COVID - your response to another wave

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Thread auto-archived as it is too large
 Ramblin dave 28 Jun 2021

It seems like the UK government position is basically that we've mostly vaccinated the vulnerable so we should be okay to allow COVID case numbers to go through the roof so long as people aren't dying in huge numbers and hospitalisations aren't at risk of overloading the NHS.

This means that we're getting into a kind-of interesting situation. For the last year and a bit, most people on here seem to have been restricting their activities as much because they want to protect the vulnerable as out of concern for their own safety. But now we seem to be removing a lot of that duty and it's mostly back to self-interest, so I'd be interested to try a straw poll of how people are going to behave in the situation that we seem to be headed for where COVID rates are very high and your risk of catching it from any sort of indoor activity seems nontrivial, but the potential harm to you now seems relatively low. Will you just suck up the risk and do as much as you're allowed, or are you going to batten down the hatches a bit and try to wait out the worst?

I'm hoping that the fact that the government are basically saying "YOLO whatever" at this stage means that we're past the point of shouting at individuals for being too incautions, but I'd be interested to know what the range of opinions is, because to be honest after a year of being very careful even with low case rates because I don't want to be a granny-killer, I'm struggling to adjust my headspace properly.

7
 Jenny C 28 Jun 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

As someone who after two hours at the computer has returned to her bed I would like to see the official figures for the percentage of long covid sufferers in the UK.

I totally get that we will reach the point where vaccination will give the much longed for heard immunity, but think we should wait until the whole country has had the opportunity to receive their second jab first.

Post edited at 11:53
9
 LastBoyScout 28 Jun 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

I'm going to continue to be fairly cautious, especially when it comes to indoor activities.

Have actually spent this morning discussing with my wife and attempting to re-book our already delayed trip to Portugal, but we're a bit buggered as there seems to be no availability for the same rooms next year.

I'm very concerned about Javid coming in as health sec - his comments already about opening up as fast as possible are worrying, given daily rises of over 18k at the moment.

12
OP Ramblin dave 28 Jun 2021
In reply to Jenny C:

Oof, yes. It's difficult to unpick, because most of the stats that I've seen include "had a bit of a cough for a month", which I'm not super-bothered about, but I've also known (fit, youngish) people who were struggling to leave the house after three months, which seems less good.

That said, I'm working on the principle that it'd take something pretty radical to change government policy in the direction of more restrictions at this point, so it seems more relevant to ask what you're going to do given that we seem to be pretty much committed to sitting back and letting it rip rather than whether we think that's a good idea in the first place...

1
 The Norris 28 Jun 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

I think I will return to pre covid behaviour (assuming that is what is allowed by the government). I'm hopefully very low risk of getting serious disease, having had both vaccines a while ago and relatively young.

And in regards to me spreading it to others should I have it, I'll obviously be more  careful than previously if I have symptoms, but other than that I'll crack on with life as per old-normal. My locking myself away isnt going to achieve much if everyone else isnt doing the same.

I think the hard bit will be adjusting back to big social situations, the thought of that is an anxiety triggering nightmare!! :-D

 Richard Horn 28 Jun 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

Its funny thinking what "back to normal" actually means. There are a few ways where my mindset has changed - I value my local outdoor areas more rather than feeling the need to drive anywhere, I feel less bothered about doing outdoor "events" - happy to do my own thing.

Then there are some things I have adapted to live without - cash, supermarket trips, etc that I see no need to go back to. 

In terms of fear of risk though, I have to say rightly or wrongly I have no real fear of CV, or more specifically it does not present a risk over and above other risks in life which sets it apart for me - I have accepted I will die at some point. By far my concerns are for my children and if I want my fellow citizens to make one behavioural change to protect them, its not to follow CV measures, but to drive their 2-ton killing machines a little more slowly in residential areas...

5
 owlart 28 Jun 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

I shall continue to be very cautious. I assume that when restrictions are lifted there will still be a requirement to self-isolate if you catch it or come into direct contact with someone else who catches it? If so then I simply can't afford to have an unknown number of 10day periods on sick pay, and my employer will struggle with that too.

Long covid is a something I can certainly do without, also.

A high prevalence of virus in a mostly vaccinated population is a good recipe for a vaccine-resistant (or partially resistant) strain to emerge, which then puts us back at square one.

Post edited at 14:24
4
Andy Gamisou 28 Jun 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

I'll be doing whatever I can to avoid people, as much as possible, whenever possible.  So, basically back to pre-covid behaviour.

 jonfun21 28 Jun 2021
In reply to owlart:

I think this is a key point, I believe a lot of people think 'no restrictions' = 'no need to test/self isolate' and the 'back to normal' from the 19th commentary from the government is really unclear around this.

The logical conclusion is all restrictions come off, case numbers (hopefully not hospitalizations or deaths) will rise significantly = lots of people will end up self-isolating based on current rules. 

Question is will people test themselves and continue to adhere to quarantine rules, or will people stop testing and just treat it more like having a cold etc.

The current rolling uncertainty/unpredicatability is a nightmare, my kids school (primary) is currently total shut for 10 days, so that's 350 kids (c.200) parents home schooling again, and no reason why this won't keep happening as 1 child positive = all 60 kids in that year have to self issolate (i.e. not leave the house) for 10 days,

Post edited at 14:42
1
 earlsdonwhu 28 Jun 2021

Given that Serco have just been awarded another year's contract to deliver world beating test and tracing, I think that this whole 'terminus' narrative is really misleading. If the disease keeps circulating, people could be facing a series of isolations. Alternatively, people ( especially asymptomatic) may just get fed up and ignore the isolations that they should be following.

I will continue to socially distance as much as possible and am happy to keep wearing a mask. I would like to think that some skiing may be possible this winter but would aim to drive to the Alps, self cater and avoid crowded cable cars etc as much as possible....I'm am too old to go clubbing!

1
 TomD89 28 Jun 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

Over it, and been so since about May 2020. Can't wait for walls to start holding some bouldering comps again.

Probably going to avoid international flights for a little while longer (to avoid faff rather than covid), but really don't see anything else I'm likely to do as particularly risky.

17
 Richard Horn 28 Jun 2021
In reply to owlart:

> A high prevalence of virus in a mostly vaccinated population is a good recipe for a vaccine-resistant (or partially resistant) strain to emerge, which then puts us back at square one.

This is not what I am hearing from Whitty and co...

4
 Bottom Clinger 28 Jun 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

For the past month or so I've forced myself to take a longer term view of things.  The Delta variant has shifted my focus and basically I've got my head around new variants springing up and causing chaos and living with the fact that we cant keep going back into full-ish lockdowns. On a personal level, I'm not bothered about me but am bothered about my children whose lives have been turned upsidedown.  Post Freedom Day I will go and see family more, that's it really.  I'm in agreement with lockdown ending in 3 weeks.  If we can jab a total of 1.5 million first jabs a week, then 90% adults should have had first dose before Freedom Day.  Same rate of second jabs until  Freedom Day, followed by prioritising second jabs means 80% adults double jabbed 3 weeks after Freedom Day.  I reckon waiting x weeks for everyone to get double jabbed, plus 2 weeks bedding in time, whilst is only 5 weeks, could easily drag on and on.  What I'm witnessing is an increasing amount of folk chucking in the towel - people not testing when they should, lack of masks in supermarkets etc.  We can't 'police' covid rules, so need to manage it, and Freedom Day on 19th allows for this.  I hope.....

1
In reply to Richard Horn:

> This is not what I am hearing from Whitty and co...

Yes. Rather worryingly silent on this apparent 'let it rip in what's left' policy. Rather hoping the large numbers don't spawn another variant, and gambling on the long-term consequences of infection.

3
 Tringa 28 Jun 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

I have read that the estimated protection against the Delta variant from two doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine is about 60%( 6th paragraph of this link - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/covid-vaccine-indian-variant-dose... ). I might be interpreting this incorrectly but I'm assuming it means with two AstraZeneca doses you have a 40% chance of catching the Delta variant.

The chance of being hospitalised after two doses are very low, but if you are hospitalised with COVID19 then you are seriously(potentially very seriously) ill, and it doesn't mean if you aren't hospitalised you suffer only a mild infection.

Heard Andrew Marr on Sunday morning saying he had two doses of a vaccine, still caught COVID19 and although not hospitalised felt very ill.

It seems there is too much emphasis put on getting more people vaccinated before 19th July as if this will solve all the problems and everything can go back to as it was before the pandemic. Just hope all the eggs aren't been put in one basket.

I also think it is concerning that the number of cases is climbing - more than 14,000 NEW cases everyday for the last six days. From what I have heard and read the more cases, the greater the chance of new variants and the more new variants, the greater the chance of one being nasty.

Dave

2
 MG 28 Jun 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

> Yes. Rather worryingly silent on this apparent 'let it rip in what's left' policy. Rather hoping the large numbers don't spawn another variant, and gambling on the long-term consequences of infection.

Globally our numbers are trivial though.  We might spawn some horrible variant but it is much more likely to come from elsewhere.  Is the marginal effect of us tolerating more infections meaningful in this respect?

 Jenny C 28 Jun 2021
In reply to The Norris:

> I think I will return to pre covid behaviour (assuming that is what is allowed by the government). I'm hopefully very low risk of getting serious disease, having had both vaccines a while ago and relatively young.

Low risk of dying and probably low risk if becoming seriously ill with the initial infection yes. But I think they reckon about a 1:5 chance of long covid should you catch it (long covid being still having symptoms beyond three months).

I had no cough or breathing difficulties, really just fatigue and a temperature with the initial infection. Many others in the long covid community are younger people (including under 18s) who did not require hospital treatment.

Totally impossible to hold down a full time job and forget climbing, even just a 1km flat walk is a challenge. That's at five months post infection, and plenty of people at 15+ months who are still unable to return to work.

4
OP Ramblin dave 28 Jun 2021
In reply to jonfun21:

> The current rolling uncertainty/unpredicatability is a nightmare, my kids school (primary) is currently total shut for 10 days, so that's 350 kids (c.200) parents home schooling again, and no reason why this won't keep happening as 1 child positive = all 60 kids in that year have to self issolate (i.e. not leave the house) for 10 days,

Yeah, I think there are a lot of question marks about how you're meant to run a school or a pub or a shop if rates are high and your pupils or staff keep having to self isolate. And as others are saying, I can also understand the concerns about variants.

But to me it makes sense to separate out "what do I think government policy should be" from "what do I, personally, do to keep myself and my family safe". If the government decide that we're going to "let it rip" and that pubs and shops and nightclubs are opening with no social distancing requirements then me sitting at home is going to have very little impact in the grand scheme of things, but it might be the difference between me personally catching COVID or not. And how people are approaching that is the question that I'm really interested in...

Post edited at 16:31
 ThunderCat 28 Jun 2021
In reply to Andy Gamisou:

> I'll be doing whatever I can to avoid people, as much as possible, whenever possible.  So, basically back to pre-covid behaviour.

Haha.  My point of view entirely...

1
 jonfun21 28 Jun 2021
In reply to Tringa:

I found this quite useful to read ref. vaccine efficacy and what it means

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/...

 tlouth7 28 Jun 2021
In reply to owlart:

> A high prevalence of virus in a mostly vaccinated population is a good recipe for a vaccine-resistant (or partially resistant) strain to emerge, which then puts us back at square one.

That isn't really a thing that happens. Development of drug resistance is extremely common but the same is not true of vaccines. It is perfectly possible (but unlikely) that a variant will emerge which will completely evade vaccine supported immune response, but this would be a result of high cases generally, not high cases specifically in vaccinated populations.

 The Norris 28 Jun 2021
In reply to Jenny C:

I agree there is of course a risk of me getting long covid. However this virus is never going to go away, so hiding away and remaining socially isolated forever isnt really an option in my opinion. I may aswell just get on with life and deal with it if I catch it, same as any other virus or illness.

2
 CurlyStevo 28 Jun 2021
In reply to MG:

> Globally our numbers are trivial though.  We might spawn some horrible variant but it is much more likely to come from elsewhere.  Is the marginal effect of us tolerating more infections meaningful in this respect?

If every country thought that way it wouldn't be good thought right!

 Dave the Rave 28 Jun 2021
In reply to The Norris:

> I think the hard bit will be adjusting back to big social situations, the thought of that is an anxiety triggering nightmare!! :-D

I’m not overly anxious just don’t like large social gatherings of more than 5 and a dog.

So far I’ve avoided four weddings and a funeral and can’t see me relinquishing my new COVID excuse.

 Dax H 28 Jun 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

My take is I'm not even slightly bothered about the risk outdoors so I will crack on as normal.

