Covid: Why goal is to live with the virus - not fight it
16/02/2021 | news | health | 690
Ministers want to turn Covid-19 into a manageable illness like flu. Why? And is this possible?
1
16/02/2021 10:37:48 123 13
bbc
The goal is to live with it because it will never be eradicated.
16
16/02/2021 11:05:17 30 96
bbc
It may not be possible to live with it, depending on mutations
23
16/02/2021 11:12:07 7 12
bbc
Worthy goal. Not necessarily achievable.
49
16/02/2021 11:47:01 10 21
bbc
Actually what 'living with it' means is living, to some degree, with permanent restrictions to freedom and liberty under the Coronavirus Act. Now Hancock or his eventual successor has that power they wont be relinquishing it any time soon - or ever.
203
16/02/2021 14:21:23 2 6
bbc
Are we being fed Tory propaganda again by the BBC?

The Tories started off using certain scientists to justify their long since debunked herd immunity policy. The BBC was instrumental in allowing the Tories to pedal that myth.

I would like to hear what the scientists from Germany, China, Australia, NZ, South Korea, Japan and Vietnam have got to say on this.
205
16/02/2021 14:24:41 3 4
bbc
It is because of countries like the UK that the virus has not been kept under control and has mutated. If we had had the policies of the above countries we would have an entirely different outlook and with the current vaccines we would not be talking about living with the virus.
586
17/02/2021 07:37:03 0 0
bbc
It MAY never be eradicated. As for those who keep bleating on about mutations.....please stop so people can get on with their lives.
2
16/02/2021 10:40:27 3 9
bbc
Too early to say if this is viable. Not enough know about the long-term operation of vaccines or mutation of the virus.
14
16/02/2021 11:03:46 2 3
bbc
I agree. Too soon to tell. At the moment Covid is a big problem. Let's make it a much smaller problem and look at it again.
3
16/02/2021 10:46:41 49 5
bbc
Surely they realise that "common" flu also kills and in very cold winters the death toll tends to rise, since the elderly are fearful of incurring high heating costs.

Haven't hospitals been overwhelmed in the past with flu outbreaks?
17
16/02/2021 11:06:29 42 4
bbc
That's because this was the point at which the NHS was shown up to have sustained too much reduction in capacity, The Kings report of 2019 said that since 1987 the NHS capacity in critical care, staffing and bed numbers has fallen by over 50% And the population risen by over ten million since then. This is a disaster of political meddling poor strategic planning and bad management, Not A Virus.
26
16/02/2021 11:18:03 5 0
bbc
High death rates from flu are often presented as a failure to get the annual vaccine right. They don't get the daily media spotlight and graphs in the papers and quite the same sense that the rates are due to a government conspicuously ou t of its depth.
346
16/02/2021 16:46:18 0 1
bbc
"Haven't hospitals been overwhelmed in the past with flu outbreaks?", yes they sure have...

But unlike Covid then the flu is only seasonal and doesn't happen each and every day all year round...

Not sure what the point was you tried to make there was supposed to be !!!
632
17/02/2021 12:20:27 0 0
bbc
You do not get colds or flu from not having heating at home. They are airbourne viruses so elderly people stand a better chance of surviving flu if like Covid during harsh winters (who wants to go out in one of them anyway) should stay at home and avoid others
654
17/02/2021 13:36:54 0 0
bbc
Yes but those overwhelming hospitals were solved decades ago by refining the FLU shots. We went from 50k deaths per year in 1998 to 15k.

We are doing the same with Covid, we had high deaths which we mitigated and are now working on the 'shot' to reduce it as low as possible.
4
16/02/2021 10:47:39 3 10
bbc
This seems to be a strategy born of failure. Too early to say this is a safe route. Precautionary principle until vaccine effectiveness has been ascertained. Also, high circulation leads to more mutations. Lower circulation and get our money's worth (£10 billion) for test and trace.
6
Mup
16/02/2021 10:52:40 2 2
bbc
The broader economy has spent nearly a £1000 billion on Covid mitgation so far, I'd not be worrying about £10 billion on test and trace...
10
16/02/2021 10:57:03 5 1
bbc
There's a lot of praise for the Aus/NZ approach (and they've appeared highly competent at pursuing their chosen strategy) but they haven't come out of it yet - they still need to open their borders sooner or later, and when they do they'll have the same problem of playing whack-a-mole with cases as everyone else does. Arden &co take it seriously but they still haven't got an endgame in sight.
5
16/02/2021 10:48:15 65 15
bbc
You can't fight nature in the end and have to learn to live with it.

I bet we don't get a HYS on the free speech article today, ironic eh but not unexpected ?
31
16/02/2021 11:25:54 20 47
bbc
Yes you can, we have eradicated many other viruses and diseases, we have dammed rivers, protected coastlines from erosion, and have cloud seeding tech to prevent droughts...

don't be such a quitter
42
16/02/2021 11:41:36 15 5
bbc
HYS is only on carefully selected stories where they think comments will be mostly uncontroversial and broadly in agreement with latest woke orthodoxy. That and they simply dont have enough moderators to police every comment.
149
16/02/2021 13:28:19 2 0
bbc
But you can to some extent fight nature.
Agree with you on the lack of a HYS on the free speech article.
345
16/02/2021 16:43:36 0 2
bbc
There's no such thing as "Free Speech" on any site that is moderated, by the very fact it is "moderated" then any "Speech" made on it only remains there at the whim of those moderators...

When it comes to the BBC that whim of those moderators is clearly a very biased one as anyone who attempts to post here regularly will know...

In fact it's a bit like Covid, you have to learn to live with it...
Learn to live with it? Oh guess we should bring back Polio and Rickets because some old gammon face doesn't know what he's talking about.

Also shut up about the HYS. Not every article has a HYS because tools like you constantly moan and moan every chance you get. Grow up and get a life, freedom of speech doesn't mean that a website needs to have a comment section you whiny child.
Removed
4
16/02/2021 10:47:39 3 10
bbc
This seems to be a strategy born of failure. Too early to say this is a safe route. Precautionary principle until vaccine effectiveness has been ascertained. Also, high circulation leads to more mutations. Lower circulation and get our money's worth (£10 billion) for test and trace.
6
Mup
16/02/2021 10:52:40 2 2
bbc
The broader economy has spent nearly a £1000 billion on Covid mitgation so far, I'd not be worrying about £10 billion on test and trace...
11
16/02/2021 11:02:27 2 0
bbc
Emma was not worrying about the cost of test and trace. They were saying that it is a viable approach if the numbers are kept low. Our government failed badly on that.

It will be some time before we can 'just live' with this virus - in the sense that most people mean - to ignore it and let others suffer in silence.
7
16/02/2021 10:53:13 55 9
bbc
Finally, a bit of common sense. We have lived with viruses for thousands of years, and as the article points out it's actually very hard to eradicate a virus. We need to learn to live with it, as we do with the common cold, flu, measles, and even smallpox in the past.
28
16/02/2021 11:21:36 24 39
bbc
Rather, we've died with viruses for thousands of years because we had no choice. Now we have a choice.
8
JWG
16/02/2021 10:53:39 14 7
bbc
Some reality at last!!
9
16/02/2021 10:53:43 76 10
bbc
From 1993 to 2000 (before the latest generation of flu jabs) we averaged >50,000 deaths every winter from flu. That doesn't mean it was ok or that we should live with it. It's just remarkable that just 20 years ago, an extra 50,000 deaths (which, as we've seen, could have been drastically reduced by shutting down society) didn't even merit a news story, let alone 24/7 coverage.
30
16/02/2021 11:25:20 26 0
bbc
Issue is you would have had to shut down society not just once but every year
105
16/02/2021 12:36:20 6 12
bbc
in part because it would be more like 700,000 per year without a lockdown
144
16/02/2021 13:28:45 7 2
bbc
"From 1993 to 2000 (before the latest generation of flu jabs) we averaged >50,000 deaths every winter from flu."

The data you are referring to is not deaths "from flu", but excess deaths from all causes. Flu might have been a contributing factor in some of them, but there was certainly not >50,000 deaths from flu each year.
339
16/02/2021 16:33:03 1 1
bbc
The flu is a seasonal virus, Covid-19 is here with us all year round every single day...

There's no comparison between the two...

One only has an adverse affect on UK society during a limited time period each year (the flu) the other affects our society each and every single day all year round now (Covid-19)...

Two very different things with two very different affects on how we now must live...
413
16/02/2021 18:52:10 1 0
bbc
It’s life mate. People die. What’s next? Everyone wrapped in cotton wool while sat in their houses?? Overpopulation is already a problem. The stronger survive. It’s Darwin’s theory. Why when’s it’s implied to humans it becomes an issue is beyond me!!
473
16/02/2021 20:27:13 0 0
bbc
In the dark ages life expectancy was 40 years... doesn't mean that it was OK in 2021.
543
17/02/2021 00:59:31 0 0
bbc
Our shutting down society is the reason we have so many deaths - we, the Scots, the Welsh almost all Europe emptied their hospitals into care homes to prevent them being overwhelmed AND infected the very places it would kill people. 72,000+ of the covid deaths occurred in 2.5 months of spring last year ie around half & the way we count now, many of the latest numbers aren't 'of'covid.
597
17/02/2021 08:59:08 1 0
bbc
You seem to think that lockdowns have saved lives. I'm afraid that "the science" doesn't agree. Try reading the more that 20 peer reviewed scientific studies that conclude this.
648
17/02/2021 13:27:38 0 0
bbc
Chris what are you talking about? The extra flu deaths were indeed reported. I literally found a BBC article talking about it from 1998 after just 5 seconds of googling.

You're right that they didn't need to lock down but that is because Flu is rarely invisible (asymptomatic), doesn't require specialist ventilators and also doesn't leave permanent lung scarring.
4
16/02/2021 10:47:39 3 10
bbc
This seems to be a strategy born of failure. Too early to say this is a safe route. Precautionary principle until vaccine effectiveness has been ascertained. Also, high circulation leads to more mutations. Lower circulation and get our money's worth (£10 billion) for test and trace.
10
16/02/2021 10:57:03 5 1
bbc
There's a lot of praise for the Aus/NZ approach (and they've appeared highly competent at pursuing their chosen strategy) but they haven't come out of it yet - they still need to open their borders sooner or later, and when they do they'll have the same problem of playing whack-a-mole with cases as everyone else does. Arden &co take it seriously but they still haven't got an endgame in sight.
18
16/02/2021 11:06:30 1 0
bbc
So, you are saying waiting for a vaccination know to be effective and then vaccinating the whole of a small population before opening up won't work?

If so, then how does a vaccine led strategy work anywhere? And if it does not, then what? You hope that this virus mutates to a point of 'safety'?

Their end game seems far clearer than ours. I don't see your point as coherent.
6
Mup
16/02/2021 10:52:40 2 2
bbc
The broader economy has spent nearly a £1000 billion on Covid mitgation so far, I'd not be worrying about £10 billion on test and trace...
11
16/02/2021 11:02:27 2 0
bbc
Emma was not worrying about the cost of test and trace. They were saying that it is a viable approach if the numbers are kept low. Our government failed badly on that.

It will be some time before we can 'just live' with this virus - in the sense that most people mean - to ignore it and let others suffer in silence.
12
16/02/2021 11:02:35 3 21
bbc
If you want a better quality, & longer, life avoid C-19, keep social distancing & wear masks.
C-19's a debilitating disease, much like foot'n'mouth in livestock, which doesn't kill every beast it infects, it weakens them.
'Failure to thrive' is what's inflicted upon sufferers, if they survive!
Long Covid is the best you can hope for, under 'the living with it' strategy/capitulation.
Do your best!
20
16/02/2021 11:08:45 17 2
bbc
That's overly pessimistic and frankly silly. I know several people who all recovered fine. Comments like this are scaremongering nonsense based on perhaps the very rare experience of a few people.
64
16/02/2021 12:05:21 8 2
bbc
In what possible way is that a better quality of life? Life does not simply mean surviving. It means living. Covid restrictions forever will certainly not equal living.
13
16/02/2021 11:02:46 43 18
bbc
We could have lived with it all along as many in the scientific community were saying but being ignored or silenced. Several careers and reputations have been ruined by people now advocating the very thing these other scientists have been saying all along.
21
16/02/2021 11:09:39 16 27
bbc
There is no evidence to support this position. Science does not work on that basis. You need to look for the majority consensus and apply the precautionary principal. That was the approach taken - correctly - but this government always tried to fudge the hard decisions for pollical gain.
27
16/02/2021 11:19:41 5 1
bbc
You are comparing apples to oranges. If we'd have simply lived with it without a vaccine we'd have suffered an order of magnitude more deaths as cases exploded and hospitals were overwhelmed tripling the mortality rate and Boris would have been out of job.

Now vaccines are available we can live with it and we should.
562
17/02/2021 01:55:11 0 0
bbc
It is true, and one day the truth will come out and history will be appalled at how the West in particular appeared to go insane. However, there are too many in power in politics and science whose careers would end the moment the scale of their cover up was revealed, so it won't be for around 30 years.
2
16/02/2021 10:40:27 3 9
bbc
Too early to say if this is viable. Not enough know about the long-term operation of vaccines or mutation of the virus.
14
16/02/2021 11:03:46 2 3
bbc
I agree. Too soon to tell. At the moment Covid is a big problem. Let's make it a much smaller problem and look at it again.
15
16/02/2021 11:04:18 94 8
bbc
We will never get down to zero cases and eradicate the virus. This is a mild (by comparison-MERS and SARS), easily spread respiratory virus. This is a perfect virus, easily spread, without (with the majority) killing the host, allowing the virus to further spread and evolve. This virus is here to stay, and the best we can hope will be yearly vaccinations against predicted strains.
37
16/02/2021 11:32:02 18 5
bbc
A very good and brief overview of the virus. In theory, it could be seem as a 'model' virus.
86
16/02/2021 12:15:07 10 4
bbc
If you've had it and think it's mild, you're the lucky one; many haven't got away so lightly. There's a lifetime cost to Covid - the NHS will be struggling for decades to rehabilitate people who've been seriously damaged by the virus. The problems aren't just respiratory - Covid can wreck multiple organs.

True, zero Covid is unlikely in the short term, but we MUST reduce it to the minimum.
127
16/02/2021 13:05:42 2 0
bbc
@"the best we can hope will be yearly vaccinations against predicted strains."

Not necessarily.

The worst effects are currently because this is new - our immune systems are seeing this the first time

Once everyone has either had a vaccine or infection, we all will be building up natural tolerance, so in future we may not require vaccines any more than we need them for the common cold.
193
16/02/2021 14:12:47 1 2
bbc
But some countries have!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Even countries like Australia only have new cases popping up because of returnees from the UK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
364
16/02/2021 17:25:11 0 2
bbc
I keep telling people they need to think of this as a particularly deadly cold. We will never wipe this out so really it is going to be about managing the risks. The risks go up the more mobile and concentrated we are as a society. Yearly vaccinations help reduce that risk, but long term expect less mobility.
500
16/02/2021 21:37:46 1 0
bbc
What a nice optimistic view - if ONLY the virus can behave itself .....

At ANY moment in time a vaccine resistant strain can evolve that is CONSIDERABLY more lethal - likely? We have NO idea because we've never been here before...
1
16/02/2021 10:37:48 123 13
bbc
The goal is to live with it because it will never be eradicated.
16
16/02/2021 11:05:17 30 96
bbc
It may not be possible to live with it, depending on mutations
47
16/02/2021 11:45:59 30 2
bbc
In which case

How long can we keep everyone locked in their own homes for?
100
16/02/2021 12:30:01 23 3
bbc
It may not be possible for some to live with it. Maybe they won't live with it. The rest will carry on living with it. It's harsh, but it is life.
107
16/02/2021 12:41:32 25 1
bbc
you can live with anything, and yes we will live with this, there is no alternative.
125
16/02/2021 13:02:49 22 2
bbc
@"It may not be possible to live with it, depending on mutations"

The evidence (see ScienceDaily) is now that those who get infected obtain quite a broad immunity - even from all the variants.

So if the vaccine giving narrow immunity lets you catch the real virus but at least protect from the worst effects, then your immune system will then broaden its immunity. Like with colds. Little and often
138
16/02/2021 13:22:38 19 2
bbc
We already live with many other mutating viruses, flu for example!
143
PWG
16/02/2021 13:28:19 5 10
bbc
It will be for me thanks very much. I will be having a vax party 3 weeks after I have had my jab. All my pals who are in a similar position are invited. I am more worried about mutated thinking.
192
16/02/2021 14:08:42 2 0
bbc
Of course it's possible, that's how nature works.

Sadly, there can be a lot of death and misery along the way.
197
16/02/2021 14:16:53 5 2
bbc
"It may not be possible to live with it, depending on mutations"

Christ on a bike, what an inane comment.
363
16/02/2021 17:19:24 0 3
bbc
We will live with it. Our global society though will have to radically rethink mobility and concentration of people. Long term I would bet we stop most travel outside of small geographic areas. 200 years ago few people travelled far from where they were born. I think we will be heading back towards something similar.
420
16/02/2021 18:58:09 0 0
bbc
We will have to live with it. It revolves around what level of deaths are acceptable due to those that are old/frail/susseptable.
You can't cure all of the people all of the time.
Only all of the people some of the time
Or some of the people all of the time.
430
16/02/2021 19:10:19 1 0
bbc
So what do you suggest?
Stay locked in doors till we die of natural causes or go out, resume our lives, have some level of enjoyment and take the risk of catching something that might kill us
475
16/02/2021 20:32:39 1 0
bbc
We can't live in lockdown.
495
16/02/2021 21:24:21 0 2
bbc
Indeed, the chances are good that we'll be looking at average life expectancy falling from 80 to something closer to 65, not to mention a million younger folk unable to work due to long-covid issues and an NHS that remains unable to do anything OTHER than deal with covid for the forseeable future.
514
16/02/2021 22:19:11 1 0
bbc
To summarise. We tried "living with" the virus. It mutated and became more deadly and infectious. Maybe it won't do that again. Maybe it will become less infectious and die out. Maybe we can control it with vaccines. That's a lot of maybes.
The alternative to "living with" is eradication. Some scientists say it is too hard. Others say it is the way to go. That's what the article discussed.
542
17/02/2021 00:56:28 0 2
bbc
It will always be possible to live with it, we live with flu for heaven's sake it is a coronavirus and hasn't killed half the numbers we claim, OR if it has the Pfizer's vaccine killed at least 33 Norwegians. Your scientific education was a disaster, mind you when a Professors says you can aim for zero covid, it would appear the world has truly gone mad.
591
17/02/2021 07:54:30 0 0
bbc
Possiblky, but we live with influenza, despite the frequent mutations those viruses undergo, by having annual jabs.
An annual covid jab cycle could do the trick, especially if given to the productive segments of society first to minimise economic impacts of the "No Jab, No Job" contracts.
600
17/02/2021 09:11:44 0 0
bbc
Economically & socially we have no choice in the medium to longer term. We may well just have to accept higher death rates. Everyone will die eventually, so overall death rate won't change. A very low death rate just means more are living longer & longer, which is not sustainable either. Natures balance.
3
16/02/2021 10:46:41 49 5
bbc
Surely they realise that "common" flu also kills and in very cold winters the death toll tends to rise, since the elderly are fearful of incurring high heating costs.

Haven't hospitals been overwhelmed in the past with flu outbreaks?
17
16/02/2021 11:06:29 42 4
bbc
That's because this was the point at which the NHS was shown up to have sustained too much reduction in capacity, The Kings report of 2019 said that since 1987 the NHS capacity in critical care, staffing and bed numbers has fallen by over 50% And the population risen by over ten million since then. This is a disaster of political meddling poor strategic planning and bad management, Not A Virus.
200
16/02/2021 14:18:19 2 0
bbc
Indeed, its why the most consistent message being sent out has revolved around "protect the NHS", whilst other "tag lines" have changed.
386
16/02/2021 18:07:34 1 1
bbc
Absolutely right. Pandemics happen every few years. The challenge is how we cope. We were not prepared
10
16/02/2021 10:57:03 5 1
bbc
There's a lot of praise for the Aus/NZ approach (and they've appeared highly competent at pursuing their chosen strategy) but they haven't come out of it yet - they still need to open their borders sooner or later, and when they do they'll have the same problem of playing whack-a-mole with cases as everyone else does. Arden &co take it seriously but they still haven't got an endgame in sight.
18
16/02/2021 11:06:30 1 0
bbc
So, you are saying waiting for a vaccination know to be effective and then vaccinating the whole of a small population before opening up won't work?

