Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, why not just ignore the electorate altogether, jfman? There’s a need for a balanced view, but you are taking an unrealistic hard line medical approach, which just won’t wash.

Anyway, time to get positive, if this forum can muster up enough positivity. We have a vaccine, it’s being delivered in order of priority and the virus will be under control within weeks.

I get Maggy’s concern about infections being rife in schools, but children are largely unaffected by the virus. Vulnerable people need to keep isolated as much as possible in the meantime until they get their jabs, which will be administered within weeks.

We will be able to look forward to a return to normality this spring/summer, with the removal of all restrictions. Good news at last, just waiting now for all your downsides....:D

---------- Post added at 11:21 ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 ----------

My flawed idea?

The idea of protecting the vulnerable reduces the number of people it infects! Lockdowns only slow the virus, but it will go on to infect the same number of people in the end, (when the lockdown measures are relaxed again) but over a longer timescale, which is more dangerous.

Fortunately, the vaccine gives us more options now.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s your perpetual defeatism over lockdown/waiting for vaccines that contributes most of the negativity, Old Boy.

You claim that treating a pandemic as a health issue won’t wash when restrictions are still well supported by the public as a whole. I must have missed the referendum on it, but as I’m sure you are aware we aren’t a direct democracy in any case.

I’d hoped you’d learned not to clutch at optimistic straw after optimistic straw throughout the pandemic but evidently not. The removal of all restrictions is very unrealistic in the timeframe you propose.

As I say, your flawed idea.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I know you like Bojo bashing but read the article you linked to and come back and tell me who threatened who with a court case.

It certainly wasn't the Government being threatened with one.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It is all a bit statistical but mutations happen when the virus reproduces so the more generations of virus reproduction that occur, the more mutations will be seen. However, mutations are random (on the whole, some sites are more likely to have issues than others in the virus genome) A mutation can happen at generation 1 or generation 1 billion. Some mutations will be silent with no change whatsoever in the virus, some will render the virus inactive and some can change the virus behaviour.

Here are some numbers...

The SARS-COV-2 genome is roughly 30,000 letters long and the mutation rate is 10^-4 per letter per year so, on average, there will be 3 mutations across the whole genome in 1 year. BUT, this assumes that the disease is not infectious. If one person infects another, then you double the number of virus reproductions and so the numbers of mutations double. If they infect others, the number of reproductions increase along with this.

Because lockdowns reduces the number of infections, it reduces the number of viral reproduction cycles and will therefore reduce the numbers of mutations. If someone catches the disease and the virus develops a really nasty mutation but they don’t infect anyone due to lockdowns and isolation, that strain becomes extinct.

Hope this makes sense!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Really?

Even if we vaccinate at the rate of a million per week, it will take over a year to hit 70% of the population (herd immunity levels)

And the CMOs say there will be vaccine shortages for the next couple of months.

https://www.ft.com/content/d97c72c5-...c-9cc10b21f007

Re: Coronavirus
 

Let him clutch at his straw, Hugh!

Re: Coronavirus
 

All these arguments about closing schools . . . can we apply the same to food factories please?


see how far that gets you :p:

Re: Coronavirus
 

We all appreciate the hard work done by our food factory hero's :clap:

Now shut up and get back to work that food won't make itself:)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

but . . but . . a third of us could/may/potentially be asymptomatic and spreading it merrily among our colleagues friends and families :shocked:

Surely that's reason enough to shut everywhere down for at least 3 weeks to eliminate the potential spread of this virus . . and the good news is that it could/may/potentially lead to a lowering of the transmission risk when warehouses and delivery drivers are laid off too :D

oh, and bugger all to buy in shops would mean less shoppers spreading it, what could possibly go wrong?


Maybe we should stop all football matches too . . oh hang on *££ kerching ££*

Re: Coronavirus
 

We’re not going from a standing start. 2.5M have already tested positive.

Statistical analysis suggest up 19M may have had it. (That was back in May, the accuracy of the method used has been questioned but still, the number will be a large number)

https://fullfact.org/health/19m-coronavirus-manchester/

So it is quite reasonable to suggest around 20M, have had it.

So we would be starting from 30% of the population having immunity through infection ( not even taking into account those already immune)

70% would be 46M, so 26M at a 1M = 26 weeks, all done by June with a fair wind behind us.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not where my brother works although its not a food factory but it has very strict Covid measures which up to now have worked very well.

Re: Coronavirus
 

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.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That would be great, if we actually knew who those 20M were, but we dont, so we will still have to vaccinate them anyway.

Re: Coronavirus
 

However children can and do pass all infections out to the wider world when they leave the hallowed halls of education.They are very good at that.;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Agreed, but that’s not "within weeks"...

Looking at the ONS numbers from late last month, they estimate https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...24december2020

Those figures seem low to me - is that just that week?

