Coronavirus Pandemic Information- Local and Worldwide

arctictree wrote: »

The numbers are a bit strange to be honest. Level 3 has brought the numbers down, level 5 has brought them up again! I think the virus is just doing its thing and not much we can do about it, especially with schools open.

I think with the current levels of economic activity with so many shops being made essential and schools open, combined with the time of year, we may have reached a natural Plato as regards numbers.

It will make the release of lockdown quite the headache. Releasing people to socialise heavily from a position of 400 cases a day we would quickly see a massive escalation and as such a surge in hospitalisations.

People are giving out about hospitals not getting back to regular business quick enough and yet they are acting irresponsibly this driving up hospitalisations and further delaying the return to normal business.

The longer numbers stay up now the more likely things get really out of hand over Christmas and so the increased likelihood of a further lockdown in January/Feb

_Brian wrote: »

Getting down under the 100 may need further restrictions and business closures which I don’t think the government have the stomach for.

They keep saying about the outbreaks in homes, but it would be interesting to see how many of these are from houses with kids that attend schools.

Dentyl mouthwash

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/coronavirus/mouthwash-kills-coronavirus-within-30-seconds-in-laboratory-tests-study-finds-39756904.html

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Would be interesting to see,if such immunity would be passed onto children....we surely cant be too far from babies being born from those who have caught and recovered from this??

I remember reading before the black death altered human dna a small bit,

The problem with coronaviruses is that they can mutate. So any immunity is going to be a moving goalpost.

A mother may pass antibodies on to their child either before or at birth but afaik most such immunities are only good for the strain that the mother was exposed to. A big concern there would be the exposure of the fetus to the virus with possible but unknown longterm effects

The black death was caused by a bacterium which burned its way through the population back then and killed millions. Today it could be stopped with the use of antibiotics. Though that's presuming that antibiotic resistance isn't an issue.

gozunda wrote: »

The problem with coronaviruses is that they can mutate. So any immunity is going to be a moving goalpost.

A mother may pass antibodies on to their child either before or at birth but afaik most such immunities are only good for the strain that the mother was exposed to. A big concern there would be the exposure of the fetus to the virus with possible but unknown longterm effects

The black death was caused by a bacterium which burned its way through the population back then and killed millions. Today it could be stopped with the use of antibiotics. Though that's presuming that antibiotic resistance isn't an issue.

Coronaviruses don't really rely on mutation in the way something like flu does. The more diverse strains are the ones that are constantly mixing between people and animals. But not all strains actually do that and remain very similar over long periods of time and large geographic areas.
Diversity in strains is a byproduct of moving through multiple host types, it's not a goal as it is for something like flu

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't know too many people eager to rush out and get these new vaccines tbh.

I know someone with a heart condition attending a doctor in Dublin.
When the talk of vaccine came up, the advice was to hang back a bit and see how it pans out. From the medical side they said you don't want to be the first ones.

Different demographics will have different considerations.

If life starts to return to normal, if unvaccinated, the chances of catching covid will be high.

The choice IMO, will be between the side effects of a vaccine or the side effects of covid..

Deleted User wrote: »

I bet there will be legal disclaimers ten miles long around these vaccines. They say your health is your wealth but it's rolling the dice either way. We don't know what the long term effects of covid are and neither do we know what long term or side effects of the vaccines. I won't be rushing out for a jab anyway.

AFAIK Govn'ts will be indemnifying the manufacturers.
The Oxford one is a traditional type vaccine, so I don't think I'd have any bother with that. Walter Isaacson has a book coming out in March called The Code Breaker, he took part in one of the trials, also.

I'd probably take it myself, it may well be basically mandotary to have it. Possible side effects may be a very small possibility but it's a miniscule risk that I'd be willing to take. This is different to someone "taking their chances" with contracting the virus as you would still risk infection of some more vunerable.

People may not be foreced. To take it but be denied entry to certain events/public buildings etc. This may also open a massive legal can of worms for people's rights being infringed or whatever. The solicitor will do well no doubt.

Well the thing about the vaccine for me is this. Last March we were constantly told that it would take upto 2 to 3 years for a proper vaccine to be developed. Now here we are roughly 7 months on and we have a vaccine when every expert told us it wouldnt be possible.

Also the pziser vaccine was 90% effective when it first came out. Then when its rival was 95% then its vaccine was 95% effective aswell. Sound awful like big pharma trying it's best to cash in on the gravy train. That's why majority of people are sceptical of the vaccine imo

Reggie. wrote: »

Well the thing about the vaccine for me is this. Last March we were constantly told that it would take upto 2 to 3 years for a proper vaccine to be developed. Now here we are roughly 7 months on and we have a vaccine when every expert told us it wouldnt be possible.

Also the pziser vaccine was 90% effective when it first came out. Then when its rival was 95% then its vaccine was 95% effective aswell. Sound awful like big pharma trying it's best to cash in on the gravy train. That's why majority of people are sceptical of the vaccine imo

Vaccine uptake will be a big challenge.

Chatting with my mum yesterday about it. She gets the flu jab in recent years although that took a bit of convincing in fairness.

She wants it but is concerned as you say abkut the speed of development. The speed of development reflects the money thrown into it and that reflects the potential cash cow it is. The flu vaccine for example is developed differently each year and is ready to rollout in about 9 months.

So she will get it, she just doesn’t want to be the first.

For vaccines in general we need something like 80% uptake to achieve herd immunity. I was explaining to her that if we hit 40-50% that the danger is probably increased for unvaccinated people as we would see the end to social distancing, sanitising and mask wearing, yet we won’t have herd immunity coverage.

Big public health challenge ahead for sure.

I'll be taking it as well when it becomes available- mainly because the OH is a type 1 diabetic. Tbh they are finding waiting this out fairly hard going. But doing whats needed tbf.

_Brian wrote: »

My youngest got the flu vaccine this week, she’s a bit sniffly after it and her temperature is up a bit. We’re saying in Surgury that uptake among children is only 20% of what they expected.

Is there any reason for any child who's not in the seriously at risk groups to get the flu vaccine? Having had exposure to multiple strains of the real flu is of benefit to the immune system later on in life