Masks for indoor work

[Pumpernickel]

We need to vaccinate the vulnerable people fast but also the workers in the NHS not the pen pushers who get it before front line staff!

and anyone else who's liable to come into contact with many people from outside of their household during the course of their job

Not really because it is better that your own immune system deals with this virus the vaccine is a booster of the immune system.

The vaccine is an inactive facsimile of part of the virus that allows your immune system to see that part and learn to target that part. It's kinda like a mugshot and some specific manhandling training, so your immune system recognises the virus and knows how to knock it out. Pretty much what happens when you gain immunity the old fashioned way but without the same risk.

Why do you need a vaccine if your own immune system recognised it and delt with it ?

Because it can't recognise something it haven't seen, so you allow the immune system to see it via the part in the vaccine (like a mugshot) so when the real virus turns up (the actual person the mugshot is of) the immune system recognises it and deals with it.

If you haven't had the virus or vaccine, your immune system can't recognise anything and has to learn the hard way.

Your last sentence simply isn't true as many people will already have pre-existing immunity to Covid-19.
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563

If their immune system has dealt with something extremely similar, maybe. If it hasn't then there's no immunity until something like it (virus/vaccine) has been dealt with.

[milly]

We need to vaccinate the vulnerable people fast but also the workers in the NHS not the pen pushers who get it before front line staff!

and anyone else who's liable to come into contact with many people from outside of their household during the course of their job

Not really because it is better that your own immune system deals with this virus the vaccine is a booster of the immune system.

The vaccine is an inactive facsimile of part of the virus that allows your immune system to see that part and learn to target that part. It's kinda like a mugshot and some specific manhandling training, so your immune system recognises the virus and knows how to knock it out. Pretty much what happens when you gain immunity the old fashioned way but without the same risk.

Why do you need a vaccine if your own immune system recognised it and delt with it ?

Because it can't recognise something it haven't seen, so you allow the immune system to see it via the part in the vaccine (like a mugshot) so when the real virus turns up (the actual person the mugshot is of) the immune system recognises it and deals with it.

If you haven't had the virus or vaccine, your immune system can't recognise anything and has to learn the hard way.

Your last sentence simply isn't true as many people will already have pre-existing immunity to Covid-19.
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563

If their immune system has dealt with something extremely similar, maybe. If it hasn't then there's no immunity until something like it (virus/vaccine) has been dealt with.

Most humans have dealt with Coronaviruses at sometime or another in their life which could give some people a level of immunity to Covid-19.

[Pumpernickel]

Most humans have dealt with Coronaviruses at sometime or another in their life which could give some people a level of immunity to Covid-19.

I have emboldened a word for you that states "we don't know" (with respect to CV19 specifically). This goes against the emboldened part of a previous post of yours below:

Your last sentence simply isn't true as many people will already have pre-existing immunity to Covid-19.
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563

Truth is we don't know the extent to which anyone is immune. The paper you linked mentions "reactivity" to the virus, an "immunological response" which you wrongly take to mean as full immunity when it doesn't necessarily mean full immunity. The paper also mentions:

"these studies are small and do not yet provide precise estimates of pre-existing immunological responses to SARS-CoV-2"

so you'll forgive me if I don't cherrypick the odd sentence out of it an run with it (as you are want to do).

I'll also note:

“Our hypothesis, of course, was that it’s so called ‘common cold’ coronaviruses, because they’re closely related,”

Which suggests the possibility of a similar virus being encountered previously, which is where any reactivity comes from (as I mentioned as a possibility earlier), yet many of us still get the common cold from time to time.

Truth is though: scientists aren't sure of anything yet. They are publishing papers on small studies that show possibilities that need following up before there's any real understanding, yet here we have a postman who can extrapolate choice phrases to demonstrate why they know it all before any follow up studies are done, and everyone else is some paranoid stooge who is falling into some conspiratorial trap against freedom.

