Can we cruise again?

[Higgs]

24 minutes ago, churchward said:

It is also not comfortable that there are people around who do not give a damn about what happens to others.  Time and life is a precious thing even if the time remaining can be counted in weeks or months.  A virus taking away that time must be stopped otherwise our freedoms and civilisation are for nought, to do otherwise is to be no better than ignorant savages.

 

As things are, medical interventions are being rushed, out of urgency. The government is being criticised for double-checking a test for antibodies. Proper testing of a vaccine is not going to be a quick matter. When a vaccine appears on the scene, let's hope it isn't without thorough testing. I think it is too harsh to think any person refusing a vaccine is utterly deplorable. It would be possible to insist on a period of quarantine for these people, 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Higgs

[WotEver]

14 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

The other is population density which is harder to compare I guess.

Even harder than you might think...

https://theconversation.com/think-your-country-is-crowded-these-maps-reveal-the-truth-about-population-density-across-europe-90345

[The Welsh Cruiser]

2 minutes ago, churchward said:

Sure, it is not a comfortable thought to make vaccination compulsory.  It is not comfortable that any of our personal freedoms have been removed during this extraordinary time but they have all the same.  Although I do hope that people remember how they missed these freedoms when it is all over and think how privileged we are in this country. 

 

As I said above you do not need 100% of people to be vaccinated for it to work and keep the virus at bay you just need enough to so that an infected person is more likely to meet another with immunity and so break the chain of infection and keep the create of infection low so there is no epidemic. So, as long as the take up voluntarily is enough there will be no need to for mandatory vaccination.

 

It is also not comfortable that there are people around who do not give a damn about what happens to others.  Time and life is a precious thing even if the time remaining can be counted in weeks or months.  A virus taking away that time must be stopped otherwise our freedoms and civilisation are for nought, to do otherwise is to be no better than ignorant savages.

Fair enough. Personally, I would not have such a vaccination. It's my belief that the best way to stay in good health is to be physically strong and fit, eat healthily and try to avoid stress, as much as possible. I know this flies in the face of scientific fact e.g. a fit person is just as likely to contract the virus as someone who survives on pizza, beer and cigarettes. However it's also a fact that the majority of those who succumb to the disease are not in great shape. While this might appear to be a bit selfish on the face of things, a fit and healthy person is just as likely to catch and pass on the disease as anyone else, there's more to it than that. For example a fit and healthy person is less likely to burden the NHS in other ways. As long as some groups are allowed to deny their organs following death to others who may need them to survive, others are allowed to show a callous disregard for their own health, knowing the NHS will always be there for them; any vaccination must be voluntary.   

[doratheexplorer]

3 minutes ago, WotEver said:

Even harder than you might think...

https://theconversation.com/think-your-country-is-crowded-these-maps-reveal-the-truth-about-population-density-across-europe-90345

Yes.  The way the population is distributed is of key importance.  There seems to be something of a threshold density above which it become very difficult to control transmission without a very strict lockdown.  Hence the extreme high levels in places like Manhattan and Central London.

[Athy]

25 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

link please.  I've quoted from the Spanish government's own published figures.  In any case, you have clearly cherry picked two specific dates.  The trend is what's important.  What do these WHO figures say about that?

I have been following Worldometer, whose figures I have no reason to doubt. Their graph for new infections in Spain did indeed show the figure which WVag suggested for one recent day but, as you have indicated, this was a "spike" in a generally downward trend. Lies, damned lies, statistics.....

[churchward]

1 hour ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

What Germany is experiencing isn't any 'problem' of early lockdown, what they are experiencing is exactly what is expected when any country starts to come out of lockdown, a rise in deaths and infections. With their capacity for testing (on Tuesday they announced their weekly test capacity is 838,000, we can't maintain 700,000) they are in a far better place than we are going to be,

That is not entirely true and in any case testing in itself does not fix the infection situation it just measures it.  Adjusting for population the testing capacity of UK and Germany is now roughly the same.  As always it is about what is done with the information testing provides that makes a difference.

 

Spain has tested (out of larger countries of 10s of millions of population) the most percentage of population about 5.2%  and Italy about 4.5% Germany is around 3.7%  The UK is presently aprox. 3.0%  The USA who have tested the most in total tests (10million) is again about 3.1% of their population.

