We started online shopping early in Covid and have got so used to it we have kept it up. Our delivery comes on Monday, so the deadline for changes is Sunday afternoon, and the kids are now used to making their demands by that time.
Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?
- Thread starter drdel
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2013
- Messages
- 4,167
Yes well you've made your point enough times and shouted down anyone who dares not to agree with you over the last two years so I'll file that away where I'll never see it again.
I used to deal with psychotic people, but most of them were easier to listen to than you. Goodbye.
Last edited:
Chalk and cheese economies and locations. They closed down early and stayed sealed off. That worked very well but their zero xovid strategy will not be possible going forward
They won't be following a zero Covid strategy in the medium term.
I would have thought the external NZ economy, based on import/export and tourism, was more vulnerable than the UK one which has a large measure of financial services, mostly done electronically these days, and all the IT systems have good anti-virus protection.
Does the location matter? The UK seems to have developed a view that proximity is not a consideration, doing deals with Asian and LATAM countries in preference to markets on its doorstep.
I would have thought the external NZ economy, based on import/export and tourism, was more vulnerable than the UK one which has a large measure of financial services, mostly done electronically these days, and all the IT systems have good anti-virus protection.
Does the location matter? The UK seems to have developed a view that proximity is not a consideration, doing deals with Asian and LATAM countries in preference to markets on its doorstep.
D
Or, or just maybe they will of got it right and could be used in the future as the way to handle a pandemic.
They entered March 20 with probably no covid. We were riddled with it at that point. So outcomes were decided before any action. And even the medical experts were split on what to do a week or so before we locked down. In hindsight, we know locking down earlier would have been a better course of action on the first outbreak and we were unprepared. Lessons need learning all around. But decisions will all be different in the post vaccine world unless it is something completely different - and our geography and demographics are very different to NZ
D
I don’t disagree lessons will be learnt, however, outcomes could of been changed at many times, you’ve called for different strategies yourself along the way, but, your previous post is far more to the point and it’s quite a definitive statement on how “their zero xovid strategy will not be possible going forward” You don’t actually know that at this point, nobody does.
Of course we do. Nobody can do zero covid for years
Really? Which medical experts thought that no lockdown was needed?
Having no vaccine was what made it 'terrifying'! Now that there are vaccines, it's no longer so terrifying.
It's only the current (Omicron) variant that's 'no longer as severe'. When a new variant comes along, it might be as bad as Delta. Worse still, it might also be as transferrable as Omicron!
It's only the current (Omicron) variant that's 'no longer as severe'. When a new variant comes along, it might be as bad as Delta. Worse still, it might also be as transferrable as Omicron!
D
But it could be at rate or level which has no impact on their economy, we have no idea whether NZ got it totally right or totally wrong, apart from maybe you.
What do the death/case rates suggest to you, right or wrong?
Last edited:
Not what I said. The woman who was just made a dame T thee head of one of the health agencies said at the time that going to Cheltenham was safe - and that is acknowledged as a super-spreader event. We locked down soon after that
Grow up. I said they did well locking down. That is not the initial point I was making - that they cannot do zero covid for too long now. Nothing about what happened 2 years ago
That is fair. Jenny Harries didn't exactly say it was safe but said that such events tend not to be the source of major outbreaks, or something to that effect. I may have missed her abject apology for that massively wring statement.
I wonder if that opinion had Chris Whitty's support - I suspect there was a degree of opinion shopping involved. Cheltenham was 10-13 March 2020. The advice not to go to the pub was made on 16 March, and the formal ban was announced on 23 March, to come into effect on 26 March.
The point at which the spread of the virus became uncontrollable is a matter for debate, but is probably somewhere in that timeframe. I remember watching the advice address on 16 March and discussing with my also medical wife how pointless it was to offer advice when they needed to mandate. Indeed, the PM's father immediately said he didn't intend to follow it. I think even that week made a difference, whether or not Cheltenham would have been banned.
I wonder if that opinion had Chris Whitty's support - I suspect there was a degree of opinion shopping involved. Cheltenham was 10-13 March 2020. The advice not to go to the pub was made on 16 March, and the formal ban was announced on 23 March, to come into effect on 26 March.
