No, just different policies. Not in Ireland. There is no border control because NI still operates under EU rules, and people born in NI have a right to Irish citizenship by default.
Just heard on a call vaccine(s?) may last 6 mths once given. Assume this will need to be an ongoing thing.
Well, it depends. Some studies suggest it will last more than a year at least, but of course the virus is well-embedded in the world population by now and will inevitably continue to mutate. Natural selection would favour highly contagious, but less lethal variants in the long term. It is likely this will become another virus to be added to the annual flu jab.
I recall writing "it could help explain" and "I suppose". I never made a claim. I did not comment on other possible contributing factors either. Now what exactly was it that you were disputing again? Was it vitamin d deficiency weakening the immune system that weren't evidence based? I just hope your economy and society survives another lockdown should it drag out for months on end. Could be, could also be that they would use it as an excuse to drag you right back into the project again. Yes, this could potentially work, at the same time I suppose it could remain dormant and kick off once people started socializing again.
You mean like "here's flu, would you like CV as well?" or like "here's your fluCV"? And you can't swerve the CV, for example? I do hope you don't mean the latter.
We do twice as many tests in one day as Ireland does in 7 days. Can people just stop using comparisons between any other country. They are basically all pointless. Everyone is singing form a different hymn sheet.
I think you missed the point. Go hard, fast and effectively and you'll have less of an impact overall on an economy and have fewer deaths. Going haf assed, late and not controlling variables that you could control means you have more drawn out lockdowns. That overall result are more deaths and a greater impact on the economy.
I doubt there is a right approach for every country, I saw the estimated hospital admission rate in the under 50s the other day and it works out at about 3 people per 100k with a fatality rate in the 0.1 per 100k. Once the at risk groups are vaccinated the under 50s will be told to get there arses back to work and school for want of a better word.
Assuming those figures are right, having not done my own research into that particular statistic, one death per million under-50 (which is 0.1 per 100k) works out to 37 deaths total per these age stats. Given people are dying at a rate of 1,000 a day at the moment, either we're going to run out of over 50s pretty darn quickly or one-death-per-million for under 50s ain't right.
I mean people seem to forget it's not just either death or fine and dandy if you catch covid. There are thousands still suffering long after 'recovery' after it's caused damage and, guess what, many of them are under 50.
. Interestingly, I know about half a dozen people who have had it (off the top of my head) and have been fine afterwards, but I do also know of a couple that are in hospital. Are there any numbers to show proportion of full recoveries versus "long-covid" non-full recoveries?
I thought one of the biggest issues was that even those who fully recover and are all fine and dandy afterwards potentially took up space in a hospital/ICU ward which can result in others not being able to get the treatment they need.
Thankfully, none of those I know (with the exception of the two I mentioned, who are a lot older) had to go into hospital. Laid up indoors for a bit. Thinking about it, I know of a few deaths as well (I think mostly all older), so it's a right mixed bag.
Research by Kings College London back in October had it at 1 in 20 reporting symptoms after a month. The BMJ in November found some young, low risk patients had multiple organ damage but that's not been peer reviewed AFAIK. I don't think the picture will be clear for a while but I do think people shouldn't assume it's an all or nothing situation nor that it's just a matter that if you're under 50 you're fine.
You know what, I can understand that but probably not for the same reasons. One dose of the Astra gives about 70% protection and, from the trials, and of those that did get covid none got it severely. The Pfizer one is 52% after one dose iirc. Considering they've extended the time between doses I can understand it, in that sense. Edit: I don't get that article, it implies the Pfizer is 90% protective after one dose when a BMJ article from December suggesrs just over 50% https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4826 And from the New York Times: And that's the senior VP of Pfizer saying that.
