Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19) (SARS-CoV-2) [2020]

So you get infected and then infect a dozen other people - not the best plan I've ever heard...........
Firstly, I test regularly so I know if I'm infectious and won't knowingly spread the disease. Secondly, if they've been vaccinated, it's not a problem. You can't just hide away from disease forever to protect the at risk, so it's the only sane option. Even if everyone stuck with social distancing and masks and whatnot until C19 fizzles out, it'll just come back again, like flu every year.
 
ONS stats show that 7 children (well, ages 0-19) died due to Covid in the last week of October
As far as I'm aware, these are cases where C19 tested positive, not necessarily where it was a contributing factor. Even if so, it tends to be in those with co-morbidities. The at risk should of course be getting vaccines. But in that respect, it's like dealing with the immunocompromised. We don't ensure everyone wears masks always to save the lives of those with ineffective immune systems.

Over a hundred deaths in this age group since the start of the pandemic. An unknown number of Long Covid cases but certainly in the tens of thousands among children. This is a significant disease, even if it is generally mild in children. Bear in mind, we've only had high cases in these age groups since June/July when mitigations in schools were deliberately dropped so, if we're happy to see rates continue at high levels, the number of children dying will continue at higher rates than were seen for the first 15 months or so of the pandemic.

Not sure why so many people seem to think the pandemic is over here in the UK, other than the nonsense messaging from the government.
It's not about being over, but being at a point where the balance needs to shift back to normalcy. Will people die as a result? Yes. But people die all the time - it's a sad fact of life and it can't be stopped (and if it could, the world would be worse off). Indeed, the excess deaths among the under 25s is actually a negative thanks to the pandemic. That is, the moment people go back to normal, more young people will be dying than are now. Are we to not go back to normal then to ensure none of them die? We managed to save something like 50 child lives in November 2020 thanks to lockdown - should we stay in lockdown forever because people won't die, even if they aren't living?

upload_2021-11-14_19-18-21.png

Edit: Additionally, we're seeing the impact of weakened immunities thanks to lockdown.

https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2078

RSV can be deadly and there's a notable increase in children being admitted to hospital. How many of those excess childhood deaths this Summer were not from C19 but the aftermath of lockdowns impact? Keeping your immune system active is the best and safest way to stay healthy. Not like chumps who try to catch a novel disease on blind faith, but people need to be exposed to pathogens to remain resistant to them and a large part of that with the development of vaccination is actually using vaccines and then getting on with it!

https://www.dw.com/en/covid-isolation-are-our-immune-systems-out-of-practice/a-58733783
 
Last edited:
If Covid is on the death certificate, it is considered to have contributed to the death in a significant manner i.e. they wouldn't have died if it hadn't been for Covid.

As I always say whenever people mention the fact that most of the children who have died had co-morbidities, yeah, fuck those sick kids, eh? To be less pithy, there are a lot of people out there (hundreds of thousands in the UK alone) with compromised immune systems for various medical reasons and therefore at greatly increased risk from Covid. The whole, "It's endemic, let's get on with things" conveniently forgets or ignores these people. Putting a mask on when going out shopping over the winter to hopefully help keep rates down is really no effort and might well save the life of one of these folk. Wearing a mask is really no effort whatsoever. Mandating better ventilation and filtration of air in buildings would cost money but will also have general health benefits as well as reducing the risk of infection. Of course, they would then need to admit that Covid is airborne which they seem to want to play down. However, this isn't just the issue over here. The NHS is on its knees - a backlog of almost 6 million people awaiting treatment, hospitals operating at reduced capacity and already full to bursting point even at this early part of the winter. All of the English ambulance services have been on black alert for weeks (the military has already been called in to help to a limited extent) and people are dying because Covid patients are sitting in ambulances for hours waiting to be admitted to hospitals. Not so many dying in the ambulances, perhaps, but have a heart attack or a stroke now and your chances of a paramedic getting to you in time to save your life are slim, because of the huge delays caused by Covid's strain on the system. Any reasonable country would already have reintroduced simple measures such as masking and we're seeing lockdowns in European countries now long before their health systems are under as much strain as ours. Unfortunately, we've got a bunch of corrupt and incompetent charlatans running the country who are ideologically incapable of learning from their mistakes because it wouldn't look good for their base to admit they were wrong. It's practically pathological by this point.

