Good points.

Not that common sense exists in public policy anymore.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

SARS and MERS certainly did a number on people in various ways that other coronaviruses didn't, so they're not all identical in every way. The same with immunity, with some coronaviruses it's short-lived, for others it lasts for years and so that feeds into how these viruses can spread. When something is new and as contagious as covid-19, opinion stated as fact doesn't really mean much, because it will be what it will be one way or the other. It has unique characteristics (for starters, in the worldwide picture it's starting to look like covid-19 might not be particularly seasonal, instead 'just' extremely contagious) and exactly how the next few months will pan out isn't something that is known.

If you read the article you'd see that there is good logic (inoculating against viruses is nothing new) and more specific emerging data around viral load so it's something worth registering as a possibility at least to those open to information and seeing where it leads in future studies. Inoculating against smallpox was 'guesswork' has history to it, combine that with the pertinent studies and and it Point being for the minor inconvenience of wearing a mask in certain situations, it's possible at least that you're putting yourself in a better situation in numerous ways. To me that is useful for people to consider, be aware of, and for further studies to be done. Sharing studies and developing thoughts from those well known in the field perhaps conveys something of value that blanket 'no i'm right, you're wrong' b0llock swinging fails to.

Edited by BlueJay (14 Sep 2020 3.48am)

I'm on the bus with 30 people, going into work where I'll be in a room with ten, with over 100 in it.
But tomorrow for my son's birthday, I'm only allowed six in the house. That's the bulls*** half-arsed crap that grates so much.

Red and Blue Army!

SARS-1 and MERS didn’t have a 2nd wave. I’m assuming that your opinion and that of these studies is that we continue restricting everyone and damage the economy and employment to shield the vulnerable who can shield anyway, and incidentally what the govt are reluctantly starting to hint at.

And while the fretting over the usual leftover recovery and implications of being infected with a serious illness carries on we allow thousands of cancer and cardiac patients to not be seen, to be refused treatment when they finally are after 6+ months, until possibly they’re critical to be operated on in empty hospitals, if they’re lucky. Just struggling with the medics or government behavioural scientists’ moral viewpoints.

COYP

Has this thread been censored by Downing Street lol?

COYP

I was highlighting to the poster the fact that viruses (even coronaviruses) have stark differences between them which makes declaring as fact how future ones will behave pointless. We do not exactly know what the next say three or four months hold for us. It's hardly unlikely though that we'll have case numbers very much higher than they are now in a month or two. What we call that isn't really that important to me.

As for assuming I'm posting these studies due to wanting to restrict or further restrict and damage the economy, that's possibly more revealing of your own views towards all of this than my own. It's the working back and rubbishing of anything that isn't targetted towards a preferred outcome. I don't see the point in that.

I've been on record countless times saying that I would not support another lockdown for instance. That in itself does not automatically follow that I am not interested in developing science around treatments, preventative measures, vaccines, hypotheses and so on.

And yes I certainly agree that partly through terrible luck, and also a really lopsided allocation of resources, a great many have suffered and indeed died over this past year of conditions other than this virus.

Edited by BlueJay (15 Sep 2020 12.48am)