Returning spectators to Deepdale

It's nothing like as simple as aiming for herd immunity and letting people die....a matter I suggest no civilised nation would do. Apart from the human misery from the loss of valued lives the continuing cost of providing for those with continuing long-term conditions would be astronomical. The virus is now spreading most rapidly amongst younger people...not all of whom will make a full recovery.....I was out yesterday passing local Uni Halls of Residence and saw not one but two ambulances leaving the campus...I've no idea if those inside were students with Covid but given 1100 local students now testing positive there's a high prospect of that being the case. (Given that students were told to go back to Uni and that they have communal living arrangements, shared kitchens, tv rooms, showers etc what's occurred doesn't surprise me in the least).

What lockdown does, besides checking the spread, is to buy time for a vaccine to be developed and, importantly, for appropriate medical care to be put into place. Far less people are now dying because medics have learned better how to treat patients and what drugs help produce the best outcomes. The NHS hasn't been overwhelmed which it would otherwise be without lockdown...although if this current second wave continues at the rate it is without lockdowns (tier 3 call it what you will) it will be. There is also the prospect of the becoming dormant...scientists refer to latency.

You appear to be under a misunderstanding over herd immunity. There was letter in the Lancet recently signed by 80 leading scientists and medics warning the government against such a position. They said there is no proof people even get immune after catching the virus once, and that the process of letting it spread would cripple hospitals everywhere. Health and care workers would face 'unacceptable' burdens and trauma in the face of a devastating and uncontrollable pandemic and it could leave many survivors with poorly-understood and long-lasting side effects known as 'long Covid'. [Uncontrolled transmission in younger people risks significant morbidity [illness] and mortality [death] across the whole population,' the letter said.

The concept of herd immunity relies on a large proportion of people becoming immune to a virus – through vaccination or past infection – meaning it spreads much more slowly or not at all through the population.

Scientists have suggested that between 40 and 70 per cent of people may need immunity for this to work with Covid-19. There is currently no proof that anyone gets long-term protection after having the disease once.

Although it's long it's worth citing the letter/ |Tthe scientists, led by Dr Deepti Gurdasani from Queen Mary University in London, said: 'Any pandemic management strategy relying upon immunity from natural infections for Covid-19 is flawed...

'There is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection, and the endemic transmission that would be the consequence of waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future.

'Such a strategy would not end the Covid-19 pandemic but result in recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination.

'It would also place an unacceptable burden on the economy and healthcare workers, many of whom have died from Covid-19 or experienced trauma as a result of having to practise disaster medicine.

'Additionally, we still do not understand who might suffer from long Covid. Defining who is vulnerable is complex, but even if we consider those at risk of severe illness, the proportion of vulnerable people constitute as much as 30 per cent of the population in some regions.

'Prolonged isolation of large swathes of the population is practically impossible and highly unethical.'

The paper advocates instead for governments – signatories came from the UK, US, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, France, Australia, Spain, Israel, Italy and Malaysia – to focus on stopping the coronavirus.

It concluded: 'The evidence is very clear: controlling community spread of Covid-19 is the best way to protect our societies and economies until safe and effective vaccines and therapeutics arrive within the coming months.


------


Apols for the length but I thought it worth citing...there is no evidence that herd immunity works, on the contrary the cost of allowing it to happen would result in economic and social misery.

Average positives in the last 7 days, the above is rate per 100,000



Taken from the Covid 19 Tweet site

Could try agree more Daws. Southport is in Merseyside, but has little infection - Liverpool are using our beds! However, the Govt believes that we are part of Liverpool - we aren't and have a Preston Postcode, which says it all.

Yep, we live over the Mersey, on the Wirral. with a rate in the low to mid 200's yet are classed as in the Liverpool area for the purposes of Tier3 and we have a cheshire post code.

Wyre overall looks pretty high...

Ribble Valley has been low throughout, issue is if bars are closed in Accy, Harwood, Padiham, people will travel to Clitheroe.

Anyway, let’s get back on topic... what year are we aiming for? 2022-23 season?

Wyre also lumped partly in with Fleetwood say no more, saw something re Rugby League, Bradford told not to expect spectators until at least April although they are hoping for earlier.
St Pauli had 1000 last night, Makinok was sighted, and on Sunday Schalke allowed 300 hundred capacity 60,000 they did make some noise though.
Thing is the longer it goes on people will find other things to do on a Saturday