Can we cruise again?

[Higgs]

7 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

The triumph of hope over reality. 

Might as well ignore the science and rely on prayer.

 

You could pray that the science has nailed it, and not us. 

 

 

[doratheexplorer]

11 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

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. 

 

 

That's gonna need a translation.  When you say 'precautionary medication', do you mean a vaccine?

 

And I'll ask again, what part of what I said was authoritarian?

[Higgs]

12 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

That's gonna need a translation.  When you say 'precautionary medication', do you mean a vaccine?

 

As is the norm with flu. It isn't a blanket treatment, it's a selective treatment. 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Higgs

[peterboat]

2 hours 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's okay as long as you are showing symptoms spreaders often don't, I suspect that they will do what we are doing and allow a controlled spread with vulnerable people isolating,  no vaccine equals herd immunity or constant lockdown, which for Germany isn't something that they want 

[Higgs]

 

A lot of weight is being placed on herd immunity. Even if those with this immunity catch the virus again, they have already proved a resilience to it. No vaccine around. Why should those people be forced to have a vaccine?

 

 

 

[Machpoint005]

6 hours ago, frangar said:

By getting in a motor vehicle we are putting others lives at risk yet that’s not about to be banned anytime soon. 

 

That risk can (and should) be mitigated by not driving like a complete bell-end though.

 

[Machpoint005]

1 hour ago, churchward said:

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.

 

Yes, this ^^^

 

[Flyboy]

34 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

You could pray that the science has nailed it, and not us. 

 

 

The science /testing failed big time in the 60's with Thalidomide.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

[Machpoint005]

2 hours 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

 

Fascinating article -- thanks for posting the link.

1 hour ago, churchward said:

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

 

I tihnk that still differs in Wales and England, does it not?

[Higgs]

3 minutes ago, Flyboy said:

The science /testing failed big time in the 60's with Thalidomide.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

 

It did. I hope we've learned to be better. I don't believe in infallibility. I accept the car might break down, but I wouldn't accept that reliability question possibility with medicine. 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Higgs

[Machpoint005]

3 minutes ago, Flyboy said:

The science /testing failed big time in the 60's with Thalidomide.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

 

As a direct result of the unforseen consequences of unintended applications for Thalidomide (it was not developed as an anti-emetic in pregnancy) the testing regime for new drugs has come a long way since then. 

 

I therefore think your point is invalid and unhelpful, more than 50 years later. 

20 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

A lot of weight is being placed on herd immunity. Even if those with this immunity catch the virus again, they have already proved a resilience to it. No vaccine around. Why should those people be forced to have a vaccine?

 

 

 

 

Because if they do catch the virus again they will be spreading it!

 

[frahkn]

2 hours ago, WotEver said:

Gosh, what a surprise [/sarcasm]

There is not a lot about the Nuremberg trials on the sites of Hoechst, BASF, Agfa or Bayer either, though they were members of the I G Farben syndicate, producer of gas for the extermination camps. Quite odd really.

[Higgs]

10 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

Yes, this ^^^

 

Not everyone would benefit from a vaccine. 

 

 

[Sir Nibble]

18 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

A lot of weight is being placed on herd immunity. Even if those with this immunity catch the virus again, they have already proved a resilience to it. No vaccine around. Why should those people be forced to have a vaccine?

 

 

 

One, an individual cannot have herd immunity, it's an oxymoron.

Two, the reported second infections have proved to be nothing of the kind and the evidence is that infection and recovery does confer immunity.

Three, those who have such immunity have gained it in the riskiest way possible, by inadvertent vaccination by a live virus.

[Machpoint005]

From another thread (thanks Loddon):

 

"Bottom line: the only reason the total USA new case numbers look flat right now is because the New York City epidemic was so large and now it is being contained."

 

I suggest the same applies, to some extent at least, to the UK and London. North-west England is something like two weeks behind the London curve, for example.

