Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Filippo

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, the stinking enigma said:

Cavendish had epstein barr about 4 years ago, had barely won if at all since, up to this tour

Not getting your point to be honest.

Would Cav not be classed as having “Long Epstein Barr” by the same criteria (over 4 weeks) people are applying to long COVID?

The point I was making is that loads of viruses leave people fatigued afterwards and it isn’t a big deal long term.  
 

The suggestion that 8 to 15 percent of kids suffer from Long COVID is absurd.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, oooohtony said:

I am Out at link one and “suggests “ and “four week or more”

Can’t even be arsed reading the rest but there is no way that 8 to 15 percent of kids who are infected get long covid. I would be amazed if it was .1 percent, and even then that would depend on what you call long COVID.

Mark Cavendish is having a good week.  Did he have any effects over 4 weeks after the Epstein Virus he contracted and is he disabled for the rest of his life?

Quote

The office for National Statistics in the UK reported that the highest prevalence of long-COVID after 12 weeks was in those aged 25–34 years (18.2%) and lowest in the 2–11 years age band (7.4%).8 This is in accord with the most recent study from Australia, which followed 151 children (median age 3 years) for 3–6 months who predominantly had mild or asymptomatic infection followed in only 8% with ongoing symptoms.9 However, evidence from other small long-term outcome studies in children suggests that more than a half having at least one persisting symptom 4 months after COVID-19.10 Our experience is that preschool children rarely have long-COVID symptoms but those in the 6–18 age groups are significantly more frequently affected.

In the third link that you derided.

https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/27/archdischild-2021-321882

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

The virus is 18 months old data is still being gathered. 

It's just not worth engaging you is it. 

Happy to engage in a sensible discussion.

Your own quote above suggests that saying kids get long covid is absurd, because we only have 18 months of history and still gathering data?

Without being too crude, a really good dose of gastroenteritis left me weakened more than four weeks later. I lost a stone and a half in a week.

I don’t bore people with my tales of the “long squits”

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

Lockdowns are shit all round and mean you've fucked your response. That's the fundamentals of it.

Anyone who would argue they aren't a last resort is silly.

So.  Long COVID vs the long term impact on kids of lockdown?

 Such research will help to elaborate on clinical features, mechanisms and strategies to mitigate adverse outcomes. The direct effects must be distinguished from those induced by lockdowns, school closures, parental loss of income, quarantine and other illnesses.”

From the links about long covid in kids provided a few posts ago

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

Lockdowns are shit all round and mean you've fucked your response. That's the fundamentals of it.

Anyone who would argue they aren't a last resort is silly.

The only thing relevant now with regard to lockdowns is if places need them in the future.

We won’t because we have had a good vaccine project.

We did in the past. Like most other places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, oooohtony said:

The only thing relevant now with regard to lockdowns is if places need them in the future.

We won’t because we have had a good vaccine project.

We did in the past. Like most other places.

The UK is also fostering the best breeding program for a vaccine resistant strain by having about 50% of people fully protected and expecting hundreds of thousands of new infections per day. But, let's ignore that, it's only a potential risk.

Frankly, I think Boris and Co would throw the paupers under the bus for the sake of their summer holiday. I think it is as simple as that. And that's where their cost-benefit analyses have ended up pointing to. Just lock the paupers down as we move into winter and blame them again.

COVID won't kill that many people now, but, with 100k cases a day, as the Health Minister has speculated, we're liable to have significant drains on hospital resources. The UK is currently admitting ~400 a day for ~30,000 cases. If that extrapolates to 100k cases, that will be ~1200 patients a day. This will effectively clog everything up for any other treatment. Just look at what's already happening in some areas.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19423340.covid-scotland-raigmore-hospital-code-black-crisis/

There's a very interesting piece here, albeit speculative about a reasonable worst case scenario. You can read the assumptions made by a simplistic model. The author focuses on a situation where COVID spikes, but  the NHS copes.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CoronavirusUK/comments/odfzsj/a_manageable_worst_case_scenario_model_for_the/

But, to support that, hospitals would likely be cancelling and deferring treatment as they have been in previous waves. The model speculates hospital admissions somewhere between the first and second waves, accounting for vaccination. It also ignores the impact of lifting restrictions, making the assumption that the current rates of spread will persist.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

The clinically vulnerable will still have their flu jabs plus the autumn CV top ups. Outside of that what are they being left to fend for? Genuine question. The only 'new' disease that has been added to the list is CV and that's being dealt with. Many, many more people will die of heart related and influenza/.pneumonia diseases than with CV.

