Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
12 May 20
15:14
Joined:
Date Joined:
25 Aug 05
With the possibility of no vaccine coming, treatments a mile off and tracking and tracing impossible when the virus is so widespread is it now time to go back to the original plan? Shield the vulnerable whilst the fit healthy part of the population build up immunity going about their normal business with some social distancing to control the speed of the spread. Then after a few months once immunity is built things can go back to normal.
Is this in fact what the plan is now by stealth?
If we had had no shielding and assumed that every single person in the UK caught the virus using Ferguson's infection fatality rates we would have had 816,440 deaths. Using Iceland IFR the number would be around 300,000 dead.
That assumes several things:
1. No shielding of sick and vulnerable.
2. Every can actually catch it.
3. After 60-70% of the population has had it we do not have immunity.
4. People can only catch it once.
The interesting this of those 816,400 deaths 793,000 could have been saved by shielding the over 50s.
If we had allowed the under 50s to carry on (63% of the population) the total deaths would be around 16,274 and we would have herd immunity. That number could have been cut further but shielding the vulnerable under 50s. Under the Iceland IFR the number of deaths would have been well under 8,000. Under 4,000 if vulnerable young people were protected.
How tragic for the old/vulnerable part of our society that the government did not shield them earlier and let virus pass through the under 50s.
How tragic for the country that the economy has been trashed and healthy young people have been under house arrest and our way of live has been destroyed when ultimately the only way out of this is likely to be herd immunity anyway in the long run.
Is this in fact what the plan is now by stealth?
If we had had no shielding and assumed that every single person in the UK caught the virus using Ferguson's infection fatality rates we would have had 816,440 deaths. Using Iceland IFR the number would be around 300,000 dead.
That assumes several things:
1. No shielding of sick and vulnerable.
2. Every can actually catch it.
3. After 60-70% of the population has had it we do not have immunity.
4. People can only catch it once.
The interesting this of those 816,400 deaths 793,000 could have been saved by shielding the over 50s.
If we had allowed the under 50s to carry on (63% of the population) the total deaths would be around 16,274 and we would have herd immunity. That number could have been cut further but shielding the vulnerable under 50s. Under the Iceland IFR the number of deaths would have been well under 8,000. Under 4,000 if vulnerable young people were protected.
How tragic for the old/vulnerable part of our society that the government did not shield them earlier and let virus pass through the under 50s.
How tragic for the country that the economy has been trashed and healthy young people have been under house arrest and our way of live has been destroyed when ultimately the only way out of this is likely to be herd immunity anyway in the long run.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 209
|
By:
I think it's pretty clear people don't want to be guinea pigs, deliberately get sick with a fatal disease which may well put them in hospital (affecting insurance charges for future years) and potential long term affects of the virus.
If the capitalists and kleptocrats believe in here immunity so much I invite them to take one for the team and have their own corona parties before telling the rest of us what a breeze it was. |
|
By:
What else can we do?
It will slowly happen anyway as far as I can tell just at a slower rate with many more people dying. The longer it goes on for the more older/vulnerable people will die and the more people will die in the future due to declining living standards. What is the plan if it is not to strengthen the herd? |
|
By:
I hope none here will be a victim of herd immunity, and neither will their any of their family, relative or friend. But, the stats indicate otherwise.
|
|
By:
Extremely poor quality bait today, IT mustn't have slept very well.
|
|
By:
Inside...best post of the day.
|
|
By:
is IT volunteering his kids or grandkids first if he has any
|
|
By:
I seem to remember a Johnson quite saying "you don't want to catch this" in one of the puff pieces a couple of weeks ago.
That'll do for me. If he's happy to put his own loved ones and those of Murdoch, Dyson, Banks et al at the front of this queue then I'll pay a bit more attention. Right now though it feels like a bunch of donkeys five miles behind the front line are ordering the working class over the top and they can get f*cked frankly. |
|
By:
Lets look at the facts though.
In 2018 4,883 people under 20 died in the UK. Under Ferguson's high IFR if every person under 20 caught the virus 613 would die. (1 in every 254k) It is tragic when people die but we need some perspective. We have shut down schools etc for 15.6m kids. How will this effect their lives if this goes on and on and on? |
|
By:
Correction (1 in every 25.4k)
|
|
By:
I am 60 and I am not vulnerable . I'm fitter now than when I was 30 . Last time I saw a doctor I was 6 . Exercise every day . Eat healthily and I don't want to sit in doors whilst some fat munter waddles past my window stuffing their face with chocolate bars .
The same people will keep on dying . The government would be better off promoting better health to prevent future deaths . |
|
By:
If a vaccine isn't possible, herd immunity isn't possible, as both won't occur if significant mutations develop.
