Herd Immunity vs Lockdown

[frantick]

I'm curious to know how others feel about this COVID-19 pandemic response occurring in most of our countries; especially those in my age group.  I have no idea how this poll will pandemic out.

 

Personally, I'm for Herd Immunity and over 60; smoker and pleasingly plump. And I love life; REAL life.

 

(Names are hidden if you are worried about anyone knowing your age group)

[mauGR1]

Interesting polls, thanks.

I am almost 60, and i think that if we don't restore freedoms quickly, the outcome could be devastating for the lives of everyone.

It has to be said though, that the environment is already feeling the benefits from less human activity, but that's the only silver lining which i can see at the moment.

[AussieBob18]

Interesting exercise - but it is too late and it does not matter one little bit.

The clampdown is in place and will continue for a while longer - and may get ramped up soon.

Prepare.

 

[dabhand]

Am over 60 and had no problem ticking the 1st box.

 

Understand the issues connected with potential overload of medical facilities going for a herd immunity, but consider the clear economic damage of a lock down to be a worse scenario. My view.

 

Am looking at how Sweden are approaching this with great interest. Wish them all success.

[Sharp]

The social and financial fallout will be way worse than this virus if they dont allow economies to restart soon.

[BritManToo]

I always understood 'herd immunity' to be the process where you vaccinated as many as possible, so the few still at risk couldn't catch it from anyone else. As there is no vaccination for COVID-19 there can be no herd immunity.

The only other way to achieve herd immunity is to let everyone who can be infected, get infected, and the survivors will have acquired a natural resistance to the virus.

 

But I guess you can't fix stupid.

Edited April 4, 2020 by BritManToo

[frantick]

20 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I always understood 'herd immunity' to be the process where you vaccinated as many as possible, so the few still at risk couldn't catch it from anyone else. As there is no vaccination for COVID-19 there can be no herd immunity.

The only other way to achieve herd immunity is to let everyone who can be infected, get infected, and the survivors will have acquired a natural resistance to the virus.

 

But I guess you can't fix stupid.

Well, since there is no vaccine, then it would be the first part of the 'or' in this definition:

 

Herd immunity is a form of indirect protection from infectious disease that occurs when a large percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, whether through previous infections or vaccination, thereby providing a measure of protection for individuals who are not immune. Wikipedia

 

[Guderian]

The lockdown will only be needed until a cheap, effective vaccine is available. The world has a lot of experience at developing vaccines, including against coronaviruses (think of the annual flu cocktail). Given the size of the prize, I should imagine that every government, commercial and academic lab in the world capable of working on this is doing so right now. Having said that, SARS-COV-2 is a novel virus and because it blew over relatively quickly and there was no incentive, nobody bothered to develop a vaccine against SARS-COV-1. If they had, we'd probably be halfway there already. Numerous experts have said they believe a viable vaccine should be ready to start trials in people by June, or even earlier. So fingers crossed, society might not have to allow its weak and elderly to be thrown to the wolves (or to the virus in this case) after all.

[sandyf]

29 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

The only other way to achieve herd immunity is to let everyone who can be infected, get infected, and the survivors will have acquired a natural resistance to the virus.

it was rumoured that this had been discussed by the UK government. When the question if this was government policy was put to Matt Hancock by Andrew Marr, the answer was to a different question.

[sandyf]

14 minutes ago, Guderian said:

The lockdown will only be needed until a cheap, effective vaccine is available.

John McEnroe had a statement for comments like that.

[from the home of CC]

money vs lives is really what is being asked here..

[Brewster67]

Carry on with these restrictions and I guarantee the cure is going to be worse than the virus.

 

I assume many others who are happy to ride this out may change their minds if overnight their pension fund collapses.

 

Yes... I have read up a lot on the pension risks at the moment.

Edited April 4, 2020 by Brewster67

[Logosone]

The funny part will be when herd immunity has arrived, there are already millions of infected in the UK for eg, and the spread of the virus ends, then all the social distancing extremists will say "see it worked".

