I'd just add to that that the billions wasted should be spent on a) enforcement, as in building back up police resources, then we come down like a ton of bricks on anyone / any business not complying with the measures (be it house parties, pubs / venues taking the piss, shop floors without measures, etc etc). We are far too soft. and b) health service (which, in spite of great efforts from some, is often utterly shambolic in practice, and broken as a 'system').
If those identified as infected were isolated, it wouldn't need to be as draconian as that for the rest. The NHS is more poorly managed than under resourced. Wales alone shows that the lockdown on its own is not a remedy, and the levels in most of the rest of the country were falling rapidly prior to lockdown, and have plateaud since lockdown, apart from London and the SE, where it rose.
I don't disagree. But there are still many who don't know they are infected, and we've all probably heard stories of those infected who don't comply with isolation. Unfortunately measures are needed but they should be a) sensible, not the non-sensical mess we currently have, and b) enforced robustly - unfortunately we don't have a 'great British public', instead we have far too many who don't give a **** other than about themselves and if they know there's likely to be no consequence they'll do whatever they please (we see that in all manner of circumstances these days from infant & junior school ages to right through society). With the NHS, it's for sure a combination (of gross mis-management and under resourcing .... although the former should be tackled first as the latter is a bottomless pit).
Spain’s Supreme Court on Friday ordered an investigation into the deaths of elderly people in nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic and the lack of protective gear for health workers. Magistrates were asked to find out if deaths at nursing homes “were associated with political, administrative or management decisions and whether those decisions are criminally reproachable”. The Supreme Court also asked the lower courts to look into the possible misuse of public funds to purchase flawed or fraudulent equipment to fight the pandemic. https://in.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-spain-idINKBN28S186
Thanks for the constructive replies to my question - I'd find it hard to disagree with any of them. I have been involved in discussions elsewhere, where the argument is for lifting lockdown because "it doesn't work". My position is that it does to a limited extent, in that it reduces interactions and slows (not stops) spread, but, as mentioned, it should be part of a range of measures including track'n'trace, better isolation of those who are positive and more support to vulnerable people. In the UK we seem to have given up on any measures that aren't restrictions, plus usual hands/face/space stuff. So I wouldn't want to remove/reduce the only tool we do have that has any kind of effect. IMHO we should also be throwing everything we can at the vaccine program* to make sure it continues to run as smoothly as possible, and to convince the "vaccine hesitant" to have the jab. Ultimately, that's our way out of this mess. I do worry that Pfizer/AZ/Moderna etc will struggle to keep up to match manufacturing with demand so that we have majority vaccination before next winter. But then I worried we wouldn't have a vaccine until next year at the earliest and I was proved wrong and would be happy to be proved wrong again. * a side note - I wish there was serious consideration to giving people some kind of certificate or evidence that they had been vaccinated. I can see problems coming next summer with international travel to some countries restricted to those who are vaccinated.
On your last paragraph, I'm not sure of the value of that, as it's currently not known if the vaccination stops you getting or spreading it, it simply minimises the harm to you if you get it.
True, but if enough people are vaccinated meaning they can't develop the disease, then the question about whether you can still be a carrier is moot.
As I understand it from the vaccine manufacturers web site, it's not clear if the vaccine does that though.
The point is that other countries may insist on production of such a certificate. Will serve them right if they can't holiday after deciding not to have the jab. First time I went to Spain in 1973 you had to have jabs for yellow fever, typhoid and malaria, at a not cheap cost. No jabs no certicate and no holiday insurance or being allowed to fly. You might find some of these strident anti vaxxers might change their tune if they can't have their fortnight eating a full English and McDonald's washed down with a beer in an Irish bar in Benidorm or Magaluf. Travel broadens the mind, after all...
If the vaccine doesn’t prevent someone from catching covid to a reasonable extent, it’s not a vaccine! Which manufacturers are saying that? On a broader point, has the government given up on track and trace now? It’s the vital missing piece of the jigsaw, as brownbag said above.
Do you think the 'vaccine Hesitant' will materialise to any great effect?I've heard people saying they won't be taking it but I believe most of that is bluff,bluster and playing to the gallery...Come the appointments,which could be some way off dependant on age,the vast majority will overwhelmingly accept what's on offer,unless a serious reaction occurs in the current recipients?
The article I read was from Xeneca I believe, it was in a magazine, but I'll rummage later to see if I can find it on-line. In the meantime, the Lancet are saying pretty much the same thing. "Whether the vaccines prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 or mainly just protect against illness is largely unknown" https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32472-7/fulltext
They may, but I doubt they'll impact on their own income if there isn't sufficient evidence to support it, and/or sufficient vaccine to deliver. Ultimately, they're allowing people to travel now without it, subject to certain conditions. The previous inoculations were to prevent you catching a disease that existed in your destination country, it wasn't to stop you spreading it.
My understanding is that you might still get the virus but it's much less likely to kill you or make you seriously ill, thus relieving pressure on the NHS. A bit like the flu vaccine really.
Good question - we won't know for sure until people decline their jab appointments. Maybe a good indicator will be how many turn up for their flu jab appointments?
Depends where you are going. They're not predicting too many changes, especially in the main areas people from the UK would want to travel to.
The vaccine readies your immune system so that should COVID19 enter your system, it fights it off immediately so it doesn't make you feel poorly. And if lots of people are in a room in that same vaccinated position, whether they are able to spread it to each other is immaterial. I think that was brownbag's point, but if I've got that wrong then I apologise. Of course the ones at real risk in these circumstances are those who refuse the vaccine. Up to them I suppose.
