O/T. The Government's handling of Covid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

I agree that more extensive testing is likely to lead to the recording of correspondingly greater infection rates, but on this one I wholly agree with MA.
Ultimately the way out of this will be via a vaccine...in the meantime it’s a case of common sense and social responsibility.

---

Responsible folk in my area are using the Govt rules as 'guidelines' and then applying common sense - ie there's a wide promenade outside my hovel seperated by a canal, when people are on the opposite side, so seperated by maybe 20m, they have their masks in their hands, when they are on the same side, so potentially very close as they pass, they have them on. Some of the excuses I've heard round about have been laughable, inc (sorry rA) a non-mask wearing teacher who says she won't self isolate when she gets home because she's 'being careful'...I felt like making a analogy with Aids, but Mrs F pointed out that with Aids people died through ignorance, with Covid they kill through ignorance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

I agree that more extensive testing is likely to lead to the recording of correspondingly greater infection rates, but on this one I wholly agree with MA.
Ultimately the way out of this will be via a vaccine...in the meantime it’s a case of common sense and social responsibility.

---

Well the vaccine is an unknown quantity, how effective and when or even if one will be available is questionable the answer for the next 18 months at least is we are going to have to live with it. I liked the view of a 75 yer old interviewed the other day.

Which was

"I don't see the preservation of a few extra years of life for someone my age is worth the economic and social devastation we are inflicting on younger generations. Those that feel at risk should safeguard themselves and let others get on with their lives."

An entirely sensible attitude, far removed from the rumblings and grumblings of fearful old men!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

I agree that more extensive testing is likely to lead to the recording of correspondingly greater infection rates, but on this one I wholly agree with MA.
Ultimately the way out of this will be via a vaccine...in the meantime it’s a case of common sense and social responsibility.

---

Only opinion rA but I disagree with you. I have been consistent from the off in saying that, like its familial forefathers, SARS, MERS etc. CV-19 will weaken and fade into a far less dangerous virus than it was. All of those predecessors degraded in severity and no vaccine was ever found. I still think that will be the case with CV-19

Over here we have seen 4000 new cases in each of the past 2 weeks. 88 hospitalisations over the 2 weeks. 25 deaths as well.

Cases up. Other stats still low. Increase now seen to be in the home rather than from bars/restaurants. Majority of the new cases U30s. Most deaths/hospitalisations 55+ age group.

This begs the question is CV-19 weakening OR is this a new,weaker strain?

If the former is true, a vaccine, if found, probably won't be needed.

If the latter proves to be correct then a vaccine for it won't be cost effective, if they ever find one. However, they should keep trying (despite my personal thoughts) to find a viable and safe vaccine for CV-19 just in case it's being less dangerous in the heat as the experts predicted and that it has a resurgence come the colder weather.

Better to be safe than sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swaledale

Well the vaccine is an unknown quantity, how effective and when or even if one will be available is questionable the answer for the next 18 months at least is we are going to have to live with it. I liked the view of a 75 yer old interviewed the other day.

Which was

"I don't see the preservation of a few extra years of life for someone my age is worth the economic and social devastation we are inflicting on younger generations. Those that feel at risk should safeguard themselves and let others get on with their lives."

An entirely sensible attitude, far removed from the rumblings and grumblings of fearful old men!

---

Except that the 55+ age group, which is the one most at risk, do not constitute ‘fearful old men’.

Any major epidemic/pandemic is most likely to at its most devastating where the old, the sick (those with underlying health conditions) and the poor are concerned...aka the most vulnerable.

For that reason I have to disagree with your 75 year old. He may be being very selfless, although one doesn’t know his situation, however if such sentiments were uttered by someone in their thirties or forties it could be interpreted as verging on the fascist.

P.S. Take your point MA...but I don’t accept that ‘cost effectiveness’ needs to be a factor where the vaccine is concerned. That precedent thankfully hasn’t been set where other illnesses are concerned.