 

Never mind that several measures were thrown at the virus simultaneously, testing, clinical management and sd, and you can not untangle the effect of each one and by how much it reduced the spread of the virus.

 

 

[Brewster67]

Sweden, no lockdowns, pubs open, no fines or curfews, zero restrictions.

 

Average rate of new cases daily

Sweden = 9%

UK =13%

USA = 15%

France = 20%

 

[scubascuba3]

I haven't done the poll as my choice isn't there. We should have social isolation for at risk groups + social distancing, that's it, nothing else. All that is happening all over the world is killing businesses, killing jobs, killing lives.

 

Sadly another guy kills himself because of the measures killing businesses

 

https://www.stickboybkk.com/news/british-businessman-jumps-to-his-death-from-bangkok-expressway/

Edited April 4, 2020 by scubascuba3

[Moonlover]

The rationale for the 'lock down' approach to this infection is that it will save lives. But whose lives will be saved?

 

well, we know the answer don't we. We've already been told that it will be, by and large, the elderly and those with underlying health issues. (how that phrase slides off the tongue nowadays)

 

An interesting article on the BBC news web site (which I can't find now or I'd reference it) claimed that if no action was taken in the UK, around 240,000 Covid 19 deaths would occur over the next year. The author then went on to point out if the country continued with the current restrictions, those deaths would be reduced to around 20,000.

 

Then came the punch line. What that would really mean would be 20,000 Covid 19 deaths plus around 200,000 deaths from other causes among the elderly and those with underlying health issues!

 

It's  interesting to note that those of us in the upper age group seem to understand that it's more important to get the world 'back on its feet' rather worry about the fate of us old folk who will be heading for the exit soon anyway.

 

And that's just how I voted. Open the world up again. I'll take my chances with C19.

[JackGats]

Many countries are under stay-at-home orders stricter than the one that was in place in London during the blitz, the difference being that during the blitz goods and food went on being produced.

 

Countries except China scuttling themselves to prevent people who would have died by their 83rd birthday from dying at the age of 81. This beggars belief.

Edited April 4, 2020 by JackGats
Spelling

[UbonThani]

18m deaths from heart disease. No lockdowns of fast food. No panic.

 

Roads kill 1.25m a year. No lockdowns of car factories. No panic.

 

Conjob19 is here.

 

 

[scubascuba3]

8 minutes ago, UbonThani said:

18m deaths from heart disease. No lockdowns of fast food. No panic.

 

Roads kill 1.25m a year. No lockdowns of car factories. No panic.

 

Conjob19 is here.

 

 

I'd say the biggest <deleted> up by governments all over the world since time began. Caveat, i exclude Sweden and Japan

[FarFlungFalang]

11 minutes ago, UbonThani said:

18m deaths from heart disease. No lockdowns of fast food. No panic.

 

Roads kill 1.25m a year. No lockdowns of car factories. No panic.

 

Conjob19 is here.

 

 

Not to mention the 400,000 (4million over the last 10 years) flu fatalities.

[andy72]

HERD IMMUNITY

 

 

It appears that the UK PUBLIC is in worse shape than the  predicted death rates of 1% and without adequate vaccine to try HI would be to  impose a death sentence on many

 

The one clear thing is that as a society the UK is in pretty bad shape health wise many have underlying conditions and the ones reported as having none have still to be autopsied 

 

The virus  may be finding unknown conditions in people who seem to be otherwise healthy.

 

There seems to be a general international consensus that the Malarial drug works best but the UK want to do tests that is a bit moronic after all its a shared data

 

As yet it is unclear if repeat infections occur

 

What has been displayed is that leadership is WEAK

The PUBLIC are quite disrespectful of the law and the requests of its Governments

In Malaysia almost all abide by the  request to stay at home

 

If we look at how other nations have responded and acted but I guess that is something that will be looked at in greater detail after the event.

 

Everyone wants to say China doctored its figures BUT what if China was just good at lockdown and their public knew not to argue with the law.

