Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Filippo

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

This is where I'm at now. Been trying to condense it into a simple to swallow paragraph.

If this virus had been around for 100 years already it would be a general cold now, and a 50 year old person would have had about 10 infections in their life giving them enough immunity from severe effects. Because this virus is new no one has that. So the vaccines are trying to recreate all that learned immunity to lesson the effects, in a very short amount of time. Cos it is urgent. And they are really really good at it too. It isn't trying to stop transmission because that's impossible, this virus is going to settle into a pattern where it infects about 70% of the population every 3 years or so for ever. We can hasten this endemic state by vaccinating like crazy and not worrying about high transmission, especially in children. There are loads of respiratory viruses that circulate wildly in kids from which they gain immunity for later life, this one is will ultimately be seen no differently. It's just a game of catch up is all. 

I remain amazed that people can think that 'vaccinate and open up' is anything other than the correct thing to be doing.

Also, isolated communities are always susceptible to common illnesses. Suppression has consequences.

The problem here is there's absolutely no evidence this will become a cold. Yes it's a coronavirus but you can't predict behaviour from its classification. You might as well say Stalin & Mother Teresa should behave the same as they are both from the same genus. You can't judge people or viruses from their appearance. 

Many viruses are endemic & have not become relatively benign. Polio being but one example. 

We have no idea what, if any, long term effects this virus will have on the body or if those effects differ depending on whether the immune system of the person is mature or immature. Some viruses cause malignancy quite quickly. Viruses also trigger autoimmune disorders eg type 1 diabetes - which "coincidentally" has seen a sudden rise in kids. 

It seems that those who suggest that a degree of caution is both ethical & reasonable before infecting an entire generation multiple times are viewed as extreme. Yet we are now subjecting that generation to be test subjects, without consent or ethical approval, in a massive experiment. 

Of course you may be right, indeed I hope you are but by the time we find out there may be considerable long term problems for the youngest, whose protection is the responsibility of adults. 

 

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

16 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Faces are an important part of communication.

Sure  they are. I'm deaf and lip read somewhat, so I'm aware of that, possibly more so than you. However that doesn't alter the point that a decent mask provides the user with protection. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, momo65 said:

The problem here is there's absolutely no evidence this will become a cold. Yes it's a coronavirus but you can't predict behaviour from its classification. You might as well say Stalin & Mother Teresa should behave the same as they are both from the same genus. You can't judge people or viruses from their appearance. 

Many viruses are endemic & have not become relatively benign. Polio being but one example. 

We have no idea what, if any, long term effects this virus will have on the body or if those effects differ depending on whether the immune system of the person is mature or immature. Some viruses cause malignancy quite quickly. Viruses also trigger autoimmune disorders eg type 1 diabetes - which "coincidentally" has seen a sudden rise in kids. 

It seems that those who suggest that a degree of caution is both ethical & reasonable before infecting an entire generation multiple times are viewed as extreme. Yet we are now subjecting that generation to be test subjects, without consent or ethical approval, in a massive experiment. 

Of course you may be right, indeed I hope you are but by the time we find out there may be considerable long term problems for the youngest, whose protection is the responsibility of adults. 

 

I'm not saying it will be easy, and I'm also not saying it should be ignored. Also, for the avoidance of doubt, i'm not saying the virus will become more benign either, I'm saying our response to it will continue to get better. I've been pretty consistent on here about the likelihood of a sustained period of excess death, hopefully not too much because of the vaccines (new ONS today reporting remarkable results). We've got a lot of catching up to do, immunity wise. 

Edited by TheTeapot
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

Living with it doesn't mean ignoring it. I think people get a bit mixed up. Maybe its brain fog.

But for most of those claiming we should "Live with it", ignoring it is exactly what they mean.   "Shut your eyes really tight and naughty Mr Covid will go away" is pretty much their mindset.

"Live with it" is literally meaningless unless people say how they intend that we should live it it.  How many extra deaths a month are acceptable?  How much extra money do we give to the health service to treat those who fall ill?  What permanent mitigation measures do we put in place?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

But for most of those claiming we should "Live with it", ignoring it is exactly what they mean.   "Shut your eyes really tight and naughty Mr Covid will go away" is pretty much their mindset.

"Live with it" is literally meaningless unless people say how they intend that we should live it it.  How many extra deaths a month are acceptable?  How much extra money do we give to the health service to treat those who fall ill?  What permanent mitigation measures do we put in place?

Unless mitigation’s are mandatory then vast majority will not comply, I went into Tesco Friday for about 20 minutes and I would estimate that only 1/2% had masks on and lots of elderly were standing around chatting & blocking aisles s normal!!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Roger Mexico said:

But for most of those claiming we should "Live with it", ignoring it is exactly what they mean.   "Shut your eyes really tight and naughty Mr Covid will go away" is pretty much their mindset.

"Live with it" is literally meaningless unless people say how they intend that we should live it it.  How many extra deaths a month are acceptable?  How much extra money do we give to the health service to treat those who fall ill?  What permanent mitigation measures do we put in place?

Are there extra deaths here and in the UK at the moment or are they actually down on the five year average?

To me living with it is simple.  You take your own precautions if you want to and let the rest of us live our lives exactly as we did pre COVID.  Our family are all as vaccinated as we can be. Some of had it and were fine, others didn’t get it (or didn’t notice).  The elderly members of the family are as in bothered as the rest and we are doing everything exactly as we used to.

