Non - Pandemic

northstandmark said:
There's experts out there who seem to think that children catching covid whilst they are kids is actually the best course of action on balance. Better than vaccinating them as kids, and better than otherwise sheilding them away from it (if you could) so they get Covid first time as adults. 'Let it rip' if you want to call it that. Others disagree, of course.

This was roughly the JCVI stance, until recently, when Prof Dingwall was booted out and the stance is now leaning more towards mass vaccinating teenagers at least. Although they won't explicitly come out and advise that either! Teenagers considered more vulnerable looks set to go ahead sooner than later.

Hard to know what to make of it as laymen.
Click to expand...

My layman's understanding is that the vaccine comes with a small risk which is the same across all age groups but because kids have a better resistance it becomes a tighter call.

The hope IMO was that by focusing on those at highest risk we would eventually get herd immunity and we wouldn't need to make a decision about whether to vaccinate children.

Instead with delta we're seeing the vaccinated spread it and with no restrictions or a culture of good hygiene we're at an estimated 1 in 70 at a time being infected and increasing. This means its a safe assumption that every year group in every school will have covid positive children.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ
Kudos said:
My layman's understanding is that the vaccine comes with a small risk which is the same across all age groups but because kids have a better resistance it becomes a tighter call.

The hope IMO was that by focusing on those at highest risk we would eventually get herd immunity and we wouldn't need to make a decision about whether to vaccinate children.

Instead with delta we're seeing the vaccinated spread it and with no restrictions or a culture of good hygiene we're at an estimated 1 in 70 at a time being infected and increasing. This means its a safe assumption that every year group in every school will have covid positive children.
Click to expand...

Also my understanding and of course when referencing “children” the affects a virus has on a 15 year old is vastly different to a 5 year old for example. Hence the need to really split what precautions could be suggested for primary and secondary schools.
 
Kudos said:
This means its a safe assumption that every year group in every school will have covid positive children.
Click to expand...
But of course we need to bear in mind that most winters, every year group in every school will have flu positive children. And flu is vastly more dangerous to children than covid, and yet we keep schools open and manage (or basically ignore) the risks.
 
dsr-burnley said:
But of course we need to bear in mind that most winters, every year group in every school will have flu positive children. And flu is vastly more dangerous to children than covid, and yet we keep schools open and manage (or basically ignore) the risks.
Click to expand...
Christ Burnley..you really have it. ..errrrm. F√cking Sussed eh ?. How the screaming f√ck do you know anything more than some f√ckin' Sot in The Boot Inn ...(Spoons Burnley Despot Depot)
You bash away at our Forum..you dunno what the Screaming F√ck your on about as regards how individuals are affected around the Counties..why do you bother !

'To children. " Flu is vastly more dangerous than Covid" you say your eminence ......The ' ds ' f√cking' r Burnley!

Christ !

Covid IS a F√cking Flu !!!! You ignorant and supercilious b@stard !
 
Last edited:
Kudos said:
My layman's understanding is that the vaccine comes with a small risk which is the same across all age groups but because kids have a better resistance it becomes a tighter call.

The hope IMO was that by focusing on those at highest risk we would eventually get herd immunity and we wouldn't need to make a decision about whether to vaccinate children.

Instead with delta we're seeing the vaccinated spread it and with no restrictions or a culture of good hygiene we're at an estimated 1 in 70 at a time being infected and increasing. This means its a safe assumption that every year group in every school will have covid positive children.
Click to expand...
Yes the herd immunity line of thought seems to be dead for now, given it's endemic with vaccines not outright preventing infection. They're even talking about post vaccine infection possibly being preferable to booster jabs in adults (although that's by no means settled). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58270098

That article cites 40-50% of children as having already been infected, which if true hopefully builds up some defences in schools.

If discussing scenarios in which infection is actually preferable - that could include children below a certain age? Those 40-50% of children who have already had it will get milder infections in future, and they will presumably get vaccines at some point (once we settle on the appropriate age) to further reduces symptoms in future infections.

I'm basically pointing to a discussion seemingly starting in the media, about a paradigm change away from restrictions and accepting/managing a certain level of transmission. Fostering a culture of improved hygiene would never be a bad thing mind!
 
dsr-burnley said:
But of course we need to bear in mind that most winters, every year group in every school will have flu positive children. And flu is vastly more dangerous to children than covid, and yet we keep schools open and manage (or basically ignore) the risks.
Click to expand...
Flu shots are available to children 6 months and older. Flu shots are given at schools.
 
