Cable Forum - Coronavirus

Today we had approx 57,000 cases
On 29th December we had 74,000 cases (by specimen date)

That’s with the majority of the country in the highest level of restrictions...

Do you still need to ask that question ?

That doesn't mean that they are all really ill, does it? Much much more testing now than ever before, that's where those numbers come from.

I'm pretty sure that you are allowed to ask questions, if you haven't noticed, its a discussion forum.

OLD BOY

02-01-2021 20:46

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36064674)

While the analysis is sound there’s other factors - there will be overlap between the “already infected” and vaccinated groups whether the former is as high as 20m or not. If immunity starts to dwindle after a year (again this is only a guess) a significant proportion of the already infected from the first wave will lose immunity in the next 26 weeks. If the vast majority are getting a vaccine only proven to be 62% effective this pushes the “all done” date back further.

That’s the quote from your post, jfman. You are peddling panic. Yes, I get the context, but you know what you are doing.

Pierre

02-01-2021 20:46

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36064744)

Don’t talk rubbish Old Boy. ONS data shows (linked by PIP) school age children as most likely to have the virus.

You choose your data source you takes you chance.

Schools are not the hotbeds of infection, and if the kids get infected, they are most likely not catching at school and bringing it home, but vice-versa.

https://www.who.int/docs/default-sou...rsn=320db233_2

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02973-3

As you point out

Quote:

Now they are either catching it from their parents going to non-essential retail or schools are driving transmission.

most likely the former not the latter. So focus on the actual issue.

Quote:

This is also the SAGE position that closing schools drives down R.

No it isn’t........they’ll tell us in 2 weeks.

jfman

02-01-2021 20:49

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36064767)

Questions yes, but no banter :D

There evidence doesn’t really back up that we are testing more and getting more cases for that reason alone. The reasons for getting a test (having symptoms) haven’t substantially changed in the last 2-3 weeks.

We are back to Pierre’s favourite question however of will this increase in cases flow through to hospitalisations/deaths. That said, with increased spread in schools it will not have exactly the same impact on those two figures, although concerns over multi-generational mixing at Christmas will have a lot of people holding their breaths for the next 3-6 weeks.

OLD BOY

02-01-2021 20:50

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36064767)

Unfortunately, Max, certain posters on here seem unable to engage in discussion. They prefer ridicule and rudeness to get their point across, which normally means you’ve won the argument.

jfman

02-01-2021 20:54

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36064769)

I’m sure you’d accept that data from up to October when some countries hadn’t opened their schools (and indeed, some states in the US still haven’t) has severe limitations.

You can’t really say there’s limited evidence for something when for the period in question (March to September in England) they were closed.

A similar study, selectively choosing March to July, would be able to say there’s no evidence of transmission in pubs.

---------- Post added at 20:54 ---------- Previous post was at 20:53 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36064771)

Unfortunately, Max, certain posters on here seem unable to engage in discussion. They prefer ridicule and rudeness to get their point across, which normally means you’ve won the argument.

And others will misrepresent your argument for one they want to be having, rather than the point you actually made because of the inadequacies of their case. :rolleyes:

mrmistoffelees

02-01-2021 20:54

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36064767)

Of course it doesn’t mean they’re ill. but you asked why it was needed. the answer is fairly obvious, however in case it isn’t I’ll spell it out for you.

Tier 2,3 and potentially to a degree tier 4 have allowed for these numbers. Now imagine what would happen if we removed the restrictions, cases would increase massively, subsequent hospital admissions, patients requiring ICU and unfortunately deaths would increase massively relative to current rates.

The job of lockdown or restrictions is to try and keep the fire to a slow burn, without them in place it would akin to a raging inferno.

Pierre

02-01-2021 20:55

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36064747)

How is that any different from outside of school hours?

The point being Sherlock that for those at risk, school is a safe space where they can be monitored and evaluated daily.

The most at risk will already be under some kind of social services care package, but then take that away we’re they are now away from daily seeing eyes......and social workers won’t/ can’t be able to keep an eye on them, they are more at risk of all kinds of issues, abuse, neglect etc.

And of course the borderline cases, that over a period of 6 months may have crossed the line.

Anyway, if you can’t see or understand the issue I can’t help you.. go and do some reading.

mrmistoffelees

02-01-2021 20:55

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36064771)

Unfortunately, Max, certain posters on here seem unable to engage in discussion. They prefer ridicule and rudeness to get their point across, which normally means you’ve won the argument.

Not really, in some cases it means you can’t fix stupid

jfman

02-01-2021 20:56

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36064775)

The point being Sherlock that for those at risk, school is a safe space where they can be monitored and evaluated daily.

The most at risk will already be under some kind of social services care package, but then take that away we’re they are now away from daily seeing eyes......and social workers won’t/ can’t be able to keep an eye on them, they are more at risk of all kinds of issues, abuse, neglect etc.

And of course the borderline cases, that over a period of 6 months may have crossed the line.

Anyway, if you can’t see or understand the issue I can’t help you.. go and do some reading.

Bingo.

Give them overtime from Dido Harding’s loose change.

mrmistoffelees

02-01-2021 21:00

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36064778)

Where did I say that, maybe you should try reading the post before making smart arsed comments, see below.

Didn't Whitty or some Sage expert say that the majority of people who get Covid rarely have severe symptoms, and only have a relatively mild condition similar to a heavy cold?
If so why are we all cooped up like prisoners? I get the wearing of masks and other mitigations to lessen the spread, but the measures in place, especially in areas with very few cases, seem extreme.

So the above isn’t a question as to why current restrictions are required ?

Mad Max

02-01-2021 21:01

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36064774)

Of course it doesn’t mean they’re ill. but you asked why it was needed. the answer is fairly obvious, however in case it isn’t I’ll spell it out for you.

Tier 2,3 and potentially to a degree tier 4 have allowed for these numbers. Now imagine what would happen if we removed the restrictions, cases would increase massively, subsequent hospital admissions, patients requiring ICU and unfortunately deaths would increase massively relative to current rates.

The job of lockdown or restrictions is to try and keep the fire to a slow burn, without them in place it would akin to a raging inferno.

Keep your smart-arsed comments to yourself, how well did the lockdown go in Wales a few weeks ago?

mrmistoffelees

02-01-2021 21:05

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36064780)

Keep your smart-arsed comments to yourself, how well did the lockdown go in Wales a few weeks ago?

Or?

Lockdowns work if people adhere to them or if they can be enforced. Welsh authorities already stated that there were significant quantities of people who were breaching rules.

For every England or Wales there’s countries who have managed to control via lockdown

Why was the first ‘national’ lockdown last year successful in suppressing the spread of the virus ?

Mad Max

02-01-2021 21:07

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36064781)

Or?

Lockdowns work if people adhere to them or if they can be enforced. Welsh authorities already stated that there were significant quantities of people who were breaching rules.

For every England or Wales there’s countries who have managed to control via lockdown

Doesn't that just prove that they don't work?

mrmistoffelees

02-01-2021 21:12

Re: Coronavirus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36064782)

Doesn't that just prove that they don't work?

Like I said, they do work, but it requires either the public to be obedient and behind it. Or, for it to be enforceable.

We’ve only had one lockdown and that was last year. Everything since has been ‘playing at it’

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:01.

Page 159 of 569

159

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page