So allowing the virus to run riot would kill thousands more, the mutation would do the same and so on. There are quite obviously huge gaps in knowledge about how this virus affects people. The only way out is filling these gaps and finding ways to live normally. |
|
By:
dave1357
12 May 20 14:58 Joined: 05 Sep 10 | Topic/replies: 12,592 | Blogger: dave1357's blog If a vaccine isn't possible, herd immunity isn't possible ^ Is that an absolute fact? |
|
By:
Herds Flooding London Parks ,Lets see how that goes , Khans advice get your Masks on ..
|
|
By:
Sure a vaccine not being possible because humans may not have the skills/tech to make it but doesn't mean nature cannot make us immune?
Herd immunity to all sorts of diseases must have happened historically before the first man made vaccine was produced? |
|
By:
If the virus stays more or less the same it is highly likely that a vaccine will be created which will likely mimic the bodies reaction to the virus.
The problem is mutation, which not only results in previous immunity being ineffective but the vaccine being ineffective. |
|
By:
There is also the issue that the more people are infected, the more mutations occur. Which I can't imagine will be on balance a good thing.
|
|
By:
“One day it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.”
|
|
By:
Indeed. Spanish flu was around until 1958 then gone.
|
|
By:
One person under 50 dieing is worth several in care homes. If I get to care home stage I've had my life and I couldn't give a flying fook.
|
|
By:
Dave - I think you're wrong about mutation being a barrier to immunity.
All RNA viruses mutate and this in itself doesn't mean a vaccine cannot be developed. Also, when viruses mutate, they usually become less dangerous. |
|
By:
It might be in the end that the Swedish model or the Belarus model is the best.
We don't know. The WHO and governments don't know either, but they are privy to far more information than we are. It's a gamble either way. You could go for herd immunity and it ends up immunity isn't effective. Antibody tests are essential to determine how many people have caught it. Germany's R has gone above 1 but then they've prolly had a quarter of the number of people getting it than us, so the same relaxation policies would produce a lower R. Could easily be over 10 million people already immune. 113 year old woman in Spain had it with no symptons, similar to my wife's 75 year old uncle, with underlying health conditions. |
|
By:
grant schnapps says in commons face masks prevents someone with covid but no symptons passing it on
a, how does that work b,why didn't anyone ask him how that works, if he,s not showing symptons he,s not passing droplets,so what difference does a mask make |
|
By:
^^ my point was that if a mutation is such that someone who was previously recovered, gets reinfected, it is unlikely that a person vaccinated against the pre-mutation strain would still be immune.
re mutation "low risk high impact" is the point. |
|
By:
1tp - a person might cough or sneeze due to hay fever or a whole host of reasons.
|
|
By:
Dave - my understanding is that there would still be some level of immunity.
|
|
By:
well if he,s coughing or sneezing for whatever reason,he,s showing one of symptons of covid aint he
|
|
By:
I said on here weeks ago Hayfever would throw a curve ball into the mix this season.
|
|
By:
1tp you still pass droplets in your breath if you don't have symptoms of any kind. Breath on a cold window and the water vapour condenses
|
|
By:
so masks are of no use but smeones breath can now pass it on, ffs millions advised to pant and cycle around the park,
 |
|
By:
i am lost now.if you had it and it didnt really affect you fair enough,but you can get reinfected right? so whats the point in distancing or anything.as sure as eggs are eggs you are going to get it. just like influenza,measles,chicken pox etc etc
|
|
By:
STAY ALERT
BEWARE TORY SPAMMERS ON THE FORUM |
|
By:
Different opinions exist on that, likely that you do develop anti-bodies, though no certainty on the extent that would provide immunity and how long any such immunity would be provided for.
|
|
By:
Not showing symptoms and not having the virus growing in your airways are not same thing
Some folk are not affected by it or only get affected as the virus multiplies to a dangerous level Wearing a mask will help stop passing it on and will help stop catching it. If all the herd wear them the benefit is greater Please wear a mask if you can when out and about and especially in enclosed spaces |
|
By:
I think the advice advocated is to minimise infection (re-infection) but this is not guaranteed. Also, this is not solely for one's benefit but others too. So far this virus does not behave similar to others known, and until a vaccine is found there's no better and/or safer alternative.
|
|
By:
And wear your specs(clean them after being out) with mask,droplets can enter through eyes.
SAY NO TO THE HERD. |
|
By:
Most on here are likely to die from heart attacks and strokes brought on by fear long before they ever get this virus.
|
|
By:
^^
Have you a crystal ball or just a presumption? |
|
By:
If everyone wears masks then the potential for crime will be increased as the crims cannot be identified.
|
|
By:
I doubt it Dotchinite,pends really if you are a young fella or not mostly, however there is a certain as 1 poster said earlier a touch of sending the troops over the top of the trenches while they sit in their bunkers,fook that.
|