Indoors, I will be remaining cautious. Trips to the shop are unavoidable but I won't be at the pub for a while yet. I want to see how the removal of restrictions affects the transmission rates and how the transmission rates affect the hospital rates and how the hospital rates affect the death rate with a eye on long covid rates at the same time. After a year and a bit I'm patient enough to let other people go first and see what happens. 

We have a long weekend booked in Stirling in August so that will probably be our first meals out indoors but there is plenty of time between now and then to assess the situation. 

1
 fmck 28 Jun 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

Its concerning the drop in guard going on with daily cases in Scotland at there highest ever. People seem to be just fed up and want some normality. I have folks come up to my desk unmasked and right next to me. I constantly tell them  I am their highest risk due to my wife working on a hospital ward. When the ward went 100% I was still not getting it through. My family ended up with the virus and I am still the only one at work that has. There is a duty of care here that people seemed to of lost 

3
 Tony Buckley 28 Jun 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

I'm continuing to be cautious.

I'm also wondering just who is going to take the rap when the 'irreversible' ending of restrictions meets the rising wave of infections and deaths in the autumn.  I wouldn't plan on having full-blown family get-togethers this Christmas.  Again.

T.

7
 mrphilipoldham 28 Jun 2021
In reply to Jenny C:

For that you’d have to see the official figures for who’s actually had Covid, rather than self diagnosis from feeling a bit lazy after a runny nose.

12
 Tringa 28 Jun 2021
In reply to jonfun21:

> I found this quite useful to read ref. vaccine efficacy and what it meanshttps://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)000...

Thanks.

I, like some here, am going to continue to avoid people in enclosed space for a good time yet. I can count the times I've been in a shop for over a year on the fingers of one hand and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

I read an article in The Atlantic a few months ago. The governor of Texas abolished the requirement to wear masks in March. There was concern in some quarters this would have serious effect on the number of cases, but virtually nothing happened - there was no great increase.

After a study the conclusion was most Texans had not changed their behaviour. Those who had previously refused to wear masks continued not to wear them; and those who had previously complied with mask wearing continued to do so. I have a feeling quite a few people here will behave in a similar fashion.   

Dave

Post edited at 21:03
 Stichtplate 28 Jun 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

My response to a third wave? Fed up to the back teeth with it. Fed up with dealing with it. Totally fed up with the feckless f*cking idiots that are feeding it.

First day back today after having the weekend off, middle aged patient with covid has called 999 cos they feel a bit shit. Everyone in the house is covid positive. We enter to the sound of coughing:

"could you pop masks on for us please?"

'We don't have any masks'

(a year and a half into a pandemic and they don't have masks???)

"Do you not normally wear masks?"

'We don't believe in them'

(Really? this is the second ambulance they've called in a week. They all have covid but they don't believe in masks???)

Later that day. Reception at A&E. Sign says 11 hours 42 minute wait time. Angry young man (who looks the picture of health) is shouting about being kept waiting. Apparently "IT'S A TOTAL F*CKING DISGRACE". The room is crowded, spittle is flying and he's not wearing a mask. The likelihood that the reason he's being kept waiting is closely related to the behaviour of people like him seems to have entirely passed him by.

Fast forward to now. I'm having a beer and I'm contemplating if stupidity should be recognised as the main disease vector for covid. So sick of this shit.

4
 CantClimbTom 28 Jun 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

Covid cases going through the roof means nothing much. Sick people going through the roof is far more significant and numbers of very sick people needing hospital and or intensive care going through the roof is clearly yet more significant again.

Obviously they are hoping that positive cases and hospital admission numbers (or worse) are now only very loosely related. Whether that's over optimistic?? it looks like we'll find out one way or the other.

 mondite 28 Jun 2021
In reply to CantClimbTom:

> Covid cases going through the roof means nothing much.

Unless its busy mutating and we get kicked back down the stairs by variant echo.

4
 Jenny C 28 Jun 2021
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

> For that you’d have to see the official figures for who’s actually had Covid, rather than self diagnosis from feeling a bit lazy after a runny nose.

Which of course totally exudes those who had covid early in 2020 before testing was available to those outside a hospital setting.

 girlymonkey 28 Jun 2021
In reply to Stichtplate:

I had to convince a service user in the community today that she needed a covid test and that going to a large family bbq this afternoon really should not be on the agenda! She thought I was being very unfair because the people she was going to see are going back to Wales tomorrow so it was her last chance to see them again. Whatever her illness is, was given to her by a 2 year old who will also be at the bbq, so it probably actually makes little difference if she goes as the 2 year old will likely spread it anyway, but I felt I had to try!

This service user has mental health issues, but she is intelligent enough that she should understand and adhere to the regulations! 

1
 mrphilipoldham 28 Jun 2021
In reply to Jenny C:

Indeed!

 Bobling 28 Jun 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

What's going on with the rules about isolation and schools?  With massive numbers aren't we going to all be home schooling again for half of every year?  

Other responses to the thread - I've heard that the Delta variant is better at transmission outdoors, so...

Stitchplate - nice to see you back sorry your work continues to be so challenging.

 CantClimbTom 28 Jun 2021
In reply to mondite:

> Unless its busy mutating and we get kicked back down the stairs by variant echo.

Fair point!

 Jon Stewart 28 Jun 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

Makes no difference to me at all. For a start, I've had it once (less bad than swine flu for me, no cough, no long covid - just good luck), and I know I'll get it again, it's here to stay and immunity doesn't last that long. I don't like crowded situations, but I do like sitting in the pub and if someone brings my drink over, I'm not moaning.

I've seen my family just as much as ever, again I prefer that in small doses too.

The things about the pandemic that have done my head in are:

1. The horrible 28 Days Later apocalyptic phases

2. The climbing wall being shut and me getting fat

3. It bringing the wankers out in force (conspiracy theorists, right-wing "sceptic" nutjobs, devious pricks making money out it, etc.)

None of these things are affected by "freedom day" or anything other than the possibility of the whole thing getting totally out of hand again because the government can't run the NHS. I didn't change my behaviour much to begin with, to be honest I didn't comply with the rules when I wanted to see my mates or go out on the fells anyway (except in the zombie periods, when I did stay the f^ck at home, mostly) so it's a non-issue for me.

9
 Misha 28 Jun 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

For a start, it depends on people’s vaccination status, age and health. As a healthy double jabbed 40 year old (just got to 3 weeks post second jab), I don’t need to be overly concerned, just sensible.

It doesn’t affect me in a big way because I don’t tend to do ‘high risk’ activities, other than going to the wall.

WFH since last spring and I’ve been saying since this winter that I don’t envisage a return to the office till September at the earliest p. That was based on the vaccination drive. Once pretty much everyone who wants it has had their second jab and as long as cases are low (say under 20/100k/week), I would contemplate a day or two a week in the office. Not in any rush at any rate and my employer has adopted a very sensible ‘no pressure’ approach. In fact they said they won’t open up at full capacity till September anyway.

Don’t tend to go to bars and clubs anyway. Will avoid work socials till cases settle down again. Outdoors with a couple of climbing friends is ok but even that is pretty rare for me.

Will continue climbing outdoors as that carries low risk of transmission and pretty much all the partners have had at least one jab and in many cases both.

If cases get really bad locally, I might hold off going to the wall. Having said that, if it’s as quiet as it was tonight at the local small wall (about 5 people there when I got there), it’s not going to be a huge issue. See how it goes but this would be the only change I’d make.

Obviously I’d continue with face masks in shops even after the 19th.

3
 Misha 28 Jun 2021
In reply to Jenny C:

> I totally get that we will reach the point where vaccination will give the much longed for heard immunity, but think we should wait until the whole country has had the opportunity to receive their second jab first.

Vaccination alone won’t as children aren’t being vaccinated. I agree with your second point though. Best wishes for the recovery. 

OP Ramblin dave 28 Jun 2021
In reply to CantClimbTom:

> Covid cases going through the roof means nothing much. Sick people going through the roof is far more significant and numbers of very sick people needing hospital and or intensive care going through the roof is clearly yet more significant again.

Okay, yes. Or at least, maybe. Certainly that's the approach that the government seem to want us to take. But assuming yes, and that for most people in the UK Covid is now comparable to a bad flu (with some risk of some fairly nasty symptoms carrying on for a lot longer), what does that mean? How happy would you be to go to a pub or a climbing wall or whatever if you knew that there was a significantly more infectious version of flu going round and, say, 1 in 100 people had it?

I mean, from my point of view it's fairly easy - I'm working from home, I don't go to many house parties these days and I've got no problem sitting in pub gardens rather than going indoors for the moment. The main thing I'm missing is the climbing wall, which I'd be happier holding off until I'm fully vaccinated in a month or so.

Post edited at 23:54
In reply to LastBoyScout:

> I'm very concerned about Javid coming in as health sec - his comments already about opening up as fast as possible are worrying, given daily rises of over 18k at the moment.

I find Javid scary as a health minister.  Hancock was incompetent, lying and probably thieving but he was trying to stop people dying.  It looks to me that the Hancock video was part of an internal Tory power struggle between the Covidiots and the press barons that pull their strings and the merely inept and corrupt.   Hancock pretty much said a few months ago that he knew too much to be fired and this video was the response: a warning shot from other Tories that they had his office under surveillance and if he didn't STFU and step aside he'd be in trouble.

Javid was put in place so the 'newspaper' barons can sell adverts again and stop losing money and as the front man for the bankers that want to cash in from NHS privatisation and the private health insurance which will replace it.  The NHS has a budget in excess off 100 billion a year and these c*nts want to make healthcare as expensive as in the US and thentake a cut of it. 

Most of these Tory b*stards have already caught Covid because they were too stupid to follow rules and they have got away with so much sh*t in their lives they think they are invincible.  They don't give a shit if people if a few thousand more people die or a few million unnecessarily get long Covid if they can get the money flowing a couple of months earlier.

We just have to hope that there aren't long term health consequences of catching Covid that have not yet become clear because these Tories seem determined that school age children and young people are going to catch it.

Post edited at 06:52
8
 TomD89 29 Jun 2021
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Most of these Tory b*stards have already caught Covid because they were too stupid to follow rules and they have got away with so much sh*t in their lives they think they are invincible. 

> We just have to hope that there aren't long term health consequences of catching Covid that have not yet become clear because these Tories seem determined that school age children and young people are going to catch it.

Well as you claim a majority of the conservative party already caught covid, use them as canaries in the coal mine. Funnily enough none of them seem to have died or are suffering long term symptoms despite covid being rife in the Tory party. Guess there's not so much to worry about.

14
In reply to TomD89:

> Well as you claim a majority of the conservative party already caught covid, use them as canaries in the coal mine. Funnily enough none of them seem to have died or are suffering long term symptoms despite covid being rife in the Tory party. Guess there's not so much to worry about.

I didn't say a majority of the conservative party I said 'most of these Tory b*stards' referring to the cabinet.   Johnson was pretty ill and I would not be at all surprised if he had long term health issues.    He looks less active to me than he was a year or so ago.

We know significant numbers of people, including young peopl get long covid.  We do not know the long term effects of this disease.  We can't know that because it has only been around for a little over a year.  The appropriate response is caution, ten years out nobody is going to care about a few weeks but they will care about a few hundred thousand people with heart problems or lung problems.

3
 MargieB 29 Jun 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

I heard someone say they had two vaccinations and they couldn't get Covid now. An easy misapprehension and I think most people will believe this in error.

 I'd keep the mask restrictions and 2 metre distance just to stop that erroneous view becoming prevalent- a visual reminder that we're still in a pandemic.

3
 TomD89 29 Jun 2021
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Ok, replace party with cabinet, same response otherwise.

We are already delaying a few weeks so you have your way surely? Or do you mean another few weeks? Then another few?

Johnson is near 60, overweight and was sickly looking before catching covid. He was breathy for a few weeks after catching it and now seems fine (this all being pre-vaccine). Do you have any evidence of his reduced activity or is this pure speculation? Do you not think the PM suffering long term symptoms would be news worthy at the moment? Or is there a big cover up to downplay covid in your opinion?

 TomD89 29 Jun 2021
In reply to MargieB:

> I heard someone say they had two vaccinations and they couldn't get Covid now. An easy misapprehension and I think most people will believe this in error.

>  I'd keep the mask restrictions and 2 metre distance just to stop that erroneous view becoming prevalent- a visual reminder that we're still in a pandemic.

And this is why people like you shouldn't be given power over others. Flippantly placing/maintaining restrictions on peoples lives to prevent relatively trivial misapprehensions isn't on.

15
 Richard Horn 29 Jun 2021
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>  The appropriate response is caution, ten years out nobody is going to care about a few weeks but they will care about a few hundred thousand people with heart problems or lung problems.