Also, please don't conflate general mitigations with lockdowns. Doing nothing makes lockdown more likely. People who are anti-masking, anti-distancing, anti-vaxxing and against all mitigations, you're unwittingly pro-lockdown.

One of the arguments we heard earlier in the pandemic is that novel viruses tend to evolve to be milder and less deadly. That's one possibility. The other is that (before modern medicine gave us more of an understanding of what occurred), the most vulnerable are killed off over the course of a few years as natural selection takes place. We know that there is a genetic component to risk for Covid as well because completely healthy individuals become extremely ill on occasion. There was an indication in early studies that a certain proportion of the population have a mild autoimmune disease which generally wouldn't be recognised as an issue, but this is what can trigger the catastrophic autoimmune response which leads to most Covid deaths. I have a feeling the post about research is hidden somewhere earlier in the thread, but I don't have time to check now. I seem to think the study found that something like 2% of the study sample size had this issue. Providing this 2% continues out across the whole population, that's a heck of a lot of people.
 
As I always say whenever people mention the fact that most of the children who have died had co-morbidities, yeah, fuck those sick kids, eh? To be less pithy, there are a lot of people out there (hundreds of thousands in the UK alone) with compromised immune systems for various medical reasons and therefore at greatly increased risk from Covid.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/226493/winter-viruses-covid-19-could-push-nhs/
A surge of respiratory viruses, including flu and RSV, could be more likely because the UK population had limited exposure to these viruses last winter. Flu, RSV and other respiratory viruses that are likely to circulate at higher levels this winter share the same symptoms as COVID-19, so it is important to have tests to distinguish between them to provide best treatment.
Between 15,000 and 60,000 people could die from influenza this winter according to new modelling for the report, though the planned widespread flu vaccination should help to reduce this risk.
Unlike covid, RSV is more dangerous to infants, the reason why RSV etc will be higher this winter in the UK is because of past lockdowns, ppls immunities are weaker, thus there is the real chance that lockdowns will cause more infants deaths than not having lockdowns, but like you say 'fuck the kids'
i.e its complicated. Personally I don't care one way or the other if theres a lockdown or not. It will be interesting in 10 years time seeing what effect the lockdowns/disruption of childrens study etc has on how this generation grows up (maybe it will benefit, I dont think so but who knows until we see the data)
Age-distribution-at-the-time-of-RSV-related-death-in-children-Low-income-or-lower.png
 
There was actually a lot of RSV around during the summer which did lead to a lot of hospitalisations. My 2 year old had it, though relatively mildly and I skipped a BBQ get together with friends because one of them was there with his newborn daughter who I could have potentially infected, even though I wasn't at all unwell!

Hopefully, the summer surge will have gone some way to reducing the risks from RSV this winter. No doubt in my mind that the plan was to get as many kids infected with Covid as possible during the summer/autumn months to reduce the levels of community transmission when the weather gets cold. I think it was too much of a gamble, but we'll have to wait and see.
 
If Covid is on the death certificate, it is considered to have contributed to the death in a significant manner i.e. they wouldn't have died if it hadn't been for Covid.
Ah, yes, I see. The 'deaths within 28 days' is a different metric to the 'deaths from C19' but C19 is largely the cause of death in those 'deaths within 28 days of a positive test' number, around 80%-90% from the numbers I can find.

As I always say whenever people mention the fact that most of the children who have died had co-morbidities, yeah, fuck those sick kids, eh? To be less pithy, there are a lot of people out there (hundreds of thousands in the UK alone) with compromised immune systems for various medical reasons and therefore at greatly increased risk from Covid.
And we don't do anything to prevent low level infections from harming these people. My brother died at 20 from Leukaemia, only it wasn't the cancer that killed him but a sissy infection his immune system couldn't deal with. How much was done by society to stop the spread of the common cold to save his and other cancer patients lives? Nothing. No mask wearing nor social distancing. how much was done to restrict RSV spread when it was at 8% among children, higher even than C19 infection rates? Zip, like every year. Likewise old people die every year from infections - we don't do anything more than offer a vaccine against three strains of influenza a year and the rest of staying safe is down to them. Heck, if we set out to create an aseptic world with no diseases spreading to save these people's lives, we'd end up dooming humanity for when a disease does manage to break out and no-one has a healthy immune system to fight it off.