[k979aaa]

They have above post but last delve deeper into this here is a copy of deaths in the UK https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths these are people who died in the las 28 days with a positive test not that they died of covid-19 but died hit by a bus they don't do autopsies now just swab them and it is a covid-19 death! The PCR test can pick up dead virus of which it all is as it is an RNA virus single strand type virus not a DNA type virus these mutations are common mask's don't work as the particles are so small as it would be better having a soiled nappy on your head!

[milly]

Most humans have dealt with Coronaviruses at sometime or another in their life which could give some people a level of immunity to Covid-19.

I have emboldened a word for you that states "we don't know" (with respect to CV19 specifically). This goes against the emboldened part of a previous post of yours below:

Your last sentence simply isn't true as many people will already have pre-existing immunity to Covid-19.
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563

Truth is we don't know the extent to which anyone is immune. The paper you linked mentions "reactivity" to the virus, an "immunological response" which you wrongly take to mean as full immunity when it doesn't necessarily mean full immunity. The paper also mentions:

"these studies are small and do not yet provide precise estimates of pre-existing immunological responses to SARS-CoV-2"

so you'll forgive me if I don't cherrypick the odd sentence out of it an run with it (as you are want to do).

I'll also note:

“Our hypothesis, of course, was that it’s so called ‘common cold’ coronaviruses, because they’re closely related,”

Which suggests the possibility of a similar virus being encountered previously, which is where any reactivity comes from (as I mentioned as a possibility earlier), yet many of us still get the common cold from time to time.

Truth is though: scientists aren't sure of anything yet. They are publishing papers on small studies that show possibilities that need following up before there's any real understanding, yet here we have a postman who can extrapolate choice phrases to demonstrate why they know it all before any follow up studies are done, and everyone else is some paranoid stooge who is falling into some conspiratorial trap against freedom.

Nah, I am more of an optimist really, if you want to believe the doom and gloom espoused by the Government Scientists on a daily basis and dodgy computer modelling from Neil Ferguson that's up to you.

[SpacePhoenix]

Also we don't yet know how long any immunity lasts for (and how quickly it wears off)

[Pumpernickel]

Most humans have dealt with Coronaviruses at sometime or another in their life which could give some people a level of immunity to Covid-19.

I have emboldened a word for you that states "we don't know" (with respect to CV19 specifically). This goes against the emboldened part of a previous post of yours below:

Your last sentence simply isn't true as many people will already have pre-existing immunity to Covid-19.
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563

Truth is we don't know the extent to which anyone is immune. The paper you linked mentions "reactivity" to the virus, an "immunological response" which you wrongly take to mean as full immunity when it doesn't necessarily mean full immunity. The paper also mentions:

"these studies are small and do not yet provide precise estimates of pre-existing immunological responses to SARS-CoV-2"

so you'll forgive me if I don't cherrypick the odd sentence out of it an run with it (as you are want to do).

I'll also note:

“Our hypothesis, of course, was that it’s so called ‘common cold’ coronaviruses, because they’re closely related,”

Which suggests the possibility of a similar virus being encountered previously, which is where any reactivity comes from (as I mentioned as a possibility earlier), yet many of us still get the common cold from time to time.

Truth is though: scientists aren't sure of anything yet. They are publishing papers on small studies that show possibilities that need following up before there's any real understanding, yet here we have a postman who can extrapolate choice phrases to demonstrate why they know it all before any follow up studies are done, and everyone else is some paranoid stooge who is falling into some conspiratorial trap against freedom.

Nah, I am more of an optimist really, if you want to believe the doom and gloom espoused by the Government Scientists on a daily basis and dodgy computer modelling from Neil Ferguson that's up to you.

There's a difference between being optimistic and being reckless, and there's also a difference between acting with consideration and believing doom and gloom.

Your internal extrapolation of my (and others) reasoning is not the reality of the reasoning we each have.

[milly]

Also we don't yet know how long any immunity lasts for (and how quickly it wears off)

It is very easy to predict how long immunity will last, it will be a year so that Big Pharma can make a killing from vaccinating everyone annually.

[milly]

Most humans have dealt with Coronaviruses at sometime or another in their life which could give some people a level of immunity to Covid-19.