Slightly ironic - the 2/3 of the population overweight / obese didnt really care about their future prospects of heart problems before the pandemic. Likewise the 20% smokers didnt see enough misery in a long lung cancer induced demise to stop pre-pandemic. It seems people are happier to call on measures when its other people that need to restrict themselves.

1
 mondite 29 Jun 2021
In reply to MargieB:

>  I'd keep the mask restrictions and 2 metre distance just to stop that erroneous view becoming prevalent- a visual reminder that we're still in a pandemic.

Or you would get people ignoring it because "I am double vaccinated so it doesnt make sense" and hence undermine anything being used for more practical reasons as well.

There is certainly an education problem with regards to the limitations of vaccinations especially before they have been fully rolled out but that needs addressing directly not by imposing limitations which people will ignore because of their misunderstanding.

 Neil Williams 29 Jun 2021
In reply to Tringa:

I think this is the argument as to why 21st July might actually have a fairly minimal effect - COVID denyers are already gathering in breach of the law, and cautious people will continue to be cautious (e.g. not go to the likes of nightclubs whether they are open or not).

It was May that had the big effect (reopening of indoor hospitality) and it's May that should have been delayed or rolled back when cases started to rise.

 knighty 29 Jun 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

My guess is that we won't have to worry about it for a while yet.

Javid comes in and insists that he's mega keen to remove restrictions. Over the next couple of weeks, hospitalisations and deaths will continue to increase. At the last minute, the government once again delay the easing of restrictions.

 Stichtplate 29 Jun 2021
In reply to Richard Horn:

> Slightly ironic - the 2/3 of the population overweight / obese didnt really care about their future prospects of heart problems before the pandemic. Likewise the 20% smokers didnt see enough misery in a long lung cancer induced demise to stop pre-pandemic. It seems people are happier to call on measures when its other people that need to restrict themselves.

As far as I’m aware you can’t catch obesity or lung cancer from other people and neither condition is likely to rapidly overwhelm the NHS or mutate into something worse.

2
 summo 29 Jun 2021
In reply to TomD89:

The longer impact of covid isn't known, it clearly places a huge stress on many parts of the body. The focus has mainly been on deaths, or intensive care etc.. I know several folk in their 60 or 70s who weren't quite bad enough to reach intensive care, but it hammered them and will likely have taken a few years off them, but that's speculation. It's a new virus so only time will. 

Using Boris as a covid impact benchmark isn't wise! 

In reply to TomD89:

> We are already delaying a few weeks so you have your way surely? Or do you mean another few weeks? Then another few?

I mean the priority should be caution not artificial deadlines.  Every time we rush this we f*ck up, we need to calm down and take a long term, realistic and patient view.   The reason we now have the delta variant in the UK far worse than any other European country is because these guys were not cautious enough about shutting down travel to India.  The reason we got the first wave so bad was we didn't shut down travel and lock down fast enough.  Same with the second wave - we let it go in the run up to Christmas and ended up in a sh*tstorm after Christmas. 

Right now we should be looking at the numbers and thinking f*ck this is growing fast.  The fact that there's not so much hospitalisation and death is obviously good but we should be thinking this is not a well understood disease in terms of long term prognosis, it hasn't been around long enough.  We shouldn't be gung ho 'doesn't matter how many people catch it if they aren't going to die within a month'.

So we should stop further opening up, we should keep all the social distancing, we should keep isolation for kids at school, and we should keep doing jags as fast as we can.   Stuff is not too bad at the moment.  We can live without full capacity football stadia, nightclubs, foreign holidays and maintain social distancing in offices for a few months.  Every month we learn more about the disease and more about what is safe and we get more young people jagged.

> Johnson is near 60, overweight and was sickly looking before catching covid. He was breathy for a few weeks after catching it and now seems fine (this all being pre-vaccine). Do you have any evidence of his reduced activity or is this pure speculation? 

A year or so ago the guy could run a bit and cycle for a photo-op.  Don't see much of that now.   Of course there's a desire to make him look fitter than he is.  That's normal for leaders.   It's also normal for people sick enough to need ICU treatment to have long term consequences.

5
 summo 29 Jun 2021
In reply to Stichtplate:

> As far as I’m aware you can’t catch obesity or lung cancer from other people and neither condition is likely to rapidly overwhelm the NHS or mutate into something worse.

You can argue obesity already is overwhelming, the impact of diabetes hits many different hospital departments because of the various problems it induces. You could argue that this places pressure and causes waiting lists, which still impact those who have taken better care of their health. 

 summo 29 Jun 2021
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The only rush seems to be for those who want to sit on a beach and fry, and a limited number of mass gatherings events. Life for many things is pretty close to normal already. 

 mrphilipoldham 29 Jun 2021
In reply to Stichtplate:

> As far as I’m aware you can’t catch obesity 

Well, you sort of can. If you're a child that's being fed by obese parents. The problems of which will be life long.

 elsewhere 29 Jun 2021
In reply to The Norris:

Hiding away for a until case rates decay by a factor of 20 to match Germany now or by a factor of 200 to match Scotland last July might be a good option to reduce personal risk of long Covid massively in the short term.

If in the mean time herd immunity is achieved by vaccination & infection so case rates are persistently low then catching Covid may not be inevitable in the long term. 

It's certainly uncertain!

 The Norris 29 Jun 2021
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I mean the priority should be caution not artificial deadlines.  Every time we rush this we f*ck up, we need to calm down and take a long term, realistic and patient view.   The reason we now have the delta variant in the UK far worse than any other European country is because these guys were not cautious enough about shutting down travel to India.  The reason we got the first wave so bad was we didn't shut down travel and lock down fast enough.  Same with the second wave - we let it go in the run up to Christmas and ended up in a sh*tstorm after Christmas. 

> Right now we should be looking at the numbers and thinking f*ck this is growing fast.  The fact that there's not so much hospitalisation and death is obviously good but we should be thinking this is not a well understood disease in terms of long term prognosis, it hasn't been around long enough.  We shouldn't be gung ho 'doesn't matter how many people catch it if they aren't going to die within a month'.

> So we should stop further opening up, we should keep all the social distancing, we should keep isolation for kids at school, and we should keep doing jags as fast as we can.   Stuff is not too bad at the moment.  We can live without full capacity football stadia, nightclubs, foreign holidays and maintain social distancing in offices for a few months.  Every month we learn more about the disease and more about what is safe and we get more young people jagged.

What would be an acceptable cut off point for you to allow the full re opening and relaxation of the rules?

Current death rates are, I think, in the same ball park as a fairly average flu season. Presumably they will go up in the coming weeks. A bad flu season will kill double what covid is currently killing. People get post viral issues from flu, but its probably never really talked about. 

Caution is fine, but there has to be a point where caution is no longer required, so what is that line for you?

 Dave Garnett 29 Jun 2021
In reply to The Norris:

> Caution is fine, but there has to be a point where caution is no longer required, so what is that line for you?

I think I'd agree with that if we had a programme of vaccinating children too.  We're in unknown territory and this going to require some measure of caution for several years.  Exactly what that means, nobody knows.

Is it even clear what happens to contact tracing after 'freedom day'?  If all restrictions are removed is there even any point?

Unless this new wave really does burn itself out as quickly as hoped given the prevalence of fully vaccinated adults, then it's hard to imagine just giving up on social distancing, contact tracing, self-isolation etc.  It strikes me that this new dynamic of spread through children is hard to predict and, unless we are going to start vaccinating children (which we aren't) I don't see much chance of controlling it.

I am going to throw something next time another member of the government assures us that the relaxation of restrictions is 'irreversible'.  Of course it isn't irreversible, pathogens are impervious to political rhetoric and it's transparent hubris to exclude even the possibility of further shit occurring. 

1
In reply to The Norris:

> What would be an acceptable cut off point for you to allow the full re opening and relaxation of the rules?

A few months if things go well, as long as it takes if they don't.   I'm not sure we will ever be back exactly where we were before.  Very likely there will be a general trend towards more work from home and a more Asian approach to masks in public places.

> Current death rates are, I think, in the same ball park as a fairly average flu season. Presumably they will go up in the coming weeks. A bad flu season will kill double what covid is currently killing. People get post viral issues from flu, but its probably never really talked about. 

Covid is currently controlled and it is the early stages of a wave.  The death and hospitalisation numbers we see now correspond to infections some time ago, they are going to go up a lot.  That is already baked in - just like in the earlier waves.

We should be more cautious about a new disease with no long term data than a well understood one - what we are doing now is just assuming if you survive it is all good.  

> Caution is fine, but there has to be a point where caution is no longer required, so what is that line for you?

There will be a steady end state and we can and should approach it slowly so it is obvious when we have got there.  Maybe the new equilibrium will involve long term changes to behaviour.

We shouldn't be assuming we just have to live with it.  We have technologies now we never had available before.   Why bet against our ability to get rid of it without having a good try.  These c*nts are only interested in money and their thinking is completely short term and nothing like ambitious enough.

4
 Richard Horn 29 Jun 2021
In reply to Stichtplate:

> As far as I’m aware you can’t catch obesity or lung cancer from other people and neither condition is likely to rapidly overwhelm the NHS or mutate into something worse.

Obesity related issues were already pretty much overwhelming the NHS. The fact that it is not contagious doesnt nullify its impact or cost on society! 

3
 elsewhere 29 Jun 2021
In reply to Richard Horn:

> Obesity related issues were already pretty much overwhelming the NHS. The fact that it is not contagious doesnt nullify its impact or cost on society! 

The key difference is that it's not going to go pear shaped in a week like a contagious disease can.

1
 jkarran 29 Jun 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

I'll probably try to avoid leisure time in crowded indoor settings once it's well established again. It'll be nice to choose my beer from the pumps again and avoid some of the awkwardness of queuing for access to places but that's about all I'm missing that changes in July.

I hear today the quarantining of contacts is set to be reduced in schools, we'll see how that goes. The impact of this has just hit home as my childminder is now closed for 10 days while her child quarantines because of a case in his class. High caseloads make for big disruption or we need a different approach which may or may not work. Either way, this is still far from all over despite Javid's blinkered optimism.

Freedom day will have little to no impact on overseas travel, that's going to be a nightmare of pop-up restrictions and expensive irritating bureaucracy for years to come.

The whole 'one way' thing from Johnson and now Javid is dangerous nonsense, there's still a good chance we'll need another winter of some restrictions until we have better treatments and wherever it comes from, it's only a matter of time before evolution scores a hit and we're back to simple control measures for a while. Hard to know how fast we can really go on the vaccine development-deployment pipeline for variants but months more disruption seems realistic when the time comes.

jk

 Si dH 29 Jun 2021
In reply to Richard Horn:

Purely looking at long term impacts, I would agree with you that from what we know, obesity or a history of smoking are likely to have a much greater impact on your long term health than having had covid. The number of people with serious long covid seems pretty small and postulating that more significant new symptoms will suddenly crop up in someone years later feels to me like wild speculation. However many other respiratory viruses do this, any?

Having said all of that, there is still a risk of getting it badly and having symptoms for a prolonged period, especially if you are middle aged or above. Many people do indeed stop smoking or lose weight because they want to protect their health. The difference here is that you can't take any measures to protect yourself in a high transmission environment short of putting serious restrictions on your lifestyle, so many people feel passionately about the importance of continuing to control transmission.

Personally, from my selfish perspective it would be better for transmission to be controlled for longer but from my son's perspective I'm far more worried about the impact on his social development and his education than on his health. So I've reluctantly accepted there needs to be an exit wave, we might get covid via him (again) and I'll just have to deal with it while reducing risks elsewhere a bit.

Post edited at 11:08
 Richard Horn 29 Jun 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

> The key difference is that it's not going to go pear shaped in a week like a contagious disease can.

The key difference I think is the Boiling Frog effect

1
 summo 29 Jun 2021
In reply to Si dH:

>  However many other respiratory viruses do this, any?

Whilst it may gain entry via the nose or mouth, many would now consider it a blood or vascular virus, because of the way it impacts or damages cells in different organs around the body. 

 Si dH 29 Jun 2021
In reply to summo:

> Whilst it may gain entry via the nose or mouth, many would now consider it a blood or vascular virus, because of the way it impacts or damages cells in different organs around the body. 

Ok, so to broaden the question...can someone name some diseases, of any type, that cause most individuals to have only mild flu or cold-like symptoms when infected, from which most individuals recover apparently fully, but which then result in a completely different and more severe set of symptoms over a year (or more) later, in the same individuals that originally only had the mild symptoms and recovered?

I'm not saying they don't exist, but I've never heard of them.

 mondite 29 Jun 2021
In reply to Si dH:

> I'm not saying they don't exist, but I've never heard of them.

Measles can cause problems for several years even when the initial case seemed minor. For some people it suppresses the  immune system for several years and so makes you far more vulnerable to other illnesses.

