Following the science

[baggy1]

Cheers BB, another opportunity for me to delve into more sadness and stats

[Brentbaggie]

I think it's worth adding a proviso to this stats argument - which is that you get it and recover if you're under 45, and/or you get it over 45 and might be really ill or die. It's pretty clear now from some of the research and information coming through regarding people who have survived it that they have not necessarily done so unscathed. From lung lesions to heart and brain impairment just for starters, there are real reasons to fear getting Covid 19 regardless of age.

Of course there will be those who have no symptoms and a large number who suffer little of no ill after effects - but as yet we still have no idea as to the long-term effects that may result from this disease. I think caution is justified and if there's any science to follow it should be medical and formulated by a group of varying medical disciplines - epidemiologists included - assembled to assess these risks, not from a couple of individuals who spearhead policy, backed by a small quota of advisers.

[baggy1]

Exactly BB (too many BBs around by the way!), we really are stepping back into something we simply don't understand yet and need to do it cautiously. My lad (healthy and in his 30s) said yesterday that we need to go through a full annual cycle with this virus before we let our guard down which makes sense. As much as we are all keen to get back to normal it needs to be done safely.

[FenlandBoing]

I think it's worth adding a proviso to this stats argument - which is that you get it and recover if you're under 45, and/or you get it over 45 and might be really ill or die.  It's pretty clear now from some of the research and information coming through regarding people who have survived it that they have not necessarily done so unscathed. From lung lesions to heart and brain impairment just for starters, there are real reasons to fear getting Covid 19 regardless of age.

Of course there will be those who have no symptoms and a large number who suffer little of no ill after effects - but as yet we still have no idea as to the long-term effects that may result from this disease.  I think caution is justified and if there's any science to follow it should be medical and formulated by a group of varying medical disciplines - epidemiologists included - assembled to assess these risks, not from a couple of individuals who spearhead policy, backed by a small quota of advisers.

Great post. It would be good if the chief medics in this could get across to the whole population about the added issues with Covid affecting longer term health and other health issues if they catch Covid and have medium to severe symptoms. Even if not guaranteed and merely a possibility. In my Business we employ 30 staff and I've seen how as lockdown measures have eased over the summer, how they have been less and less cautious over the dangers of the virus.  I imagine this is fairly common  - human nature maybe.

[PeakBaggie]

I just don't see the point in comparing mortality stats that have been captured over years with many changes to
try and record greater clarity and detail, when COVID has only been around for a few months in comparison.

We know so little about this virus in real terms, other than it can kill, especially those with many ailments that
have come about in many cases by our own unhealthy way of life. I read in the very early days of the virus
that considered medical thought was that COVID would be controlable with many existing medications and
not by any silver bullet of a vacine. I still fear that is likely to be our best way of living with this virus for
12 months or more

[JOK]

Seven days ago “Covid immunity antibodies fall rapidly after infection”.

Today. “Immunity after infection could last for six months”. 

What is the point of anybody on here thinking they know the answers when the bleedin experts don’t?