[The Welsh Cruiser]

I've just had a thought: why is it apparently racist to call this disease 'Wuhan flu' or 'Chinese Flu' when the last similar pandemic is widely known as, seemingly with no racism inferred: 'Spanish flu'? 

[Machpoint005]

Why use either of those terms when "Covid-19" or "coronavirus" are more apt anyway?

 

Presumably you didn't "get" why Trump was wrong to storm out of his press conference after insulting an Asian-American reporter either?

 

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Machpoint005

[Higgs]

Just now, Sir Nibble said:

One, an individual cannot have herd immunity, it's an oxymoron.

Two, the reported second infections have proved to be nothing of the kind and the evidence is that infection and recovery does confer immunity.

Three, those who have such immunity have gained it in the riskiest way possible, by inadvertent vaccination by a live virus.

 

A person is one element, and wouldn't been mentioned, if they did not form part of a larger group that had contracted the virus and had antibodies. There are people that do have need of a vaccine. They will be identified and recognised by the medical establishment. 

 

 

[Sir Nibble]

Just now, Higgs said:

 

A person is one element, and wouldn't been mentioned, if they did not form part of a larger group that had contracted the virus and had antibodies. There are people that do have need of a vaccine. They will be identified and recognised by the medical establishment. 

 

 

Your first sentence makes no sense to me. Herd immunity covers a sufficient proportion of the population to halt the spread of the disease or it isn't herd immunity.

The second sentence is true enough and covers all those potentially at risk, ie everyone.

[WotEver]

3 minutes ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

I've just had a thought: why is it apparently racist to call this disease 'Wuhan flu' or 'Chinese Flu' when the last similar pandemic is widely known as, seemingly with no racism inferred: 'Spanish flu'? 

Don’t overlook that hindsight informs us that Spanish Flu was incorrectly attributed to originating in Spain, simply because they were the first country to openly publish the deaths from the epidemic. So having got that wrong perhaps it’s best to simply refer to it by its name. 

[Higgs]

10 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

Your first sentence makes no sense to me. Herd immunity covers a sufficient proportion of the population to halt the spread of the disease or it isn't herd immunity.

The second sentence is true enough and covers all those potentially at risk, ie everyone.

 

I made reference to herd immunity. Herd - I get it. So, with all this immunity expected (naturally), why force these people, apart from the those that were effected severely, why should the others with a naturally produced immunity be forced to have a vaccine.  

 

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Higgs

[Machpoint005]

...and another argument in an empty room gets under way.

 

[Higgs]

 

They're not going to use what will be a limited supply of vaccine on the least-likely-to-need-it first. 

 

Age, ethnicity, occupational exposure......, underlying health problems.

 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Higgs

[Sir Nibble]

5 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

I made reference to herd immunity. Herd - I get it. So, with all this immunity expected (naturally), why force these people, apart from the those that were effected severely, why should the others with a naturally produced immunity be forced to have a vaccine.  

 

 

Acquiring herd immunity naturally through infection will cost lives, acquiring it through vaccination won't. Question for the whole class, which is best? It's perfectly reasonable to achieve herd immunity with considerably less than 100% take-up of vaccination and I have never suggested it should be compulsory. Last year refusal of measles vaccine by anti vaxers in the USA compromised herd immunity and unvaccinated children died. There might be an argument for making it compulsory for children to save them dying from their parents ill informed bad choices.

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Sir Nibble said:

Acquiring herd immunity naturally through infection will cost lives, acquiring it through vaccination won't. Question for the whole class, which is best? It's perfectly reasonable to achieve herd immunity with considerably less than 100% take-up of vaccination and I have never suggested it should be compulsory. Last year refusal of measles vaccine by anti vaxers in the USA compromised herd immunity and unvaccinated children died. There might be an argument for making it compulsory for children to save them dying from their parents ill informed bad choices.

 

You go to the doctor, you've been called in; you have antibodies - do you get vaccinated? I wouldn't.