If so, then how does a vaccine led strategy work anywhere? And if it does not, then what? You hope that this virus mutates to a point of 'safety'?

Their end game seems far clearer than ours. I don't see your point as coherent.
19
16/02/2021 11:07:16 72 9
bbc
The cost both socially and economically of chasing eradication of the virus is huge, and possibly unattainable.

It is a foolish goal - once the pandemic problem is gone, simply treat it as another virus like flu, measles, pneumonia etc.
56
16/02/2021 11:53:06 5 10
bbc
Is it possible that you overestimate the challenge of keeping vaccine-resistant mutants strains at bay via border controls + test/trace/isolate, and at the same time underestimate the delay to return to normal through the time lost to continued restrictions whilst vaccine adjustment (for the mutant strains) and subsequent rollout is done?
370
16/02/2021 17:37:09 0 1
bbc
Eradication is likely impossible. Going back to 2019 levels of mobility and concentration of people though would be incredibly foolish. The vast majority of human history people were mainly in rural settings and less mobile. This will eventually push us in that direction. Maybe not all the way back, but we will have to move that way to a degree.
479
16/02/2021 20:36:50 1 1
bbc
While the pandemic is around, the pandemic won't simply disappear. Unlike flu, covid was rampant last summer. Covid is not a winter only disease and it is foolish to treat it as such.
650
17/02/2021 13:29:05 0 0
bbc
We did eradicate smallpox. But I see your point. C-19 will become like the FLU or TB where it is expected and will only be a threat to idiot anti-vaxxers... or as I like to call it, the self-solving problem of anti-vaxx idiots.
12
16/02/2021 11:02:35 3 21
bbc
If you want a better quality, & longer, life avoid C-19, keep social distancing & wear masks.
C-19's a debilitating disease, much like foot'n'mouth in livestock, which doesn't kill every beast it infects, it weakens them.
'Failure to thrive' is what's inflicted upon sufferers, if they survive!
Long Covid is the best you can hope for, under 'the living with it' strategy/capitulation.
Do your best!
20
16/02/2021 11:08:45 17 2
bbc
That's overly pessimistic and frankly silly. I know several people who all recovered fine. Comments like this are scaremongering nonsense based on perhaps the very rare experience of a few people.
13
16/02/2021 11:02:46 43 18
bbc
We could have lived with it all along as many in the scientific community were saying but being ignored or silenced. Several careers and reputations have been ruined by people now advocating the very thing these other scientists have been saying all along.
21
16/02/2021 11:09:39 16 27
bbc
There is no evidence to support this position. Science does not work on that basis. You need to look for the majority consensus and apply the precautionary principal. That was the approach taken - correctly - but this government always tried to fudge the hard decisions for pollical gain.
392
16/02/2021 18:15:30 1 0
bbc
"There is no evidence..." the politicians have used this trick all year to shut down a discussion without providing counter evidence. Another media trick is "Scientists say..." which is a human's opinion without suitable proof. Propaganda tricks. I only believe peer reviewed Scientific evidence, but I will listen cautiously to all credible people.
564
17/02/2021 01:57:10 0 0
bbc
No it wasn't, Ferguson was the man, he has form for this, he predicted 3 of the last viral Armageddons and still none have arrived, like Foot & mouth his cure was worse than the disease yet STILL the politicians followed his flawed model.
602
17/02/2021 09:17:53 0 0
bbc
This govt tried to keep the economy going & people in jobs, which I for one applaud. Everything is a balance & harder lockdowns would have caused more pain which would not be justified. The death rate has been very very small. Would harsh restrictions for the many have been worth it to save 30-50k lives? I dont think so. Millions would argue the restrictions have been too harsh for the many.
22
JWG
16/02/2021 11:10:07 36 14
bbc
Zero Covid policy is as dangerous as the Covid Denier but they don't see it, they think they are so right. You are as blinkered as the others. Remember there is always an opposite end to a spectrum of thought you just need to realise you are the other end of the spectrum
36
16/02/2021 11:29:36 17 19
bbc
No, the first is a valid, if difficult, policy choice. The second is an entirely illegitimate negation of the truth which causes death.
1
16/02/2021 10:37:48 123 13
bbc
The goal is to live with it because it will never be eradicated.
23
16/02/2021 11:12:07 7 12
bbc
Worthy goal. Not necessarily achievable.
24
16/02/2021 11:13:43 44 19
bbc
A year of Mass Hysteria. Nature sometimes thins the herd, and it's sad of course, but it's not wrong or evil, just a reminder of nature we sometimes need.

King Canute couldn't stop the tide by waving his crown and titles about, and we've found neither can we.
33
16/02/2021 11:27:55 17 13
bbc
We stop the tide with carefully designed and engineered costal defence work. Maybe not indefinitely but for long enough to mitigate many negative consequences.

We can attempt the same with this and any future viruses. We do the same with flu. Sars-cov-2 if far more serious than flu and required concerted action which is not yet over.

Nature does not make decisions. It does not take actions.
35
16/02/2021 11:29:35 9 3
bbc
Yes, close the hospitals, sack the GPs, they're just getting in nature's way. Sanitation and clean drinking water too, just get rid, let nature take its course.
180
16/02/2021 13:54:22 0 0
bbc
He could have got his arse of his throne though
436
16/02/2021 19:13:52 0 0
bbc
Humans have themselves been responsible for far more deaths than the current bout of Covid virus. Things need to be kept in perspective.
25
16/02/2021 11:16:11 2 20
bbc
NHS for all its greatness? Is led by men in their majority, just like parliament; in an hierarchical racially discriminating society, reflected at all levels, justice system, police force - I find it hard to believe anything governments share with us - it is only tip of iceberg & we will only know maybe in about 20-50yrs, truth behind scare stories; human beings live with trillions of microbes
32
16/02/2021 11:27:32 11 1
bbc
Go live in a different country then
43
16/02/2021 11:41:47 1 2
bbc
There is some valuable truth is what you say. I don't really think it adds much to this debate though.
46
16/02/2021 11:45:56 4 0
bbc
Thank you for sharing your misandry with us.
65
16/02/2021 12:05:57 0 0
bbc
Do you live without doctors, medicines, food, drink? No, of course not, and you trust - you HAVE to trust - the manufacturers. Will you live without education, social care, a pension. No - like it or not, you have to trust the government to get them.

Yes, we do live with microbes and we're adapted to, even dependent on, most of them. But some of them kill us. Is that so hard to understand?
72
16/02/2021 12:09:31 0 1
bbc
Oh my , another tin foil hat wearing person who believes everything is a major conspiracy.
3
16/02/2021 10:46:41 49 5
bbc
Surely they realise that "common" flu also kills and in very cold winters the death toll tends to rise, since the elderly are fearful of incurring high heating costs.

Haven't hospitals been overwhelmed in the past with flu outbreaks?
26
16/02/2021 11:18:03 5 0
bbc
High death rates from flu are often presented as a failure to get the annual vaccine right. They don't get the daily media spotlight and graphs in the papers and quite the same sense that the rates are due to a government conspicuously ou t of its depth.
13
16/02/2021 11:02:46 43 18
bbc
We could have lived with it all along as many in the scientific community were saying but being ignored or silenced. Several careers and reputations have been ruined by people now advocating the very thing these other scientists have been saying all along.
27
16/02/2021 11:19:41 5 1
bbc
You are comparing apples to oranges. If we'd have simply lived with it without a vaccine we'd have suffered an order of magnitude more deaths as cases exploded and hospitals were overwhelmed tripling the mortality rate and Boris would have been out of job.

Now vaccines are available we can live with it and we should.
39
16/02/2021 11:35:35 1 2
bbc
When we understand that the vaccines available can support that. We don't know that yet.

On current schedules it could well be the end of 2024 before we have vaccinated enough people globally to bear down on mutations. Longer if frequent re-vaccination steals production capacity from poorer nations

https://wellcome.org/news/when-will-world-be-vaccinated-against-covid-19
687
17/02/2021 22:34:21 0 0
bbc
If Corbyn or Starmer had presided over this pandemic and achieved the same results they would not only be out of a job but in jail.
7
16/02/2021 10:53:13 55 9
bbc
Finally, a bit of common sense. We have lived with viruses for thousands of years, and as the article points out it's actually very hard to eradicate a virus. We need to learn to live with it, as we do with the common cold, flu, measles, and even smallpox in the past.
28
16/02/2021 11:21:36 24 39
bbc
Rather, we've died with viruses for thousands of years because we had no choice. Now we have a choice.
99
16/02/2021 12:29:58 18 3
bbc
Choice? You mean stop educating children, socialising, international travel etc. Is that the choice you refer to?
112
16/02/2021 12:47:18 8 0
bbc
you have to realise, no one gets out of life alive.....
329
16/02/2021 16:23:23 3 0
bbc
Yes we have a choice; we cause years of untold misery to prevent all deaths from Covid only to die of a stroke/heart disease/cancer/dementia anyway, or we use vaccines to get deaths down to an insignificant level and then get on with our lives.
355
16/02/2021 17:14:51 0 1
bbc
Indeed, such think is primitive and defeatist.
369
16/02/2021 17:38:17 2 1
bbc
What’s the choice prison?
429
16/02/2021 19:08:49 2 0
bbc
Sometimes the cure is worse than the effects.
539
17/02/2021 00:46:47 0 0
bbc
No, we don't.
558
17/02/2021 01:47:45 0 0
bbc
What choice is that? Eternal lock-downs?
29
16/02/2021 11:13:33 16 17
bbc
If this had been the (very sensible) goal from the start we would have followed the advice in the Great Barrington Declaration, and just isolated the most vulnerable. People would still have their jobs, education, and mental health. Also, there would have been fewer deaths, and we would probably now be enjoying herd immunity.

