IOM Covid removing restrictions

[thesultanofsheight]

3 hours ago, P.K. said:

I think you mean "listen" to some live music. But why do you think that's something I need to know?

Unlike tsos I'm not assuming anything.

Arguing with someone who is medically qualified now about your phoney herd immunity beliefs. You need to get out (if allowed). 

Edited September 18, 2020 by thesultanofsheight

[thesultanofsheight]

3 hours ago, wrighty said:

Herd immunity is absolutely what is needed here - it’s working out the best way of getting it while protecting the vulnerable, and maintaining core health services and infrastructure that is the issue. 

Worth just underlining. 

[P.K.]

45 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

Arguing with someone who is medically qualified now about your phoney herd immunity beliefs. You need to get out (if allowed). 

MY "phoney herd immunity beliefs" - absolutely classic!

So let's see you post up "proof" that contracting Covid-19 leads to "herd immunity" then.

Go on, off you go.

After all, you're surely not basing your core beliefs on fuck-all evidence?

I mean, the very idea....

[thesultanofsheight]

6 minutes ago, P.K. said:

MY "phoney herd immunity beliefs" - absolutely classic!

So let's see you post up "proof" that contracting Covid-19 leads to "herd immunity" then.

Go on, off you go.

After all, you're surely not basing your core beliefs on fuck-all evidence?

I mean, the very idea....

I’d trust Wrighty any day of the week over a clearly unstable covid ranter. As above I reproduced the key message of his post in its entirety. If you disagree with his views on herd immunity please post links (not to mental covid nutter sites though) on why you think it has no substance. 

Edited September 19, 2020 by thesultanofsheight

[P.K.]

21 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

I’d trust Wrighty any day of the week over a clearly unstable covid ranter. As above I reproduced the key message of his post in its entirety. If you disagree with his views on herd immunity please post links (not to mental covid nutter sites though) on why you think it has no substance. 

So you have no evidence that exposure to Covid-19 leads to herd immunity.

@wrighty As far as I understand it exposure to Covid-19 does not lead to lasting immunity.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

PS - sorry I'm a Guardian follower....

[Dunroamin]

[Gladys]

7 hours ago, P.K. said:

So you have no evidence that exposure to Covid-19 leads to herd immunity.

@wrighty As far as I understand it exposure to Covid-19 does not lead to lasting immunity.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

PS - sorry I'm a Guardian follower....

It does not seem to lead to lasting antibodies, but as Wrighty points out, antibodies are not the only immune response.  As I said above the fact that the virus is most deadly in a small percentage and those with compromised immune systems seems to indicate to me that there is already a herd immunity of some sort.  As Wrighty also says we need to understand how that can be propagated more widely in the community whilst protecting the vulnerable. 

Is that so hard to understand even for a Guardian follower?

[TheTeapot]

I've yet to hear a decent suggestion as to how 'protecting the vulnerable' would be achieved.

[wrighty]

7 hours ago, P.K. said:

So you have no evidence that exposure to Covid-19 leads to herd immunity.

@wrighty As far as I understand it exposure to Covid-19 does not lead to lasting immunity.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

PS - sorry I'm a Guardian follower....

You seem to be considering immunity as a black or white state when it’s often shades of grey. That’s true both for individuals and even more so for the concept of herd immunity. 
 

I’m not surprised that there have been odd cases of repeat covid, but I’ve not heard of 2nd infections being severe when the first time was mild. It’s likely that covid infection gives at least some protection to re-infection for a time. And for herd immunity (which is an overall level of population immunity that renders the effective R less than 1) that is what is needed. Whether that partial immunity comes from infection, vaccination, or both is irrelevant. While the population develops its herd immunity we need to protect the vulnerable, keep the economy ticking over, and ensure health services aren’t overwhelmed. 
 

Following the Guardian is not so bad. I enjoy their crosswords. I skip over the rabid anti-Boris rants though.

[wrighty]

7 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

I've yet to hear a decent suggestion as to how 'protecting the vulnerable' would be achieved.

How about paying the caring professions properly so they don’t have to work double shifts in multiple establishments, and get proper sick pay so they’re not temped to go in if unwell? 

[TheTeapot]

Just now, wrighty said:

How about paying the caring professions properly so they don’t have to work double shifts in multiple establishments, and get proper sick pay so they’re not temped to go in if unwell? 

Well that might be a start, although that's a consequence of for profit elderly care. Try convincing shareholders of private equity groups that their dividends might need to take a hit. It's a disgusting situation.

[Gladys]

16 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

I've yet to hear a decent suggestion as to how 'protecting the vulnerable' would be achieved.

Well, to date it has meant locking them away.  That, I think, is inhumane.  A more nuanced approach is needed and one that does not seek to eliminate risk but manage it.  Perhaps very limited contact to specific family members who are themselves are risk-assessed for the possibility of transmission,  with full PPE, periodic testing, but with the option of someone voluntarily forgoing their shielding status in the full knowledge of the risks. 

Also a categorisation of those vulnerable to put in place appropriate protection measures to reflect their vulnerability and the likely impact of contracting CV, and for those approaching the end of life from other causes to have pretty limited measures.  Harsh as that may seem, it is perhaps more humane to give those people the possibility of having contact with their loved ones in the latter stages of life than sheltering them to face death alone.  That may be great for the stats but not for the person. 

There needs to be an open discussion on risk management rather than elimination for each individual, acknowledging that some people's risk appetite will be very different from others, but that should be respected and factored in to the measures taken.  

 

 

 

[Gladys]

21 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Well that might be a start, although that's a consequence of for profit elderly care. Try convincing shareholders of private equity groups that their dividends might need to take a hit. It's a disgusting situation.

Absolutely agree.  Conspiracy nuts may think that improvements in medicine does little for the elderly but provide a lucrative source of income for the elderly care industry.  

[TheTeapot]

'Protecting the vulnerable' is hard. And gets harder still when cases in the community are high. Take Sweden, favourite example of the no lockdown gang (often those people are from the right of the political spectrum, scream 'but Sweden', and completely fail to take into account that Sweden is a socialist country with a strong welfare state, which is fairly amusing to point out). They said they were going to do just that, and then it went badly wrong. And their care is much more in house than private, so I assume (I don't know) that their staff are much better paid, and definitely benefit from better sick pay conditions. It may be that it went wrong because it was so early in the pandemic and people will be better prepared now, but I don't think the UK will ever be be prepared for anything.

[pongo]

24 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Conspiracy nuts may think that improvements in medicine does little for the elderly but provide a lucrative source of income for the elderly care industry.  

Although obviously, in reality, one of the main consequences of better healthcare has been that many people live much longer relatively healthy lives. The age at which people typically need constant care has been pushed out.

But Covid seems to challenge this. It's much more like Russian roulette - we just can't predict who is going to get really ill. Who would have guessed that the PM himself would have been so vulnerable? Whilst obviously a larger chap he had still seemed relatively active - riding his bike, hanging off a zipwire etc.

Elderly care should probably be much more expensive. i don't see how it can cost less than the best hotel. The Conservatives were castigated for suggesting that the value in people's homes should be used to fund that. Because people expect to inherit their parents' home.

In essence I think they were correct. The question then is how to fund it and some basic level for families who cannot afford to pay.

Edited September 19, 2020 by pongo