Covid-19 Discussion

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Status
Not open for further replies.
At the peak you could expect on average 1 in 38 20- 29 year old to be infected while at the other extreme only 1 in 250 60+ year olds were infected. I guess we instinctively knew that on the basis of the degree of compliance with the rules.
Or alternatively, the 20-29 year olds are going out to work, and the 60+ year olds are either WFH or retired therefore having little or no external contacts?
 
Not one of the people at our work(a lot of people from numerous countries) of all ages, who have travelled the world through out the pandemic have had covid 19.
Yet my colleagues wife who hardly goes out of her home town has tested positive today.

We all think we had it a year ago and have moved on.
 
Or alternatively, the 20-29 year olds are going out to work, and the 60+ year olds are either WFH or retired therefore having little or no external contacts?

Fair enough and work must explain to some extent why the 30-39, 40-49 and 50-59 age groups all have more infections than 60+ but work doesn't explain the difference in infection rates between each consecutive younger age group. That can only be explained by less compliance with the rules e.g. 20-29's do more socialising than 30-39's and 30-39's do more socialising than 40-49's etc.
 
Surely it depends on who's tested?
Didn't universities try and test everyone?
So obviously there will be a higher rate of 18-25year olds than 30-39 year olds, who are fit,healthy with no symptoms so don't really get tested.

If a certain age bracket haven't had as many tests as another age bracket the figures could mean anything.

To many scenarios to make judgements.
 
Sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll.
They can't get all of those at home so go out for them. The stupidity of prohibition rears its head again. How much easier they'd find it to stay at home if they could pick up their preferred at Tesco with the shopping - like most of you lot do with alcohol.
 
Hard to believe the symptoms can hang around so long and not trigger a continual anti body response.
Is it reasonable to assume these cases will still possess some natural protection?
If they can then is it reasonable to assume many more asymptomatic bods can?
Would it then become reasonable to test for anti bodies prior to injecting any vaccine?
 
Hard to believe the symptoms can hang around so long and not trigger a continual anti body response.
Is it reasonable to assume these cases will still possess some natural protection?
If they can then is it reasonable to assume many more asymptomatic bods can?
Would it then become reasonable to test for anti bodies prior to injecting any vaccine?
Dunno, I are an engineer!
 
38419634-9181695-The_UK_has_recorded_another_30_004_Covid_cases_down_almost_a_qua-a-110_1611510566473.jpg


38419638-9181695-image-a-18_1611506158183.jpg


(By date reported)
 
Last edited:
Sorry, couldn't seem to get this in the above post - here is the link:


We are being fooled, chaps.
 
Sorry, couldn't seem to get this in the above post - here is the link:


We are being fooled, chaps.
You may be I on the other hand have not.
 
Some potential good news:


But no doubt our media will find a way to pour plenty of cold water on it, if they bother to report it at all...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom