charlie14 wrote: » In December 2018 a NORC poll found that 43% of the U.S population would not avail of the flu vaccine. This was a year where there had been no mutation of the virus from the previous year. Not a great stretch to surmise that was what was going on with the mortality rate. You do realize if that Fatality Rate of 0.36% is correct, and we let this virus run rampant through the population, that would equates to 18,000 deaths with no evidence of those that didn`t succumb being immune should there be another wave. So far you have been through Sweden, New Zealand, Denmark, Germany and the U.S. and other than Ireland combining stage 4 and 5 of the easing of restriction with neither why and when, I have no idea what strategy you believe we should be following.
tobefrank321 wrote: » Nope we aim all our resources at the 0.36% who are most likely to die. High risk categories. GPs should advise those patients who are most at risk to continue to isolate as they are currently doing.
charlie14 wrote: » So what for all those that are not high risk, they just carry on as before ?
dubrov wrote: » I don't think it is as simple as that. NZ will have to open their borders at some point. If the virus is just as viable there as Italy, it will eventually get through the whole population. Looking at the numbers, there appears to be a closer correlation between deaths and climate than deaths and lockdown severity.
Breezin wrote: » No one has suggested that, or very few, in the hundreds of posts in thread.
tobefrank321 wrote: » Nope. Crowded sports events are unlikely to happen until a vaccine as they cause rapid spread. Masks and gloves will be common place though on public transport and when flying. We will gradually get back to a new normality but with continued social distancing. But its unavoidable that a large number of young healthy people will get infected and 99% will get over it without any serious issues. It may even be 99.9% for young healthy people.
Ginger n Lemon wrote: » It will be 99.9%. And when Germany announce the results of their entire population antibody testing (83 million people) I would be very surprised if Leo or Simon Harris are anywhere near the government, even opposition benches. They have obliterated our economy, and reports are coming out thousands of people are expected to develop cancer due to delay in cancer and other hospital treatments, treatments that they would usually get in private hospitals which currently have delayed all of smear tests etc. National shame.
tobefrank321 wrote: » Nope. Crowded sports events are unlikely to happen until a vaccine as they cause rapid spread. Masks and gloves will be common place though on public transport and when flying. We will gradually get back to a new normality but with continued social distancing. .
https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/dd26a8-easing-the-covid-19-restrictions-on-10-august/#cultural-and-social Close physical contact sports, such as rugby and boxing, can resume. Gyms, dance studios and sports clubs can re-open, only where regular and effective cleaning can be carried out and social distancing can be maintained. Spectators can begin to attend live sporting events only in accordance with both indoor and outdoor number restrictions and where social distancing can be complied with.
Cupatae wrote: » National shame? in what doing the best they can? the way people like you go on you d swear they were out to sabotage the whole nation.. absolute ridiculous opinion. Are you saying the lock down has obliterated our economy?
tobefrank321 wrote: » A short lockdown was a good idea to give us time to examine what we are dealing with. There was a lot of media hysteria that covid 19 was arbitrary with high hospital, icu and death rates. But after further study that doesn't really stand up. Primarily its an illness that affects over 60s with certain underlying conditions. This group would make up a small minority of the workforce. Most under 40 for example who are healthy will be fine.You are far more likely to die from cancer or a road accident than covid 19 if in this age category. Even most people under 60 will be ok. Out of 6000 infected healthcare workers in Ireland, 5 died. That's a deathrate less than 0.1% for this age group. The reason for the higher rate of about 0.4% overall is that nursing homes are in the mix. The majority who get seriously ill from this in nursing homes are not brought to hospital and hence the death rate is artificially high. As for fatality rates, the rule of thumb most experts seem to agree on is actual cases are at least 10 times confirmed cases. So you can get your death rate from that and in most countries its about 0.4 or 0.5%
tobefrank321 wrote: » A short lockdown was a good idea to give us time to examine what we are dealing with. There was a lot of media hysteria that covid 19 was arbitrary with high hospital, icu and death rates. But after further study that doesn't really stand up. Primarily its an illness that affects over 60s with certain underlying conditions. This group would make up a small minority of the workforce. Most under 40 for example who are healthy will be fine. You are far more likely to die from cancer or a road accident than covid 19 if in this age category. Even most people under 60 will be ok. Out of 6000 infected healthcare workers in Ireland, 5 died. That's a deathrate less than 0.1% for this age group. The reason for the higher rate of about 0.4% overall is that nursing homes are in the mix. The majority who get seriously ill from this in nursing homes are not brought to hospital and hence the death rate is artificially high. As for fatality rates, the rule of thumb most experts seem to agree on is actual cases are at least 10 times confirmed cases. So you can get your death rate from that and in most countries its about 0.4 or 0.5%
tobefrank321 wrote: » Nope. Crowded sports events are unlikely to happen until a vaccine as they cause rapid spread. Masks and gloves will be common place though on public transport and when flying. We will gradually get back to a new normality but with continued social distancing. But its unavoidable that a large number of young healthy people will get infected and 99% will get over it without any serious issues. It may even be 99.9% for young healthy people. Those with underlying conditions will need to continue to take extra precautions.
