant; herd immunity (other than by vaccine updates ) is apparently not a viable solution.

I completely agree with the op. People keep saying "but the NHS will be overrun". I counter that with "but the economy will be screwed".

@Hammonds i'm sorry but this is just nonsense. Smallpox is the only virus himankind has ever identified and eradicated from human populations. That was done with a vaccine. Rinduspest (Guinea worm) is close to eradication, as is polio. Also vaccines. No virus has ever been eradicated from the human population by "herd immunity" without mass vaccination.

The retort to that is

"but the economy will be screwed AND the NHS could be overrun"

@StarCat2020

Instead of being angry at those who we should be angry at (Government) it seems that we are increasingly getting angry at each other.

I actually think that this is exactly what those in power want.

I think you're maybe right.

Every opinion has to be violently one side or the other. You feel upset that lockdown is still going on is interpreted as you want to go to out and kill grannies. You want lockdown to continue until numbers get more manageable is interpreted as being you want to stay at home forever. Then there are people who feast on people's fear ("were all going to die!") and the love to point out a pp's moral failings and weakness of spirit.

There is a big difference between zero Covid and 600 deaths a day.

@walksen

The retort to that is

"but the economy will be screwed AND the NHS could be overrun"

So economy but no nhs? Or no economy and no NHS?

This is what I think but it is just my opinion.

We need to wait until the top four groups have had their second doses before we start judging the success of the vaccines.

There is a big difference between three more months and forever.

[quote MagentaGiraffe]@Hammonds i'm sorry but this is just nonsense. Smallpox is the only virus himankind has ever identified and eradicated from human populations. That was done with a vaccine. Rinduspest (Guinea worm) is close to eradication, as is polio. Also vaccines. No virus has ever been eradicated from the human population by "herd immunity" without mass vaccination. [/quote]
You obviously know more that professor John Edward’s - advisory to the government

"Dr John Campbell was saying on his YouTube channel the other day that sars cov 2 immunity could, conceivably, last as long as it has for people who had sars cov 1 which people still have after, I think, 18 years"

I've seen his videos on that and hoped he was right. Perhaps the t cell aspect might lesson symptoms etc over time and I suppose it depends on what you mean by immunity.

I think with the increasing scientific evidence of reinfection this does not seem to be what is happening.

@walksen

"There are different immune responses for different people for one thing"

Isn't that anecdotal?

The scientific consensus from jvt and Patrick Ballance etc is that we will need annual boosters for a few years at least. Whether that is due to immune response or mutations it irrelevant; herd immunity (other than by vaccine updates ) is apparently not a viable solution.

No it's not anecdotal. It's been scientifically measured that older people take longer to build immune responses than younger people. Older people have been measured to have a less good T cell response. Some people still have antibodies when tested at an interval after infection/positive test. Some people have not got measurable antibodies after a similar period of time.

Problem with SAGE advice is they don't have to implement it . They suggest things that would work aren't practical to roll out.

@walksen also if we are likely to need vaccine boosters for only a few years then presumably we will be expecting herd immunity at some point or we'd need boosters every year?

@tobee I agree. I wish it was possible to have a rational discussion based on facts and statistics and risks and probabilities. That is what is required to grasp the situation and the options now available.

I am furious at the Government for getting us into this situation with the worst death rate per million population of any medium or large country in the world, AND the worst economic recession of all developed countries. I mean, it's literally the worst possible outcome and they should be held accountable for it (we know they won't, except in the history books our grandchildren study).

But for now, a rational discussion of facts not emotions would go a long way go getting a consensus on what the next steps should be, to improve the dire situation.

@rwalker

Problem with SAGE advice is they don't have to implement it . They suggest things that would work aren't practical to roll out.

They give scientific advice. That is their job. Public health and virus modelling for various scenarios, plus some behavioural science (how to get people to comply etc). The Government gets advice from the Treasury on likely economic impact, and from other departments on social, educational impacts etc and it is Mr Johnson's job to make choices (and our MPs to endorse them) on how to weigh up that balance.

The UK votes for clowns, gets a circus, then act surprised. Brexit all over again.

"Or no economy and no NHS?"

Dont be absurd. Even if people were living in huts and making fires with stocks there would always be some trade and an economy of sorts.

Higher prevalence likely means a smaller economy and higher waiting lists on the NHS etc.

@walksen

"Dr John Campbell was saying on his YouTube channel the other day that sars cov 2 immunity could, conceivably, last as long as it has for people who had sars cov 1 which people still have after, I think, 18 years"

I've seen his videos on that and hoped he was right. Perhaps the t cell aspect might lesson symptoms etc over time and I suppose it depends on what you mean by immunity.

I think with the increasing scientific evidence of reinfection this does not seem to be what is happening.

But there's always going to be the possibility of reinfection for some people while a virus is around. The immunosuppressed. Or those who become immunosuppressed. The point about evidence is that we don't yet know whether, overall, the reinfections are a significant number. This is what I mean about things being anecdotal at the moment. Or should I say affectively anecdotal?

@Pootle40 but if it hadn't gone through an oncology ward, those people would have likely survived if they weren't terminal or end of life
Their immune system is obviously lower which is why when someone's on chemo you don't go visit them with a cold etc
Imagine having a survivable cancer then dying because covid got on the ward

The point about evidence is that we don't yet know whether, overall, the reinfections are a significant number

We do have evidence yes, that the rate of reinfections serious enough to result in tests confirming a positive result worldwide has been negligible.

[quote MagentaGiraffe]@tobee I agree. I wish it was possible to have a rational discussion based on facts and statistics and risks and probabilities. That is what is required to grasp the situation and the options now available.

I am furious at the Government for getting us into this situation with the worst death rate per million population of any medium or large country in the world, AND the worst economic recession of all developed countries. I mean, it's literally the worst possible outcome and they should be held accountable for it (we know they won't, except in the history books our grandchildren study).

But for now, a rational discussion of facts not emotions would go a long way go getting a consensus on what the next steps should be, to improve the dire situation. [/quote]

Yes it was really to the fore front with the Brexit debate and seems to be a feature of life now. I can't see it changing when people get their news info from the echo chamber of the internet, news seemingly provided on an algorithm. YouTube videos and Facebook groups to back up every opinion.

I agree. I wish it was possible to have a rational discussion based on facts and statistics and risks and probabilities. That is what is required to grasp the situation and the options now available
I have found my people!!

@StarCat2020

I agree. I wish it was possible to have a rational discussion based on facts and statistics and risks and probabilities. That is what is required to grasp the situation and the options now available I have found my people!!

I am relieved you were out there somewhere too!

[quote QueenPaw]@Pootle40 but if it hadn't gone through an oncology ward, those people would have likely survived if they weren't terminal or end of life
Their immune system is obviously lower which is why when someone's on chemo you don't go visit them with a cold etc
Imagine having a survivable cancer then dying because covid got on the ward [/quote]
I don't disagree with you at all. In some, who knows how many, they would have been terminal. It seems like any of the deeper data will never be shared with us. The point I'm making is that we just get headline statements like this that I think are used as scare tactics. There are not 26,000 in hospital being treated for Covid but so many of us don't look beyond the headline.

I don't think people are educated in critical thinking anymore. Said she spouting off on internet form