 

They have drug problems but its not quite the same as the low life drug problem the UK/USA has.

 

The USA is almost in the same criteria NO COMPLETE LOCKDOWN

IN  Malaysia only supermarkets a some takeaway services numbers are in check, no mosques church or temple activity

 

D Trump hijacking those masks that had left the country before he implemented the law is atrocious & the world has to be clear and vociferous on that.

 

China might be letting people out again but it is not going back to work the rest of the world is closed

 

without synchronicity none of this works you are extremely lucky this is not a PANDEMIC as we are used to in the trues sense of  that words  meaning or that this is not MERS this is a 1% mortality under normal circumstance.

 

Italy's aging population also 

 

we await the  developing worlds numbers 

London having the worst figures is not a surprise its population to large for true distancing and as the media displayed woeful planning on your underground systems.

By allowing the virus to proliferate is certainly giving many a death sentence, and quoting other death figures is ridiculous they dont all happen at once 
Hospitals are over worked morgues get filled the dead to many to cope with at current levels with HI the numbers would sky rocket 
Its up to Governments to put everything on hold RENT/Mortgage etc some have and make sure people dont go hungry 
I do not think there are any here who have never had cash for a meal
stop griping about your freedom you live in Thailand F.F.S when has that ever been free you think coz you can go to a bar and get a hooker you have freedom ?

Its a question of humanity save people or let them die 

Edited April 4, 2020 by andy72

[Swimfan]

7 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

I'd say the biggest <deleted> up by governments all over the world since time began. Caveat, i exclude Sweden and Japan

Just give Sweden a few more days. 

[palm]

A 'case' simply means you caught the virus, not that you are dying, nor in hospital with emergency treatment.

The world is so full of ignorant, pansy bed-wetters. ????

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Swimfan]

For those who talk about only so many dying.for everyone one that dies there will be 20 in hospital requiring  intensive treatment for recovery. Where are these kind of resources going to come from. 

[UbonThani]

8 minutes ago, Swimfan said:

For those who talk about only so many dying.for everyone one that dies there will be 20 in hospital requiring  intensive treatment for recovery. Where are these kind of resources going to come from. 

Drugs out soon enough. Good early trials.

[scubascuba3]

20 minutes ago, Swimfan said:

Just give Sweden a few more days. 

I hope they hold their nerve. To me it's just logic, if you kill the economy the effect on businesses and Jobs and lives is far worse

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, from the home of CC said:

money vs lives is really what is being asked here..

Not much point being alive if nothing worth living for- marriage destroyed from being cooped up together for weeks/ months, no job, no house because no job= no money = no rent/ mortgage= eviction, no future.

 

If I get this virus I will probably die, but I had no hesitation ticking first box.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 minutes ago, Swimfan said:

For those who talk about only so many dying.for everyone one that dies there will be 20 in hospital requiring  intensive treatment for recovery. Where are these kind of resources going to come from. 

Italian solution.

[richard_smith237]

The only option is to manage deaths as a direct result of this virus. Do to this we have to have health care facilities which are not overwhelmed. 

 

People are indicating that the death toll will be worse due to the world economy failing? 

How exactly? where are all these people going to die? Yes, there will a knock on effect and life may be tough. 

There are also theories that the economy will bounce back and recover within a few years. 

 

Either way - how is it possible to predict increase in deaths due to a failing economy vs the predicted deaths of a virus which can be modelled? I suspect there is also modelling at play which shows deaths, poorer quality of life etc.

But could millions really die as a direct result of a poorer economy?

 

I’m interested to learn where these deaths will come from?

Less money to research illnesses? depression? (people topping themselves) 

[faraday]

1 hour ago, JackGats said:

Many countries are under stay-at-home orders stricter than the one that was in place in London during the blitz, the difference being that during the blitz goods and food went on being produced.

 

Countries except China scuttling themselves to prevent people who would have died by their 83rd birthday from dying at the age of 81. This beggars belief.

The food was scarce & rationed. Your comparison is flawed.