 

Testing capacity has been an issue for the UK as the ability within the UK to process tests was not nearly sufficient.  This is being fixed by building new test facilities. The bottle neck is still the labs ability to process efficiently mainly, test kits and places to get tested or receive home kits is not so much of an issue now.  Getting a result can take too long.  To do efficient track & trace the elapse time between test and result needs to be as short as possible.

Edited May 14, 2020 by churchward

[doratheexplorer]

4 minutes ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

Fair enough. Personally, I would not have such a vaccination. It's my belief that the best way to stay in good health is to be physically strong and fit, eat healthily and try to avoid stress, as much as possible. I know this flies in the face of scientific fact e.g. a fit person is just as likely to contract the virus as someone who survives on pizza, beer and cigarettes. However it's also a fact that the majority of those who succumb to the disease are not in great shape. While this might appear to be a bit selfish on the face of things, a fit and healthy person is just as likely to catch and pass on the disease as anyone else, there's more to it than that. For example a fit and healthy person is less likely to burden the NHS in other ways. As long as some groups are allowed to deny their organs following death to others who may need them to survive, others are allowed to show a callous disregard for their own health, knowing the NHS will always be there for them; any vaccination must be voluntary.   

None of that explains why you would refuse a vaccination?  Could you explain?

[Athy]

18 hours ago, WotEver said:

Point of order m'lud... isn't it 'lurgy'?

I believe that the first spelling was "Lurgi", from the abbreviated name of a German company called something like Metallurgische Gesellschaft. I worked for them as an office temp. at their Holborn offices some years ago, and it was explained to me that they had manufactured the poison gas (phosgene? mustard?) in World War One, and that this was the origin of the phrase "the dreaded Lurgi". Surprisingly, I can find no mention of this facet of their business in their internet history.

[The Welsh Cruiser]

1 minute ago, doratheexplorer said:

None of that explains why you would refuse a vaccination?  Could you explain?

I believe, as much as possible, that's it's best to try to live your life without having unnatural things injected into you, or ingested. So, personally: I don't have any 'jabs' when I go to parts of the world that have tropical diseases, preferring to conduct myself in such a way that makes catching any of these things unlikely. I live with a chronic health condition that isn't life threatening or life shortening but is, or rather was, troubling, for all the hours I'm awake, every day. Rather than pump drugs into myself every day, as suggested by my consultant, I chose to accept the condition and live with it. This has worked rather well. 

 

As long as this virus is around I shall be giving people space in order that they pose less risk to me, and me less risk to them. As for anything else; I'd need to be arrested first, restrained, and forcibly injected by the state. 

[WotEver]

3 minutes ago, Athy said:

Surprisingly, I can find no mention of this facet of their business in their internet history.

Gosh, what a surprise [/sarcasm]

[churchward]

6 minutes ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

Fair enough. Personally, I would not have such a vaccination. It's my belief that the best way to stay in good health is to be physically strong and fit, eat healthily and try to avoid stress, as much as possible. I know this flies in the face of scientific fact e.g. a fit person is just as likely to contract the virus as someone who survives on pizza, beer and cigarettes. However it's also a fact that the majority of those who succumb to the disease are not in great shape. While this might appear to be a bit selfish on the face of things, a fit and healthy person is just as likely to catch and pass on the disease as anyone else, there's more to it than that. For example a fit and healthy person is less likely to burden the NHS in other ways. As long as some groups are allowed to deny their organs following death to others who may need them to survive, others are allowed to show a callous disregard for their own health, knowing the NHS will always be there for them; any vaccination must be voluntary.   

There are enough examples of healthy fit younger people who have succumbed to this virus to think otherwise.  I agree though in being healthy generally you are giving yourself a better chance but it is still just a chance.  For instance although very unlikely people do manage to win the lottery.

 

It is also a fact that those who refuse to have a vaccine administered (assuming it is successful) will be protected by those who do get one. 

 

Although voluntary vaccination is very much preferable the greater good of defeating the virus must take precedence as you do not have and cannot have the freedom to kill other people.  I doubt it will need to get to vaccination being mandatory their will be enough socially reasonable people to keep those who refuse safe.