Even a year on Sweden's death rate is still lower than the UK's.
34
16/02/2021 11:29:19 16 9
bbc
The so called great Barrington declaration was nonsense, you could not shield the vulnerable with the majority of people infected and as you cannot get herd immunity from a virus itself, even if you did as soon as the vulnerable left their homes they would get infected anyway. Stupid.
55
16/02/2021 11:51:21 2 2
bbc
This idea has failed
Even now with testing of care home staff, isolation of residents, and a national lockdown we have seen outbreaks in care homes during this second/third wave.
60
16/02/2021 12:00:04 5 5
bbc
Don't use Sweden as some kind of justification for the dangerous myths enshrined in the Great Barrington Declaration. Its death rate is lower than ours because (among other reasons) it has a very low population density, high levels of social care and a far more educated population than we have in the UK. Even so, they've had to modify their anti-lockown stance in the harsh light of reality.
9
16/02/2021 10:53:43 76 10
bbc
From 1993 to 2000 (before the latest generation of flu jabs) we averaged >50,000 deaths every winter from flu. That doesn't mean it was ok or that we should live with it. It's just remarkable that just 20 years ago, an extra 50,000 deaths (which, as we've seen, could have been drastically reduced by shutting down society) didn't even merit a news story, let alone 24/7 coverage.
30
16/02/2021 11:25:20 26 0
bbc
Issue is you would have had to shut down society not just once but every year
45
16/02/2021 11:45:19 1 12
bbc
We could adapt and plan for that if we chose to. Basic social distancing and mask wearing in winder could have saved many lives.
379
16/02/2021 17:57:53 1 0
bbc
It was shut down because as flu deaths reduced we got rid of the beds and therefore had no capacity for a new pandemic.
601
17/02/2021 09:12:57 1 0
bbc
We dont HAVE to shut down society. It was a political decision. There was an alternative.
5
16/02/2021 10:48:15 65 15
bbc
You can't fight nature in the end and have to learn to live with it.

I bet we don't get a HYS on the free speech article today, ironic eh but not unexpected ?
31
16/02/2021 11:25:54 20 47
bbc
Yes you can, we have eradicated many other viruses and diseases, we have dammed rivers, protected coastlines from erosion, and have cloud seeding tech to prevent droughts...

don't be such a quitter
40
16/02/2021 11:37:22 20 1
bbc
I mean, only two diseases (Smallpox and Rinderpest) have been declared officially eradicated by WHO.

Being a realist is not being a quitter. A continually evolving virus is highly unlikely to be eradicated.
110
16/02/2021 12:44:53 10 0
bbc
actually, there are many diseases and illnesses we have not eradicated, we still suffer huge coastal erosion in some areas, suppose you are one of those people who thinks tech can solve everything...
by the way I am no quitter, but I can accept reality, and I certainly accept that I cannot beat Mother Nature, isn't she fabulous?
Read the article. One other virus has been eliminated, one. And not completely, as samples exist.
258
16/02/2021 15:17:21 0 0
bbc
The ones we've almost eradicated don't mutate quickly, therefore it's easy to have mass vaccination programmes against them, with 5, 10 or 25 year boosters if necessary. This thing has been about (in humans) for just over 15 months and is mutating rapidly, admittedly many of the mutations are irrelevant, but those that matter are happening more and more often now, so we will have to live with it!
354
16/02/2021 17:12:14 0 0
bbc
Not true. The only disease ever to have been eradicated by vaccination is smallpox.
368
16/02/2021 17:36:45 0 0
bbc
Yes but it will take years so we will have to live with it or keep society locked down which is unacceptable
383
16/02/2021 18:03:44 0 0
bbc
Not for this, its too wide spread and variants are rapidly appearing. It is very close to being endemic, if not already.
545
17/02/2021 01:12:53 0 0
bbc
No we haven't - we have eradicated ONE, measles is still around. Smallpox is the only one eradicated AND that is unique for 4 reasons 3 are listed at the top of this article BUT for some reason, a vital one is missed out and that is Smallpox is the human variety of the pox virus, and ONLY OCCURS IN HUMANS. Covid has animal reservoirs, maybe including your pet cat!
25
16/02/2021 11:16:11 2 20
bbc
NHS for all its greatness? Is led by men in their majority, just like parliament; in an hierarchical racially discriminating society, reflected at all levels, justice system, police force - I find it hard to believe anything governments share with us - it is only tip of iceberg & we will only know maybe in about 20-50yrs, truth behind scare stories; human beings live with trillions of microbes
32
16/02/2021 11:27:32 11 1
bbc
Go live in a different country then
24
16/02/2021 11:13:43 44 19
bbc
A year of Mass Hysteria. Nature sometimes thins the herd, and it's sad of course, but it's not wrong or evil, just a reminder of nature we sometimes need.

King Canute couldn't stop the tide by waving his crown and titles about, and we've found neither can we.
33
16/02/2021 11:27:55 17 13
bbc
We stop the tide with carefully designed and engineered costal defence work. Maybe not indefinitely but for long enough to mitigate many negative consequences.

We can attempt the same with this and any future viruses. We do the same with flu. Sars-cov-2 if far more serious than flu and required concerted action which is not yet over.

Nature does not make decisions. It does not take actions.
438
16/02/2021 19:16:01 0 0
bbc
I think you will find that Darwin's book is all about Nature taking decisions and then taking actions. It's the fundamental aspect of the evolution of species. Maybe you're one of the "God created it all" types ?
560
17/02/2021 01:50:40 0 0
bbc
When did we lock-down the world for Sars-cov-2 ?
29
16/02/2021 11:13:33 16 17
bbc
If this had been the (very sensible) goal from the start we would have followed the advice in the Great Barrington Declaration, and just isolated the most vulnerable. People would still have their jobs, education, and mental health. Also, there would have been fewer deaths, and we would probably now be enjoying herd immunity.

Even a year on Sweden's death rate is still lower than the UK's.
34
16/02/2021 11:29:19 16 9
bbc
The so called great Barrington declaration was nonsense, you could not shield the vulnerable with the majority of people infected and as you cannot get herd immunity from a virus itself, even if you did as soon as the vulnerable left their homes they would get infected anyway. Stupid.
41
16/02/2021 11:40:29 5 5
bbc
Not just nonsense. Cynical mendacious nonsense
78
JWG
16/02/2021 12:11:13 2 3
bbc
But quarantine hotels will work??? You can't argue both sides of the argument.
115
16/02/2021 12:48:50 2 3
bbc
There's not one word of sense or truth in your vitriolic comment. The GBD was drafted by an international group of some of the world's most eminent scientists.

God only knows where you got the nonsense about not getting herd immunity from virus.
24
16/02/2021 11:13:43 44 19
bbc
A year of Mass Hysteria. Nature sometimes thins the herd, and it's sad of course, but it's not wrong or evil, just a reminder of nature we sometimes need.

King Canute couldn't stop the tide by waving his crown and titles about, and we've found neither can we.
35
16/02/2021 11:29:35 9 3
bbc
Yes, close the hospitals, sack the GPs, they're just getting in nature's way. Sanitation and clean drinking water too, just get rid, let nature take its course.
22
JWG
16/02/2021 11:10:07 36 14
bbc
Zero Covid policy is as dangerous as the Covid Denier but they don't see it, they think they are so right. You are as blinkered as the others. Remember there is always an opposite end to a spectrum of thought you just need to realise you are the other end of the spectrum
36
16/02/2021 11:29:36 17 19
bbc
No, the first is a valid, if difficult, policy choice. The second is an entirely illegitimate negation of the truth which causes death.
81
JWG
16/02/2021 12:12:50 2 4
bbc
Nope they are both ridiculously stupid positions its just that your sounds on the surface to be so righteous and caring when in fact in reality it is a callous and sickening as the other. Stop patting yourself on the back when in reality you are stabbing everyone else in there backs
181
16/02/2021 13:56:00 4 1
bbc
What part of "Eradicating viruses is nigh on impossible" did you not understand? Did you read the article?
561
17/02/2021 01:53:14 2 0
bbc
Nonsense, we could not afford it, more would die because of the misallocation of resources, this virus has animal hosts, smallpox did not, the pox virus in other animals was not the human virus & ironically if cow-pox was caught by a human it provided cross viral immunity. Zero covid is as mad as lock-down.
15
16/02/2021 11:04:18 94 8
bbc
We will never get down to zero cases and eradicate the virus. This is a mild (by comparison-MERS and SARS), easily spread respiratory virus. This is a perfect virus, easily spread, without (with the majority) killing the host, allowing the virus to further spread and evolve. This virus is here to stay, and the best we can hope will be yearly vaccinations against predicted strains.
37
16/02/2021 11:32:02 18 5
bbc
A very good and brief overview of the virus. In theory, it could be seem as a 'model' virus.
48
16/02/2021 11:46:43 1 1
bbc
Thank you..
220
16/02/2021 14:45:23 0 1
bbc
No good overview would erroneously describe COVID as a 'respiratory' virus. It is multi-systemic, as a cursory glance at medical reports would tell anyone who is interested. This is why it is so dangerous.
38
16/02/2021 11:35:21 7 16
bbc
Sadly the majority of people will look to the short term and think yes, let's live with it. Wonder how many would change their tune when they're in a COVID ward... Plus if we don't know what future mutations it will have down the line...
170
37p
16/02/2021 13:45:33 3 0
bbc
I hope you've got a big sofa to hide behind.
27
16/02/2021 11:19:41 5 1
bbc
You are comparing apples to oranges. If we'd have simply lived with it without a vaccine we'd have suffered an order of magnitude more deaths as cases exploded and hospitals were overwhelmed tripling the mortality rate and Boris would have been out of job.

Now vaccines are available we can live with it and we should.
39
16/02/2021 11:35:35 1 2
bbc
When we understand that the vaccines available can support that. We don't know that yet.

On current schedules it could well be the end of 2024 before we have vaccinated enough people globally to bear down on mutations. Longer if frequent re-vaccination steals production capacity from poorer nations

https://wellcome.org/news/when-will-world-be-vaccinated-against-covid-19
31
16/02/2021 11:25:54 20 47
bbc
Yes you can, we have eradicated many other viruses and diseases, we have dammed rivers, protected coastlines from erosion, and have cloud seeding tech to prevent droughts...

don't be such a quitter
40
16/02/2021 11:37:22 20 1
bbc
I mean, only two diseases (Smallpox and Rinderpest) have been declared officially eradicated by WHO.