The point at which the spread of the virus became uncontrollable is a matter for debate, but is probably somewhere in that timeframe. I remember watching the advice address on 16 March and discussing with my also medical wife how pointless it was to offer advice when they needed to mandate. Indeed, the PM's father immediately said he didn't intend to follow it. I think even that week made a difference, whether or not Cheltenham would have been banned.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2009
- Messages
- 2,989
Having no means of mitigating Covid when it emerged was just one of many aspects to it which made it such a terrifying prospect. There was also the limited treatment options, lack of understanding regarding transmission, pace of that transmission, any number of factors. And don’t get me started on the press coverage.
As for severity, I have read in more than one article suggestions by those who understand these things that, when new variants emerge, omicron has spread so far and wide, and so quickly, that those new variants are unlikely to be able to “bully” it so that it becomes less dominant. I’m sure Ethan will be quick to correct my understanding if it’s misguided, but I thought the experts all along have suggested that, as viruses continue to mutate, so they tend to become less severe. That is what we are seeing, surely.
New strains may well be a whole lot worse than omicron. But comment I have read, seen and heard suggests that is more unlikely than likely.
As for severity, I have read in more than one article suggestions by those who understand these things that, when new variants emerge, omicron has spread so far and wide, and so quickly, that those new variants are unlikely to be able to “bully” it so that it becomes less dominant. I’m sure Ethan will be quick to correct my understanding if it’s misguided, but I thought the experts all along have suggested that, as viruses continue to mutate, so they tend to become less severe. That is what we are seeing, surely.
New strains may well be a whole lot worse than omicron. But comment I have read, seen and heard suggests that is more unlikely than likely.
D
We were discussing the future and how the different Countries strategies have or will impact the future.
It has been clearly stated in a response to you their economy has bounced back quicker than us and yet all we get is the tired old argument of size and location.
You have an issue with their pm obviously, but as of right now, no one knows if their policy of strict lockdowns is correct:
Look at initial post this morning,
Billysboots said:
I really do think locking down for a handful of cases is going to do more harm than good in the long term. The population are building up no natural immunity whatsoever.
You said
Agree. Total over reaction. 14 day isolation if positive and an extra 10 for family members, making 24 even without having it!
Pure guess work, it could be the right reaction, it has been for them so far, but you state it’s a total over reaction!
Maybe we should just wait and see and then use hindsight to see if they’ve got it right or wrong.
It has been clearly stated in a response to you their economy has bounced back quicker than us and yet all we get is the tired old argument of size and location.
You have an issue with their pm obviously, but as of right now, no one knows if their policy of strict lockdowns is correct:
Look at initial post this morning,
Billysboots said:
I really do think locking down for a handful of cases is going to do more harm than good in the long term. The population are building up no natural immunity whatsoever.
You said
Agree. Total over reaction. 14 day isolation if positive and an extra 10 for family members, making 24 even without having it!
Pure guess work, it could be the right reaction, it has been for them so far, but you state it’s a total over reaction!
Maybe we should just wait and see and then use hindsight to see if they’ve got it right or wrong.
Viruses do indeed tend to become less virulent as they evolve but it depends. Viruses exist to replicate, so if they can replicate they will prosper. If they kill the host before they transmit, that reduces their ability to replicate and they can't really prosper, so for that sort of virus, it will survive better if it becomes less virulent.
Viruses that transmit before symptoms occur don't have that problem, so there is less selection pressure on them to become less virulent. Covid largely falls into that category, so we should not assume that further variants will be even weaker than Omicron.
This process of evolution is based entirely on random chance. Covid isn't "planning" its next step. If a variant survives better or transmits faster, it takes over just based on numbers or it being like a race. Omicron was always going to dominate because of its transmissibility.
