Face masks

[Rorschach]

It was a major enough threat to both my mother and aunt, who it killed. Not lost a relative yet ? Think yourself lucky.

I am sorry for your loss, but with respect the fact you lost someone doesn't make it any more deadly, it just changes your perception of it as it feels very close to home.

And yes we (probably) have lost someone. I say probably because they died in February with C19 symptoms but before there was proper testing etc so I can't say with 100% certainty.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

.....How about we have a digital only currency, and anyone who doesn't voluntarily get their vaccine (or comply with a myriad other "voluntary social requests") loses their access to money? That should provide sufficient encouragement to enforce groupthink. Or just shoot anyone who doesn't comply? That used to be the favourite of the tyrannical.

Sometimes hyperbole doesn't help make your case. It makes your case look ridiculous instead.

Most central banks are looking at a digital only blockchain currency: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ailey-says The implications of this are zero privacy, no hiding from arbitrary bank charges, negative interest rates, and losing access to your money should someone decide to recind your "right" to your digital account. The ultimate way to ensure compliance - you don't have to behave, but you can't take part economically until you submit to the greater good. This would be the perfect incentive, would it not?

If the vaccine works, then those who are vaccinated have no need to fear.

That fails to understand vaccines and how they work in a population. Say it has an efficacy of 75%........we would be back to relying on herd immunity in which we all protect each other by being vaccinated.

You mean, if the vaccine doesn't work, in other words]. 75%, which is what has been suggested, is actually less effective than the current built in immune system.

Why the overwhelming need to force people to do things to their bodies that they don't want to do?

The greater good. Herd immunity. Oh, and I didn't suggest forcing anyone. I suggested making access to certain places and services conditional on having a vaccination. Up to you then to balance out how important those places and services are to you against how important your views on vaccination are to you.

see above for a few reasons why enforced social compliance is to be avoided. If you want a few more examples, Chinese credit scores, puritans, Pol Pot's regime etc are all good examples. Or just read 1984 and Brave New World again.

Frankly, I don't want to live in a society where someone else has the power to make decisions about my body.

Bad luck, you already do.

Currently we have Habius Corpus to keep the psychopaths in check, for a very good reason. Checks and balances are needed.

It smacks of slavery.....

No, that's hyperbole again. Under the scenario I suggested, you would be free to not have a vaccination if you chose not to. However, with rights go responsibilities, and so if you want the benefits of living in society you have to accept society's rules.

Again, see above for a few thoughts on freedoms and enforced compliance - I don't think we are going to agree here

Don't forget, I wasn't advocating this course of action, I was predicting it.

It will be interesting to see how the frightened sheep take to it, and whether there are any consequences. I agree that it may come to pass - should be an interesting experiment. Good luck, everybody.

 

[MikeG.]

.......You mean, if the vaccine doesn't work, in other words]. 75%, which is what has been suggested, is actually less effective than the current built in immune system.

.........

Are you making this up for a giggle? We have no immunity to it whatsoever. It is a novel disease. No-one on the planet had any immunity to it before last October. If a vaccine provides any level of protection at all, it is better than the status quo anti. Honest debate is easier if one party doesn't just make stuff up.

 

[Lons]

Or just read 1984 and Brave New World again.

I know that being from Mars you take everything at face value but really should point out as you clearly hadn't realised that those books you've referred to on more than one occasion are dystopian fiction novels and only two of many such publicised fiction.

In case you don't understand the meaning of fiction.

1. - literature in the form of prose, especially novels, that describes imaginary events and people.
2. - something that is invented or untrue.

Tell me you don't think the Terminator and Chewbacca are real as well. :wink:

 

[RogerS]

.....
Tell me you don't think the Terminator and Chewbacca are real as well. :wink:

ROTFLMAO :lol:

Think you nailed it, Lons.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Assuming that the vaccine is wholly effective in providing protection, then it should be a matter of individual choice . Those who choose not to be vaccinated may later get infected. That's their decision and potential problem.