We have to balance the needs of the few against the needs of the many, and it's insulting of you to label it callous. Life is a string of impossible choices from imperfect options, freedom versus security, the life of one person over another. Any serious choice is going to have negatives as well as positives and the perfect "everybody's happy" outcome isn't an option. Someone valuing things differently to you shouldn't be presented as thoughtless or uncaring.

As for the rest, I'm not arguing anything in particular about course of action. I'm just linking people to real information that we're blessed to have access to in this country and my own independent interpretation. Rather than taking anyone's word for it, politicians or journalists or forum posters, the data is there to see if claims people are making are true or not.
 
I kind of agree that we need to start returning to normallacy, but that implies a normal world where people get vaccinated too.
 
The issue is that treating the pandemic as being 'over' when a significant chunk of the population isn't vaccinated isn't just premature, it's stupid. It's a novel coronavirus and we have no idea of the potential long-term effects. We know that 'Long Covid' is an issue with a significant number of cases, often occurring when the infection itself was very mild. What else can this virus potentially do to those infected in the longer-term? Long Covid covers a wide array of symptoms (as do other post-viral illnesses) and we know the virus can cause heart problems, clotting issues, lung damage, organ damage and more.

We have developed vaccines which have saved huge number of lives, mostly in older folk, so being willing to lockdown the economy to protect those lives and the health service is all well and good, but then to refuse to carry out basic mitigations to try and suppress infections until the point that either current or different types of vaccines can be tested on younger children isn't acceptable in my view. I'm not talking about having lockdowns (unless the circumstances calls for them), just basic mitigations in place such as greater testing, ventilation, air filtration and so forth.

I realise that many of these mitigations are in place in some countries, so I'm railing against the UK approach as much as anything. Seriously, just put on a fricking mask when you're in shops or other busy indoor areas. Mandate better air quality. It's not exactly rocket science but we have plenty of evidence that these measures help to cut the spread of the virus. Anything which kicks the can down the road, especially during the winter months, is a good thing, especially when the health systems are almost on their knees after 2 years of a pandemic already.
 
I kind of agree that we need to start returning to normallacy, but that implies a normal world where people get vaccinated too.
I can't understand why governments are so reluctant to use some bigger sticks, eg if you go to hospital with covid and you have not been vaccinated, then you are expected to pay all costs incurred, yes it can be 10s or 1000s of thousands dollars, lose your house if you cant pay. Seems reasonable.

Its obvious now we are stuck with this for decades, we missed the window of opportunity to get it under control and maybe stamp it out, so we now should pivot to living with covid.
@Mariner even if 100% of the population is vaccinated now, we will still have it, we have like I said missed our window
 
Its obvious now we are stuck with this for decades, we missed the window of opportunity to get it under control and maybe stamp it out, so we now should pivot to living with covid.
@Mariner even if 100% of the population is vaccinated now, we will still have it, we have like I said missed our window
We were always supposed to live with Covid even if all people got vaccinated earlier. This is not a virus that dies with vaccination. It continues to exist, mutate and multiply.
 
We were always supposed to live with Covid even if all people got vaccinated earlier. This is not a virus that dies with vaccination. It continues to exist, mutate and multiply.
*IF* it was contained in the first instances, it could have been squashed, like other outbreaks. Conceptually, if you go into a massive lockdown for 2-4 weeks from any new disease, give or take, you'd kill it. However, we don't even know when SARS-Cov2 came on the scene and it was very hard to suppress compared to other successfully controlled outbreaks due to the silent spreading and origination in a bust city with international connections. Would worldwide complete lockdown for 4 weeks after the first announced case have been enough to save two years of troubles?

After that, it was a case of keeping cases down through mitigations until vaccines could confer adequate protection, trying to balance the costs of complete mitigation with the negatives like economic fallouts, mental health, etc.