wakka12 wrote: » And that workforce will come home from work and mix with the at risk groups. That is why there is a lockdown. You cant limit spread to one demographic of society, it will end badly
charlie14 wrote: » No contact sports event are liable to happen until a vaccine is found unfortunately. If you do not control the spread then it is inevitable that large numbers will become infected. At 99% That makes it much more difficult to protect the vulnerable who are not just the 700,000 of the population that are over 65. There are also 170,000 people living with cancer. Some of the other underlying conditions that cause vulnerability are hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, heart disease, and asthma/chronic lung disease. For the over 50`s alone 750,000 suffer from hypertension, 180,000 diabetes, 128,000 chronic kidney disease, 160,000 heart disease and 265,000 asthma/chronic lung disease. Some of that number suffering from more than one underlying condition. That does not include those of all other ages that are vulnerable due to having suppressed immunity. If infection rates of those less vulnerable was allowed to reach that 99/99.9%, there would be absolute carnage.
Ginger n Lemon wrote: » There are plenty of corona viruses around. Been around for thousands of years. No vaccine exist for a single one.
Wibbs wrote: » Nope. Afraid not. There's a vaccine for bovine coronavirus. Yep it's in cattle, but it shows a coronavirus vaccine is doable. We don't have one for human coronaviruses simply because the majority cause very mild symptoms(a percentage of the common cold viruses are coronavirus), or the dangerous ones like SARS and MERS were controlled and petered out, or got less infectious, so the money stopped flowing for vaccine research.
Ginger n Lemon wrote: » When I read "nope" I thought oh wow, we must have advanced significantly. But then I realised its for cattle. At least we can take care of our cattle! Yeah, not looking good given that SARS has been around since 2003. MERS 2012. And now we are being promised an untested and unproven vaccine by September, December. Werent there multiple vaccine scandals in the past and now they've changed legislation preventing you from suing vaccine company? Seems like Sweden's way is the only way?
niallo27 wrote: » I find this hard to believe, a vaccine could be 2-5 years away. There is too much money and social enjoyment in sport for it not to return. If we get to a stage of rapid testing, what is to stop 30 players that tested negative from playing a game.
tobefrank321 wrote: » I've said clearly. I couldn't have said it more times - at risk groups will need to continue to isolate until there is a vaccine. Lockdown, no lockdown, etc. And that's actually not my advice, its experts and governments advice.
wakka12 wrote: » Yes I realise that is what you meant. But it's not realistic, many at risk people live with the people you are saying should go to work again. How does isolation work then? At risk groups stay in their rooms forever?
Ginger n Lemon wrote: » When I read "nope" I thought oh wow, we must have advanced significantly. But then I realised its for cattle. At least we can take care of our cattle! Yeah, not looking good given that SARS has been around since 2003. MERS 2012.
Wibbs wrote: » Way to ignore my point and plough on regardless. The point is and contrary to your bold statement a coronavirus vaccine is doable and we didn't come up with one for SARS and MERS because they were contained and didn't pose a worldwide threat. For example both MERS and SARS combined have only killed about 1500 people worldwide. Vaccine development is extremely expensive and until SARS Covid19 came along there were bigger fish to fry. There's a coronavirus vaccine for cattle quite simply because the beef and dairy industry is worth many billions in revenue annually.
niallo27 wrote: » Whats the alternative, they are always going to be at risk. If there is no vaccine for 2 years, how else are we going to protect them? What about the thousands of homes that do not live with at risk people, could these people go back working.
tobefrank321 wrote: » And there's zero carnage from a lockdown? Do you think illnesses like cancer, cataract, strokes, etc stop when there's a lockdown and patients can't see their consultant? That's not to mention putting almost everyone on the dole for an illness that won't impact them. One of the more serious impacts of lockdown is the inability of young women to get smear tests preventing them from being diagnosed for an illness that could be fatal all to avoid an illness which in all likelihood won't. Anyways, back to Sweden. Its an interesting approach. The fact that their deaths per million is very close to our own shows their approach can be followed by come countries, especially when covid19 is out of control in your country and there's no hope of ever getting it under control. It would be interesting to know where Sweden is on the international obesity table.
Ginger n Lemon wrote: » There are plenty of corona viruses around. Been around for thousands of years. No vaccine exist for a single one. Look it up. But dont fear, mortality rate is 0.2-0.5% so we shouldnt get wiped out without a vaccine.