 Misha 29 Jun 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

One consideration re climbing walls is hopefully most people won’t be going when symptomatic. Of course there’s the risk of asymptomatic spread as well. It’s also a dynamic environment where you can SD as long as it’s not too busy, especially bouldering where you can move around easily. Whereas pubs are static environments and even with SD at the moment (which isn’t properly enforced a lot of the time) people are more packed in than they would ever be at the wall (I mean indoors - but even outdoors you end up at a table with several others). Of course the other factor is duration and frequency of exposure. 

 Misha 29 Jun 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

It was May’s relaxation combined with Delta - the perfect storm. I did argue at the time on wintertree’s thread that May 17th should have been delayed by a few weeks to figure out how bad Delta was going to be. That would have helped to delay the current wave. As it is, we’re going into the 19th with just over 60% of adults double jabbed (given it takes 2-3 weeks to become effective). 

 Misha 29 Jun 2021
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I don’t disagree with the gist of what you’re saying but would point out that Nicola seems to have given up the fight against Covid as well. She hasn’t tried to extend Level 3 beyond Glasgow (happy to be corrected) and she’s looking at a similar exit timetable (perhaps the details will vary). I know that’s partly in view of the line being taken by BoJo but she isn’t exactly trying to make a case for a different approach. I think the entire political class and most of the country have sort of given up. We will soon find out what impact that will have. 

 Neil Williams 29 Jun 2021
In reply to Misha:

I must admit to being really, really surprised that Scotland hasn't taken a totally different line and at least reversed indoor hospitality.  Sturgeon has generally been more cautious throughout - but not this time - and it's running away massively in a few Scottish cities as a result.

 HardenClimber 29 Jun 2021
In reply to Si dH:  re late problems

Rheumatic fever

TB (I know that's a bit different).

Anything associated with venous thromoembolism with risk of pulmonary hypertension.

Lyme, Syphillis, histoplasmosis, leishamaniasis (more like TB so not really relevant)

polio (decades)

Post edited at 15:07
 Jon Read 29 Jun 2021
In reply to Si dH:

> Ok, so to broaden the question...can someone name some diseases, of any type, that cause most individuals to have only mild flu or cold-like symptoms when infected, from which most individuals recover apparently fully, but which then result in a completely different and more severe set of symptoms over a year (or more) later, in the same individuals that originally only had the mild symptoms and recovered?

> I'm not saying they don't exist, but I've never heard of them.

Dengue -- second infection (of a different serotype) can land you in hospital or worse.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/host-response-to-the-dengue-virus...

 Toerag 29 Jun 2021
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> We shouldn't be assuming we just have to live with it.  We have technologies now we never had available before.   Why bet against our ability to get rid of it without having a good try. 

This was always the problem, people thought 'living with it' would just be a bit of mask wearing and social distancing for a couple of months so no point in having harsh elimination controls. The reality is that 'living with it' is bloody difficult, even more so with the Kent and delta variants levels of infectivity.  Every jurisdiction that has eliminated it only got it again due to importation of cases from places that hadn't eliminated. If the whole world had decided to eliminate it it would be gone by now.

 neilh 29 Jun 2021
In reply to Toerag:

You need the global population to be vaccinated to have real chance of success.Lockdown just does not work in the long term as demonstrated by what is going on in Aus.

Due to manufacturing constraints we are a long way off.

 Cobra_Head 29 Jun 2021
In reply to Si dH:

> I'm not saying they don't exist, but I've never heard of them.

Malaria, can be mild, but can come back time and time again.

 Jon Read 29 Jun 2021
In reply to Si dH:

Even better example that fits your criteria: HIV.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/hiv-and-aids/symptoms/

 Si dH 29 Jun 2021
In reply to Jon Read:

That is a good example, thanks.

Let's hope covid isn't sitting inside us all damaging our immune systems.

Presumably there is reasonable confidence in the medical community that it isn't?

 summo 29 Jun 2021
In reply to Si dH:

> Ok, so to broaden the question...can someone name some diseases, of any type, that cause most individuals to have only mild flu or cold-like symptoms when infected, from which most individuals recover apparently fully, but which then result in a completely different and more severe set of symptoms over a year (or more) later, in the same individuals that originally only had the mild symptoms and recovered?

I've not said it's going to result in a more severe illness later or a repeat of covid have I. But given how it effects different organs and the blood, we don't know how vulnerable folk might be to various lung problems, stroke, kidney diseases etc.  in the future. I'd agree, you fight the present known risks, whilst balancing economic damage and reduced medical treatment of other illnesses.

> I'm not saying they don't exist, but I've never heard of them.

Lyme disease? 

 summo 29 Jun 2021
In reply to Si dH:

Chicken pox, shingles. 

 elsewhere 29 Jun 2021
In reply to neilh:

> Due to manufacturing constraints we are a long way off.

40 million jabs PER DAY at the moment, but yes, even that needs to scale up.

 wintertree 29 Jun 2021
In reply to Si dH:

> I'm not saying they don't exist, but I've never heard of them.

Separate to the examples up thread, there's also the general spectrum of post viral fatigue which can flare up long after the original illness has passed.  One good thing hopefully to come out of this mess is a big push to understanding and curing the probable range of causes.  My hunch is still on gut microbiome upsets forming the "memory" of the infection that can flare up, but there's a whole range of possibilities.

 Stichtplate 29 Jun 2021
In reply to Si dH:

> That is a good example, thanks.

There's a load of others. Many serious illnesses leave lasting damage.

> Let's hope covid isn't sitting inside us all damaging our immune systems.

> Presumably there is reasonable confidence in the medical community that it isn't?

Immune system? Who knows but there's an estimated 2 million suffering the effects of long covid and the big turd in the punch bowl is the risk of post viral neurodegeneration.

https://www.the-scientist.com/features/can-the-flu-and-other-viruses-cause-...

 MargieB 29 Jun 2021
In reply to Misha:

We aren't sealing the borders of every individual country in the world, and varients happen in unvaccinated populations. We could get the varient with the characteristic of being as transmissable as delta but adapted to get round the vaccine and thus be vicious. I saw a programme with a scientist that said that a virus has an eventual limit to variation but as yet, we don't know when this virus will exhaust its genetic possibilities. So why not retain masks and distance in expectation of another imported deadly varient? We are not safe till all are safe is still the adage but seems to have been forgotten.....

Post edited at 21:29
1
 Misha 30 Jun 2021
In reply to The Norris:

> Caution is fine, but there has to be a point where caution is no longer required, so what is that line for you?

I think it’s sensible and fair to wait until materially everyone who wants to has been double jabbed plus a couple of weeks. That would be some time in September.

 Misha 30 Jun 2021
In reply to Si dH:

Smallpox -> shingles

Glandular fever comes and goes

Herpes never goes away

Must be other less common ones 

 Misha 30 Jun 2021
In reply to MargieB:

I agree except that to my mind this wave here is particularly dangerous for variants as the virus is under evolutionary pressure from the vaccines. Previously there wasn’t enough such pressure for a significantly vaccine resistant variant to get a footing. Delta is partially vaccine resistant and more infectious - this points towards the future, sadly. As to natural limits, who knows...

1
 elsewhere 30 Jun 2021
In reply to Misha:

> Smallpox -> shingles

I think it's chicken pox -> shingles.

 MargieB 30 Jun 2021
In reply to Misha:

So the natural logic to that is to retain masks and 2 metre social social distancing until global vaccination has been achieved because a variant that is  highly transmissable and vaccine resistant could emerge and at least retaining some measure of stopping that speedy transmissability would give us a fighting chance of trace, track and regional lockdown.

I'm prepared to wear masks and socially distance until Summer 2022! Its not hard to do when chatting or in supermarkets or on the streets passing each other. But, you can't do it if the surge of behaviour is the other way- you're dragged into it!

Also a doctor told me that flu will have a large resurrgence because we have been isolated. I'd like to help the NHS have a winter rest! Not all can be flu vaccinated next winter so masks and distancing would help that too. Then they can catch up on the backlog of diseases like cancer.

Post edited at 08:10
2
 Richard Horn 30 Jun 2021
In reply to Misha:

> I agree except that to my mind this wave here is particularly dangerous for variants as the virus is under evolutionary pressure from the vaccines. Previously there wasn’t enough such pressure for a significantly vaccine resistant variant to get a footing. Delta is partially vaccine resistant and more infectious - this points towards the future, sadly. As to natural limits, who knows...

Seriously I think you need to stop letting your imagination run away with itself. Every scientist (Sage etc) I have heard talk have said that variants are expected, we should not get worked up about them, and they are most likely to become more spreadable but less harmful as they evolve. 

They also do not rule out the fact that a more deadly variant could appear, its unlikely, but if that happens then we can react to it, and I think we are now at a point where if you are going to sit around being paranoid about a hypothetical situation then really that is your choice and you shouldnt expect the rest of the country to accept control measures targeting something that is more likely than not never to happen...

8
 Martin W 30 Jun 2021
In reply to Misha:

According to tlouth7 above https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/covid_-_your_response_to_anothe... vaccines aren't a significant evolutionary driver, at least cf drug resistance.  Which I suppose is not to say that it doesn't ever happen.

Some papers on the subject:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6304978/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5378080/

I'm sure there's lots more out there with contrasting results.

 AJM 30 Jun 2021
In reply to Richard Horn:

Faster spread is probably worse than increased lethality though. A larger percentage of the same number of people is probably a smaller increase than the same size percentage of a far larger group of people (i.e. lethality is linear, transmissibility is exponential).

And "more likely than not never to happen" is some statement, given we've had two distinct step-ups in impact from mutation within 12 months already (Kent followed by India, plus honourable mentions to SA and Brazilian variants that have also caused concern).

1
 wintertree 30 Jun 2021
In reply to Richard Horn:

>  Every scientist (Sage etc) I have heard talk have said that variants are expected, we should not get worked up about them, and they are most likely to become more spreadable but less harmful as they evolve. 

Have they, really?  I think you're just making things up at this point.

The "Kent" variant had both a faster spread and more lethality.  The Indian variant has an even faster spread and it's too soon to determine the lethality.  

I am speechless at how you interpret the recent importance of watching for worrying variants being an explicit part of the release plan, and how the final release being delayed specifically by such a variant, which to me clearly indicates that they're of paramount concern, can be taken as "not getting worked up".

In terms of viruses evolving to be less harmful - that's not what "every scientist" has said.   That's just a bullshit claim.  I don't think you'll be evidencing that as even a majority of scientists, let alone "every".

Eventually, viruses end up less lethal as both the virus and the host species co-evolve and find a way to co-exist.  Hint: This takes generations of the host species, and involves the winnowing down of host genetic lines that are more susceptible, through a lot of short term death.  

Right now, when you look at the illness routes Covid takes and the medical and social care structures in the countries with the worst recent cases histories, it doesn't look to me like there's any real selective pressure in favour of less lethal versions; this isn't a disease like Ebola that's so lethal it risks killing people faster than they can transmit the disease.

> They also do not rule out the fact that a more deadly variant could appear, its unlikely,

I suggest you have no evidence of it being "unlikely".  We've seen it happen already, and SARS-nCov-1 and MERS-nCov suggest that we are far, far from the high lethalities that this kind of virus can produce.

Things are getting better now for the UK I think, but they are doing so inspire of those who have consistently sought to downplay the grave risks, not thanks to them.

Post edited at 09:40
1
 wintertree 30 Jun 2021
In reply to AJM:

> Faster spread is probably worse than increased lethality though

When you have a virus that damages the host "indirectly" through immune dysregulation, and when viral load seems to be involved in the severity of infection, and when viral load is tied up in many ways of faster spread, these aren't necessarily as separable as one might think.

I agree that in many ways faster spread is worse - it changes the herd immunity thresholds, moving the goalposts and making it ever harder to eliminate the virus, meaning it's lethality will eventually be applied population wide.

Post edited at 09:30
 wintertree 30 Jun 2021
In reply to Martin W:

> Some papers on the subject:

Only read the first one so far, but a really nice read.

It's pre-covid era and one addendum I'd add for people reading it - the paper notes how easily pathogens can evolve to evade treatment drugs that target the pathogen.

Covid is a bit of a special case here in that a lot of the treatments (out there and in the trials pipeline) don't target the pathogen itself, but target the human immune system, working to mend the upsets the virus causes to the immune system - with these upsets being the source of much lethality - so it seems to me that Covid isn't going to be able to evolve around drugs in the way many other diseases can.

 The New NickB 30 Jun 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

> 40 million jabs PER DAY at the moment, but yes, even that needs to scale up.

I wasn’t sure if I believed this figure, it seemed very high. I have looked at how many vaccines are being administered daily and the latest figure was around 35m. This is better than I expected. Whilst the fully vaccinated figure is currently around 850m, with 2bn+ having had at least one jab, we should hopefully be in a situation where most of the world is vaccinated by the end of the year.

 mondite 30 Jun 2021
In reply to MargieB:

> Also a doctor told me that flu will have a large resurrgence because we have been isolated.