Being a realist is not being a quitter. A continually evolving virus is highly unlikely to be eradicated.
131
16/02/2021 13:09:15 1 13
bbc
There you go, two instances which proved we beat nature... so I was right and the top comment wrong then?
34
16/02/2021 11:29:19 16 9
bbc
The so called great Barrington declaration was nonsense, you could not shield the vulnerable with the majority of people infected and as you cannot get herd immunity from a virus itself, even if you did as soon as the vulnerable left their homes they would get infected anyway. Stupid.
41
16/02/2021 11:40:29 5 5
bbc
Not just nonsense. Cynical mendacious nonsense
5
16/02/2021 10:48:15 65 15
bbc
You can't fight nature in the end and have to learn to live with it.

I bet we don't get a HYS on the free speech article today, ironic eh but not unexpected ?
42
16/02/2021 11:41:36 15 5
bbc
HYS is only on carefully selected stories where they think comments will be mostly uncontroversial and broadly in agreement with latest woke orthodoxy. That and they simply dont have enough moderators to police every comment.
25
16/02/2021 11:16:11 2 20
bbc
NHS for all its greatness? Is led by men in their majority, just like parliament; in an hierarchical racially discriminating society, reflected at all levels, justice system, police force - I find it hard to believe anything governments share with us - it is only tip of iceberg & we will only know maybe in about 20-50yrs, truth behind scare stories; human beings live with trillions of microbes
43
16/02/2021 11:41:47 1 2
bbc
There is some valuable truth is what you say. I don't really think it adds much to this debate though.
44
16/02/2021 11:43:14 11 15
bbc
While COVID continues to mutate, no one actually knows what the end-game will be... it might be a strain that stops killing older people and starts killing the young... we don't know, no one knows. Saying we can live with it is one thing, the real world isn't as forgiving as the hopes and opinions of the experts. EVERYONE needs to be vaccinated before we can go anywhere near normal, just in case.
73
JWG
16/02/2021 12:09:37 2 6
bbc
Educate yourself.
30
16/02/2021 11:25:20 26 0
bbc
Issue is you would have had to shut down society not just once but every year
45
16/02/2021 11:45:19 1 12
bbc
We could adapt and plan for that if we chose to. Basic social distancing and mask wearing in winder could have saved many lives.
25
16/02/2021 11:16:11 2 20
bbc
NHS for all its greatness? Is led by men in their majority, just like parliament; in an hierarchical racially discriminating society, reflected at all levels, justice system, police force - I find it hard to believe anything governments share with us - it is only tip of iceberg & we will only know maybe in about 20-50yrs, truth behind scare stories; human beings live with trillions of microbes
46
16/02/2021 11:45:56 4 0
bbc
Thank you for sharing your misandry with us.
16
16/02/2021 11:05:17 30 96
bbc
It may not be possible to live with it, depending on mutations
47
16/02/2021 11:45:59 30 2
bbc
In which case

How long can we keep everyone locked in their own homes for?
50
16/02/2021 11:47:33 11 27
bbc
Nobody is locked in their home.
37
16/02/2021 11:32:02 18 5
bbc
A very good and brief overview of the virus. In theory, it could be seem as a 'model' virus.
48
16/02/2021 11:46:43 1 1
bbc
Thank you..
1
16/02/2021 10:37:48 123 13
bbc
The goal is to live with it because it will never be eradicated.
49
16/02/2021 11:47:01 10 21
bbc
Actually what 'living with it' means is living, to some degree, with permanent restrictions to freedom and liberty under the Coronavirus Act. Now Hancock or his eventual successor has that power they wont be relinquishing it any time soon - or ever.
47
16/02/2021 11:45:59 30 2
bbc
In which case

How long can we keep everyone locked in their own homes for?
50
16/02/2021 11:47:33 11 27
bbc
Nobody is locked in their home.
141
37p
16/02/2021 13:26:13 13 8
bbc
Maybe notphysically locked in their homes but unable to leave the local area and unable to see friends or relatives and only allowed out for brief periods.

Effectively virtually locked in their homes.
657
17/02/2021 16:05:43 0 0
bbc
Maybe not locked in. But I can't go out without a reasonable excuse. So I can go to the shops, and for some exercise. And that is it. Even doing those leaves me wide open to criticism on social media from the virtue-signallers who would happily lock us all up.
51
16/02/2021 11:47:40 18 10
bbc
Vaccination uptake lowest in the most “ deprived “ communities?
Perhaps a factor in their perpetual deprivation is their refusal to do anything that involves helping themselves . In this case they are not only putting themselves at risk but impacting the rest of us as well. Unless they have medical reasons to refuse a vaccine there is no excuse.
82
16/02/2021 12:13:09 3 1
bbc
I entirely agree, Verity.
139
16/02/2021 13:24:00 0 0
bbc
I broadly agree with you, except on one detail.

if you take your jab, and they don't, you are not less protected. They are, however.

The jab will not stop transmission, nor you becoming ill if you get it. It will just reduce the likelyhood of you being SERIOUSLY ill.

if they deny that to themselves, that's their business, but they may be reasons you are not privy too. You cannot enforce it.
52
16/02/2021 11:48:15 27 6
bbc
Actually what 'living with it' means is living, to some degree, with permanent restrictions to freedom and liberty thanks to the Coronavirus Act. Now Hancock, or his eventual successor, has that power they wont be relinquishing it any time soon - or ever.
85
16/02/2021 12:14:46 10 2
bbc
Yeah, I thought there might be a catch to this and was thinking along the same lines :-(
53
16/02/2021 11:48:25 66 11
bbc
Sooner or later we have to get on with things. And that will be the real 'new normal', life with another virus. A virus that we can choose to get vaccinated for each year if we are vulnerable. Maybe one day we can eradicate all viruses. Until then It's life as it always has been. Millions die, millions are born and life is for living. We can't do this any longer.
532
16/02/2021 23:43:17 3 10
bbc
people are being sucked into propaganda that you can’t eradicate the virus. This is a biased article dressed as ‘balanced’. The longer you live with it the longer it effects lives and economy. There are better disease control measures in agriculture....are humans not worth it? Look how your crown dependencies have kept deaths down and economy going, UK has terrible strategy, don’t defend it.
54
16/02/2021 11:46:31 5 6
bbc
"pretty unique" ?!?! Please BBC send your journalist on an English revision course.
70
16/02/2021 12:04:55 3 2
bbc
It's standard English.....
29
16/02/2021 11:13:33 16 17
bbc
If this had been the (very sensible) goal from the start we would have followed the advice in the Great Barrington Declaration, and just isolated the most vulnerable. People would still have their jobs, education, and mental health. Also, there would have been fewer deaths, and we would probably now be enjoying herd immunity.

Even a year on Sweden's death rate is still lower than the UK's.
55
16/02/2021 11:51:21 2 2
bbc
This idea has failed
Even now with testing of care home staff, isolation of residents, and a national lockdown we have seen outbreaks in care homes during this second/third wave.
59
16/02/2021 11:59:05 1 1
bbc
Perhaps because a third of care home workers are refusing to be vaccinated? ( according to a BBC article yesterday)
19
16/02/2021 11:07:16 72 9
bbc
The cost both socially and economically of chasing eradication of the virus is huge, and possibly unattainable.

It is a foolish goal - once the pandemic problem is gone, simply treat it as another virus like flu, measles, pneumonia etc.
56
16/02/2021 11:53:06 5 10
bbc
Is it possible that you overestimate the challenge of keeping vaccine-resistant mutants strains at bay via border controls + test/trace/isolate, and at the same time underestimate the delay to return to normal through the time lost to continued restrictions whilst vaccine adjustment (for the mutant strains) and subsequent rollout is done?
83
JWG
16/02/2021 12:13:49 4 4
bbc
oh the mutant fear rubbish, pack it in. Its normal its called a variant and it happens all the time and will continue to. Deal with it.
428
16/02/2021 19:07:40 0 0
bbc
And whose to say it wont "jump" onto some migratory bird and just fly into the country and get into the food chain somehow.
544
17/02/2021 01:02:03 2 0
bbc
No he doesn't, and when the world adds up the cost of this lock-down madness it will dwarf anything we've seen, probably since the great depression. UN says 150m will die due to poverty thanks to wrecking the global economy - virus has killed 2.5 m - go figure as the yanks might say.
57
16/02/2021 11:56:50 174 18
bbc
This is one of the most sensible and balanced articles that I've read about Covid in the last few months. There are no easy solutions and you won't please everyone, but we do need these grown-up conversations about death and keeping the restrictions proportionate to the risks.
117
16/02/2021 12:54:09 73 19
bbc
People who are having the vaccine help themselves and the vax refusers, by becoming less transmissible....

Seems very unfair if people refusing ( unless for medical reasons) keep hospitalization figures high and restrictions for the rest of us going for longer.
218
16/02/2021 14:43:28 26 1
bbc
Then you need to read more by Nick Triggle!

He is IMHO the best journalist in the BBC writing about Covid. Unfortunately his pieces don't get enough prominence on the BBC, probably because he omits all the highly emotive language and talks in sensible moderate tones backed up with facts rather than speculation so they don't make for good clickbait headlines.
381
16/02/2021 18:01:12 4 1
bbc
I would say it is one of the BBC's best articles on Covid. There have been many articles elsewhere saying precisely this during the past few months. Dr John Lee wrote this back in Sept:- https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/09/the-dangers-of-a-covid-elimination-policy/?fbclid=IwAR3iV8iKBBL0Sb6sZHhrC35onKhtDRxUkSnvIbJgX_xj-SsAqIHjB2ED8SU
465
16/02/2021 20:19:49 0 8
bbc
Even one death is one too many. There is nothing sensible about accepting a level of death or risk as you call it. Covid has to be eliminated. This greater risk is that it may mutate in a way that renders the current pandemic as walk in the park in comparison. 2 millions unnecessary deaths around the world are far too many.
493
16/02/2021 21:22:29 2 2
bbc
It shouldn't be about "pleasing" anyone. It should be about taking the least risky route forward (weighing BOTH immediate deaths and economic consequences).

