Yesterday, the WHO  blasted the idea of "herd immunity" for the coronavirus.

The world is nowhere close to becoming immune to the coronavirus, and leaders at the World Health Organization Monday expressed outrage at the idea that some people might have to die in pursuit of a far-fetched virus-fighting strategy called herd immunity.

"A very low proportion of the people that have been tested have evidence of antibodies," Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO's technical lead for COVID-19, said. "The range is between 1 and 10%."

https://www.businessinsider.com/herd-immunity-few-people-have-had-the-coronavirus-who-2020-5?r=US&IR=T

 

Have you looked at the tense in which my sentence is written, Beast? I wrote:

"The question now is whether electors would rather have had Corbyn's Labour rump handling the present crisis? i.e. Pre-Starmer compared with the Tories. Please get it right. That is my question now. We don't yet know what the "Starmocracy" of Labour will turn out to be, short term or longer." That may well be my question later. Small. Far away. Small. Far away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMiKyfd6hA0

 

 

You have no reason whatsoever for making any assumption about my politics as I don't do politics, but I vote for whoever seems a decent, sound, fair-minded local candidate at every election - which I have to tell you has included a range of parties. You should think of standing.

R.

Yes, I apologise, I misread your post. My close distance eyesight is starting to fail me, I have been told I need varifocal glasses or something - like a lot of over 40s! I am denial though as I still think I am "young", but clearly nature has other ideas!

 

---

 

As a member of the 45 to 65 crowd that does not sound reassuring. Not at all! I doubt most of us in that age group have lived in the knowledge that we have a 2% chance of croaking imminently.  

You need to stop thinking so negetivley. A 2% chance of croaking from covid-19 means a 98% chance you won`t.

You could always start smoking as smokers are 5 times less likely to get infected than smokers

On the subject of schools re-opening,i personally think June is too early,has anyone thought `outside the box` and suggested the idea of reducing the summer holidays to say just 2 weeks especially for secondary schools, and kids go back during stage 3 of the govts roadmap? This would also give some opportunity for lost education to be caught up with. 

I think in that case the question would be, when do teachers get their holidays?   Most have been working during lockdown, either on site or to provide home schooling.

---

Good to see the number of excess deaths falling fast, but still an awful figure

Restaurants have opened again in 3 US states, but people are not going

On the subject of schools re-opening,i personally think June is too early,has anyone thought `outside the box` and suggested the idea of reducing the summer holidays to say just 2 weeks especially for secondary schools, and kids go back during stage 3 of the govts roadmap? This would also give some opportunity for lost education to be caught up with. 

That's an interesting idea and one that seems to have quite a bit of traction.

I have no idea how other schools are dealing with the curriculum but the one my daughter attends appears to be providing and following up all the core subjects. In other words apart from the reduction of personal attention, tuition is much the same if not stricter than before the closure. Pupils are encouraged to email teachers with questions and ideas.

As I see it and it's only my personal opinion, the 'lost education' is more to do with the removal of social interactions and sports. If anything teachers are working as hard with the pupils who are able to come in plus the workload of the online classes. I am not sure a two week summer holiday would therefore be popular with staff and pupils. The social side i.e interacting with friends continues online of course in the evenings.  The physical fitness bit does concern me though but the good weather has helped.

---

As a member of the 45 to 65 crowd that does not sound reassuring. Not at all! I doubt most of us in that age group have lived in the knowledge that we have a 2% chance of croaking imminently.  

If I’m right, you’ve calculated the death rate as 2% of infections.  So you’d have to catch it first and if you’re outside London there’s only a 4% chance of that.  So your survival rate is looking better already Brian!  

---

Restaurants have opened again in 3 US states, but people are not going

 

Not surprised !

As I'm knocking 59, I shan't be  pubbing or going to restaurant  until the risk of death of getting this bloody thing is less than circa 2% (and yes I know that means I'm circa 98% not going to die, but why would I take  even the 2% risk ?)

 

 

 

 

---

If incidence of disease is dropped too low, a second spike will occur.
Read up on "the hammer and the dance". We are now in "the dance".

"lockdown" needs to be backed off to ensure a manageable number of people still catch it.
This can't be officially voiced without committing political suicide because most people still seem to think the government is somehow going to prevent them catching coronavirus.

What they are doing is smart and considered but would be politically unpopular if the real reasons for doing it were made clear.

Timescale may vary but we are aiming for the orange line, not the green one.

---

Restaurants have opened again in 3 US states, but people are not going

They are using their commonsense without requiring a politician to decide what might be safe for them.
Restaurants with a small number of customers, in an area with low infection would be pretty safe especially if you are in the younger age range unlikely to notice even if you had it.

---

 

Why particularly? Children have a miniscule risk from COVID-19.

Surely you are not one of those who don't understand the difference between it harming you and transmitting it to others??