Now we're at the point where it's a matter of getting the vaccine out in the most suitable way. In the UK, all the adults who are going to have it have had it, and the rest are choosing not to. The children also aren't being vaccinated, but even then, the statically better use is to get those vaccines to the more vulnerable. A kid suffering long covid sucks, but if that dose stops an adult somewhere in the world dying and leaving their family without income, say, it's a better use, and there are many millions of unvaccinated out there at significantly greater risk. Mitigation IMHO now needs to become an individual's responsibility - if you or your children are at risk, you should be keeping your distance until the disease has died down (which is quicker when allowed to spread), with society supporting you through work-at-home options, remote schooling, etc. Plus get vaccinated!
 
The problem with that argument is that the excess vaccines ordered by the UK (and other wealthy countries) in general aren't being used elsewhere and almost certainly won't be used elsewhere - other than perhaps sold to another first world country. The UK has just announced that over 40s are going to be offered boosters very soon, not so much because of the lives which will be saved in this age group (if you're double vaccinated, your risk is extremely low), but to reduce hospitalisations and the spread of the virus. There is now data which indicates boosted adults have a very low risk of developing symptomatic infections for at least a few months after the boost (and probably longer).

Quite why this should be the way they are going when there are no apparent plans to properly vaccinate young teens and vaccination of younger children just isn't on the horizon, I'm not so sure. I suppose children don't vote, so probably don't count.

Regarding the responsibility aspect - parents are legally bound to either send their children into school or provide home schooling. The removal of all mitigations within schools (even if children or their parents are in the Clinically Extremely Vulnerable category) means that it simply isn't possible for most people to avoid the risk themselves. The remote learning provision is weak, to save the least, as we've seen when we've had our son out of school awaiting results of tests, as a close contact of a case or during the lockdowns. Bear in mind we've never had younger children or their teachers masked in the UK. There were class bubbles and isolation requirements from close contacts but that was pretty much it. These have all gone now and we haven't added the mitigations of ventilation and filtration used in many other countries. Also, kids can't get vaccinated!
 
If they want people to keep getting boosters, they really need to rush aerosol vaccine. It massively reduces the hurdle compared to needles.

They already rushed mRNA vaccines, so don't tell me it can't be done.
 
Quite why this should be the way they are going when there are no apparent plans to properly vaccinate young teens and vaccination of younger children just isn't on the horizon, I'm not so sure.
At risk children are being offered vaccines as I understand it. But the UK public has spoken - it doesn't care for vaccines for the under 25s. Despite offering vaccines for free to under 18s, then under 16s, and now 12+, uptake is minimal. Not much can be done that. As to why, I guess it's people pitting their fear of unknown long-term affects from a novel, man-made vaccine, against their fear of the unknown long-term affects from a novel, natural virus. Arguments can be made either way but you'll be hard pushed to say someone who's already made their mind up.
 
The vaccines for younger teens are being rolled out through the schools. Extremely slowly and ineptly in England - pretty much by design, if you ask me. In Scotland, where young teens are able to walk into vaccination centres to get their jabs, roughly twice the proportion of young teens have received their first dose as in England. Bear in mind that both countries authorised the use of vaccines in this age group at the same time and have the doses required to vaccinate them all. There's plenty of supply, just not the possibility ot getting it in England other than through schools, who aren't being provided with any additional resources to carry it out.

I also know this is the plan because my brother in law is CEV due to past illness which led to a stem cell transplant in the past decade. My teenage nephew should theoretically have been able to get vaccinated to help reduce the risk of infecting his father before a wider roll-out was authorised. He couldn't. It was announced that it would be available, but there was absolutely no way for him to get it - the local surgery couldn't arrange/authorise it. Couldn't go to a walk-in centre. Tried phoning 111 (NHS non-emergency help number) and they couldn't do anything. He finally received his vaccination (1st dose) a couple of weeks ago during half-term. That's over 2 months after the resumption of schooling. Thankfully, he didn't take anything nasty home to his Dad in the interim, who got his booster last week.

