Chat about Novel Coronavirus - 2019-nCoV - COVID-19

got told to jog on from the waitrose this morning because it was over 70s only. fucking boomers etc. but also, nice to not be mistaken for a pensioner.

#stillgotit

#greatsuccess!

Pretty damning investigation of the governments mis-steps and inaction in the early days of the crisis. Whitty and Vallance don't come out looking great either.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/29/revealed-the-inside-story-of-uk-covid-19-coronavirus-crisis

The government's statement at the end of the article is pretty telling too. They accept no criticism at all and seem to be coming from a different planet.
"we have taken the right steps at the right time to combat it"
"We have provided the NHS with all the support it needs, made sure everyone requiring treatment has received it"

The week is remembered for the mega-events that went ahead: the Cheltenham Festival of horseracing, the Liverpool v Atletico Madrid Champions League tie, the Stereophonics concert in Cardiff.

... and Bangface.

Pepole under 50 are already semi-immune to CV19 becuase of their low susceptibility and death rate ! So would you NOT take an immunised population off lockdown !?

1 Attachment

Do you understand what 'immune' means?

What you say is not correct at all, either delete it or change it.

Semi-immune? On my days.

We are all fucked, I wonder what percentage of the population has to think like that to screw everyone over.

It's still the kind of rate of death that if scaled up to everyone being infected means fucking loads of people die young, not to mention the ones that are have some symptoms and a horrible time and are maybe permanently or at least long term affected.

OK. Please try this.

Just because people under 50 have a lower chance of dying, it does not mean they have any less chance of being infected or (and this is the important bit) that they don't pass it on to people who have a greater chance of dying from it.

Especially when there's no long term data to see how it all carries on.

Semi-immune? On my days.

There's some truth in that when looked at in individual case (the rest of that post is bollocks though).

Immunity is not binary.

Vaccination often provides a very strong immunity, but this can decay over time, hence the need for booster shots for example.

Acquired immunity will vary in strength so whilst you might never get seriously ill again you could be hit with repeated bouts of milder symptoms.

There's no data yet (and won't be for a long time) on how acquired immunity is turning out for Covid-19. For most diseases acquired immunity is more than good enough for the vast majority of the population.

You don’t have semi-immunity based on your age through.

Nah, you're less likely to die, which is nice, but people positively play the lottery with much worse/better odds. It may be that the world is fucked and that's all we're left with, but it shouldn't be the first thing we jump to without trying to not kill a bunch of people first.

For the sake of the economy mostly, which if was in anyway even wouldn't be a problem, as the hoarded pointless wealth of the few could sustain everyone else for fucking ages, if you have to keep everything wealth related as is.

Indeed, that was part of the "bollcocks" in the original post.

But there's a fair assumption in many places that immunity is binary and I just wanted to help dispel that myth.

https://youtu.be/kYiS6uLFcpo?t=94

bollcocks

Nice typo.

The word should be changed accordingly.

I don't think we should have an immediate end of the lockdown for people under 50, but a question about the different lines of argument here: should easing of lockdown restrictions not take place if those in certain age groups are at an increased risk because of that easing? Or are people saying there should be no easing if any risk to anyone remains?

Neither of these seem particularly viable to me. But it's totally possible I'm missing something obvious - my head has been very much in work mode today and I'm more than a bit square eyed.

Or are people of the opinion that there is a point at which the risk to at-risk groups is acceptable, but we're not there yet?

We get it. You're a moron. Consider that point made. You don't have to keep on repeating it. Your work here is done.

I get it, I'm pretty low risk too, kinda makes you think fuck it, it probably won't affect me that badly, but there's millions of people so some of them will die unnecessary, although it likely won't be us.

Pretty much what the govt are saying - restrictions can be eased slowly while the infection rate stays below 1 and those that are infected can be tracked and traced. There will be at-risk people who die but hopefully care is getting better and the numbers will stay low.
Don't think we're even close to that point yet. Best guess would be in 4-6 weeks.
Whenever it is, if the infection numbers start going back up, we'll be back into lockdown sharpish.
Pretty sure they won't do it by age or demographic or geography though. It's all or nothing IMO.

Pretty much what the govt are saying - restrictions can be eased slowly while the infection rate stays below 1 and those that are infected can be tracked and traced. There will be at-risk people who die but hopefully care is getting better and the numbers will stay low.
Don't think we're even close to that point yet. Best guess would be in 4-6 weeks.
Whenever it is, if the infection numbers start going back up, we'll be back into lockdown sharpish.
Pretty sure they won't do it by age or demographic or geography though. It's all or nothing IMO.

I think I agree with that (except for the bit about it being what the government are saying). But everyone should be aware (as you've stated) that this will result in people dying who would not have died otherwise.

Whether demographics should be taken into consideration is a pretty tough question for a number of reasons (logistic and moral). And I get you're not saying it should or should not, but rather you think it will not. But I don't think it should be dismissed (by the government) if it could result in fewer deaths and less suffering. And that doesn't mean age necessarily (and almost certainly not 50), but thinking about pre-existing conditions makes sense.

How would a ‘release by age’ approach work?

Seems like it would be very messy, in the same vein as ‘immunity permits’.

I think our pseudo-lockdown, compared to Italy Spain and France’s more complete lockdown makes implementing that kind of thing very difficult.