For the elderly it’s not.
Really? Wow, I’ve been edumacated.
And they’re going to be readily available to 7 billion people at low cost? 
For most people it already is. I suspect what we’re going to get is a vaccine that improves the survival rate in vulnerable populations from, say, 85% to 90%.
True, but a lot of the vulnerable ones have already been killed off, apparently - at least according to UK statistics. Things might be different elsewhere.
Anyway, I guess this is a philosophical issue that’s going to be the cause of endless disagreement. Me personally, I’ve accepted that I’ve outlived my usefulness and it’ll soon be time for me to make space for the next generation. That’s the way nature is supposed to work. If the elderly die of COVID-19 instead of late-stage dementia or diabetes complications, I don’t see anything terrible about that. But that’s just me.
I recall some ‘expert’ from several months back suggesting that, if you’re likely to die of some other cause in the next 12 months, then COVID-19 will get you; otherwise, it most likely won’t. That might be a bit of an oversimplification, but I’ve not seen any more recent research to contradict the basic premise. Have you?
1 Like
That’s not the way it works.
With a vaccine you have probably a one in hundred thousand chance of getting really sick and dying
Not only that it could pretty much stop the epidemic from spreading in the first place.
But with no vaccine you are playing roulette and very bad odds over 70…And if obese or heart disease or diabetes … at much youbger age.
Coronavirus will mutate and there won’t be reliable herd immunity which means further disruotion
Just like many contagious diseases such as diphtheria, shooting cough, measles , mumps, vaccines are necessary, period.
Why this is controversial I have absolutely no idea!
That’s clearly not what finley was arguing.
This is a belief system, not logic. I’ll drop out again.
I’ll believe that when it actually happens.
Probably true enough. Until China releases the next epidemic.
Also true. I’m really just suggesting that maybe sometimes nature knows what She’s doing. If you don’t want COVID-19 to get you, then don’t be diabetic and fat. At this point, insisting that it’s your human right to be diabetic and fat is about as logical as refusing to wear a mask.
I was actually hoping that the likes of the USDA might take this as a wakeup call to correct the disastrous diet advice (and industry collusion) that’s created a vast population of chronically-ill people susceptible to COVID-19. But apparently not.
Then surely the vaccine will also stop working?
These diseases that are very unpleasant to experience and, when they kill, strike down those who should have much longer lives. COVID-19 is qualitatively different.
I’m not arguing that people should refuse to be vaccinated. Everyone has the right to prolong their life in whatever way they see fit, IMO. But we’re discussing a purely hypothetical vaccine; and in its absence, a cure which is worse than the disease.
Yes which is why you need new vaccines and alternative vaccines of which there are many in development. But coronavirus doesn’t have a high mutation rare seemingly. Coronaivrus vaccines aren’t hypothetical there are some already being used in China and Russia (a bit dodgy but they might work out fine especially Chinese ones tested on govt employees) and about eight in advanced trials (it means they’ve stimulated a robust immune response ) and more than thirty in active trials.
Not everybody that is diabetic or has heart disease is because they ate too much or obviously lifestyle related . Far from it. Also covid is causing severe kidney disease in some. I know at least one young person with heart problems after covid. Better to have a vaccine and don’t get infected with the real deal.
The number of people who become diabetic or develop heart disease with no obvious cause (or a genetic cause) is at least two orders of magnitude smaller than those who have brought it upon themselves - either by following mainstream “healthy eating” advice, or by eating shite (the two things are not radically different). If they take prompt action, they can mostly reverse it (60-80% success, depending on where you start from). But I guess that’s a whole different discussion.
My point here was that the health authorities are making no attempt to help people reverse these problems. That’s something that would be fixable right now, and would have a big impact on caseloads. But they won’t/can’t do it. They’d rather lock ill people in their homes and pretend that they can’t be helped in any other way.
Well lets not go round blaming people for getting hearth problems from coronavirus. The one person I know who had developed heart problems was symptomatic.
Just let it run it’s course, there are too many people anyways.
Too many other people .
3 Likes
Looking forward to proposed unlicensed vaccines administered by non medical professionals (like in your local chemist (in the UK)) made by a pharma company that cannot be prosecuted should you become a vegetable.
Would we still have the proposed daily pregnancy style C19 tests though? (Probably not as it looks like a cash grab by those in government).
This is for those who won’t believe a word of it anyway and think it’s all a conspiracy:
Operation Moonshot:
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3585
Some good info in there as to the pros and cons of mass.screening.
The first round screen had largely been solved, dealing with the large volume of false positives will be tricky if the infection rate is not above a certain number per head of population .
He said, “The mathematical laws as to what happens when you start screening mass populations are not in the right direction in terms of the harms that will be done. The key thing is specificity, and the documents do not mention specificity or false positives, which is how you get harm. If you start using tests in 60 million people, even if they are 99% specific you will end up giving false positive results to hundreds of thousands of people.”
Deeks warned that using less reliable tests to enable people to access events such as football matches would be “dangerous,” as it could give people false confidence and see them ease protective measures such as social distancing.
However, he was positive about expanding testing, provided that it was done correctly. “Some of these tests have potential to improve how well we can do test and trace. If they can improve the capacity and speed up the time, that would be very useful, because we need that right now. We just need to be very clear as to where they are going to go and what their purpose is,” he said.
1 Like
Translation: some of the government’s friends are going to receive £100bn in income. 3 grand from every cash-strapped, soon-to-be-unemployed taxpayer. How on earth is that going to work out?
What a pitiful world we live in. They’re going to piss £100bn down the toilet just so we can alleviate our irrational anxieties … which, by an interesting coincidence, is how much they spent (in 2020 cash) on the actual moonshot. The entire programme, not just Apollo 11.
I hope COVID-19 gets me so I don’t have to watch the whole of humanity devolve into chimps and weasels.
2 Likes
The most important advance tight now IMHO are these new antigen rapid tests which you can get done in 15 mind,.Hopeful that will get things back to relative normal as now you have to wait for aged to get any results back.
Has there been any improvement in the accuracy rates?
Guy
Need to check the brands , there are many. This binax now test looks promising.
Can you stop with the truther shit already.
1 Like