Part of the problem for flu is they look at the Southern hemisphere to try and predict which flu variants are going to be around. There are multiple strains of flu with the vaccine being aimed at those strains which are predicted to be a problem.

Its why they have massively varying effectiveness since if strain(s) become prevalent that werent predicted then the vaccine may be off very limited use.

 elsewhere 30 Jun 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

As you say, 35M or 40M per day is enough to single jab the world this year, but I think it will be limited by various non-manufacturing factors.

The real bottlenecks are likely to be international/national politics, governments, corruption, organisational, financial, even vaccine hesitancy driven by social media and developed countries getting double jabbed before jabs go elsewhere.

Post edited at 11:55
 The New NickB 30 Jun 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

As a pure numbers exercise, 5bn double jabbed seems a good target. That needs 10bn jabs, or 7bn to go. 35m a day is 6.5bn by the end of the year. 

 elsewhere 30 Jun 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

> As a pure numbers exercise, 5bn double jabbed seems a good target. That needs 10bn jabs, or 7bn to go. 35m a day is 6.5bn by the end of the year. 

Vaccine development, manufacture and roll-out so far has been a spectacular achievement. Fingers crossed for worldwide roll-out.

 Dave Garnett 30 Jun 2021
In reply to Jon Read:

> Dengue -- second infection (of a different serotype) can land you in hospital or worse.

Yes, I think it's unusual but not unknown things like antibody-dependent enhancement, cross-reactive (probably) autoimmunity and still poorly understood chronic post-viral syndromes that are the worry.  Usually these are pretty rare, but when you have millions of people affected they may be significant.

I don't think it's fair to compare SARS-CoV-2 with retroviruses or herpesvirus that have well-understood latency mechanisms, or chronic bacterial infections like TB, but it does have some odd properties and poorly characterised bits of its genome. 

And the thrombogenic properties of soluble splice variants of the spike protein show how complicated even the apparently obvious can be...        

 Misha 30 Jun 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

> I think it's chicken pox -> shingles.

Yes of course. Small pox is hopefully gone for good...

 Misha 30 Jun 2021
In reply to Richard Horn:

Except that each major variant we’ve had so far had been worse than the original and in some cases worse than the other variants- more infectious or vaccine resistant or causing more serious symptoms or a combination. So the evidence is there.

Clearly we can’t predict the future but so far there’s been no indication of COVID becoming less serious as it ‘beds in’. It might do in a few years’ time, who knows.

My point is we should wait until materially everyone who wants the jab has had both doses plus a couple of weeks. 

1
 Misha 30 Jun 2021
In reply to Martin W:

They are for flu though. Also bear in mind that the situation is unprecedented - a brand new virus, with vaccines deployed at pace (in some countries) within 2 years of it first appearing. The past might not be such a good guide to the future in this case. 

 mondite 30 Jun 2021

In reply to ThomasRob:

> New variants are more transmissible but less deadly as is the usual way with viral mutation.  It's basis biology stuff regarding evolution.

How?

More transmissible obviously lends itself to becoming a a dominant strain but lethalness is going to be more complex.

If it kills someone in a spectacular and unpleasant way within half a day then that would tend to be selected against.

However if it kills them after being asymptomatic but transmissible for ten years then it isnt going to be selected against (at least not until ten years time when everyone keels over and dies).

Or it could be resonably high tranmission rates but very lethal in humans and extremely high transmission but equivilent of a common cold for rats and mice. In which case again it wouldnt get selected against.

 wintertree 30 Jun 2021

In reply to ThomasRob:

> New variants are more transmissible but less deadly as is the usual way with viral mutation.  It's basis biology stuff regarding evolution.

Oh, look, a new poster coming on here to talk about "basis biology" [sic], who does not have anything to back their assertion and is also wrong.

You are aware that the Kent variant became more transmissive and more lethal?  You're just misleading people, and you full well know it.

> It is way less serious than we though back in March last year when we thought the IFR was around 3%.  We now know that it is below 0.25% or so.

Are you congenitally slow?  Do you not have access to the news?  You do realise that claims of an IFR of below 0.25% are thoroughly disprovable?

Were many people suggesting an IFR of 3% or are you making that up?  My recollection is of numbers around 1% being bandied about.  Mind you, 3% seems not unreasonable for a nation like outs in a situation where people are falling sick 10 times faster than hospitals can take them.  

It's multiple times more serious than we could possibly cope with in the absence of vaccination or strict control measures.  

Isn't it funny that you are active on the subject within minutes of another covid shitposter, already banned and a thread pulled?

2
 peppermill 30 Jun 2021
In reply to Stichtplate:

> My response to a third wave? Fed up to the back teeth with it. Fed up with dealing with it. Totally fed up with the feckless f*cking idiots that are feeding it.

> First day back today after having the weekend off, middle aged patient with covid has called 999 cos they feel a bit shit. Everyone in the house is covid positive. We enter to the sound of coughing:

> "could you pop masks on for us please?"

> 'We don't have any masks'

> (a year and a half into a pandemic and they don't have masks???)

> "Do you not normally wear masks?"

> 'We don't believe in them'

> (Really? this is the second ambulance they've called in a week. They all have covid but they don't believe in masks???)

> Later that day. Reception at A&E. Sign says 11 hours 42 minute wait time. Angry young man (who looks the picture of health) is shouting about being kept waiting. Apparently "IT'S A TOTAL F*CKING DISGRACE". The room is crowded, spittle is flying and he's not wearing a mask. The likelihood that the reason he's being kept waiting is closely related to the behaviour of people like him seems to have entirely passed him by.

> Fast forward to now. I'm having a beer and I'm contemplating if stupidity should be recognised as the main disease vector for covid. So sick of this shit.

Basically an English version of what's happening up here in Central Belt Scotland. 

The difference with the hospital across the road from station is patients behaving like that in the waiting room never, ever have to wait eleven hours to see a nurse or a doctor.

Because they tend to be rapidly marched out the door.

Post edited at 17:00
 jkarran 30 Jun 2021

In reply to ThomasRob:

> New variants are more transmissible but less deadly as is the usual way with viral mutation.  It's basis biology stuff regarding evolution.

Over many generations of the host you would expect to see an evolutionary response. Smallpox has been with us for at least 3000 years, 100's of generations have lived and died with it but you still wouldn't touch that shit with a bargepole.

The two most notable mutant strains of covid impacting Britain so far have been significantly worse, not better than what they displaced.

> It is way less serious than we though back in March last year when we thought the IFR was around 3%.  We now know that it is below 0.25% or so.

About 7% of the UK population has had a verified case (1). Based on random sampling surveys we can roughly double that to estimate 15% of us have had it, that's 10.3M of us. 152,606 have died (2) with covid listed as a cause, that's 1.4% of the likely cases we've seen have ended in a death.

We can argue the details, maybe that empirically derived 2:1 ratio of infections to cases grows a bit during surges and it's closer to 15M of us that have had covid not 10M, maybe the 152k figure is lowball or a bit puffed up. Either way, for your 0.25% IFR to stand up then 61M, that's almost every last one of us would have had to have had covid. It's just bullshit.

1: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases

2: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths

jk

Post edited at 17:03
 mcdif 30 Jun 2021
In reply to jkarran:

> Over many generations of the host you would expect to see an evolutionary response. Smallpox has been with us for at least 3000 years, 100's of generations have lived and died with it but you still wouldn't touch that shit with a bargepole.

Pretty sure the poster was referring to evolution of the virus, not the host population

> The two most notable mutant strains of covid impacting Britain so far have been significantly worse, not better than what they displaced.

This is to be expected. A mass vaccination campaign is basically a near extinction event for a virus. Only mutations which confer resistance to the vaccine survive, and they rapidly become dominant because the competition has been decimated. Successive near extinction events will maintain this dynamic indefinitely.

However, if the virus propogates through the population, the more transmissible mutations will be the most successful and become dominant. An excellent way of being more transmissible is to become less virulent, ensuring your host remains reasonably healthy and mobile. This is probably what happened to the Spanish flu virus in 1920/1

Basically, if we want the virus to evolve and become less dangerous, we should only be vaccinating vulnerable people. The government could really do with some evolutionary biologists working alongside their immunology experts. 

9
 wintertree 30 Jun 2021
In reply to mcdif:

Funny that you pop along just after the other two shitposters are banned.

Not the first time that’s happened now, is it?

You’ve got some other shared attributes too…

1
 mcdif 30 Jun 2021
In reply to wintertree:

I pop up in Covid threads when the conversation turns to evolutionary biology! I don't pretend to know much about immunology. Should I ask for your permission first?

9
 wintertree 30 Jun 2021
In reply to mcdif:

The problem is I just don’t believe you.

You certainly appear to know jack about evolutionary biology given that your proclamations are directly opposing what’s actually happened, repeatedly, over the last 9 months.

This virus is nowhere near the kind of lethality levels where there’s a strong selective pressure against lethality, but that’s beside the point.  Given that it’s often infectious *before* manifesting symptoms, and takes some not insignificant time from the onset of symptoms to death, the *eventual* lethality is quite decoupled from transmissibility in terms of selective pressures.  

You might take a moment to look at the literature and the data on this virus. In terms of lags between stages and when transmission starts to occur, it seems at odds to you.

Tell me, how does an evolutionary biologist with an interest in Covid end up on UKC?  Do you have a bat signal set up to wake you from week long absence every time a covid shitposter is banned?

Post edited at 21:27
1
 mcdif 30 Jun 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> This virus is nowhere near the kind of lethality levels where there’s a strong selective pressure, but that’s beside the point.  

Like J Karren and various other UKCers, you are demonstrating a woeful lack of knowledge about evolution, even confusing which population is actually subject to short-term evolutionary pressure. It's the virus that is mutating, adapting and evolving, not the host population (ie us). I certainly hope that the vaccine is providing a high level of lethality towards the virus because otherwise we should just give up on it now

Post edited at 21:54
8
 mcdif 30 Jun 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> Tell me, how does an evolutionary biologist with an interest in Covid end up on UKC?  

Could an evolutionary biologist also be into climbing?!

6
 wintertree 30 Jun 2021
In reply to mcdif:

> Like J Karren and various other UKCers, you are demonstrating a woeful lack of knowledge about evolution,

I like you, you’re funny.

> even confusing which population is actually subject to short-term evolutionary pressure. 

You really don’t know what you’re talking about, do you?  

> It's the virus that is mutating, adapting and evolving, not the host population (ie us).

Are you *seriously* trying to pretend that various posters don’t understand that?  The sheer gall, it’s impressive.

My point that you choose to misconstrue is that viruses become less lethal over multi-generational timescales of the *host* because over those timescales the virus puts a selective pressure on the hosts.  Over the much shorter generational timescales of the virus it’s the opposite, with the hosts putting a selective pressure on the virus.  The claims about viruses becoming less lethal often pertain to generational timescales of the host, not of the virus.  I’ve seen no credible explanation for why a 50% increase in lethality, say, of this virus would give a negative selective pressure if it retains its pre-hospitalisation infectiousness.  I note that rather than make this case you resorted to playing the academic superior to other posters without explaining.  Call to authority - classic tell, that.

> I certainly hope that the vaccine is providing a high level of lethality towards the virus because otherwise we should just give up on it now

More than anything this sentence tells me you don’t understand where we are and what’s going on at all, or more likely that you do but you’re playing one of several different personas trying to discredit others and confuse people with noise.

If it seems like I’m being quite rude, I am.  Because I don’t believe a word that you say.

1
 mondite 30 Jun 2021
In reply to mcdif:

> Pretty sure the poster was referring to evolution of the virus, not the host population

Maybe but Smallpox is still a pretty good counter argument to the claim about them becoming less dangerous over time.  It was around for thousands of years and was still killing up to a third of the people it infected before it was unnaturally selected against.

> However, if the virus propogates through the population, the more transmissible mutations will be the most successful and become dominant. An excellent way of being more transmissible is to become less virulent, ensuring your host remains reasonably healthy and mobile.

An equally excellent way is just to slowly build up in your host so they are healthy and mobile whilst passing it on and then killing them after a while. Covid 19 for example looks to have the useful feature of being infectious before symptoms really kick in.

> Basically, if we want the virus to evolve and become less dangerous, we should only be vaccinating vulnerable people.

Lucky really the government doesnt have "evolutionary biologists" such as yourself advising them. Whilst it may be more likely to mutate in an immune compromised person it is still capable of mutating into something more dangerous in someone healthy and possibly more likely to get transmitted onwards.

 mondite 30 Jun 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> Funny that you pop along just after the other two shitposters are banned.