The other thing is that Covid is a virus with two distinct clinical phases. Flu and the cold don't have these. One is the immediate respiratory, pneumonia, shortness of breath aspect that occurs early. Omicron is clearly less potent at that than Delta. The second phase is an inflammatory disorder (sometimes called a cytokine storm) where a bunch of chemicals involved in immune response are triggered and cause inflammatory damage around the body. This is usually what kills people, who die of heart failure, renal failure, multi-organ collapse. You probably remember stories about people who appeared to be recovering after a week or so, then had a serious downturn. That was the inflammatory effects kicking in. It appears that Omicron is also weaker at this.
However, this inflammatory aspect has another dimension, subclinical (asymptomatic) damage. Studies of recovered Covid patients have shown a concerning rate of effects in various organs, ranging from effects on the brain which could accelerate dementia, the liver and kidneys which could cause premature failure, the pancreas which appears to increase the risk of Type 1 Diabetes in kids, and hyper coagulability which could cause heart attacks and stroke.. This is the bit that worries me about Covid, and what I think you should try not to catch it until as late as possible. It is likely these effects are mitigated to some extent by immunisation, which dampens the inflammatory effects, but we don't really know. Even though these effects may appear small, on a population level it can be significant, and having a bunch of small risks in various organs adds up to a lot more risk overall. Here is a link to a story about this issue.
Over time, most people will develop a complex and effective immunity against Covid, as we did with flu. This will be made up of immunisations, ideally a range of different types (heterologous vaccination), updated multiphase vaccines that are currently in development, some immune memory filled in from common cold coronaviruses and exposure to new and hopefully mild variants for which you have good immunity. At that point boosters may only be needed for older or immunocompromised people.
Viruses that transmit before symptoms occur don't have that problem, so there is less selection pressure on them to become less virulent. Covid largely falls into that category, so we should not assume that further variants will be even weaker than Omicron.
This process of evolution is based entirely on random chance. Covid isn't "planning" its next step. If a variant survives better or transmits faster, it takes over just based on numbers or it being like a race. Omicron was always going to dominate because of its transmissibility.
The other thing is that Covid is a virus with two distinct clinical phases. Flu and the cold don't have these. One is the immediate respiratory, pneumonia, shortness of breath aspect that occurs early. Omicron is clearly less potent at that than Delta. The second phase is an inflammatory disorder (sometimes called a cytokine storm) where a bunch of chemicals involved in immune response are triggered and cause inflammatory damage around the body. This is usually what kills people, who die of heart failure, renal failure, multi-organ collapse. You probably remember stories about people who appeared to be recovering after a week or so, then had a serious downturn. That was the inflammatory effects kicking in. It appears that Omicron is also weaker at this.
However, this inflammatory aspect has another dimension, subclinical (asymptomatic) damage. Studies of recovered Covid patients have shown a concerning rate of effects in various organs, ranging from effects on the brain which could accelerate dementia, the liver and kidneys which could cause premature failure, the pancreas which appears to increase the risk of Type 1 Diabetes in kids, and hyper coagulability which could cause heart attacks and stroke.. This is the bit that worries me about Covid, and what I think you should try not to catch it until as late as possible. It is likely these effects are mitigated to some extent by immunisation, which dampens the inflammatory effects, but we don't really know. Even though these effects may appear small, on a population level it can be significant, and having a bunch of small risks in various organs adds up to a lot more risk overall. Here is a link to a story about this issue.
Over time, most people will develop a complex and effective immunity against Covid, as we did with flu. This will be made up of immunisations, ideally a range of different types (heterologous vaccination), updated multiphase vaccines that are currently in development, some immune memory filled in from common cold coronaviruses and exposure to new and hopefully mild variants for which you have good immunity. At that point boosters may only be needed for older or immunocompromised people.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2012
- Messages
- 27,783
NZ philosophy on controlling covid seems to me to be based upon their experience and success of their very strict biosecurity regime, both when entering the country and within the country when entering certain protected/valuable/fragile environments. They know that very tight control can work and that their citizens understand such controls can work while the country get fully vaccinated. Also an observation on comparisons UK with NZ. While pop density across NZ may be low cf UK, about 1/3rd of the population lives in one city - Auckland. And so clearly the NZ approach has successfully contained viral spread even within its highest density conurbation.
Last edited: