If only someone had thought of this.

It’s word for word what we were asking for, 10 months ago before tens of thousands of lives were lost, and businesses ruined.

We told you.

 

I think this is old news, nobody expected that any vaccine would completely wipe the virus out. As it says, we'll have to live with it.

 

So it would have been ok to just carry on as normal but with ambulances queuing down the roads from hospitals that are crammed full of sick and dying people?

This does not say anything about not having lockdowns. It's not saying what we should have done, it's talking about the future when we have vaccines to protect the rest of the population.

 

No, you wanted to lock all the vulnerable and elderly up in what would have effectively been gentrified concentration camps and let everyone else carry on as normal ten months ago. And again the other week.

The suggestion here is immunising all the vulnerable to protect them and then ramping back up normal day to day activity, effectively letting the less susceptible get the illness, like what happens with flu, and build immunity the natural way.

It’s risky, but yes makes sense, but is a step or seven below what you suggested which was essentially lock up all the old folk and carry on as normal.

 

You know this is after the vaccine has been distributed to the vulnerable right?

So not what you were asking for at all.

 

Yes, and instead the lockdown lobby got their way and everyone was locked up, enabling the below all round the country - and actually not stopping the spread of COVID at all.

Generation Covid: How Oldham social services has fought to protect kids from domestic abuse, radicalisation and grooming in the pandemic - Manchester Evening News

 

Terrible parents

 

Those that abuse their kids are. But I agree that schools should be open again as soon as possible

 

Well yes but I meant more the rest of the article than just that.

 

There is a big *If* in that first sentence. *If* the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission. We don't know yet. If the converse is true, and the vaccine does prevent transmission, then the quickest way out may be to vaccinate children and their teachers as a priority - you could reopen schools and cut infection rates significantly.

The other issue is that this assumes that infection with Covid causes no long-term damage. This is still unknown. Imagine letting the virus run through the young population and finding out in 5 years that 1% of those infected develop lung-damage, or some other life-affecting or limiting condition as a result.

 

This is what really confuses me. How do they not know whether it is a vaccine and as such stops you from catching it, is something that allows you to catch it but not transmit it, or simply allows you to catch it but allows your body to fight it off without serious illness?

Surely the extensive clinical trials that were in no way rushed would tell them those answers. It seems to me that they were in such a rush to get them out that they don't actually know what it does which is terrifying really when you think about it

 

all getting a bit Logan's runnish this, what next people can get to 80 then its the covid camp, so rest of us can get on with life, stop moaning you have had 80 years ,get in the camp

 

The article was much as I supposed the situation to be.We 're in a stressful situation and that manifests itself in a variety of ways. Encouraging that cases requiring the removal of children haven't gone up, but that may be due to vulnerable children still being at school?

 

I read the other day that the first man vaccinated on the Isle of Wight died of Covid before he could get his second jab.

My understanding is that you are still vulnerable if you have already contracted Covid before you are vaccinated, or if you catch it within the first 1-2 weeks after being vaccinated - before the immune response starts to work - and even then it is not fully guaranteed. So, despite people thinking we can just stick a needle into people's arms and open the economy, there is a risk until 2-3 weeks after the last "vulnerable" person has been vaccinated. And anyone that was infected in that period could still pass it on.

 

I thought it was already established that it doesn’t prevent transmission (or infection) and that its benefit is in significantly reducing severity in the worst cases?

 

Yet more confusion because if so why has 75k been spent developing a vaccination passport? I honestly don't think they know what it does. Either that or they're simply lying in order to scare people and maintain further control.

 

Are you going to respond to my comment that this isn't what you asked for at all?

 

If that is the case, it isn't actually a vaccine then - just a mitigating prophylactic. A vaccine by definition provides immunity to prevent infection.

 

In other news, it looks like the situation in Manaus - where they had an estimated 50%+ of the population infected in the first wave - has deteriorated to the stage where as many people as dying now in the second wave as at the peak of the first wave.