Rather convenient isnt it?

The effort put in really is quite special. I wonder how many dodgy accounts the mods have had to say bye bye to.

1
 mcdif 30 Jun 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> The claims about viruses becoming less lethal often pertain to generational timescales of the host, not of the virus.  

Given the generational time-scale of a virus vs a human, I think you might have to reconsider this statement. Do you really think that reputable scientists are claiming that humans will eventually evolve to better resist the virus? We would need a virus that kills large numbers of humans of reproductive age for this to happen and it would take decades to see any significant effect. I would bow out of this debate now if I were you and go back to analysing graphs!

The virus will evolve to become less dangerous to its host population over the next few years if we stop trying to wipe it out completely. If we continue to try to eliminate it, it will keep evolving to become more resistant to the latest vaccine. Even government advisors are starting to recognise this reality and conceding that we must learn to live with Covid. 

12
 mcdif 30 Jun 2021
In reply to mondite:

> Maybe but Smallpox is still a pretty good counter argument to the claim about them becoming less dangerous over time. 

Do you think Covid will evolve like flu or like smallpox?

Post edited at 22:36
7
 Toerag 30 Jun 2021
In reply to mcdif:

> An excellent way of being more transmissible is to become less virulent, ensuring your host remains reasonably healthy and mobile. This is probably what happened to the Spanish flu virus in 1920/1

Evolution isn't deliberate though, it's chance mutations becoming more successful - 'survival of the fittest'.

 mcdif 30 Jun 2021
In reply to Toerag:

> Evolution isn't deliberate though, it's chance mutations becoming more successful - 'survival of the fittest'.

I never said it was deliberate. Covid is mutating continuously but the vast majority of these mutations are either detrimental to individual survival or have no effect. However, if you change the environment (eg through vaccines) you will potentially allow a mutation to outcompete the dominant strain and become dominant itself. This is what is happening now.

5
 mondite 30 Jun 2021
In reply to mcdif:

> Do you think Covid will evolve like flu or like smallpox?

It seems somewhat in the middle in terms of mutability however even flu doesnt support your case about viruses becoming less lethal over time.

Whilst its not clear how long flu has been around its probably been around for several thousand years and can be fairly reliably identified as the source of a pandemic starting in Russia in 1729 which had several waves with later ones being more lethal than the earlier ones.

Then we have Spanish flu in 1918 which also had several waves with later ones being more lethal.

So here we have two problems with your theory about viruses learning to play nice.
First we have the subsequent waves being deadlier before it tails off.

Secondly that in case you havent noticed 1729 is quite a bit before 1918 and so, by your theory, should have been rather more deadly which wasnt the case.

 wintertree 30 Jun 2021
In reply to mcdif:

> The virus will evolve to become less dangerous to its host population over the next few years if we stop trying to wipe it out completely.

We are not trying to wipe the virus out completely.

  • You proclaim this with no evidence to support that statement.
  • Basically, at this point, you lie.

You have given no references to support your assertion that the virus will become less dangerous if we stop fighting it.

  •  I counter that SARS-nCov-1 and MERS-nCov show that the lethality mechanism of novel clades within the family coronaviridae can be an order of magnitude higher than this virus.  
  • With the increases in lethality we've already seen (counter to what you claim should happen) combined with increases in transmissivity, it's clear that  lethality increases are not yet limiting transmission and so are not presenting a negative selective pressure.
    • Far from it - as I've said before, with the dominant lethality mechanism being immune dysregulation it's the scale of infection that kills, and with transmissivity, health consequences and viral load all being inter-related... 

You have falsely presented the purpose of vaccination as elimination

  • "I certainly hope that the vaccine is providing a high level of lethality towards the virus because otherwise we should just give up on it now"
  • As most of us understand, the major function of vaccination is to moderate the health consequences to speed up the transition to an endemic situation.

>  If we continue to try to eliminate it, it will keep evolving to become more resistant to the latest vaccine. Even government advisors are starting to recognise this reality and conceding that we must learn to live with Covid. 

What's this nonsense about eliminating it?  That boat sailed long, long ago. You're either spectacularly thick or you're deliberately misrepresenting the situation around you.  I'm being generous suggesting this is an "or" situation not an "and" situation.

> I would bow out of this debate now if I were you and go back to analysing graphs!

There's no debate here.  If you'd actually followed the plotting threads, you'd see a strand of discussion there about how the data shows us hopefully moving relatively safely along the process of shunting the disease from pandemic to endemic status.  That is, not "learning to live with it", but "doing what we can to minimise the harms of moving to a state where we can hopefully live with it much like we used to live before".

1
 mcdif 30 Jun 2021
In reply to mondite:

> It seems somewhat in the middle in terms of mutability

What evidence is your statement based on?

10
 jkarran 30 Jun 2021
In reply to mcdif:

> Like J Karren and various other UKCers, you are demonstrating a woeful lack of knowledge about evolution, even confusing which population is actually subject to short-term evolutionary pressure. It's the virus that is mutating, adapting and evolving, not the host population (ie us). 

Yes, for the worse, there's f*ck all selection pressure on it to become less dangerous or transmissible, it spreads before symptoms become remotely debilitating in the overwhelming majority of cases. There's lots in this life I'm confused about but in this case I picked the host as the party under pressure to reduce severity of outcome with a clear head.

If the pressure on the virus is overwhelming would you explain 3000 years of still very unpleasent smallpox for those of us without an evolutionary biology background. 

'Kent' evolved in the absence of vaccination. Delta evolved in India where vaccination levels were and remain absolutely miniscule*, it has gone on to become dominant in both highly vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Your claim that vaccination drove or selected for Kent and Delta simply doesn't hold water. 

*yes it is just possible it evolved in a vaccinated individual but you're stretching credidibility thin. It cleary, given Kent and myriad pre-vaccine dangerous mutations not a requirement. 

Jk

 Misha 01 Jul 2021
In reply to mcdif:

Back again?

Covid isn’t particularly deadly in % terms. It doesn’t need to become less deadly. It’s not Ebola, which is actually really deadly.

There will be evolutionary pressure from herd immunity, whether that’s due to vaccination or infection or both. The difference is a lot more people will die or end up hospitalised if you go for herd immunity by infection.

 Misha 01 Jul 2021
In reply to mcdif:

> The virus will evolve to become less dangerous to its host population over the next few years if we stop trying to wipe it out completely.

I’d like to see an evolutionary biologist’s analysis in support of this, given what we know about Covid’s R0 (at least 6 for Delta) and IFR (1%, give or take), plus the presymptomatic spread ability.

 Misha 01 Jul 2021
In reply to mcdif:

Also if vaccination made viruses ‘worse’, wouldn’t we be dying in large numbers from the various diseases which most people are vaccinated against (measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, polio, diphtheria, whooping cough...)? These diseases have been virtually eliminated, at least in the UK - through vaccination.

 deacondeacon 01 Jul 2021

Why do morons seem to think that 0.5% death rate (which is a number plucked from thin air) is barely worth worrying about.

There's probably 200 people in my street. If one person dies due to covid in every single street that is a lot of people!

2
 mondite 01 Jul 2021
In reply to Misha:

>  These diseases have been virtually eliminated, at least in the UK - through vaccination.

Sadly for several of these diseases there has been a resurgence. Thanks to anti-vax lies.

 Harry Jarvis 01 Jul 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

> As you say, 35M or 40M per day is enough to single jab the world this year, but I think it will be limited by various non-manufacturing factors.

> The real bottlenecks are likely to be international/national politics, governments, corruption, organisational, financial, even vaccine hesitancy driven by social media and developed countries getting double jabbed before jabs go elsewhere.

Indeed. I have relatives in Australia. Their 20-something children are not expecting to be vaccinated until the end of the year. If a relatively developed country such as Australia cannot get its act together, I find it hard to believe that there are not other parts of the world that will fare less well. Past performance of vaccination will have been skewed by the fact that most vaccinations will have taken place in countries with well-developed healthcare systems. I think it is unlikely that the same rate will be maintained across regions with less well developed health care systems.

 Misha 01 Jul 2021
In reply to mondite:

Sadly so. 

 MG 01 Jul 2021
In reply to mcdif:

>

> The virus will evolve to become less dangerous to its host population over the next few years if we stop trying to wipe it out completely

Why would that happen? What evolutionary preasure would there be? 

 Neil Williams 01 Jul 2021
In reply to MG:

Viruses that kill their host don't spread as much.  You get the best spread from mild symptoms so the carrier carries on their life spreading it as they go.

This one is a bit different, though, as it features asymptomatic spread, so it can spread itself very nicely before the host dies, so that pressure isn't really there.

Post edited at 20:44
 MG 01 Jul 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

Quite. So where is the pressure to become less dangerous? Mcdif is wrong. 

 Neil Williams 01 Jul 2021
In reply to MG:

For a virus that doesn't spread asymptomatically, the pressure is that a less deadly version will spread more as people will carry on.  So it is a valid point, just not for this virus.

The common cold viruses are probably the most successful in the world.

 wintertree 01 Jul 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> The common cold viruses are probably the most successful in the world

Only if you discount the ERVs playing the long game?  Some non trivial fraction of the DNA of all mammal life on the planet is descendant from ancient retroviruses.   Perhaps what gave us the ability to be mammals.  We can't live without them now...

Then there’s the gut virome - viruses infecting the gut including a component infecting the gut microbiome.  Given how little of the microbiome can currently be lab cultured, I think it’s fair to say there’s a lot to learn…

On the "common cold" front:

Perhaps that is where we'll end up with this virus, after a brutal period where the hosts  move from the unusual starting point of initially having no pre-existing immunity to any part of the virus.  Over time Covid becomes less lethal, but not due to viral evolution but rapid changes to the immune compliment of the hosts that don't die - happening in front of us with the current wave in the UK.

Or, what if we deleted all immune knowledge of an existing cold-inducing coronavirus from the whole human population?  Would it then become a lethal virus, killing by the same immune dysregualtion as Covid?

So many angles, so many timescales.

 Misha 02 Jul 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

Even without asymptomatic and presymptomatic spread, with an IFR of ‘only’ around 1%, there would be no real need for Covid to become less deadly. It spreads perfectly will at 1%, dropping to 0.1% or 0.01% won’t make any real difference.

You are right about the cold but did it ever kill people in the dim and distance past? May be back in the ice age…

1
 elsewhere 02 Jul 2021
In reply to Misha:

> You are right about the cold but did it ever kill people in the dim and distance past? May be back in the ice age…

Common diseases devastated populations lacking immunity far more recently.

 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_epidemics

That suggests we are the offspring of those who survived or the human race evolves in response to disease. Otherwise isolated populations would not be more vulnerable to the imported diseases.

Post edited at 00:36
 Misha 02 Jul 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

Good point. This suggests that the human hosts developed a degree of immunity over many generations, rather than the virus itself become less ‘deadly’. We adapt to live with it but that’s measured in our lifespans rather than those of the virus...

 elsewhere 02 Jul 2021
In reply to Misha:

Evolution or "adaption" (aka cull) in months???

Bubonic plague killed 40-60% of GB population in 1348-1349. 

I wonder how much of the genetic  selection took place that year by killing the susceptible or was it more those who randomly happened to be young, old, infirm, ill-nourished or in poverty that year. Perhaps the initial genetic impact is small but amplifies in the subsequent generations at a lower disease level for a long time.

Post edited at 08:27
 True Dat 02 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> Oh, look, a new poster coming on here to talk about "basis biology" [sic], who does not have anything to back their assertion and is also wrong.

But am I wrong - see below:

> You are aware that the Kent variant became more transmissive and more lethal?  You're just misleading people, and you full well know it.

Hmmm, really? 

https://www.cityam.com/kent-covid-variant-no-more-deadly-than-original-coro...

> Are you congenitally slow?  Do you not have access to the news?  You do realise that claims of an IFR of below 0.25% are thoroughly disprovable?

From the WHO regarding the IFR, "If one could sample equally from all locations globally, the median infection fatality rate might be even substantially lower than the 0.23% observed in my analysis".  Here's a link:

https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

Is this inconvenient to your argument perhaps?

> Were many people suggesting an IFR of 3% or are you making that up?  My recollection is of numbers around 1% being bandied about.  Mind you, 3% seems not unreasonable for a nation like outs in a situation where people are falling sick 10 times faster than hospitals can take them.

It was stated by many back in March 2020.  Here is one such statement by the WHO:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/03/who-says-coronavirus-death-rate-is-3point4p...

So am I making this up as you claim?

Still, you say that people are falling sick 10 times faster than hospitals could take them?  Really?  On what data is this based?

> It's multiple times more serious than we could possibly cope with in the absence of vaccination or strict control measures.  