Having a vaccine presents a risk of side effects which could be severe due (in part) to rapid and possibly inadequate testing. In making the "vaccinate or not" decision I need to weigh up the probability of side effects emerging.

For the young and healthy the risk of the vaccine may seem (possibly irrationally) higher than the consequences of infection. For the older and more vulnerable, the probability of a severe outcome from infection may be perceived as much higher than the vaccine risk.

Those who do not get vaccinated are at risk from, and a risk to, other like minded people. There is a moral dimension - if stretched, should the NHS give priority to those who refused vaccination over (say) those who have suffered a more normal serious problem.

Personally I would go for the vaccine every time being over 60 and vulnerable. Were I 25 in good health I may not want to be an early adopter!

 

[Rorschach]

Are you making this up for a giggle? We have no immunity to it whatsoever. It is a novel disease. No-one on the planet had any immunity to it before last October. If a vaccine provides any level of protection at all, it is better than the status quo anti. Honest debate is easier if one party doesn't just make stuff up.

Actually the more we are learning about C19 the more we are realising that actually some people do have a level of immunity to it, largely T-cell immunity though some might even form an antibody response based on previous exposure to other coronaviruses.

 

[Inspector]

Terry it seems more under 40 people are getting infected in the US than the over 60 crowd. Probably due to choices pertaining to their activities. Always trying to be number one. :wink: So younger people get it and die too and I suspect when the schools reopen this fall we will see just how vulnerable they are. It has been reported that kids don't have the "immunity experience" of older people and that's why they don't get sick but a newborn here recently got it and they have virtually no exposure to viruses beyond what mother's milk does for them. I don't know what the outcome was for the baby. While I won't be elbowing my way to the front of the needle line I will be watching and waiting to make sure it is going to protect me and then I'll be taking the shot. I just hope it is a one shot deal and not like the flu where it evolves, needing a new one every year. Meanwhile I'm still going to mask up.

Pete

 

[MikeG.]

....... I just hope it is a one shot deal and not like the flu where it evolves......

At the moment there is no evolutionary advantage to evolving. We have no defenses against it, so winners and losers aren't selected out of the virus population, and thus no great evolutionary pressure or likelihood of it changing. However, once we have defenses, be that through a vaccine or through years of exposure (as a population), then the classic evolutionary arms race is on.

 

[Rorschach]

Evolution is good for viruses, they almost invariably evolve to be less deadly. It's in their interests, ebola was a poor virus, it was too deadly for it's own good.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

.......You mean, if the vaccine doesn't work, in other words]. 75%, which is what has been suggested, is actually less effective than the current built in immune system.

.........

Are you making this up for a giggle? We have no immunity to it whatsoever. It is a novel disease. No-one on the planet had any immunity to it before last October. If a vaccine provides any level of protection at all, it is better than the status quo anti. Honest debate is easier if one party doesn't just make stuff up.

That may turn out not to be the case. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/30/heal ... index.html which is quoting https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2598-9
Also
https://bgr.com/2020/07/02/coronavirus- ... -immunity/

Immunity to the coronavirus might be even higher than we thought, a new study indicates.
COVID-19 survivors who have low antibody counts could still mount an active immunity against the novel coronavirus.
The researchers found two people who had COVID-19-specific T-cells that can identify and kill the virus for every person who developed antibodies that can prevent the virus from infecting healthy cells.[\quote]

And then this nonsense that any immunity you may have lasts a matter of weeks at best, then you can catch it all over again, unlike any other virus in the history of the universe. https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... overblown/

 

[lurker]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53672841

Pretty much what I said on page one of this thread.

 

[John Brown]

My niece, who is a biologist working for Google, and is probably the smartest person I know, sent me this link to an article by someone she regards as smart.
It's quite long, but I found it interesting.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... ry/614956/

 

[Rorschach]

My niece, who is a biologist working for Google, and is probably the smartest person I know, sent me this link to an article by someone she regards as smart.
It's quite long, but I found it interesting.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... ry/614956/

Yes it is, some of the points in that article have been brought up here and poo-pooed by certain members.