The problem though was mentioned but brushed over above. Mutation!

Only in a VERY optimistic scenario does the "live with covid" route work. When so much is at stake we need to consider ALL the risks of ALL approaches.
622
Faz
17/02/2021 10:42:22 0 0
bbc
I like your last statement " keeping the restrictions proportionate to the risks".
This is competely true. Keeping good personal practice and managing risk is paramount, otherwise we'll be living in a controlling dogmatic society.
58
16/02/2021 11:57:41 60 11
bbc
COVID is nature at work and sad as it may seem the first rule of nature is survival of the fittest, as a species we seem to think we are above this, we’re not. We’ve already lost 60 million years of life in the UK alone, we need to get on with our normal lives.
68
16/02/2021 12:03:47 10 27
bbc
60 million years of life...... ?? ????????????????
77
16/02/2021 12:10:54 4 2
bbc
Nonsense. If nature has any rules at all then the first is mindless mutation.

Simplifying Spencer's phrase in that way is not useful. Usually encouraged by the powerful to justify gross inequality.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13671-evolution-myths-survival-of-the-fittest-justifies-everyone-for-themselves/
103
16/02/2021 12:35:22 8 3
bbc
It sounds callous but it's true. It's nature's way of redressing the balance. Can we now try and live with nature instead of always trying to tame it or worse still destroy it.
119
16/02/2021 12:55:12 1 7
bbc
I'm not sure all those who have sadly passed away were going to live to over 600 years old.

Your figures may be a little off.
150
16/02/2021 13:33:38 4 4
bbc
everyone wants to get on with their normal lives. Being fit will not protect you from a virus. It's down to chance.
A 40 year old fit person may die of it and an elderly 90 yr old may survive.
198
FF
16/02/2021 14:17:07 3 1
bbc
"Nature at work" ? - If it is true that this originated from a wet market where animals of different species were being stored amongst others in faecal matter and all, then Man has made this happen and nature will take it's course.

Never mind survival of the fittest.

Is there any chance Man can cut out the absolute greed and thickness of some just to make money.
254
Ray
16/02/2021 15:14:23 0 0
bbc
The spanish flu (ah the days when a virus and its origin went hand in hand) killed more people than the first world war. They had no lockdowns, no vaccines and in fact didnt even know what a virus was. Topsy turvy to Covid it killed young adults predominately sparing the older population. In the end, after 3 or 4 years it fizzled out and has not been heard of since - lets hope Covid does too.
296
16/02/2021 15:47:26 1 0
bbc
no - simple no. Normal lives ... if they let it loose the nhs would collapse ... i would die and thousands more would too ... just cause some think they should let it rip.
350
16/02/2021 16:56:11 1 0
bbc
It's the 21st century not the Bronze Age and Mark will not always be amongst the fittest.
385
16/02/2021 18:06:13 0 0
bbc
Getting rid of the anti vaxers seems like survival of the fittest in action.
476
16/02/2021 20:34:37 1 1
bbc
What utter drivel. How have we lost 60 million years of life? It's been 60 million years of a different life, but not lost. We have lost 100,000 lives or 2,000,000,000 years of life if we follow your logic (100,000 x 20 average years life that each person may have had if they had not died of covid). How can you call life with Covid "getting on with our normal lives". 1/2
477
16/02/2021 20:34:52 0 1
bbc
If there was a terror group killing 2000 annually, you'd rightly want something done about it. But some people seem to be happy to accept 100,000 deaths due to a virus. 2/2
548
17/02/2021 01:19:49 1 0
bbc
True and the 100,000+ (reputed) covid deaths were in the main only with months to live, 91%+ with one or more co-morbidities, see ONS for a list of them, every one a killer! No mention of the other non-covid 400,000+ deaths this year. Lock-down of the healthy was, is and always will be insane!
"Survival of the fittest". Oh look another idiot who doesn't understand what Darwin was talking about.

Survival of the fittest doesn't mean that the "Fit" survive it means the species that is most fit for their environment will survive. Humans have technology and brainpower, that is what made us fit for all environments. We are now using that technology and brainpower to mitigate this virus.
Removed
55
16/02/2021 11:51:21 2 2
bbc
This idea has failed
Even now with testing of care home staff, isolation of residents, and a national lockdown we have seen outbreaks in care homes during this second/third wave.
59
16/02/2021 11:59:05 1 1
bbc
Perhaps because a third of care home workers are refusing to be vaccinated? ( according to a BBC article yesterday)
29
16/02/2021 11:13:33 16 17
bbc
If this had been the (very sensible) goal from the start we would have followed the advice in the Great Barrington Declaration, and just isolated the most vulnerable. People would still have their jobs, education, and mental health. Also, there would have been fewer deaths, and we would probably now be enjoying herd immunity.

Even a year on Sweden's death rate is still lower than the UK's.
60
16/02/2021 12:00:04 5 5
bbc
Don't use Sweden as some kind of justification for the dangerous myths enshrined in the Great Barrington Declaration. Its death rate is lower than ours because (among other reasons) it has a very low population density, high levels of social care and a far more educated population than we have in the UK. Even so, they've had to modify their anti-lockown stance in the harsh light of reality.
122
16/02/2021 12:54:18 2 1
bbc
Ah, the usual FLAWED population density argument.

Overwhelmingly, infections occur in cities, which have similar population densities, not in Sweden's artic wilderness, which is indeed very low in population.
61
16/02/2021 12:00:43 4 4
bbc
You break a bone. It hurts, a lot. The bone heals. You worry to use it for a while after it's healed. Then you forget about it.
67
16/02/2021 12:02:57 8 3
bbc
Totally irrelevant to viruses of course.
80
16/02/2021 12:11:38 5 2
bbc
A broken bone is not contagious. What do you think this adds to the debate?
104
16/02/2021 12:35:49 1 0
bbc
And maybe you get sepsis; maybe it's badly set and you're crippled for life.

That's what Long Covid threatens to do - cause life-changing damage to people, just like polio, diabetes or stroke.

How do we get into the heads of hole-dwellling mammals that Covid isn't a joke, it isn't 'just a little flu'?
116
16/02/2021 12:51:10 2 1
bbc
That’s all absolutely spot on. But totally irrelevant when talking about viruses. Broken bones - virus, not the same thing...
217
16/02/2021 14:43:28 0 0
bbc
following the sepsis and having been crippled for life it is entirely possible that this poor soul might develop a psychosis that causes them to venture forth in their own crippled manner and try to inflict broken bones upon others..
62
16/02/2021 12:02:30 17 2
bbc
Whether it's Dipthera, measles, broncisiest, hooping cough, polio, Covid, at one point they all killed in great numbers and if one has never experienced or been subjected to death then one thinks it will never happen to them, ever. This scenario is very much with us to day and vacinnes are needed to cover all eventualities now and the future.
101
16/02/2021 12:32:30 15 9
bbc
True, and we certainly didn't just sit back and say 'Oh we'll live with it'; scientists & governments worked hard to try to eradicate or limit these diseases. Many of us are only alive today because past generations took these threats seriously and created the vaccines and treatments we too often take for granted.

For policy purposes, deal with Covid like polio or smallpox, not flu or colds.
442
16/02/2021 19:18:52 0 0
bbc
Covering All Eventualities are well beyong the economic and social tollerances of most coutries/societies.
63
16/02/2021 12:03:44 7 18
bbc
Who's goal Nick, yours? Boris Johnson's, Chris Witty's??

You shouldn't be peddling government propaganda by pushing their ongoing failed strategy.

Allowing the virus to circulate means allowing further lives to be lost, further ill health through acute infection and long Covid, and further time off work and school from isolation

Also encourages further mutations

Elimination should be the goal
66
16/02/2021 12:06:32 12 3
bbc
Elimination is the goal. But what if that does not happen in our lifetime. should we stay indoors for our lifetime?
69
JWG
16/02/2021 12:08:16 4 1
bbc
Unhinged
79
16/02/2021 12:06:56 7 2
bbc
It is the goal but is clearly unachievable. For the reasons given in the article.
97
16/02/2021 12:28:27 1 0
bbc
Good point about mutations. Coronaviruses are highly adaptable & mutate frequently, making them hard to 'catch & kill' with a vaccine. The worry is that some of these mutations will prove to be resistant to all current and future vaccines - hence the need to suppress the virus as much as possible as quickly as possible.
12
16/02/2021 11:02:35 3 21
bbc
If you want a better quality, & longer, life avoid C-19, keep social distancing & wear masks.
C-19's a debilitating disease, much like foot'n'mouth in livestock, which doesn't kill every beast it infects, it weakens them.
'Failure to thrive' is what's inflicted upon sufferers, if they survive!
Long Covid is the best you can hope for, under 'the living with it' strategy/capitulation.
Do your best!
64
16/02/2021 12:05:21 8 2
bbc
In what possible way is that a better quality of life? Life does not simply mean surviving. It means living. Covid restrictions forever will certainly not equal living.
25
16/02/2021 11:16:11 2 20
bbc
NHS for all its greatness? Is led by men in their majority, just like parliament; in an hierarchical racially discriminating society, reflected at all levels, justice system, police force - I find it hard to believe anything governments share with us - it is only tip of iceberg & we will only know maybe in about 20-50yrs, truth behind scare stories; human beings live with trillions of microbes
65
16/02/2021 12:05:57 0 0
bbc
Do you live without doctors, medicines, food, drink? No, of course not, and you trust - you HAVE to trust - the manufacturers. Will you live without education, social care, a pension. No - like it or not, you have to trust the government to get them.

Yes, we do live with microbes and we're adapted to, even dependent on, most of them. But some of them kill us. Is that so hard to understand?
63
16/02/2021 12:03:44 7 18
bbc
Who's goal Nick, yours? Boris Johnson's, Chris Witty's??

You shouldn't be peddling government propaganda by pushing their ongoing failed strategy.