I have emboldened a word for you that states "we don't know" (with respect to CV19 specifically). This goes against the emboldened part of a previous post of yours below:

Your last sentence simply isn't true as many people will already have pre-existing immunity to Covid-19.
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563

Truth is we don't know the extent to which anyone is immune. The paper you linked mentions "reactivity" to the virus, an "immunological response" which you wrongly take to mean as full immunity when it doesn't necessarily mean full immunity. The paper also mentions:

"these studies are small and do not yet provide precise estimates of pre-existing immunological responses to SARS-CoV-2"

so you'll forgive me if I don't cherrypick the odd sentence out of it an run with it (as you are want to do).

I'll also note:

“Our hypothesis, of course, was that it’s so called ‘common cold’ coronaviruses, because they’re closely related,”

Which suggests the possibility of a similar virus being encountered previously, which is where any reactivity comes from (as I mentioned as a possibility earlier), yet many of us still get the common cold from time to time.

Truth is though: scientists aren't sure of anything yet. They are publishing papers on small studies that show possibilities that need following up before there's any real understanding, yet here we have a postman who can extrapolate choice phrases to demonstrate why they know it all before any follow up studies are done, and everyone else is some paranoid stooge who is falling into some conspiratorial trap against freedom.

Nah, I am more of an optimist really, if you want to believe the doom and gloom espoused by the Government Scientists on a daily basis and dodgy computer modelling from Neil Ferguson that's up to you.

There's a difference between being optimistic and being reckless, and there's also a difference between acting with consideration and believing doom and gloom.

Your internal extrapolation of my (and others) reasoning is not the reality of the reasoning we each have.

Reckless is closing down the economy for a disease that has an average age of mortality of 82.4.
Tens of thousands of people will lose their jobs and possibly their homes, there have already been thousands of appointments missed for Cancer screenings.
It is bizarre why the government would wreck the economy and lives of millions for Coronavirus which is the 24th biggest killer in the UK.

[Woody Guthrie]

Also we don't yet know how long any immunity lasts for (and how quickly it wears off)

It is very easy to predict how long immunity will last, it will be a year so that Big Pharma can make a killing from vaccinating everyone annually.

"Big Pharma" are unlikely to make any long term money from a Covid19 vaccine.

There are already 7 vaccines approved around the world and another 55 at various stages of trials 1-3, most of them have nothing to do with what is traditionally known as big pharma, there's already a push to have a free or at cost vaccination programme so it's doubtful once R&D costs have been recouped that any pharmaceutical company is going to risk a PR disaster trying to bleed money from a vaccine.

This first one we're using for instance is likely to whither and die once cheaper alternatives come along that don't have the logistical problems. They might struggle to break even if the cheaper alternatives are able to scale up production quickly enough.

If you want to look for conspiracies and dark acts keep your eye out for negative stories about the cheaper versions and politicians talking shite about how we need the best version even if it's more expensive, that's the big players at work.

Pharmaceutical companies make far more money punting needless painkillers, anti-depressants and hard-on pills which people swallow every day than they'll ever make from vaccines which you might need once a year.

[Pumpernickel]

There's a difference between being optimistic and being reckless, and there's also a difference between acting with consideration and believing doom and gloom.

Your internal extrapolation of my (and others) reasoning is not the reality of the reasoning we each have.

Reckless is closing down the economy for a disease that has an average age of mortality of 82.4.
Tens of thousands of people will lose their jobs and possibly their homes, there have already been thousands of appointments missed for Cancer screenings.
It is bizarre why the government would wreck the economy and lives of millions for Coronavirus which is the 24th biggest killer in the UK.

You're at it again, expressing certainties that are actually unknowns.

We don't know the mortality of this virus running unrestricted since that hasn't happened. The lockdowns prevented health services becoming overwhelmed, and if they had been overwhelmed the mortality could have been wildly different.
There is also the aspect of long term complications for many that "recover", and that isn't remotely understood because those people haven't had these effects long term yet.
You also assume the economy wouldn't be wrecked by people actually feeling the need to go out less, to buy less and mingle less (esp in entertainment and hospitality). Most people would have had their own version of a lockdown if there was no government measure, so the economy would be in a dire state anyway (not to mention the countries that actually got a grip, enforced contact tracing, and had high levels of mask usage [the specific topic here] have fared economically better than the likes of us).

