advertisement


Coronavirus - the new strain XXII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Patients who survive severe Covid are more than twice as likely to die over the following year than those who remain uninfected or experience milder virus symptoms, a study says.

The research, published in Frontiers in Medicine, suggests that serious coronavirus infections may significantly damage long-term health, showing the importance of vaccination.

The increased risk of dying was greater for patients under 65, and only 20% of the severe Covid-19 patients who died did so because of typical Covid complications, such as respiratory failure.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...bles-chances-of-dying-in-following-year-study
 
Good job ignoring me Tig. Surely it would be better to address my point directly instead of indulging in all this passive aggressive sniping.

But thanks for illustrating the point: this is what I’m talking about. There will always be selfish individuals, and people to report on their behaviour, and people who get angry and use the incident to shift blame, and really, who benefits from all this. I honestly think that keeping the benefits of masks in perspective would help everyone here, except possibly the government.

Oh for goodness sake this wasn’t even aimed at you, there are plenty of people here and elsewhere who solely blame the government for everything, it’s squarely aimed at them!! You have an utter obsession with me and it’s genuinely a bit disturbing! Please just try and ignore me and don’t respond to me, as said I will then do likewise!
 
Article 2 of the Human Rights Act protects your right to life. (This will be the principle that guides the public inquiry)

This means that nobody, including the Government, can try to end your life. It also means the Government should take appropriate measures to safeguard life by making laws to protect you and, in some circumstances, by taking steps to protect you if your life is at risk.

Public authorities should also consider your right to life when making decisions that might put you in danger or that affect your life expectancy.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-2-right-life
Exactly. Well said that man.
 

His son doesn't seemed to have learnt from the experience either - let's hope others do...

"Lamb’s son Jonathan had earlier described his father’s infection as “a spiritual attack from the enemy” to take him down, in a broadcast on the network last week, reported CBS19.

“As much as my parents have gone on here to kind of inform everyone about everything going on to the pandemic and some of the ways to treat COVID — there’s no doubt that the enemy is not happy about that,” Mr Lamb said.

“And he’s doing everything he can to take down my Dad,” he added."
 
What a silly article.

These old and clinically vulnerable people are able to make their own decisions about whether to socialise! Just like I can. If they’re not they can phone their GP and talk about it, I’m sure.

And when they're required by their employer to work in a crowded, poorly ventilated office?

I guess they could always quit and go on the dole eh? They're adults and able to make their own decisions after all.
 
I think the thinking is that the vaccines’ efficacy will potentially reduce but not be eliminated entirely and therefore if Omicron turns out to be more transmissible as expected more people boosted and at maximum protection is a good thing.

Also, it reduces the number of admissions to hospital from the dominant Delta variant so, should vaccines be found to be less effective against Omicron, the hospitals have capacity to deal with it.
 
We can prevail over Omicron. We just need to use the tools we have - Eric Topol (is the founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, professor of molecular medicine, and executive vice-president of Scripps Research)

Masks, vaccines, boosters, rapid tests and anti-Covid pills will all be essential in the months ahead

"...Moreover, that third shot induces remarkably high neutralizing antibodies, much higher than the second vaccine dose, and much broader activity against variants. Furthermore, the T-cell response to vaccines are far less variant sensitive than neutralizing antibodies, which puts us in good stead for fully vaccinated people to reduce the risk of severe disease."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/01/we-can-prevail-over-omicron-use-tools-we-have
 
And when they're required by their employer to work in a crowded, poorly ventilated office?

I guess they could always quit and go on the dole eh? They're adults and able to make their own decisions after all.

So are you agreeing with me about the vulnerable and elderly?
 
Better ask the relatives then if you can't decide - here's Frances Ryan with a few home thruths

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...nd-covid-measures-clinically-vulnerable-masks
"Why don't you explain to all the DEAD CHILDREN about tradeoffs and the balance of expert opinion!" I didn't kill anyone, acknowledging uncertainty did not kill anyone, avoiding absurdly confident predictions and prescriptions didn't kill anyone. As regards lifting short term restrictions the question was always *when*. There was a case to be made for summer rather than winter, and vice versa, but it was hard to hear them because of all the noise about dastardly herd immunity experiments, wilful infection of children, 100,000 unnecessary deaths and so on.