 

6 hours ago, oooohtony said:

Great post John.  My thoughts exactly.

Time for personal choice answers personal responsibility.

In reality that is how it has always been for the vulnerable amongst us.

The only difference now is that this particular very small risk was a much bigger risk last year, and not everyone seems capable of actually interpreting and measuring the greatly reduced risk we have now, and aligning it against all the other risks which are now similar or greater - and have always been there.


Taking transplant patients as an example, so far it looks like in nearly 50% of them, they show no immune response, after both doses. 

Doctors have advised them to treat themselves if they’ve had no vaccination. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/05/07/994260770/vaccination-against-covid-does-not-mean-immunity-for-people-with-organ-transplan

When you have speculation of 50-100k COVID cases a day, but no legal basis anymore for shielding, what do you do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lockdowns should always have been a last resort, the vast majority of countries introduced restrictions first and gradually tightened restrictions as the risks grew higher, once again we were one of the only countries to go from no restrictions to a lockdown, then from no lockdown to zero restrictions and that’s happened consistently with every lockdown that we’ve had and the end of this last one was been no different.

You reap what you sow, it’s now a case of survival of the fittest.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

 


Taking transplant patients as an example, so far it looks like in nearly 50% of them, they show no immune response, after both doses. 

Doctors have advised them to treat themselves if they’ve had no vaccination. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/05/07/994260770/vaccination-against-covid-does-not-mean-immunity-for-people-with-organ-transplan

When you have speculation of 50-100k COVID cases a day, but no legal basis anymore for shielding, what do you do?

Would those patients have had an immune response to flu, which is widespread in the population every winter?

I really don’t see why people are getting hung up on people being vulnerable to one virus, when the same people have bee vulnerable to others for years and just managed (apart from the thousands who die every year from Flu)

I am not saying COVID is flu.  I am saying that if you are vulnerable to one you are vulnerable to the other.

I will go one step further and say that in 12 months from now in the UK and IOM, more people will have died from flu and pneumonia than COVID in the previous year.  Yet people never shielded before.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, oooohtony said:

Would those patients have had an immune response to flu, which is widespread in the population every winter?

I really don’t see why people are getting hung up on people being vulnerable to one virus, when the same people have bee vulnerable to others for years and just managed (apart from the thousands who die every year from Flu)

I am not saying COVID is flu.  I am saying that if you are vulnerable to one you are vulnerable to the other.

I will go one step further and say that in 12 months from now in the UK and IOM, more people will have died from flu and pneumonia than COVID in the previous year.  Yet people never shielded before.

 

The mortality rate of COVID without vaccination on hospitalised patients is pegged at anything between 4-10x higher than flu, depending on where you look. 

And, with the prevalence of COVID rising again in the UK, you’re both far more likely to be exposed to it, and far more likely to catch it. 

So yes, whilst caution abounds during flu season, your odds of catching it are much lower, and the flu jab is known to be much more effective in transplant patients, than data is showing the COVID jabs to be.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18162092/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

The mortality rate of COVID without vaccination on hospitalised patients is pegged at anything between 4-10x higher than flu, depending on where you look. 

And, with the prevalence of COVID rising again in the UK, you’re both far more likely to be exposed to it, and far more likely to catch it. 

So yes, whilst caution abounds during flu season, your odds of catching it are much lower, and the flu jab is known to be much more effective in transplant patients, than data is showing the COVID jabs to be.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18162092/

We’ve all had flu.  Even transplant patients will have some immunity from prior exposure.  Nobody had had covid before December 2019 as far as we know, and nobody here before March 2020. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...