Please explain then how many countries have coped perfectly well without strict lockdown measures?

So are you going to report me for pointing out the inconvenient truths, or are you prepared to accept that much of what you say is simply incorrect.  Or will you be able to prove otherwise with actual data?

Are you going to apologise for calling me congenitally slow?

7
 wintertree 02 Jul 2021
In reply to True Dat:

I could take apart your whole post.  I’ll stick to noting you confuse IFR and CFR with your CNBC link that in no way supports your previous claim.

Your WHO link is a submission to them, not vetted or approved by then, from a known peddler or misinformation.

Are you doing this out of a compulsive need to argue, or because you want people to die?  Either way it’s tragic.

 True Dat 02 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> I could take apart your whole post.  

Could you or are you all mouth, no trousers?  Please go on then be my guest? 

Please do tell us how our hospitals were overwhelmed by a factor of 10 x though.  Please do explain how many other countries have done much better than us without strict lockdown measures in place.  I await your replies with amusement.

> Are you doing this out of a compulsive need to argue, or because you want people to die?  Either way it’s tragic.

Why do you always resort to insults?  Is it because you don't have a valid argument with which to counter?

10
 True Dat 02 Jul 2021
In reply to jkarran:

You do know that the average age of death from Covid in the UK is higher than the average age of death (81 years) from all cause mortality don't you?

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformati...

You must also surely be aware that the average probability of death in a normal year for someone aged 82 years of age is in the region of 7%

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

So we can conclude that old people die, and quite regularly at that.  Such as has always been the case with life.  So much for a deadly pandemic.  Yet we have spent £400 billion, or 3 x times the entire annual NHS budget to put it into perspective on our Covid obsession?  Just think what good we could have done with that money of we'd have spent it wisely and with a rational approach to healthcare.  So in conclusion, a massive over-reaction.

No doubt you would say it is all worth it 'if it just saves one life', whilst conveniently ignoring the huge collateral damage to our health that is looming as a result not of Covid, but because of our chosen and hysterical response to Covid, blindly supported without any sense of perspective and realism by people like you. 

Post edited at 08:55
9
 wintertree 02 Jul 2021
In reply to True Dat:

> Please do tell us how our hospitals were overwhelmed by a factor of 10 x though.  

I never claimed that they were you shitty little weasel.

> Why do you always resort to insults?  Is it because you don't have a valid argument with which to counter?

I have a valid argument.  Here it is:

You are a disgusting, immoral piece of shit with blood on your hands - assuming you have been peddling your sick misinformation elsewhere too.

1
 True Dat 02 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> I never claimed that they were you shitty little weasel.

But you said that "people are falling sick 10 times faster than hospitals could take them?"

Have any data on this?

I am assuming from your insults that you do not have a valid counter argument?

4
 wintertree 02 Jul 2021
In reply to True Dat:

I’ve given you my counter argument.  It’s not an insult, it’s my honest opinion.  I understand why you have an extreme problem recognising one of those when you see them.

Tell me, are you trolling for laughs or spreading misinformation to kill people?

 True Dat 02 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> Tell me, are you trolling for laughs or spreading misinformation to kill people?

Nope, our over-reaction to Covid at the expense of almost everything and everyone (except the rich) is not a laughing matter.

Anyway please explain how by posting links to ONS and other official data construes as 'misinformation'? It is the case it would seem that your definition of 'misinformation' is simply stuff that does not suit your own argument?

So far as I was aware, science has always been about debate, challenge, disagreement and competing theories. Yet some would rather hurl insults than debate it seems. I asked you many questions in the posts above and you have so far failed to answer any of them in a meaningful way.

5
 wintertree 02 Jul 2021
In reply to True Dat:

I could engage with all your points quite cogently and succinctly.  The gods know I’ve done so before.  

I choose not to.

You’re not “the other side” of a debate on the science.  

Tell me, are you trolling for laughs or spreading misinformation to kill people?

1
 True Dat 02 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> I could engage with all your points quite cogently and succinctly.

Go on then, or if you have done before please refer me back as I have not seen it.  Firstly please explain your quote:

> people are falling sick 10 times faster than hospitals could take them.

Any NHS data to back this up?

Also please explain how many other countries have done much better than us without strict lockdown measures in place.

My guess is you will deflect again.

4
 Toerag 02 Jul 2021
In reply to True Dat:

> You do know that the average age of death from Covid in the UK is higher than the average age of death (81 years) from all cause mortality don't you?

You do know that the average 81 year old in the UK is going to live to 89 don't you? Life expectancy is reduced by deaths in childhood and the workplace.  Once you pass those ages you are no longer vulnerable to those factors. Covid killing 81 year olds is reducing their lifespan by 8 or 9 years on average.  You are congenitally slow.

Oh, and which 'many countries' have coped perfectly well without strict lockdowns? The 'no lockdown posterboy' Sweden hasn't for example, they've killed way more than their Scandinavian counterparts who did lock down, yet had equally bad economic damage and higher restrictions placed upon their travellers.

Post edited at 09:36
1
 Dave Garnett 02 Jul 2021
In reply to Toerag:

>  You are congenitally slow.

Steady, let's stick to the evidence.  There's nothing to suggest it's congenital.

 True Dat 02 Jul 2021
In reply to Toerag:

> You do know that the average 81 year old in the UK is going to live to 89 don't you? Life expectancy is reduced by deaths in childhood and the workplace.  Once you pass those ages you are no longer vulnerable to those factors. Covid killing 81 year olds is reducing their lifespan by 8 or 9 years on average.  You are congenitally slow.

Almost all of the deaths of the over 80's from Covid had other severe life limiting co-morbidities, so no the average old person who does of (or more likely with) Covid would not have lived until they were 89.

> Oh, and which 'many countries' have coped perfectly well without strict lockdowns? The 'no lockdown posterboy' Sweden hasn't for example, they've killed way more than their Scandinavian counterparts who did lock down, yet had equally bad economic damage and higher restrictions placed upon their travellers.

Sadly Sweden made the same mistake with their care homes that we did.  Sweden and its economy is far more integrated with the worlds economy than those of its neighbours.  Hence it will certainly feel the downturn more from those other countries that shut down than the likes of Norway for example which remains more insular.  Anyway states like Texas, South Georgia and Florida in the US prove my point entirely.  More appropriate too as they can be compared easily with one another.

3
 Dave Garnett 02 Jul 2021
In reply to True Dat:

> You do know that the average age of death from Covid in the UK is higher than the average age of death (81 years) from all cause mortality don't you?

1. You mean the median age, but you'll notice the mean age is about three years less, which suggests that although the most popular time to die of Covid is 81 (for males), a lot of younger people also die.  Look at point 3 here:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriage... 

2. As others have already said, rather obviously, the life expectancy at birth is not the same as life expectancy calculated at, say, 81.

 wintertree 02 Jul 2021
In reply to True Dat:

Sorry for the slow reply, I was out picking up dog muck around town, an all together better use of my time.

I am not deflecting.  I don’t need to engage with your “10x” point because I credit the others on this thread with the reading skills needed to see how you’ve misrepresented me significantly, and are saying I claimed something when I did not.  This is what my “you’re a shitty weasel” comment put perhaps too succinctly for you.

Now, tell me, are you trolling for fun, or deliberately trying to get people killed?

1
 True Dat 02 Jul 2021
In reply to Dave Garnett:

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Anyway the whole argument pedalled by some on here is moot in any case.  Covid is really not that bad a virus to warrant the action we have taken.  Spending 3 x times the entire NHS budget on Covid measures has been vastly disproportionate to the threat we faced.  Some people remain terrified of a few daily Covid deaths but the 450 deaths every day from Cancer, and another 450 deaths every day from heart disease go largely un-noticed and un-reported.  Hence the Covid obsessives in their desire to 'save lives' and 'be safe' would seem at best to be barking up the wrong tree.  At worse its downright hypocrisy, cowardice, a detachment from reality and in many cases virtue signalling.

8
 True Dat 02 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> I am not deflecting.  I don’t need to engage with your “10x” point because I credit the others on this thread with the reading skills needed to see how you’ve misrepresented me significantly, and are saying I claimed something when I did not.  This is what my “you’re a shitty weasel” comment put perhaps too succinctly for you.

So did you or did you not at 16:55 on Weds say:

> for a nation like outs in a situation where people are falling sick 10 times faster than hospitals can take them.

I have asked you for data 3 times now.  3 times you have deflected or denied you said it.  It's there in the thread above for all to see.

3
 mik82 02 Jul 2021
In reply to True Dat:

> Almost all of the deaths of the over 80's from Covid had other severe life limiting co-morbidities

No they didn't. They had "underlying medical conditions". Most people over 80 have one or more chronic conditions, things like high blood pressure, that are not severe and life limiting.

>   Anyway states like Texas, South Georgia and Florida in the US prove my point entirely.  More appropriate too as they can be compared easily with one another.

That well known US state of South Georgia? Last time I checked it was a small UK territory in the South Atlantic. What point do the other two prove? 

 True Dat 02 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

Oh and why the need to keep swearing and insulting those who disagree with you?  Have you asked yourself whether it is a reasonable and proportionate response?

6
 wintertree 02 Jul 2021
In reply to True Dat:

You really are an insufferable fool.

> I have asked you for data 3 times now.  3 times you have deflected or denied you said it.  It's there in the thread above for all to see.

I trust others on this thread to have the reading comprehension to understand that "in a situation" is a hypothetical.  Anyone who didn't understand that would clearly think I'm a simpering moron.  Which would be ironic.  Paging Alanis Morissette...

Here's a message from me in flow chart form:

Are you genuine: 

  • Yes: You understand so little about the situation over the last 15 months it's absolutely tragic.  If you genuinely think this has a been about "saving lives from Covid at all costs" you couldn't be more wrong.  You are so limited in your view that you can't comprehend the scale of disruption and destruction to healthcare and the fabric of society if we had not acted to control this virus and to buy time for improved healthcare methods and vaccines to be worked on.
  • No:  Would you mind most awfully telling me if you are doing this for amusement as a troll, or if you are a part of a larger machine seeking to push misinformation over truth and in so doing to influence people in a way that leaves more death and destruction?

> Oh and why the need to keep swearing and insulting those who disagree with you?  Have you asked yourself whether it is a reasonable and proportionate response?

I have near endless patience when it comes to replying to almost everyone on here.  As I said, it wasn't an insult it was my honest opinion.  If you find my honest opinion insulting, well, you might reflect upon that.

1
 True Dat 02 Jul 2021
In reply to mik82:

> No they didn't. They had "underlying medical conditions". Most people over 80 have one or more chronic conditions, things like high blood pressure, that are not severe and life limiting.

Yes they usually did, hence the disaster in our care homes.  Then there's the falsification of causes of death, such as this: 

https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/woman-who-fell-window-die...

How many people died 'with' rather than 'from' Coronavirus?

> That well known US state of South Georgia? Last time I checked it was a small UK territory in the South Atlantic. What point do the other two prove? 

Sorry meant South Dakota, a mental block.  Yet you have failed to respond to the question posed regarding Florida and Texas, and now of course South Dakota.  Another case of deflection of questions you would rather not answer because they don't fit your argument.  Are you a Conservative politician by any chance?

6
 jkarran 02 Jul 2021
In reply to True Dat:

> You do know that the average age of death from Covid in the UK is higher than the average age of death (81 years) from all cause mortality don't you?

So what exactly?

> You must also surely be aware that the average probability of death in a normal year for someone aged 82 years of age is in the region of 7%

So what exactly?

> So we can conclude that old people die, and quite regularly at that.  Such as has always been the case with life.  So much for a deadly pandemic.

Oh, I see, so we can pretend we don't have a problem.

> Yet we have spent £400 billion, or 3 x times the entire annual NHS budget to put it into perspective on our Covid obsession?  Just think what good we could have done with that money of we'd have spent it wisely and with a rational approach to healthcare.  So in conclusion, a massive over-reaction.

Uh huh. If you say so, whoever you are pretending to be today.

> No doubt you would say it is all worth it 'if it just saves one life', whilst conveniently ignoring the huge collateral damage to our health that is looming as a result not of Covid, but because of our chosen and hysterical response to Covid, blindly supported without any sense of perspective and realism by people like you. 

Why would I say that? I'm as interested in social and economic security as you presumably are, I just don't agree with the head in the sand ideology you're pushing, I don't think it achieves the goals and I certainly don't think it does so in a way that balances well with other valid competing interests. To still be peddling this bullshit after nearly two years of clear contrary evidence is shameless or weapons grade stupidity. My bet is on shameless shill.

jk

1
 mik82 02 Jul 2021
In reply to True Dat:

> In reply to Ramblin dave:

> Anyway the whole argument pedalled by some on here is moot in any case.  Covid is really not that bad a virus to warrant the action we have taken.