---

If incidence of disease is dropped too low, a second spike will occur.
Read up on "the hammer and the dance". We are now in "the dance".

"lockdown" needs to be backed off to ensure a manageable number of people still catch it.
This can't be officially voiced without committing political suicide because most people still seem to think the government is somehow going to prevent them catching coronavirus.

What they are doing is smart and considered but would be politically unpopular if the real reasons for doing it were made clear.

Timescale may vary but we are aiming for the orange line, not the green one.

I think this is an interesting and informative post.

I’m 52 and in generally very good health. I had emergency surgery last year which saved my life after a short illness but have bounced back completely. At the time of surgery, I was told my chance of dying under the knife was 3%. I was more interested in the likelihood of ongoing health problems.

It is the same with this virus. I’m not afraid of dying. What I don’t want is to survive it but have ongoing severe health problems.

---

Yes, I apologise, I misread your post. My close distance eyesight is starting to fail me, I have been told I need varifocal glasses or something - like a lot of over 40s! I am denial though as I still think I am "young", but clearly nature has other ideas!

No probs, Beast. As an over 70 I sympathise with the glasses situation.  I have found varifocals bloody awful except for watching TV repeats whilst using an i-pad!!! On the move you can't see what your feet are doing. Mind the dog poo! I have to take them off to go downstairs or down a slope/jump a ditch etc. They are OK for driving because you can see both road and instrument panel, which helps. So I end up with long distance glasses for outside stuff, varifocals for specific situations, reading glasses for close up, and old pair of reading glasses which now suit pc use.  There are glasses/cases everywhere. I also have developing cataracts which now give me sort of multiple vision, which is strange if bird watching as you get 2-3 times the sightings everyone else gets!

40s is young, you are in your prime - but you will be surprised how quickly the years seem to zip by!

R.

---

 

As a member of the 45 to 65 crowd that does not sound reassuring. Not at all! I doubt most of us in that age group have lived in the knowledge that we have a 2% chance of croaking imminently.  

You should worry, young man! But to try and get some perspective my knee replacement op had a 3% risk of a stroke and most people don't turn down the opportunity. Also that is for everybody in that age group and we know a high percentage had pre-existing conditions which will have weighted the average.

---

I think this is an interesting and informative post.

I’m 52 and in generally very good health. I had emergency surgery last year which saved my life after a short illness but have bounced back completely. At the time of surgery, I was told my chance of dying under the knife was 3%. I was more interested in the likelihood of ongoing health problems.

It is the same with this virus. I’m not afraid of dying. What I don’t want is to survive it but have ongoing severe health problems.

Same for me last year, Justin, and I have exactly the same take on it after quite a long struggle and recovery. I have bounced back and am doing well.

It was reassuring to know I had a "living will/advance decision" in place as I trundled into OT! I have since updated my "advance decision" - want to be sure that when I finally start lose my grip they don't keep me going as a "preparation".

R.

 

---

If incidence of disease is dropped too low, a second spike will occur.
Read up on "the hammer and the dance". We are now in "the dance".

"lockdown" needs to be backed off to ensure a manageable number of people still catch it.

That's not what 'the hammer and the dance' says.

They are using their commonsense without requiring a politician to decide what might be safe for them.
Restaurants with a small number of customers, in an area with low infection would be pretty safe especially if you are in the younger age range unlikely to notice even if you had it.

I agree with this, but it could be worse for restaurants economically compared to staying closed! 

 

No probs, Beast. As an over 70 I sympathise with the glasses situation.  I have found varifocals bloody awful except for watching TV repeats whilst using an i-pad!!! On the move you can't see what your feet are doing. Mind the dog poo! I have to take them off to go downstairs or down a slope/jump a ditch etc. They are OK for driving because you can see both road and instrument panel, which helps. So I end up with long distance glasses for outside stuff, varifocals for specific situations, reading glasses for close up, and old pair of reading glasses which now suit pc use.  There are glasses/cases everywhere. I also have developing cataracts which now give me sort of multiple vision, which is strange if bird watching as you get 2-3 times the sightings everyone else gets!

40s is young, you are in your prime - but you will be surprised how quickly the years seem to zip by!

R.

So the moral of the story is:  get some decent specs so you can see it zipping by!  

Seriously, I’ve had varifocals for a while and have had no problem. You just have to remember to move your head up and down to switch from close to distant and not just your eyes.  

---

 

Yes, I apologise, I misread your post. My close distance eyesight is starting to fail me, I have been told I need varifocal glasses or something - like a lot of over 40s! I am denial though as I still think I am "young", but clearly nature has other ideas!

 

Benn there done that. First stage is +1.5 dioptre from the pound shop for reading. Ten pairs that you lose and sit on. As it gets worse you get fussy, as it becomes permanent you spend £250 on Zeiss varifocals ! That's when yo stop sitting on them.

---