I think you'll find it has, rA, by big pharma not developing expensive solutions to conditions as its either not economic on the grounds of small numbers of users with inadequate payback or that its more profitable to them to treat conditions, not cure them (eg cancer, allegedly)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone

I think you'll find it has, rA, by big pharma not developing expensive solutions to conditions as its either not economic on the grounds of small numbers of users with inadequate payback or that its more profitable to them to treat conditions, not cure them (eg cancer, allegedly)

---

I haven’t really any way of verifying this, GP...but I wouldn’t have thought medical treatment for things such as any of the cancers or for that matter, road accidents and other ‘misadventures’ is judged on the basis of ‘cost effectiveness’.
In any case, as far as Covid is concerned, surely - as is the case with the Flu and Pneumonia vaccines - it would be ‘cost effective’ to provide a vaccine which prevents the world wide economic disruption we are currently witnessing.
I’m no expert and these are just thoughts, but I feel sure the provision of a vaccine for even - possibly especially - the poorest parts of the World would be worth every penny.

That depends whose money pays for it. If its big pharma, then the good of the world and global economic health are maybe less important than profits in their mind.

If you can manufacture a drug that eliminates the very demand for it after one treatment, you'd need to charge a lot per dose to recover your R&D costs. Even more if it also cut the ground from under the feet of other drugs you produce.

Not everyone is so altruistic as you seem to think.

Or, before you say it, as cynical as I.

Besides we all know that Pewterschmidt Industries has a cure for cancer secreted away on the top floor lad in their offices in Providence RI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone

That depends whose money pays for it. If its big pharma, then the good of the world and global economic health are maybe less important than profits in their mind.

If you can manufacture a drug that eliminates the very demand for it after one treatment, you'd need to charge a lot per dose to recover your R&D costs. Even more if it also cut the ground from under the feet of other drugs you produce.

Not everyone is so altruistic as you seem to think.

---

Believe it or not I’m much more cynical than I am idealistic and I do completely recognise the lack of altruism.

Having said that the cost of cancer treatment and putting people together again after huge RTA’s is massive and however justifiable it is (and I do believe it is) it’s also difficult to describe as ‘cost effective’.

I also fully accept your comment about R&D costs. It’s a really complex subject which, a little like Coronavirus, brings out the best and the worst of society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

Except that the 55+ age group, which is the one most at risk, do not constitute ‘fearful old men’.

Any major epidemic/pandemic is most likely to at its most devastating where the old, the sick (those with underlying health conditions) and the poor are concerned...aka the most vulnerable.

For that reason I have to disagree with your 75 year old. He may be being very selfless, although one doesn’t know his situation, however if such sentiments were uttered by someone in their thirties or forties it could be interpreted as verging on the fascist.

P.S. Take your point MA...but I don’t accept that ‘cost effectiveness’ needs to be a factor where the vaccine is concerned. That precedent thankfully hasn’t been set where other illnesses are concerned.

---

Where do you get the 55+ age group from? WHO and government guidance states over 70's but every medical expert I've heard says that whilst age is a factor, the state of ones health is the biggest denominator.

The official figures on death rates are as follows:

In age groups up to and including 60-69, fewer than 1 in 1,000 people have died from coronavirus.
Age 70-79, it’s 2 in every 1,000 people.
Age 80-89, it’s 7 in every 1,000 people.
Age 90 and over, it’s 18 people in every 1,000 people.
Males have a higher risk in every age group than females.

Thats pretty good odds IF one is in a reasonable state of health.

Of course to properly assess the risk one would also need to compare the risk of death from other causes, BUT its estimated that deaths from cancer alone due to delayed treatment etc. will run into tens of thousands over the next couple of years.

By the way the 75 year old was a woman and not sure why you'd say it was fascist? If we are killing thousands in order to save thousands isn't that also fascist?

If we have completely ****ed the economy and the lives of hundreds of thousands of people of people whats that then?

I made my first visit to London yesterday, tubes and trains eerily quiet, mask wearing compliance good, fewer people on the streets but not noticeably so.

Mad its far too early to say whether the virus has mutated to a weaker strain, no medical expert I've spoken to or heard speak has said that is the case, more likely that the only people exposed have much more resistance to it, due to health or perhaps having gained some immunity.

I'm intrigued rA as to what your approach would be IF we don't get a vaccine? Do we suspend normal life for 18 months or longer?

Also where do you get the idea that cost effectiveness isn't a measure in developing vaccines or other health treatments? That has always been the case and would be with Covid-19, after all if a vaccine isn't very effective but costs millions to make and not using it would not cost those millions then its likely not to be implemented.