The thing I take away from that article is, the immune system is very complicated and knowledge takes time, a long time. In the meantime, take some basic precautions and live your life.

 

[Sheffield Tony]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53672841

Pretty much what I said on page one of this thread.

Just because masks may not meet the standards required to protect healthcare workers when working with possibly / probably infectious people in no way means that there is no advantage in using them or similar masks for a modicum of protection for yourself and others in more ordinary situations.

Outside of healthcare and related settings, it is not about assured protection for yourself. It is about doing anything which is fairly easy, but reduces the overall transmission.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

When is "asymptomatic" not the same as "immune"? I assume that if you are currently asymptomatic, but later go on to present symptoms then you are not immune, but allegedly a significant proportion of Covid19 cases are fully "asymptomatic", i.e.never present any symptoms

This report (Time Magazine) claims 80% asymptomatic: https://time.com/5842669/coronavirus-as ... nsmission/ Even if that is an exaggeration, wouldn't asymptomatic in this case be the same as immune? Or am I missing something?

 

[Droogs]

When is "asymptomatic" not the same as "immune"? I assume that if you are currently asymptomatic, but later go on to present symptoms then you are not immune, but allegedly a significant propionate of Covid19 cases are fully "asymptomatic", i.e.never present any symptoms

This report (Time Magazine) claims 80% asymptomatic: https://time.com/5842669/coronavirus-as ... nsmission/ Even if that is an exaggeration, wouldn't asymptomatic in this case be the same as immune? Or am I missing something?

when you are immune you can not pass on the virus, when you are asymptomatic you can still infect other people

NOT the same thing

 

[Rorschach]

When is "asymptomatic" not the same as "immune"? I assume that if you are currently asymptomatic, but later go on to present symptoms then you are not immune, but allegedly a significant propionate of Covid19 cases are fully "asymptomatic", i.e.never present any symptoms

This report (Time Magazine) claims 80% asymptomatic: https://time.com/5842669/coronavirus-as ... nsmission/ Even if that is an exaggeration, wouldn't asymptomatic in this case be the same as immune? Or am I missing something?

Immune means the virus never gets chance to take hold and reproduce, asymptomatic means you are infected (to some degree) and the virus is reproducing but not to a level at which you it is causing you any trouble. Whether you are can infect others if you are asymptomatic is still debatable, even if you can though you would be much less infectious than a symptomatic person who is constantly coughing everywhere.

A personal case, as a child I had chicken pox 3 times (rare but not unheard of). First time I got it I had the usual symptoms of the illness and some pox, the second time I was mildly ill with hardly any pox, 3rd time I had one tiny pox but no other symptoms, I was basically asymptomatic. Doctors advised my parents to keep me at home both times though as there was a risk I was still infectious despite having no symptoms.

 

[Rorschach]

when you are asymptomatic you can still infect other people

That's still out for debate and it probably varies from person to person. An asymptomatic person is not going to be as infectious as a symptomatic person, that's for certain (they aren't coughing everywhere for a start) but to what degree they can spread we simply don't know.

 

[MikeG.]

....... when you are asymptomatic you can still infect other people.......

There's a subtlety here. One form of asymptomatic is pre-symptomatic, and if you are pre-symptomatic (ie infected but showing no symptoms yet), then 100% this is one of the deadliest things about this virus. I caught it from a friend who had no symptoms, and passed it on to my wife before I had any symptoms myself. This is the principle reason this virus has had to have such drastic methods employed to slow its spread. However, the other form of "asymptomatic" is people who never show any symptoms but are still carrying the virus in their system. I think the evidence is less clear here as to whether or not they spread the virus to the same extent. Clearly they spread it, but to what extent I think is something we're less sure of.