Something with the potential to kill more than 1% of the population, even without overwhelming the health system "isn't that bad"? In Peru nearly 0.6% of the entire population has already died due to Covid.  

We have only got the stage of it being not "that bad" now by muddling through with the action we took, buying the time to develop and roll out the vaccines.

1
In reply to Misha:

> Smallpox -> shingles

> Glandular fever comes and goes

> Herpes never goes away

> Must be other less common ones 

I think you mean chicken pox not smallpox (that wouldn't be minor)

 Root1 02 Jul 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

Being vaccinated doesn't necessarily mean you will have immunity. Its a bit of a lottery really. 

Just because your risk of dying is reduced doesn't mean catching it will not be a very unpleasant experience. I for one will be trying to limit my exposure.

1
In reply to Richard Horn:

> Seriously I think you need to stop letting your imagination run away with itself. Every scientist (Sage etc) I have heard talk have said that variants are expected, we should not get worked up about them, and they are most likely to become more spreadable but less harmful as they evolve. 

> They also do not rule out the fact that a more deadly variant could appear, its unlikely, but if that happens then we can react to it, and I think we are now at a point where if you are going to sit around being paranoid about a hypothetical situation then really that is your choice and you shouldnt expect the rest of the country to accept control measures targeting something that is more likely than not never to happen...

BS alert

 True Dat 02 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> You are so limited in your view that you can't comprehend the scale of disruption and destruction to healthcare and the fabric of society if we had not acted to control this virus and to buy time for improved healthcare methods and vaccines to be worked on.

I am assuming you are basing your whole assumptions on the 'modelling' and that is the big problem with your argument.  Places like Sweden, Florida, South Dakota and Texas disprove your theory.  Remember the 4,000 deaths a day predictions anyone?

Anyway how's the latest government modelling predictions going?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E25gmLYXwAQfWdQ.jpg

Deary me, the doomsters have got it wrong yet again.

6
In reply to True Dat:

I, for one, have seen Wintertree take apart enough covid sceptics on here by now to:
a) Know he could do the same for you
b) Understand his anger and unwillingness to pander to you

Quit while you're behind

 wintertree 02 Jul 2021
In reply to True Dat:

Did you know the lyrics to Inner Circle's "Bad Boys" are surprisingly hard to learn?  I've been trying for years, just can't get the chorus right. 

Have you considered meeting with your GP to discuss your concerns?

 jkarran 02 Jul 2021
In reply to Toerag:

> You do know that the average 81 year old in the UK is going to live to 89 don't you? Life expectancy is reduced by deaths in childhood and the workplace.  Once you pass those ages you are no longer vulnerable to those factors. Covid killing 81 year olds is reducing their lifespan by 8 or 9 years on average.  You are congenitally slow.

It's not misunderstanding, it's misdirection. He'll be banned and onto the next profile before he has to address your challenge, but his post stands for all to see. Flinging shit, some sticks.

> Oh, and which 'many countries' have coped perfectly well without strict lockdowns? The 'no lockdown posterboy' Sweden hasn't for example, they've killed way more than their Scandinavian counterparts who did lock down, yet had equally bad economic damage and higher restrictions placed upon their travellers.

I'm wondering this too. Could be interesting.

jk

 Dave Garnett 02 Jul 2021
In reply to Misha:

> Good point. This suggests that the human hosts developed a degree of immunity over many generations, rather than the virus itself become less ‘deadly’. We adapt to live with it but that’s measured in our lifespans rather than those of the virus...

Yes, selection works on both sides.  Virus variants that reproduce most successfully will become dominant, but that's pretty complicated.  Maybe they have a high multiplicity of replication, maybe they survive longer in the external environment, maybe they bind to ACE2 with higher affinity/avidity, maybe they evade the immune response better, maybe they produce a longer period of asymptomatic infection or any combination thereof.

On the host side, evolution is obviously much slower, and the rate will depend on the extent to which infection reduces the rate of human reproduction- also very complicated.  So, killing children and young adults has a much greater effect than killing post-reproduction aged adults but the sorts of mutations that confer greater resistance can be extremely varied and hard to predict.  Obvious ones would be mutations in the viral target receptor that abolish or reduce binding (HIV selected pretty quickly for CCR5 delta 32 mutations in Kenyan sex workers, for instance) or some other molecule required for internalisation of the virus (TNPO3 for HIV for example).  Selecting for MHC genes that better present viral peptides to the immune system is another obvious target but in many cases it's really not obvious that a particular mutation will have a useful effect until it happens naturally. 

Because of all this, it's really not at all obvious that host-parasite coevolution will inevitably lead to less troublesome disease from our point of view, nor that attempting to limit viral spread by immunisation will inevitably lead to more aggressive pathogens.  Even in the much simpler scenario of developing antibiotic resistance, it's surprisingly complicated to work out whether, for instance, it's safer to take higher doses of antibiotic for the full course (in the hope of killing every single bacterium before resistance can arise) or to give the smallest dose for the shortest possible period required to inhibit bacterial reproduction enough to let the immune system catch up and deal with the infection. 

So, any who thinks it's obvious, let alone true, that immunisation makes things worse even in the long term is talking bollocks.  And, in the short term, it really is a no-brainer.     

 True Dat 02 Jul 2021
In reply to mik82:

> Something with the potential to kill more than 1% of the population, even without overwhelming the health system "isn't that bad"?

No something with the potential to kill mostly very elderly people who are already ill, whilst leaving the younger population almost untouched.  A big difference.

> We have only got the stage of it being not "that bad" now by muddling through with the action we took, buying the time to develop and roll out the vaccines.

Okay if you believe what the government want you to believe.  Florida, Texas and South Dakota data says otherwise though.  I really don't know why you continue to ignore the bleeding obvious staring you right in the face.

5
 Dave Garnett 02 Jul 2021
In reply to True Dat:

> In reply to Ramblin dave:

> Anyway the whole argument pedalled by some on here is moot in any case.  Covid is really not that bad a virus to warrant the action we have taken.  

So, how bad would it have to be before you think doing something about would be warranted?

And how would you know, if it were a new virus where we have zero data to work on?

And how much personal inconvenience would you be willing to tolerate even if it was really bad, as long as somehow it didn't affect you?

 True Dat 02 Jul 2021
In reply to willworkforfoodjnr:

> I, for one, have seen Wintertree take apart enough covid sceptics on here by now to:

> a) Know he could do the same for you

> b) Understand his anger and unwillingness to pander to you

> Quit while you're behind

Take apart, what you mean avoiding their data based arguments and instead subjecting them to a tirade of foul language before getting them banned?  If that's your idea of to 'take apart' then hats off to you.  Many would ask why is he trying so hard to silence people with differing views if he does not feel in any way threatened by their views.

7
 True Dat 02 Jul 2021
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> So, how bad would it have to be before you think doing something about would be warranted?

> And how would you know, if it were a new virus where we have zero data to work on?

> And how much personal inconvenience would you be willing to tolerate even if it was really bad, as long as somehow it didn't affect you?

In answer to your 'straw man', why don't you address the questions I posed regarding Florida, Texas and South Dakota first?  Then I'll consider answering yours. Sound fair?

5
 wintertree 02 Jul 2021
In reply to True Dat:

> Take apart, what you mean avoiding their data based arguments and instead subjecting them to a tirade of foul language before getting them banned?  

It's not me requesting that you get banned sunshine.

> Many would ask why is he trying so hard to silence people with differing views 

How have I ever tried to silence you?  

If you're genuine in your views and engagement on here, then by return I genuinely urge you to speak to your GP about your concerns.

 True Dat 02 Jul 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> It's not me requesting that you get banned sunshine.

> > Many would ask why is he trying so hard to silence people with differing views 

> How have I ever tried to silence you?  

> If you're genuine in your views and engagement on here, then by return I genuinely urge you to speak to your GP about your concerns.

Another deflection, nice!  Instead why don't you address the questions I posed regarding Florida, Texas and South Dakota?

4
 jkarran 02 Jul 2021
In reply to True Dat:

> Okay if you believe what the government want you to believe.  Florida, Texas and South Dakota data says otherwise though.  I really don't know why you continue to ignore the bleeding obvious staring you right in the face.

For those of us without access to the professional covid-deniers talking points presentation: What exactly is the point you're making regarding these three states, what is it you claim they have or haven't done over what time frame and to what effect?

jk

Post edited at 10:53
In reply to True Dat:

> Many would ask why is he trying so hard to silence people with differing views if he does not feel in any way threatened by their views.

Based on the number of likes you are getting, I don't think you can use the word 'many' in that circumstance. Another example of you being unable to count properly?

 Dave Garnett 02 Jul 2021
In reply to True Dat:

> Okay if you believe what the government want you to believe.  Florida, Texas and South Dakota data says otherwise though.  

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us

Florida about 38K deaths so far

Texas more than 52K deaths so far

South Dakota about 2K but it only has a population of less than 900K, so you do the math.

 summo 02 Jul 2021
In reply to True Dat:

Where is 3PS? 

 True Dat 02 Jul 2021
In reply to jkarran:

> For those of us without access to the professional covid-deniers talking points presentation: What exactly is the point you're making regarding these three states, what is it you claim they have or haven't they done and to what effect?

Covid denier?  Thats a cheap tactic.  No one is denying Covid here, just that it's no where near as bad as it's made out to be.

My point is is you compare all the US states, some with very strict restrictions, some who have ditched all restrictions and returned normality then there is little difference between them.  Many of the States with little in the way of restrictions have fared better than those with tough restrictions in place.  So there goes your 'it would have been worse' argument!

I am not sure how that is that denying Covid, please explain!

6
 True Dat 02 Jul 2021
In reply to willworkforfoodjnr:

> Based on the number of likes you are getting, I don't think you can use the word 'many' in that circumstance. Another example of you being unable to count properly?

In the 'detached from reality' Echo Chamber that is UKC.

6
 True Dat 02 Jul 2021
In reply to True Dat:

Anyway I'm tired of this and have to go out now.  Arguing with clueless and narrow minded idiots who have lost all sense of perspective.  I'm off to post a 'conspiracy theorist' video on another thread to get myself banned.  Adios you pathetic bell-ends!

8
In reply to True Dat:

Bye

 Dave Garnett 02 Jul 2021
In reply to True Dat:

I thought you wanted to talk about Texas?

 True Dat 02 Jul 2021
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> I thought you wanted to talk about Texas?

Yes but no once else did.  So stay with your heads in the sand please and perhaps go and f*ck yourself.

4
 wintertree 02 Jul 2021
In reply to True Dat:

>  Adios you pathetic bell-ends!

Having had contact with a range of posters from here in the last year, I think it's the greatest concentration I've come across of people from a wide range of professions - medical, vocational and academic - that touch on almost every aspect of the pandemic and that have been frankly mauled by it.  It's hard to over-state the respect I have for the collective of people on here and their contributions to this awful situation.  

It shows the scale of our society, and what can be achieved when people put their energy in to doing good.  You have dedicated so much energy to the opposite, and yet you have achieved so little.  

 elsewhere 02 Jul 2021
In reply to True Dat:

> Adios you pathetic bell-ends!

> So stay with your heads in the sand please and perhaps go and f*ck yourself.

Such eloquence has finally convinced me of your intelligence, wit and wisdom.

 jkarran 02 Jul 2021
In reply to True Dat:

> Covid denier?  Thats a cheap tactic.  No one is denying Covid here, just that it's no where near as bad as it's made out to be.

> My point is is you compare all the US states, some with very strict restrictions, some who have ditched all restrictions and returned normality then there is little difference between them.  Many of the States with little in the way of restrictions have fared better than those with tough restrictions in place.  So there goes your 'it would have been worse' argument!

I seem to recall both Texas and Florida each making the news on at least one occasion in the last year for having to row back on their laissez faire covid policies and close hospitality to control outbreaks once covid arrived in earnest. That they're (presumably) currently operating with little restriction having vaccinated many of their more vulnerable adults isn't very interesting is it?

> I am not sure how that is that denying Covid, please explain!

You explained the denial perfectly well yourself, you deny covid poses a serious challenge. If you have a more accurate and equally succinct moniker you'd prefer, let me know.

Personally I suspect you're a paid shill on your umpteenth user profile rather than a climber who's been sucked into the professionally created bullshit vortex around covid but I acknowledge I could be wrong, you could just be prey.

jk

 timjones 02 Jul 2021
In reply to willworkforfoodjnr:

> I, for one, have seen Wintertree take apart enough covid sceptics on here by now to:

> a) Know he could do the same for you

> b) Understand his anger and unwillingness to pander to you

> Quit while you're behind

Is it always best to bow down to bullies that hide behind pseudonyms?


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Thread auto-archived as it is too large
Loading Notifications...