Re-reading it, yes, it is.

Statista puts the cumulative total at 2.3 million.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ses-in-the-uk/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Is the infection survey not measuring who had it within the time period as opposed to since the start of the outbreak? As a crude analysis assuming you’d have it/test positive for a two week window it’s about a million people a month.

Also Statista are using confirmed positives (so less likely to count asymptomatics who wouldn’t be tested) - ONS are estimating prevalence in the population at a given time based upon their random sampling.

Re: Coronavirus
 

A comment that shows that you still haven’t grasped what I am advocating.:rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 14:32 ---------- Previous post was at 14:29 ----------

Except that they don’t. They slow the process, that is all.

---------- Post added at 14:34 ---------- Previous post was at 14:32 ----------

It won’t take anywhere near that long to vaccinate the vulnerable. That will drastically reduce hospital admissions and remove the need for restrictions.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Sage advice regarding schools, minutes published 31/12/20

Link

Re: Coronavirus
 

One of the most enlightening aspects of this pandemic has been finding out just how many people on the internet are expert virologists who have also somehow found time to gain expertise in public health policy. Truly our nation is blessed to be so highly skilled.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Your shield-the-vulnerable-only scenario was tackled and founding wanting last year.

---------- Post added at 14:51 ---------- Previous post was at 14:47 ----------

Underestimate the nation's internet warriors' abilities to pivot from being experts at global trade, to electoral fraud in distant lands through to pandemics at your own cost. :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Just came across this too.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...8&d=1609599625

Re: Coronavirus
 

A HEADTEACHERS' union has launched legal action against the government demanding all schools shut after London primaries closed.

Lawyers for the National Association of Headteachers (NAHT) and the Association of School and College Leaders are set to demand the government shows data proving schools are safe to reopen as Covid cases surge.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/136281...-legal-action/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Surely the argument would be for them to prove all schools are “unsafe”


So keep them open until you do know then.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Alternatively close them rather than take the risk. Assess the difference in transmission vs December.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Like they did with pubs ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

And if you’re wrong you’ve lost children two weeks at school in a period that they’ve already lost too much. Inconveniencing working parents that can’t get, or afford, childcare. Potentially putting their jobs at risk.

Gambling with vulnerable kids lives that are in abusive households.

Seems you’re happy to take those risks?

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's not about anyone being happy to take risks, it's about risk assessment and mitigation.

Which will cause most problems - lockdown/schools closing, or the NHS being overwhelmed, NHS staff burn-out and sickness (which adds to the NHS issues), the unknown impact of Long Covid on people and the NHS, the heartbreak of families when a relative dies from COVID without any family member with them?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not sure many kids die at the Easter holidays, summer holidays, etc.

There’s enough scientific data that quantifies the impact of education settings on R. I’d be absolutely delighted to see schools close for a period to get infections down.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Never quite got the reasoning for "vulnerable" kids to continue attending school, compared to being at home outside of school hours and in normal school holiday times. What is meant to be the difference?

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s essentially a ruse from right wing libertarian types that if you told them you wanted to raise income tax a fraction of a penny to fund increased after school, summer school, free school meals and social services would say no and wax lyrical about personal responsibility.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If it's really that essential then let's be a bit creative - extend the term into the summer by a couple of weeks, reduce Easter holidays, etc.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You’re right, I meant to put include ‘in a set period of time/infections per week’. Apologies for that!

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s not essential - the school year is based on an agricultural calendar. Other countries have significantly less days in their school year with no real evidence our education system is superior/inferior to them.

When we inevitably accept there will be no exams that saves weeks for the years those apply to.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, close the schools and what I have put will happen, don’t close and what you list may happen.

They don’t know yet.

---------- Post added at 19:19 ---------- Previous post was at 19:13 ----------

Glad we can add “Social Work” to your repertoire of skills.

There is plenty of information on why vulnerable children not being at school is a bad thing, not so much the other way round though?

---------- Post added at 19:20 ---------- Previous post was at 19:19 ----------

That would work for, I absolutely would support that, good luck getting that past the unions though.

---------- Post added at 19:25 ---------- Previous post was at 19:20 ----------

Definitely your “Opinion”. And you’re welcome to it, I thoroughly disagree.

Both my kids are not at exam age, and missed out on a 3rd of their school year and it definitely impacted the youngest.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Such as? And compared to school holidays?
In normal times, a major problem outside of school hours, is them actually mixing with other kids.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/c...ost-vulnerable

And many many more, knock yourself out

Re: Coronavirus
 

But the vaccinations are protecting the vulnerable. That is the big picture. It takes quite a few weeks for these infections of the young to pass down through the generations. By which time, the vulnerable will be protected via their inoculations.