I get that others are more cautious though and am not offering handshakes unless someone else does, giving people space in shops etc and keeping well away from anyone in a mask.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

I'm not saying it will be easy, and I'm also not saying it should be ignored. Also, for the avoidance of doubt, i'm not saying the virus will become more benign either, I'm saying our response to it will continue to get better. I've been pretty consistent on here about the likelihood of a sustained period of excess death, hopefully not too much because of the vaccines (new ONS today reporting remarkable results). We've got a lot of catching up to do, immunity wise. 

I would accept that for adults who have had the choice of immunisation & can further protect themselves by their own choices. However children have been offered neither vaccines nor mitigations. Over 100 have died in the UK and paediatric units are seeing a x4 increase in admissions. That does seem somewhat negligent especially as this is the group most likely to show any long term effects (simply due to living longer for any such affects to appear). 

The problem is that parents are being given no choice but to participate in the gamble. If they were being offered the opportunity to immunise then it may be different but currently they aren't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

"Live with it" is literally meaningless unless people say how they intend that we should live it it. 

The phrase sounds meaningful and authoritative but is just a load of empty bollox reallty. It has become a throw away phrase. Like "going forward", "to be honest", or the incredibly overused word "incredibly".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, momo65 said:

I would accept that for adults who have had the choice of immunisation & can further protect themselves by their own choices. However children have been offered neither vaccines nor mitigations. Over 100 have died in the UK and paediatric units are seeing a x4 increase in admissions. That does seem somewhat negligent especially as this is the group most likely to show any long term effects (simply due to living longer for any such affects to appear). 

The problem is that parents are being given no choice but to participate in the gamble. If they were being offered the opportunity to immunise then it may be different but currently they aren't. 

Over 100 in nearly two years?  Nearly all of whom had underlying health conditions.

Sorry, but that isn’t a valid reason to impact millions of others of kids lives.

People of all ages die for all sorts of reasons all the time.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Ramseyboi said:

Over 100 in nearly two years?  Nearly all of whom had underlying health conditions.

Sorry, but that isn’t a valid reason to impact millions of others of kids lives.

People of all ages die for all sorts of reasons all the time.

One hundred this year. So children with underlying conditions are expendable or unworthy of life? Those underlying conditions may include those recovered from cancers etc who could have had long fruitful lives. The concept of life unworthy of life is not something any civilised person or society should promote. 

They weren't given a choice. Their parents weren't given a choice to vaccinate or protect their kids but threatened with prosecution if they didn't send them to school to be exposed. 

Those who want their freedom of choice are denying those millions of kids and their parents of choice by enforced participation in mass infection whose long term effects are unknown. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, momo65 said:

One hundred this year. So children with underlying conditions are expendable or unworthy of life? Those underlying conditions may include those recovered from cancers etc who could have had long fruitful lives. The concept of life unworthy of life is not something any civilised person or society should promote.

So do we ban all cars?  Pushbikes? Football? Rugby? Skiing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, momo65 said:

I would accept that for adults who have had the choice of immunisation & can further protect themselves by their own choices. However children have been offered neither vaccines nor mitigations. Over 100 have died in the UK and paediatric units are seeing a x4 increase in admissions. That does seem somewhat negligent especially as this is the group most likely to show any long term effects (simply due to living longer for any such affects to appear). 

The problem is that parents are being given no choice but to participate in the gamble. If they were being offered the opportunity to immunise then it may be different but currently they aren't. 

I don't want to sound callous, cos for those involved it'll be really shit, but is 100 a lot? In a pandemic? Out of 150000 people dead in the UK from it? I don't really agree it is, in fact the general absence of child mortality is one of the only positive bits, imagine how much worse this would have been if it were a new influenza strain or something, where child mortality was high.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, momo65 said:

The problem here is there's absolutely no evidence this will become a cold. Yes it's a coronavirus but you can't predict behaviour from its classification. You might as well say Stalin & Mother Teresa should behave the same as they are both from the same genus. You can't judge people or viruses from their appearance. 

Many viruses are endemic & have not become relatively benign. Polio being but one example. 

We have no idea what, if any, long term effects this virus will have on the body or if those effects differ depending on whether the immune system of the person is mature or immature. Some viruses cause malignancy quite quickly. Viruses also trigger autoimmune disorders eg type 1 diabetes - which "coincidentally" has seen a sudden rise in kids. 

It seems that those who suggest that a degree of caution is both ethical & reasonable before infecting an entire generation multiple times are viewed as extreme. Yet we are now subjecting that generation to be test subjects, without consent or ethical approval, in a massive experiment. 

Of course you may be right, indeed I hope you are but by the time we find out there may be considerable long term problems for the youngest, whose protection is the responsibility of adults. 

 

If I may make a suggestion; the glass can also be half full as well as half empty. 

I also think your emotive use of language, which I am sure is intended to reinforce your doomsday outlook, unfortunately doesn't wash with a lot of people and is quite rightly viewed as extreme.

'A generation of test subjects', 'massive experiment' and 'considerable long term problems' is completely unnecessary and is used to provoke fear and anxiety.

I'd much rather read someone like Teapots reasoned and more eloquent summary of the situation. Rational thinking resonates better with most people. 

Edited by Danoo
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ramseyboi said:

So do we ban all cars?  Pushbikes? Football? Rugby? Skiing?

We put restrictions on cars, rugby is no contact for kids, pushbikes we train kids to minimise their risks & they and their parents can choose to ski. 

Currently they have no choice to avoid infection. 

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...