COVID THREAD

[hackey lad 3,949]

No 

[Delayed 461]

8 hours ago, top4718 said:

We may do, we may not. I won't be wearing a useless muzzle either way, whats a matter have you lost faith in the "effective vaccine"?

In your pointless attempt at trying to be funny you've forgotten that the vaccine has nothing to do with reducing transmission.

 

But you knew that already.....

[onewheeldave 22]

21 hours ago, butlers said:

282,000 new cases of symptomatic covid today

 

21 hours ago, butlers said:

It's up 50% in a week 

 

 

'Living with covid' will involve cases rising and falling over time.

 

Spring is the best time of year for a big increase in cases.

[Chekhov 488]

On 18/03/2022 at 14:22, melthebell said:

And? Without any lockdowns it might've been far worse?

But we'll never know, we choose a path and that's it

Other than the first few weeks of the first lockdown (which was by far the most severe and it was trying to suppress the original less infectious version - see Diamond Princess) I am unconvinced how effective lockdowns have been at suppressing Covid.

But I am certain how much damage they have done to society.

[*_ash_* 88]

6 hours ago, Chekhov said:

Other than the first few weeks of the first lockdown (which was by far the most severe and it was trying to suppress the original less infectious version - see Diamond Princess) I am unconvinced how effective lockdowns have been at suppressing Covid.

But I am certain how much damage they have done to society.

What did you know in the first few weeks of lockdown that no one else did (long before the vast knowledge we have now, and vaccines), 

You say you are certain how much damage they 'have done' (past tense). At the time lockdowns weren't really opposed, because no one knew what to do, other than keeping hospitals functioning. 

 

That's all hindsight. And really means nothing. 

 

 

 

 

[Dromedary 166]

17 hours ago, Delayed said:

In your pointless attempt at trying to be funny you've forgotten that the vaccine has nothing to do with reducing transmission.

The problem here is that it does. If you are less likely to get covid because of vaccination then you are also less likely to pass it on to others and that is how herd immunity works.

[Delayed 461]

6 hours ago, Dromedary said:

The problem here is that it does. If you are less likely to get covid because of vaccination then you are also less likely to pass it on to others and that is how herd immunity works.

Agreed but the vaccine wasn't designed to reduce transmission. The vaccines only reduce severity of conditions resulting from the virus. 

[cgksheff 44]

1 hour ago, Delayed said:

Agreed but the vaccine wasn't designed to reduce transmission. The vaccines only reduce severity of conditions resulting from the virus. 

Pfizer, amongst many others, would disagree with you:
"...

In the fight against COVID-19, a vaccine is a critical part of addressing the global health crisis by decreasing rates of infection, disease and death worldwide.

..."

Coronavirus COVID-19 Vaccine Update: Latest Developments | Pfizer

Edited March 20, 2022 by cgksheff

[Chekhov 488]

8 hours ago, *_ash_* said:

What did you know in the first few weeks of lockdown that no one else did (long before the vast knowledge we have now, and vaccines), 

You say you are certain how much damage they 'have done' (past tense). At the time lockdowns weren't really opposed, because no one knew what to do, other than keeping hospitals functioning. 

That's all hindsight. And really means nothing. 

It is not hind sight at all, I opposed all this from the very start. I can remember, back on the 11th March 2020 , seeing Italy shutting down the north of the country. I was literally shouting at the TV "you cannot do that, have you any idea how much trouble that will cause !"

It was utter madness, particularly as 99% of people were known to be surviving the infection.....

Even back then I quickly concluded the response to Covid was the biggest over reaction in the history of the world, and even if that was at all arguable in 2020 then from about March 2021 - when pretty much all the vulnerable in this country were vaccinated - it certainly wasn't.

[Chekhov 488]

7 hours ago, Dromedary said:

The problem here is that it does. If you are less likely to get covid because of vaccination then you are also less likely to pass it on to others and that is how herd immunity works.

The vaccine is very poor at preventing Covid infection, particularly after about 10 weeks, that is a well known fact. No, the primary reason for getting jabbed is to prevent serious illness and as such it is very advisable for those at significant vulnerability to get it. But it really is not that important for healthy people under 40, and esp for kids. Vaccinating children is a waste of time and is immoral as those vaccines could be used to jab genuinely vulnerable people in poorer countries.

44 minutes ago, cgksheff said:

Pfizer, amongst many others, would disagree with you:
"...

In the fight against COVID-19, a vaccine is a critical part of addressing the global health crisis by decreasing rates of infection, disease and death worldwide.

..."

Coronavirus COVID-19 Vaccine Update: Latest Developments | Pfizer

Cynics would say Pfizer would say that wouldn't they ?

But what they are saying is BS.

Vulnerable people should get themselves jabbed then they are so well protected against Covid serious illness they should forget about  Coronavirus. It really is that simple.

[hackey lad 3,949]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

It is not hind sight at all, I opposed all this from the very start. I can remember, back on the 11th March 2020 , seeing Italy shutting down the north of the country. I was literally shouting at the TV "you cannot do that, have you any idea how much trouble that will cause !"

It was utter madness, particularly as 99% of people were known to be surviving the infection.....

Even back then I quickly concluded the response to Covid was the biggest over reaction in the history of the world, and even if that was at all arguable in 2020 then from about March 2021 - when pretty much all the vulnerable in this country were vaccinated - it certainly wasn't.

You should change your name to Nostradamus 

[RJRB 688]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

It is not hind sight at all, I opposed all this from the very start. I can remember, back on the 11th March 2020 , seeing Italy shutting down the north of the country. I was literally shouting at the TV "you cannot do that, have you any idea how much trouble that will cause !"

It was utter madness, particularly as 99% of people were known to be surviving the infection.....

Even back then I quickly concluded the response to Covid was the biggest over reaction in the history of the world, and even if that was at all arguable in 2020 then from about March 2021 - when pretty much all the vulnerable in this country were vaccinated - it certainly wasn't.

By any definition looking back at judgements made and were largely accepted at the time is hindsight.

There were many unknowns and the general mood at the time was the necessity to control the spread of the virus .Our government was forced to impose the first lockdown ,some would say belatedly because the idea of herd immunity was certainly considered,but then dismissed.

We can only accept your oft repeated assertion that you were more right than any of the virology and associated specialists at certain points in time.

What matters now is the continuing lessons that can be used to safeguard against future changes to Covid,or any other possible infection epidemics or pandemics.