A vaccine has never been accelerated in a year - or even eighteen months.

Notwithstanding this - the US government promised (in 1984) to have a HIV vaccine in two years.

Close to four decades later - and after 32 million deaths - no such HIV vaccine exists.


The world has had to learn to live with HIV - and may have to do so, with coronavirus.

Living with coronavirus - would undoubtedly entail social distancing, with a stop to some normal interactions.

Prohibitions may well exist on the embracing, hugging and kissing - that we mostly see in central European countries.


And on football pitches...

and then, on the other hand, there was Flu.

Which has a vaccine - unlike coronavirus and HIV

And hookworm, dengue and malaria...

Exactly.

Oh do get a grip Barney me old sausage....

JK2006 wrote:
Exactly.


Exactly what!

Coronavirus - to be one of the first viruses to require long term distancing and isolating?

Quite likely - at least until a vaccine is found. And the optimistic time scale for that, is a year and a half.


What's unique about coronavirus is its propensity to spread so easily.

At a rate decidedly faster than any previous virus - in modern times.

They found one for flu, Barney; I guarantee they will find one for Covid19.
It is indeed far more infectious and far less lethal than flu.
It will dawn soon that nobody cares how it spreads when it has little or no bad symptoms on most people.
They will start protecting and treating those who get it seriously as a part of all medical procedure and slowly, like flu, fewer will die.
This is trivial Barney; or should be, if media hadn't inflated it.

JK2006 wrote:
They found one for flu, Barney; I guarantee they will find one for Covid19.


For an English Lit graduate your use of language is bad. I'll acceppt you can't quite grasp the definition and correct usage of the word trivial but you are not in a position to guarantee a vaccine

The common cold is a Coronvirus and nobody has found a vaccine for that one yet.

I do hope you are correct and a vaccine is found but like many of your pronouncements you are just guessing.

Barney wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Exactly.


Exactly what!

Coronavirus - to be one of the first viruses to require long term distancing and isolating?

Quite likely - at least until a vaccine is found. And the optimistic time scale for that, is a year and a half.


What's unique about coronavirus is its propensity to spread so easily.

At a rate decidedly faster than any previous virus - in modern times.




You must remember what it was like with the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s ? People were reluctant to open doors or scared to use the same bogs. I remember a lot of social distancing.

Barney wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Exactly.


Exactly what!

Coronavirus - to be one of the first viruses to require long term distancing and isolating?

Quite likely - at least until a vaccine is found. And the optimistic time scale for that, is a year and a half.


What's unique about coronavirus is its propensity to spread so easily.

At a rate decidedly faster than any previous virus - in modern times.




But all viruses require long term distancing and isolating, only nobody gives a monkeys.

I would really really appreciate it if people would stay at home if they have a cough, cold or flu and not spread it around.

The world is full of psychos who tell you how ill they are while trying to kiss you in greeting. (they can sod off at the best of times, let alone when they are snotty)

JK2006 wrote:
They found one for flu


Eventually, during WWII - for a virus 4/5 thousand years old!

During WWI, 100 million are thought to have died with the 1918/Spanish Flu.

With further outbreaks as recently as the 50s and 60s killing c7 million (Asian/Hong Kong 'flus) - as the virus had mutated, making the vaccine impotent.


Most of us know the vaccine doesn't always work - because viruses constantly change.

So, to be sure that a successful vaccine will soon be forthcoming - we still await those promised for malaria and HIV - is foolhardy.

The smart money is on not discovering a magical solution - and to take all steps to ensure that the massive levels of influenza casualties are not repeated.


Until someone comes up with better ideas - distancing and isolating seem to be our best and only options.

OK Barney you think lockdown; I think concentration on the vulnerable; some say do nothing.
We've got it.

JK2006 wrote:
......I think concentration on the vulnerable

So find a way that stops the people who might die from getting sick.

Yes, I think that's the right strategy. Well done JK you've saved the world. Make sure you include that as an achievement in the next volume of your biography

Thank you BB yes; personally I think priority concentration; targeting the elderly & unhealthy; warning them to self isolate; provide them with food and care free; improve specialist wards in hospitals; provide Care Homes & hospices with ventilators etc. Stops the general lockdown and damage to society as we know the majority of deaths is in a small section of the community. Too late now but surely the best way when this strikes again, before we get that vaccine.

Makes sense to me but I'm no expert.

JK2006 wrote:
I think concentration on the vulnerable

Yes, asking the vulnerable to stay at home and isolate is good idea. And, by and large, it's working - with most of them avoiding the virus.

Just as important, if not more, is getting the younger person to stay indoors - as being more active, mobile and likely to travel - they are the main spreaders.


Almost by definition, vulnerable people - the old, pregnant, ill/infirm - won't spread the disease, if they're isolated.

Concentration on the young - to alleviate movement - might just be more worthwhile therefore, in the efforts to stop the spreading.


Stopping the spread - keeping R less than 1 - has to be our main goal.

Unless we choose to ignore the medical and scientific experts.

JK2006 wrote:


..... but I'm no expert.

Can't argue with you on that either.

Barney I'll say this very slowly.

For the majority (and almost all young) this is a trivial virus with, often, no or mild symptoms. They recover. Bed, liquids, better. So keep them away from the self isolating vulnerable. Simples. Do NOT lockdown millions who, if they get it, do not suffer. Protect the vulnerable from catching it.

Simples.

JK2006 wrote:
Protect the vulnerable from catching it

and the young and mobile, from spreading it...

So much weight is being put by some on the scientific views of experts.

Here is Prof Neil Ferguson's (of Imperial College London) - who's 16th March published modelling predicting 400 000 deaths min in UK has so influenced the Government- predictive success rate:

In 2002 he predicted 50 000 UK deaths from mad cow disease. To date 200.

The 200 million global deaths from bird flu he confidently predicted has so far seen 455 deaths. And then the link is only "suspected" ("died with" doesn't even sound as confident as "suspected" to me...)

In 2009 he informed the Government that 65 000 in UK will perish from swine flu. To date "suspected" deaths number 457.

A track record of complete predictive failure.

I believe we need experts, who of course can only know so much. I believe in science and reason. But the Government has rushed in on the back of "evidence" that has not even been peer reviewed.

We are in lockdown because of the media-politics complex, not because of "science".

JK2006 wrote:
Barney I'll say this very slowly.

For the majority (and almost all young) this is a trivial virus with, often, no or mild symptoms. They recover. Bed, liquids, better. So keep them away from the self isolating vulnerable. Simples. Do NOT lockdown millions who, if they get it, do not suffer. Protect the vulnerable from catching it.

Simples.

When that approach was modelled by the Imperial College group back in February the prediction was 200,000 deaths and the NHS being overrun.

It was an option but thankfully it was dismissed.