The ONS carried out a survey in the summer (before vaccination was authorised for young teens) in which 88% of parents said they would certainly or probably have their kids vaccinated if it was offered. Long before the JCVI finally authorised a single dose which, as we know, does very little to reduce the risk of infection against Delta. I'd imagine they will eventually authorise double-vaccination for young teens in February/March time, by which point most of them will have been exposed to the virus at current infection rates, all the while talking down the necessity of it. Children aged 5 to 11 will be vaccinated in other countries many months before the UK. Truth be told, I'm still a bit surprised that we dumped the contract for the Valneva vaccine (noisily and ineptly, of course) as I expected that an inactivated vaccine such as that would be ideal to give to younger people/children. No worries about 'experimental vaccines' given that inactivated vaccines have been in use for decades.

I can't reiterate enough, what is occurring in the UK (and England especially) is absolutely the unspoken plan implemented by the government and, I presume, recommended by their advisors. For some reason, they think the best way for children to encounter the spike (which is now inevitable) is from infection, not vaccination. Pretty much the polar opposite to almost all other countries. It's not anything to do with expense, supply or organisation. It's a deliberate plan.
 
Last edited:
Both of my kids, a male six year old and a female 10 year old, received their first vacinnation shots here in Memphis TN yesterday. This morning they both complained of a sore arm, which is to be expected. With the shitshow of our political system here, I'm excited to get them vaxx'd up before they actually get the infection.

I'm sad to admit we're probably gonna get it at some point, so at least being vaccinated should result in a better outcome.
 
Both of my kids, a male six year old and a female 10 year old, received their first vacinnation shots here in Memphis TN yesterday. This morning they both complained of a sore arm, which is to be expected. With the shitshow of our political system here, I'm excited to get them vaxx'd up before they actually get the infection.

I'm sad to admit we're probably gonna get it at some point, so at least being vaccinated should result in a better outcome.
My sister lives in Germantown TN I think and it terrifies me on how casual her and her family have been about it. Thankfully my niece is a nurse practitioner now and forced my sister and her hubby to get vaccinated, but she still has trouble getting them to wear masks.

I don't get it, I really don't. I went up to Michigan this weekend for unspecific reason totally unrelated to the legality of marijuana over there compared to my home state and I FREAKED at the no masks thing again. I hate it!

If I go south the masks disappear, if I go north the masks disappear, and if I go west I'm in bloody Illinois. :|

Can this please end already? Please?

Glad to hear you got your kids vaxxed, hope you and yours remain safe and healthy. Sorry for the rant, the mention of Tennessee set me off. :oops:
 
Holy shit Digi, it really is a small world! My brother-in-law lives in Benton Harbor, MI and we were up there for the 4th of July, and you're of course right about the masks being completely absent from the populace. I honestly believe it might have been worse there than here...

Oh, and of course, I know nothing at all of this evil devil's lettuce of which you speak ;)
 
*IF* it was contained in the first instances, it could have been squashed, like other outbreaks. Conceptually, if you go into a massive lockdown for 2-4 weeks from any new disease, give or take, you'd kill it.
Yes like some recent ones it could of been stopped

sars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome
swine flu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic
various bird flus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avian_influenza
ebola
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola
mers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_respiratory_syndrome

but we werent quick enough so we have to now live with it like AIDS
 
The vaccines for younger teens are being rolled out through the schools.
I can't say I have any direct experience. Just looked it up though and this is what I see:

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-vaccination/who-can-get-the-vaccine/
Children aged 12 to 15
All children aged 12 to 15 will be offered a 1st dose of a COVID-19 vaccine (including children who turn 12 on the date of vaccination).

Most children can:

Not all walk-in vaccination sites can vaccinate children aged 12 to 15. More sites will become available over time.
Might well be a classic cock-up of the no-one knowing what's supposed to be happening which we've had all the time. I booked my vaccines through the GP when the web portal was being stupid and trying to send me 30 miles away when there was a centre in town I pass every day for work... The above 'book an appointment' does work. Maybe people are waiting on the schools and that's being slow? But the uptake really is so small, I wonder if that poll is outdated and now parents think there's no reason to vaccinate? Went looking for a poll and here's the first I found: 68% : 32% No:Yes.

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/you-your-child-vaccinated-against-21563102

Dunno if there's a better poll out there.

Why would the Government approve vaccines for kids and then not roll them out? If they're already paid for, why hold them back? I'm not seeing the motive - they don't save money and if it's something the people want, they'll be generating more negativity from the voting public.
 
Back
Top