Allowing the virus to circulate means allowing further lives to be lost, further ill health through acute infection and long Covid, and further time off work and school from isolation

Also encourages further mutations

Elimination should be the goal
66
16/02/2021 12:06:32 12 3
bbc
Elimination is the goal. But what if that does not happen in our lifetime. should we stay indoors for our lifetime?
61
16/02/2021 12:00:43 4 4
bbc
You break a bone. It hurts, a lot. The bone heals. You worry to use it for a while after it's healed. Then you forget about it.
67
16/02/2021 12:02:57 8 3
bbc
Totally irrelevant to viruses of course.
76
16/02/2021 12:10:45 3 3
bbc
With regard to the fear that some people have in returning to a normal life after a distressing incident - it's highly rellevant.
58
16/02/2021 11:57:41 60 11
bbc
COVID is nature at work and sad as it may seem the first rule of nature is survival of the fittest, as a species we seem to think we are above this, we’re not. We’ve already lost 60 million years of life in the UK alone, we need to get on with our normal lives.
68
16/02/2021 12:03:47 10 27
bbc
60 million years of life...... ?? ????????????????
63
16/02/2021 12:03:44 7 18
bbc
Who's goal Nick, yours? Boris Johnson's, Chris Witty's??

You shouldn't be peddling government propaganda by pushing their ongoing failed strategy.

Allowing the virus to circulate means allowing further lives to be lost, further ill health through acute infection and long Covid, and further time off work and school from isolation

Also encourages further mutations

Elimination should be the goal
69
JWG
16/02/2021 12:08:16 4 1
bbc
Unhinged
54
16/02/2021 11:46:31 5 6
bbc
"pretty unique" ?!?! Please BBC send your journalist on an English revision course.
70
16/02/2021 12:04:55 3 2
bbc
It's standard English.....
111
16/02/2021 12:45:03 1 1
bbc
Not at all.....the use of 'pretty' indicates that the succeeding characteristic is not 'unique'. That is standard English.
344
16/02/2021 16:42:50 0 0
bbc
it is completely wrong!
71
16/02/2021 12:06:20 4 5
bbc
They are going to have to speed up the approval process for vaccines to keep one step ahead of Covid....

Still 15 million vaccinated to date with no significant health issues so should not be a problem.
87
16/02/2021 12:16:33 5 10
bbc
Think you mean o.5 million.
A covid vaccination consists of 2 jabs.
Don’t be fooled by the hype and propoganda.
25
16/02/2021 11:16:11 2 20
bbc
NHS for all its greatness? Is led by men in their majority, just like parliament; in an hierarchical racially discriminating society, reflected at all levels, justice system, police force - I find it hard to believe anything governments share with us - it is only tip of iceberg & we will only know maybe in about 20-50yrs, truth behind scare stories; human beings live with trillions of microbes
72
16/02/2021 12:09:31 0 1
bbc
Oh my , another tin foil hat wearing person who believes everything is a major conspiracy.
44
16/02/2021 11:43:14 11 15
bbc
While COVID continues to mutate, no one actually knows what the end-game will be... it might be a strain that stops killing older people and starts killing the young... we don't know, no one knows. Saying we can live with it is one thing, the real world isn't as forgiving as the hopes and opinions of the experts. EVERYONE needs to be vaccinated before we can go anywhere near normal, just in case.
73
JWG
16/02/2021 12:09:37 2 6
bbc
Educate yourself.
74
16/02/2021 12:10:29 42 5
bbc
Is the tone of the media finally changing? Learn to live with COVID? I'm sure there will be plenty of people horrified at this!
These restrictions impact the disadvantaged the most. We have to return to normality as quickly and safely as possible.
One additional point regarding flu, it was not that long ago when we regularly had over 50k deaths per year. 1993 - 2000 average 55k.
89
16/02/2021 12:17:59 30 4
bbc
Yes, I suspect the tone may change or be changing.

Worth remembering that there will be plenty of people horrified if we stay in lockdown until whenever, and it kills their jobs off completely. We can only continue as we are while the country can borrow. When it can't any longer, then the economy will have to re-open anyway.
91
16/02/2021 12:19:31 2 4
bbc
"Is the tone of the media finally changing?"

No it isn't. They do gloom one day and less gloom the next, then repeat.
95
16/02/2021 12:22:34 6 9
bbc
Differences are that flu doesn't kill in such uniquely horrible ways as Covid and it doesn't cause life-changing organ damage to those seriously affected. There's no 'long-flu' but there IS long-Covid.

So it's misleading to compare Covid with flu. In its long term effects Covid is more like polio, and in policy terms it should be treated in a similar way.
113
16/02/2021 12:48:59 4 6
bbc
Dont be fooled. 'Living with Covid' means living with the Coronavirus Act and in a permanent state of lockdown, i.e. reduced freedom of movement including restrictions on gathering at weddings, funerals, outdoor events etc.
114
16/02/2021 12:49:57 0 2
bbc
still not far off that figure for the whole UK, the last five season average for England alone is about 28000 per year, Chris Whitty seemed to be totally unaware of this.....
431
16/02/2021 19:12:07 0 0
bbc
It's the inequality in society that has lead to the poorest and most deprived being the most vulnerable and affected by the virus. A more equal share of wealth wont go amiss to resolving the issues of who and how many will dies from the virus.
559
17/02/2021 01:48:52 0 0
bbc
The covid cultists will accuse us all of killing them too.
75
NH
16/02/2021 12:10:35 3 2
bbc
This is a link to is a well informed article from a New Zealand led group on the different approaches to dealing with Covid - mitigation, suppression, elimination, eradication. It gives a good idea of what might be possible and the pros and cons of different approaches ... https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4907. It's well worth a read.
96
16/02/2021 12:22:38 3 1
bbc
Interesting. It's useful that different countries have followed different strategies, as it will help prepare a response strategy for a future pandemic. It's still too early to know which is the most successful strategy in the longer term.
154
16/02/2021 13:35:48 3 1
bbc
New Zealand is SO different to the UK it is easy to suppress a virus there.

Population density of England 278 people per sq kilometre,

Population density of New Zealand 19 people per sq kilometre.

Totally unworthy of comparison.
184
16/02/2021 13:56:16 0 0
bbc
So how do you explain the cases they now have?
67
16/02/2021 12:02:57 8 3
bbc
Totally irrelevant to viruses of course.
76
16/02/2021 12:10:45 3 3
bbc
With regard to the fear that some people have in returning to a normal life after a distressing incident - it's highly rellevant.
58
16/02/2021 11:57:41 60 11
bbc
COVID is nature at work and sad as it may seem the first rule of nature is survival of the fittest, as a species we seem to think we are above this, we’re not. We’ve already lost 60 million years of life in the UK alone, we need to get on with our normal lives.
77
16/02/2021 12:10:54 4 2
bbc
Nonsense. If nature has any rules at all then the first is mindless mutation.

Simplifying Spencer's phrase in that way is not useful. Usually encouraged by the powerful to justify gross inequality.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13671-evolution-myths-survival-of-the-fittest-justifies-everyone-for-themselves/
94
16/02/2021 12:21:58 6 5
bbc
There is no such thing as mindless mutation. if a mutation brings advantage to the virus, and it can spread further, then that mutation is succesful and will be repeated.

if it doesn't achieve that, then it will mutate some other way.
550
17/02/2021 01:29:16 1 0
bbc
Not so, he is pointing out the very basis of Triage, we cannot, and when we look back will not, justify what lock-down has done to achieve what? The 100K+ covid deaths are a myth. 'with' 'within 28 days' are scandalous when Pfizer can explain away the death of 33 Norwegians as 'not vaccine' related because the were very old, very ill & die anyway (that was basically the explanation)
34
16/02/2021 11:29:19 16 9
bbc
The so called great Barrington declaration was nonsense, you could not shield the vulnerable with the majority of people infected and as you cannot get herd immunity from a virus itself, even if you did as soon as the vulnerable left their homes they would get infected anyway. Stupid.
78
JWG
16/02/2021 12:11:13 2 3
bbc
But quarantine hotels will work??? You can't argue both sides of the argument.
120
16/02/2021 12:51:22 1 2
bbc
Your trying to appeal to people like this to think logically and rationally, but they lack the capacity to do so.
63
16/02/2021 12:03:44 7 18
bbc
Who's goal Nick, yours? Boris Johnson's, Chris Witty's??

You shouldn't be peddling government propaganda by pushing their ongoing failed strategy.

Allowing the virus to circulate means allowing further lives to be lost, further ill health through acute infection and long Covid, and further time off work and school from isolation

Also encourages further mutations

Elimination should be the goal
79
16/02/2021 12:06:56 7 2
bbc
It is the goal but is clearly unachievable. For the reasons given in the article.
61
16/02/2021 12:00:43 4 4
bbc
You break a bone. It hurts, a lot. The bone heals. You worry to use it for a while after it's healed. Then you forget about it.
80
16/02/2021 12:11:38 5 2
bbc
A broken bone is not contagious. What do you think this adds to the debate?
84
16/02/2021 12:14:33 2 6
bbc
If you don't understand now then you never will.
36
16/02/2021 11:29:36 17 19
bbc
No, the first is a valid, if difficult, policy choice. The second is an entirely illegitimate negation of the truth which causes death.
81
JWG
16/02/2021 12:12:50 2 4
bbc
Nope they are both ridiculously stupid positions its just that your sounds on the surface to be so righteous and caring when in fact in reality it is a callous and sickening as the other. Stop patting yourself on the back when in reality you are stabbing everyone else in there backs
159
16/02/2021 13:38:49 0 3
bbc
"Nope they are both ridiculously stupid positions its just that your sounds on the surface to be so righteous and caring when in fact in reality it is a callous and sickening as the other. Stop patting yourself on the back when in reality you are stabbing everyone else in there backs"