[Higgs]

 

 

2 minutes ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

As long as this virus is around I shall be giving people space in order that they pose less risk to me, and me less risk to them. As for anything else; I'd need to be arrested first, restrained, and forcibly injected by the state. 

 

I don't think many will refuse, but it's all going to be done on trust - that the science and testing has been spot on. 

 

 

[The Welsh Cruiser]

Just now, churchward said:

There are enough examples of healthy fit younger people who have succumbed to this virus to think otherwise.  I agree though in being healthy generally you are giving yourself a better chance but it is still just a chance.  For instance although very unlikely people do manage to win the lottery.

 

It is also a fact that those who refuse to have a vaccine administered (assuming it is successful) will be protected by those who do get one. 

 

Although voluntary vaccination is very much preferable the greater good of defeating the virus must take precedence as you do not have and cannot have the freedom to kill other people.  I doubt it will need to get to vaccination being mandatory their will be enough socially reasonable people to keep those who refuse safe.

As I hinted earlier; I'd be more likely to have the vaccine myself, and be more accepting of this being mandatory, if this applied for all medical interventions that are for the common good. So, as long as people are allowed to deny their organs being used on death to save the life of others, perhaps because of cultural reasons or religious beliefs, I should have an equal right to skip on a covid jab, for my own philosophical/ spiritual reasons. 

[churchward]

9 minutes ago, Athy said:

I believe that the first spelling was "Lurgi", from the abbreviated name of a German company called something like Metallurgische Gesellschaft. I worked for them as an office temp. at their Holborn offices some years ago, and it was explained to me that they had manufactured the poison gas (phosgene? mustard?) in World War One, and that this was the origin of the phrase "the dreaded Lurgi". Surprisingly, I can find no mention of this facet of their business in their internet history.

When I worked in Germany I worked in the computer dept of a steel works.  That steel works had been there many years and was previously owned by Herman Goring (yes the Reich Marshal) prior and during WWII and his family owned many others this was in similar fashion not "advertised" widely.  To be honest though I can't blame them it was not something to be proud of.

[churchward]

7 minutes ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

As I hinted earlier; I'd be more likely to have the vaccine myself, and be more accepting of this being mandatory, if this applied for all medical interventions that are for the common good. So, as long as people are allowed to deny their organs being used on death to save the life of others, perhaps because of cultural reasons or religious beliefs, I should have an equal right to skip on a covid jab, for my own philosophical/ spiritual reasons. 

I have made no serious mention of denying people treatment of any kind.  A guiding principle of our NHS is that it is open for all regardless of circumstance and free at point of access.

 

The law regarding assumed consent for organ donation is good enough.

Edited May 14, 2020 by churchward

[Higgs]

 

How much pressure is reasonable, to expect the production of a vaccine. Desperately needed, but can we afford impatience? Consequently, patience placing a remedy further down the line than would be hoped - maybe. 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Higgs

[churchward]

40 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

As things are, medical interventions are being rushed, out of urgency. The government is being criticised for double-checking a test for antibodies. Proper testing of a vaccine is not going to be a quick matter. When a vaccine appears on the scene, let's hope it isn't without thorough testing. I think it is too harsh to think any person refusing a vaccine is utterly deplorable. It would be possible to insist on a period of quarantine for these people, 

 

 

The thing is that we are all choosing between sub-optimal choices and circumstances i.e. what is the lesser evil if you will.

 

If a vaccine is effective the more people who have it the better and as I said above the people who do will be protecting the people who do not.  People do not have the right to choose to endanger others when it comes to this virus.

[Higgs]

2 minutes ago, churchward said:

The thing is that we are all choosing between sub-optimal choices and circumstances i.e. what is the lesser evil if you will.

 

If a vaccine is effective the more people who have it the better and as I said above the people who do will be protecting the people who do not.  People do not have the right to choose to endanger others when it comes to this virus.

 

I think we could argue this freedom of choice all day. We are, all the time, making choices that are not in the best interests of humanity or ourselves. I don't think many will refuse, so low, I'm not sure it will matter. 