I'll remind you again: you're a postman. You don't know as much as you think you do, and you ignore the fact that a little bit of knowledge with no understanding can be extremely dangerous in these sorts of circumstances.

[wandle]

Immunity is not the same as transmission.

Ok: if you accept that then how does your "Barrington Declaration" do anything to help the vulnerable?

How does a nursing home staffed entirely by people who have been infected, recovered, and thus gained immunity, isolate those vulnerable people from the virus?

The answer is: it doesn't.

Equally, how does a nursing home staffed entirely by people who have been vaccinated, for whom there is no proof they cannot still carry and thus transmit the virus, protect those vulnerable people from the virus?

The answer is: it doesn't.

So if the current ‘three weeks to flatten the curve’ strategy is still in place 9 MONTHS later, how is that proof that lockdowns work???

[milly]

There's a difference between being optimistic and being reckless, and there's also a difference between acting with consideration and believing doom and gloom.

Your internal extrapolation of my (and others) reasoning is not the reality of the reasoning we each have.

Reckless is closing down the economy for a disease that has an average age of mortality of 82.4.
Tens of thousands of people will lose their jobs and possibly their homes, there have already been thousands of appointments missed for Cancer screenings.
It is bizarre why the government would wreck the economy and lives of millions for Coronavirus which is the 24th biggest killer in the UK.

You're at it again, expressing certainties that are actually unknowns.

We don't know the mortality of this virus running unrestricted since that hasn't happened. The lockdowns prevented health services becoming overwhelmed, and if they had been overwhelmed the mortality could have been wildly different.
There is also the aspect of long term complications for many that "recover", and that isn't remotely understood because those people haven't had these effects long term yet.
You also assume the economy wouldn't be wrecked by people actually feeling the need to go out less, to buy less and mingle less (esp in entertainment and hospitality). Most people would have had their own version of a lockdown if there was no government measure, so the economy would be in a dire state anyway (not to mention the countries that actually got a grip, enforced contact tracing, and had high levels of mask usage [the specific topic here] have fared economically better than the likes of us).

I'll remind you again: you're a postman. You don't know as much as you think you do, and you ignore the fact that a little bit of knowledge with no understanding can be extremely dangerous in these sorts of circumstances.

I don't claim to be an expert but unlike I don't believe everything that the media says about Covid.
With regards to masks we have had more cases of Coronavirus at work since it was mandatory to wear masks, this is only anecdotal I know but it's not unexpected.
Lockdowns are a religion to people like you, there is always an excuse why they don't work, usually we locked down too late or it wasn't long enough or tough enough or selfish people weren't observing the lockdown.

[ddtc]

I don't claim to be an expert but unlike I don't believe everything that the media says about Covid.
With regards to masks we have had more cases of Coronavirus at work since it was mandatory to wear masks, this is only anecdotal I know but it's not unexpected.
Lockdowns are a religion to people like you, there is always an excuse why they don't work, usually we locked down too late or it wasn't long enough or tough enough or selfish people weren't observing the lockdown.

You can keep saying things like so on so don't work or have had no use, but we will never know the full extent of what it would of been like without these rules in place. We all know the media is full of bs but what about what the nurses, doctors, care workers experience? Are you going to disregard what they know and have seen since this pandemic started?

I will never understand how saying that older people are at most risk of dying is an acceptable statement for us to live as normal. All lives matter no matter what the age, and some may die in lower age categories or healthy people, so why gamble? Are you going to accept responsibility for killing someone, a family member or friend because you wanted to live as normal? You try saying that to people who have lost their loved ones, covid or not.

Some of you really are in the wrong profession and obviously underpaid as a postman. Obviously what you need to do now is to copy and paste information from numerous sources online that back your thinking and then forward it on to the scientists and governments so they know what they need to do to bring this to an end.

[k979aaa]

We are all going to die at some time it is what you do after your born and before you die that counts at present that is not very much!