You see people who do this: "Blabber blabber blabber blabber blabber blabber blabber"? That's you, that is.
51
16/02/2021 11:47:40 18 10
bbc
Vaccination uptake lowest in the most “ deprived “ communities?
Perhaps a factor in their perpetual deprivation is their refusal to do anything that involves helping themselves . In this case they are not only putting themselves at risk but impacting the rest of us as well. Unless they have medical reasons to refuse a vaccine there is no excuse.
82
16/02/2021 12:13:09 3 1
bbc
I entirely agree, Verity.
56
16/02/2021 11:53:06 5 10
bbc
Is it possible that you overestimate the challenge of keeping vaccine-resistant mutants strains at bay via border controls + test/trace/isolate, and at the same time underestimate the delay to return to normal through the time lost to continued restrictions whilst vaccine adjustment (for the mutant strains) and subsequent rollout is done?
83
JWG
16/02/2021 12:13:49 4 4
bbc
oh the mutant fear rubbish, pack it in. Its normal its called a variant and it happens all the time and will continue to. Deal with it.
80
16/02/2021 12:11:38 5 2
bbc
A broken bone is not contagious. What do you think this adds to the debate?
84
16/02/2021 12:14:33 2 6
bbc
If you don't understand now then you never will.
52
16/02/2021 11:48:15 27 6
bbc
Actually what 'living with it' means is living, to some degree, with permanent restrictions to freedom and liberty thanks to the Coronavirus Act. Now Hancock, or his eventual successor, has that power they wont be relinquishing it any time soon - or ever.
85
16/02/2021 12:14:46 10 2
bbc
Yeah, I thought there might be a catch to this and was thinking along the same lines :-(
393
16/02/2021 18:18:40 0 0
bbc
I recall Palpatine saying his political powers would only be temporary.
15
16/02/2021 11:04:18 94 8
bbc
We will never get down to zero cases and eradicate the virus. This is a mild (by comparison-MERS and SARS), easily spread respiratory virus. This is a perfect virus, easily spread, without (with the majority) killing the host, allowing the virus to further spread and evolve. This virus is here to stay, and the best we can hope will be yearly vaccinations against predicted strains.
86
16/02/2021 12:15:07 10 4
bbc
If you've had it and think it's mild, you're the lucky one; many haven't got away so lightly. There's a lifetime cost to Covid - the NHS will be struggling for decades to rehabilitate people who've been seriously damaged by the virus. The problems aren't just respiratory - Covid can wreck multiple organs.

True, zero Covid is unlikely in the short term, but we MUST reduce it to the minimum.
102
16/02/2021 12:33:23 6 2
bbc
I said it's mild in comparison to similar viruses (MERS and SARS). These were/are much worse respiratory viruses. You seem to have taken offense to a simple comparison and jumped to conclusions. To the vast majority of people, they will suffer mild effects (as stated by the UK's chief medical advisors). This does not mean that the majority of people are lucky, just normal.
108
16/02/2021 12:41:53 4 2
bbc
I have not questioned, any major or potential lifelong effects or costs of Covid, but simple stated why Covid has been so successful. A 'perfect' virus doe not kill or incapacitate the host, otherwise the host will not be able to spread the virus and it will eventually die out.
This may help you to understand.
https://www.news.uzh.ch/en/articles/2020/A-perfect-Virus.html
222
16/02/2021 14:48:20 1 3
bbc
Don't worry. If we are pursuing a policy of no zero-COVID, people like this poster will eventually get it badly and be forced to change their tune. I have seen this happen with family and friends already. It's very sad it takes this for many to be capable of taking it seriously.
71
16/02/2021 12:06:20 4 5
bbc
They are going to have to speed up the approval process for vaccines to keep one step ahead of Covid....

Still 15 million vaccinated to date with no significant health issues so should not be a problem.
87
16/02/2021 12:16:33 5 10
bbc
Think you mean o.5 million.
A covid vaccination consists of 2 jabs.
Don’t be fooled by the hype and propoganda.
88
16/02/2021 12:17:14 15 1
bbc
Yes , we are going to have to live with the virus ...it just needs confining to the spare room.
92
16/02/2021 12:19:38 2 0
bbc
Haha ??
490
16/02/2021 21:16:09 0 0
bbc
You mean like the Mad Virus in the Attic?
74
16/02/2021 12:10:29 42 5
bbc
Is the tone of the media finally changing? Learn to live with COVID? I'm sure there will be plenty of people horrified at this!
These restrictions impact the disadvantaged the most. We have to return to normality as quickly and safely as possible.
One additional point regarding flu, it was not that long ago when we regularly had over 50k deaths per year. 1993 - 2000 average 55k.
89
16/02/2021 12:17:59 30 4
bbc
Yes, I suspect the tone may change or be changing.

Worth remembering that there will be plenty of people horrified if we stay in lockdown until whenever, and it kills their jobs off completely. We can only continue as we are while the country can borrow. When it can't any longer, then the economy will have to re-open anyway.
387
16/02/2021 18:08:53 1 0
bbc
Yes, because Covid no longer has hits. As soon as the media gets bored this nightmare will be over.
90
16/02/2021 12:17:33 7 14
bbc
In Birmingham
yet another corona party took place
and that is why people die from this plaque
and that is why people get infected and get ill
and that is why we have another lockdown
and that is why we have to accept this plaue in our lives
and that is why penalties are much too soft
and that is why £2500 fines, 3 month jail, 1 year no DL is best
93
16/02/2021 12:21:55 5 4
bbc
We used to drink alcohol at parties... can't stand that fizzy orange.

I bet you never did anything wrong in your life. Not one single thing?
74
16/02/2021 12:10:29 42 5
bbc
Is the tone of the media finally changing? Learn to live with COVID? I'm sure there will be plenty of people horrified at this!
These restrictions impact the disadvantaged the most. We have to return to normality as quickly and safely as possible.
One additional point regarding flu, it was not that long ago when we regularly had over 50k deaths per year. 1993 - 2000 average 55k.
91
16/02/2021 12:19:31 2 4
bbc
"Is the tone of the media finally changing?"

No it isn't. They do gloom one day and less gloom the next, then repeat.
88
16/02/2021 12:17:14 15 1
bbc
Yes , we are going to have to live with the virus ...it just needs confining to the spare room.
92
16/02/2021 12:19:38 2 0
bbc
Haha ??
90
16/02/2021 12:17:33 7 14
bbc
In Birmingham
yet another corona party took place
and that is why people die from this plaque
and that is why people get infected and get ill
and that is why we have another lockdown
and that is why we have to accept this plaue in our lives
and that is why penalties are much too soft
and that is why £2500 fines, 3 month jail, 1 year no DL is best
93
16/02/2021 12:21:55 5 4
bbc
We used to drink alcohol at parties... can't stand that fizzy orange.

I bet you never did anything wrong in your life. Not one single thing?
77
16/02/2021 12:10:54 4 2
bbc
Nonsense. If nature has any rules at all then the first is mindless mutation.

Simplifying Spencer's phrase in that way is not useful. Usually encouraged by the powerful to justify gross inequality.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13671-evolution-myths-survival-of-the-fittest-justifies-everyone-for-themselves/
94
16/02/2021 12:21:58 6 5
bbc
There is no such thing as mindless mutation. if a mutation brings advantage to the virus, and it can spread further, then that mutation is succesful and will be repeated.

if it doesn't achieve that, then it will mutate some other way.
129
16/02/2021 13:07:26 2 1
bbc
@"There is no such thing as mindless mutation. if a mutation brings advantage to the virus, and it can spread further, then that mutation is succesful and will be repeated."
--

And where is the 'mind' in all that?
183
16/02/2021 13:56:08 2 0
bbc
I think you miss the point entirely. There is exactly zero intent involved. Many an overly successful virus also burns itself out. (Replicated not repeated)
555
17/02/2021 01:41:00 1 0
bbc
He's right, there is no (as yet) mindful impetus known for mutation (find one & you may have found God) , it is basically a copy error. Vast majority are not beneficial, some are, if they are they become more common, may even replace the current genome. Where he is wrong is in then saying that means we can't accept reality, basically apply Triage. We do it everywhere else why not with covid?
74
16/02/2021 12:10:29 42 5
bbc
Is the tone of the media finally changing? Learn to live with COVID? I'm sure there will be plenty of people horrified at this!
These restrictions impact the disadvantaged the most. We have to return to normality as quickly and safely as possible.
One additional point regarding flu, it was not that long ago when we regularly had over 50k deaths per year. 1993 - 2000 average 55k.
95
16/02/2021 12:22:34 6 9
bbc
Differences are that flu doesn't kill in such uniquely horrible ways as Covid and it doesn't cause life-changing organ damage to those seriously affected. There's no 'long-flu' but there IS long-Covid.

So it's misleading to compare Covid with flu. In its long term effects Covid is more like polio, and in policy terms it should be treated in a similar way.
75
NH
16/02/2021 12:10:35 3 2
bbc
This is a link to is a well informed article from a New Zealand led group on the different approaches to dealing with Covid - mitigation, suppression, elimination, eradication. It gives a good idea of what might be possible and the pros and cons of different approaches ... https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4907. It's well worth a read.
96
16/02/2021 12:22:38 3 1
bbc
Interesting. It's useful that different countries have followed different strategies, as it will help prepare a response strategy for a future pandemic. It's still too early to know which is the most successful strategy in the longer term.
63
16/02/2021 12:03:44 7 18
bbc
Who's goal Nick, yours? Boris Johnson's, Chris Witty's??

You shouldn't be peddling government propaganda by pushing their ongoing failed strategy.

Allowing the virus to circulate means allowing further lives to be lost, further ill health through acute infection and long Covid, and further time off work and school from isolation

Also encourages further mutations

Elimination should be the goal
97
16/02/2021 12:28:27 1 0
bbc
Good point about mutations. Coronaviruses are highly adaptable & mutate frequently, making them hard to 'catch & kill' with a vaccine. The worry is that some of these mutations will prove to be resistant to all current and future vaccines - hence the need to suppress the virus as much as possible as quickly as possible.
98
KK
16/02/2021 12:27:52 6 1
bbc
Thank you, Nick. Brilliant article. Well researched and realistic, very informative.
28
16/02/2021 11:21:36 24 39
bbc
Rather, we've died with viruses for thousands of years because we had no choice. Now we have a choice.
99
16/02/2021 12:29:58 18 3
bbc
Choice? You mean stop educating children, socialising, international travel etc. Is that the choice you refer to?
16
16/02/2021 11:05:17 30 96
bbc
It may not be possible to live with it, depending on mutations
100
16/02/2021 12:30:01 23 3
bbc
It may not be possible for some to live with it. Maybe they won't live with it. The rest will carry on living with it. It's harsh, but it is life.