The article you link to is good and if the discussion about what to do weren't dominated by grandstanding and denunciation the issues it raises might be given a proper hearing. I note that her emphasis is on work from home, support to isolate and increasing sick pay: demands that you and seemingly iSage have dismissed as absurd and infantile, the better to focus on more media-friendly fare like masks, schools and Freedom Day. That's accomplished nothing on its own terms, but it's certainly taken the heat off the government as regards more meaningful demands such as Ryan's.
 
There was a case to be made for summer rather than winter, and vice versa, but it was hard to hear them because of all the noise about dastardly herd immunity experiments, wilful infection of children, 100,000 unnecessary deaths and so on.

The Tories have always pitched this as Summer vs Autumn when it wasn't a binary choice and neither has proven to be the correct answer anyway. There has been a need for ongoing restrictions, childrens vaccinations, a better organised and funded booster programme etc, etc. It's extremely offensive just to brush off the huge number of deaths and serious illness by saying that they might have happened later.
 
The Tories have always pitched this as Summer vs Autumn when it wasn't a binary choice and neither have proven to be the correct answer anyway. There has been a need for ongoing restrictions, childrens vaccinations, a better organised and funded booster proramme etc, etc. It's extremely offensive just to brush off the huge number of deaths and serious illness by saying that they might have happened later.
I’m not doing that, I’m saying that timing was obviously a factor and that it’s misleading to pretend that there were (or are) any easy answers. I’m sick of your accusations that this amounts to dismissing suffering and death, and all this stuff about offensiveness of late, please.
 
"Why don't you explain to all the DEAD CHILDREN about tradeoffs and the balance of expert opinion!" I didn't kill anyone, acknowledging uncertainty did not kill anyone, avoiding absurdly confident predictions and prescriptions didn't kill anyone. As regards lifting short term restrictions the question was always *when*. There was a case to be made for summer rather than winter, and vice versa, but it was hard to hear them because of all the noise about dastardly herd immunity experiments, wilful infection of children, 100,000 unnecessary deaths and so on.
With different decisions made by the government then there would have been fewer excess deaths. Johnson made his choices and the result is that over the past 6 months we have the highest number of Covid deaths out of all the major European countries. There never has been a right answer, as noone could know what it is, but Johnson has continually provided the wrong decisions.

The article you link to is good and if the discussion about what to do weren't dominated by grandstanding and denunciation the issues it raises might be given a proper hearing. I note that her emphasis is on work from home, support to isolate and increasing sick pay: demands that you and seemingly iSage have dismissed as absurd and infantile, the better to focus on more media-friendly fare like masks, schools and Freedom Day. That's accomplished nothing on its own terms, but it's certainly taken the heat off the government as regards more meaningful demands such as Ryan's.
To be fair to iSage, they have discussed the privileged / disadvantaged divide w.r.t. Covid outcomes and said that things needed to be done to improve the outcomes for the disadvantaged through payments to be off work for sickness / isolation etc. I have not seen anyone (iSage or on PFM) say that these demands were infantile or absurd and I very much support them as things that needed to be done. But Johnson knew better and so they did not happen, i.e. we should be railing at the government not at iSage or people on PFM (unless they really think that Boris is making the right decisions).
 
With different decisions made by the government then there would have been fewer excess deaths. Johnson made his choices and the result is that over the past 6 months we have the highest number of Covid deaths out of all the major European countries. There never has been a right answer, as noone could know what it is, but Johnson has continually provided the wrong decisions.

I think the idea that there would have been fewer excess deaths in the longer term, more in the shorter term. I think you are wrong to say that he has taken the wrong decisions in 2021 -- I could provide a list of right ones if you want.

It's extremely offensive just to brush off the huge number of deaths and serious illness by saying that they might have happened later.

Well, no, actually. It isn't offensive. They might have happened later. And more of them were expected have happened later. Stop trying to silence people by taking a holier than thou position.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top