 

 

[churchward]

Just now, Higgs said:

 

I think we could argue this freedom of choice all day. We are, all the time, making choices that are not in the best interests of humanity or ourselves. I don't think many will refuse, so low, I'm not sure it will matter. 

 

 

Indeed.  As I said above I doubt mandatory vaccination will be needed and you only need 60-70% to defeat the virus and keep the infection rate low.

 

Normally I am a keen advocate of our personal freedoms they are precious too but the choices that need to be made are sub-optimal and if we have the means via a vaccine (it is still an "if")  to get back to more normal living that needs to be done even if that meant an uncomfortable choice to get us there.  

[Higgs]

2 minutes ago, churchward said:

Indeed.  As I said above I doubt mandatory vaccination will be needed and you only need 60-70% to defeat the virus and keep the infection rate low.

 

Normally I am a keen advocate of our personal freedoms they are precious too but the choices that need to be made are sub-optimal and if we have the means via a vaccine (it is still an "if")  to get back to more normal living that needs to be done even if that meant an uncomfortable choice to get us there.  

 

I have no problems with a vaccine. People have to be assured of its safety. 

 

 

[doratheexplorer]

40 minutes ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

I believe, as much as possible, that's it's best to try to live your life without having unnatural things injected into you, or ingested. So, personally: I don't have any 'jabs' when I go to parts of the world that have tropical diseases, preferring to conduct myself in such a way that makes catching any of these things unlikely. I live with a chronic health condition that isn't life threatening or life shortening but is, or rather was, troubling, for all the hours I'm awake, every day. Rather than pump drugs into myself every day, as suggested by my consultant, I chose to accept the condition and live with it. This has worked rather well. 

 

As long as this virus is around I shall be giving people space in order that they pose less risk to me, and me less risk to them. As for anything else; I'd need to be arrested first, restrained, and forcibly injected by the state. 

I'm very thankful that most people don't share your view.  If they did then millions worldwide would be dead who could easily be protected.  Part of the point of a vaccine is to protect the individual.  The other part is often overlooked but it's that each vaccinated person protects those around them, the people they love most.  Sadly the rise in a individualistic ideology has gone hand in hand with the rise in the anti-vax movement.  I don't believe that to be a coincidence.

 

As to your second paragraph, there are two long term possible outcomes:

 

1.  An effective vaccine is developed and this eventually leads to the totally eradication of the disease. 

 

2.  No vaccine is developed and the virus is around for good.

 

Outcome one means you benefit from the actions of other despite not contributing yourself.

 

Outcome two means you socially distance for the rest of your life.

 

Personally, I would feel decidedly uncomfortable being you if outcome one happened.  But that's where we're different I guess.

 

 

[Higgs]

9 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

I'm very thankful that most people don't share your view.  If they did then millions worldwide would be dead who could easily be protected.  Part of the point of a vaccine is to protect the individual.  The other part is often overlooked but it's that each vaccinated person protects those around them, the people they love most.  Sadly the rise in a individualistic ideology has gone hand in hand with the rise in the anti-vax movement.  I don't believe that to be a coincidence.

 

As to your second paragraph, there are two long term possible outcomes:

 

1.  An effective vaccine is developed and this eventually leads to the totally eradication of the disease. 

 

2.  No vaccine is developed and the virus is around for good.

 

Outcome one means you benefit from the actions of other despite not contributing yourself.

 

Outcome two means you socially distance for the rest of your life.

 

Personally, I would feel decidedly uncomfortable being you if outcome one happened.  But that's where we're different I guess.

 

 

 

Too heavy handed and authoritarian. IMO. Our bodies may become more adept at a long term solution than a vaccine. 

 

 

 

[doratheexplorer]

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Too heavy handed and authoritarian. IMO. Our bodies may become more adept at a long term solution than a vaccine. 

 

 

 

'Adept'?  what? 

'may become'?

 

Which part of what I said was authoritarian?

[Sir Nibble]

The triumph of hope over reality. 

Might as well ignore the science and rely on prayer.

[Higgs]

7 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

'Adept'?  what? 

'may become'?

 

Which part of what I said was authoritarian?

 

We live in a risky world and we have developed defences through exposure. The most vulnerable would be helped by being given extra precautionary medication. 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Higgs