I dunno what schools have been teaching Brits over the past 3 or 4 decades..but it seems to me, judging by some of output on this subject , on this Forum...that there are a lorra thick f√ckers or maybe just misguided, knocking around the BH postcode and several other outposts.

My own son in Wales is suffering quite severely with Covid...I'm desperately concerned about what's going to happen next.
He argued with me, vehemently last night between severe coughing bouts over the phone..
" Dad you just can't Lockdown forever and stop people holidaying or clubbing or working"
"No...not working..I agree" said I..
..." but the other stuff ?"...
" Now tell me Son..who actually f√cking well has the Covid - You or Me? "

BTW..he had refused the Vaccination !

His boss sent him for a test ..pos.. then stopped him from returning to the factory!

I hated speaking to him in that manner and spent the next half an hour trying to convince him he needs to get help. then it was....." bollux Dad...its only Flu...like a cold or cough".

Now I find he has given it to his 17 year old daughter !
I f√cking give up with some of that 35-45 generation !
 
Last edited:
Old Cherry said:
Christ Burnley..you really have it. ..errrrm. F√cking Sussed eh ?. How the screaming f√ck do you know anything more than some f√ckin' Sot in The Boot Inn ...(Spoons Burnley Despot Depot)
You bash away at our Forum..you dunno what the Screaming F√ck your on about as regards how individuals are affected around the Counties..why do you bother !

'To children. " Flu is vastly more dangerous than Covid" you say your eminence ......The ' ds ' f√cking' r Burnley!

Christ !

Covid IS a F√cking Flu !!!! You ignorant and supercilious b@stard !
Click to expand...

Covid is not a flu... both are respiratory illnesses but they are different viruses. And the risks to young kids between the two aren't much different, though Covid is more infectious (and obviously more dangerous to the population overall). So Burnley is basically right.

I don't mean to be rude but I keep reading your excitable posts and am never any clearer about what you actually want. You seem to be very annoyed even when people are acting perfectly legally and in line with government advice.
 
USCherry said:
Flu shots are available to children 6 months and older. Flu shots are given at schools.
Click to expand...
According to this survey, the only one I can find that specifically refers to flu only, the average number of children under 15 who died of flu in the years 2001-08 was 150 per year. If the numbers have dropped since then because of flu jabs, then fair enough.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163445313003733

The total number of children under 15 who have died of coronavirus since this pandemic started is 17. In spite of the fact (surely a fact, though I can't prove it) that more children have had coronavirus in the past 18 months than get flu in the average year. That's why I say flu is more dangerous to children than coronavirus.
 
dsr-burnley said:
According to this survey, the only one I can find that specifically refers to flu only, the average number of children under 15 who died of flu in the years 2001-08 was 150 per year. If the numbers have dropped since then because of flu jabs, then fair enough.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163445313003733

The total number of children under 15 who have died of coronavirus since this pandemic started is 17. In spite of the fact (surely a fact, though I can't prove it) that more children have had coronavirus in the past 18 months than get flu in the average year. That's why I say flu is more dangerous to children than coronavirus.
Click to expand...
I get it but there is not enough info at this time to make the claim you made
 
dsr-burnley said:
According to this survey, the only one I can find that specifically refers to flu only, the average number of children under 15 who died of flu in the years 2001-08 was 150 per year. If the numbers have dropped since then because of flu jabs, then fair enough.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163445313003733

The total number of children under 15 who have died of coronavirus since this pandemic started is 17. In spite of the fact (surely a fact, though I can't prove it) that more children have had coronavirus in the past 18 months than get flu in the average year. That's why I say flu is more dangerous to children than coronavirus.
Click to expand...

The families of the 17 or so are none too overjoyed at their loss I guess !
 
Kudos said:
Possible lock down in October because 65% of the population can't be trusted to act like an adult.
Click to expand...
Make that: Possible lock down in October because 95% of the Cabinet can't be trusted to act like an adult. Although not sure who the 5% might refer to.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Sorry, that doesn't help answer my question.
Click to expand...
My guess would be that the first line of the article says that 45% of people are observing social distancing. If you take that from 100%, you would normally get 55%, but it's possible to get 65% if you aren't good at sums.

Alternatively, half way down the page it suggests that 65% of people have aranged to meet friends out of doors. That could be the absolute no-no that kudos is referring to?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;