We have already discussed the benefit of the virus spreading through the healthy population. We need simply to be in a position where these two things converge to eliminate the impact of the virus.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So nothing in relation to before the first school shutdown of last year(2020)?
When was "vulnerable" only defined as being in a care home?
It's another case of trying to justify something, after the initial decision.
How are children who are less likely to be controllable, going to be able to behave in a safe manner?

Re: Coronavirus
 

That’s one hell of an assumption, jfman! Where’s your evidence for such a wild statement? Your posts are more off the wall than before these days, and that’s saying something!

At present, nobody knows the lifespan of a Covid vaccination, but six months is pretty extreme, even for you.

---------- Post added at 19:57 ---------- Previous post was at 19:51 ----------

I agree with where Pierre is coming from, but I think the problem is with knowing who the people who have had this infection without knowing it (or not reporting it) actually are.

I think we all need to appreciate that the emergency measures are designed to ensure that the hospitals are not overwhelmed. Once we have achieved that, the measures can be lifted. We are not looking at a total elimination of the virus.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ok, here’s an independent one from UNICEF, produced way back in April within weeks of the first lockdown, that references tens of pre-COVID assessments and reports.

https://www.unicef.org.uk/wp-content...Assessment.pdf


Like I say, knock yourself out.

If you’re trying to somehow spin it, that there is no detrimental impact to children or that it is being spun by government into something bigger than it’s not.

Focus your efforts elsewhere.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Helpful if you read what’s said, Old Boy rather than dive head first in. I know, reading what’s said eh? Why bother when you can keep pushing your discredited theories around letting the virus go and protecting the vulnerable.

Nowhere did I refer to the vaccine lasting that long. I was referring to those infected in the first wave. I clearly stated that in my post. That’s accepted to be the period to June 2020. 26 weeks from now is one year from then.

It’s literally in the sentence before you applied bold to my text.

I prefer you clutching at straws and posting discredited nonsense to misrepresenting my posts. Thanks.

Re: Coronavirus
 

On both sides of the argument, I would add...

By the way, this is a discussion forum, not a centre of expertise.

;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Plus it might go away by itself in the summer :rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Really? By whom? The usual suspects who disagree with anything positive?

I’m underwhelmed! :D

---------- Post added at 20:04 ---------- Previous post was at 20:02 ----------

Typical comment from you, mate. Maximum disruption on the back of minimal evidence.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You do realise there are over 17 million British defined as ‘vulnerable’ under the COVID vaccine priority list definitions? (I only included up to Group 6 in the attached chart).

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...st-covid-when/

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...9&d=1609617698

That’s going to take more than "a few weeks", even at a million doses per week (which we are nowhere near yet)..

Re: Coronavirus
 

Risk assessment is about being realistic, not "positive" - "hope" should never be part of a plan.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Happily.

Not enough until it became a method of pushing herd immunity by the back door, sadly.
If we can find £22bn for test and trace I’m sure we could find some overtime pay for teachers.

Opening schools full time without exception leaves many areas stuck in Level 3 or 4 lockdown restrictions with no way back out and hundreds of thousands of children isolating on any given day anyway, missing weeks of the school year. It’s not a zero sum game.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, the big question of course, is where do you find evidence that closing primary schools will help the situation? There is none, is the simple answer. You are in panic mode, my friend. We need to study the evidence rather more carefully than jumping to such conclusions.

Balance your solution with the problems we are aware of, such as denying young children the education they need at a crucial time in their lives, and how their parents will look after them if both are working full time. Is that not worthy of consideration too?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Difference being some people are quoting experts and evidence in support of their propositions, others are not... ;)

nb, the only ‘positive" the virus cares about is "COVID positive" - it doesn’t care about anyone’s "positive attitude", and a positive attitude won’t stop anyone being infected.

Re: Coronavirus
 

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

Now they are either catching it from their parents going to non-essential retail or schools are driving transmission. This is also the SAGE position that closing schools drives down R.

I know throughout this pandemic you have consistently been proven wrong, clinging onto false dawn after false dawn. Thankfully, our politicians, despite being somewhat incompetent and ignoring the data haven’t gone full ostrich like you Old Boy and do, often belatedly, accept what is staring them in the face. Something you haven’t yet done and not something I truly expect now.

If the vaccine doesn’t give you hope and offer realisation that there’s an end in sight without sacrificing tens of thousands of lives nothing will.

---------- Post added at 20:13 ---------- Previous post was at 20:11 ----------

:D:D:D

This simply can only be trolling. Honestly, cases increase in the school age population, in lockdown (Tier 4), but it’s not schools.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Or at any time, for that matter.

You just want to see chaos and disruption. I’m wondering if you are one of these ‘say it loud and say it proud’ anarchists. That would explain some of your outrageous views on this forum.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So still nothing in relation to "vulnerable" children, and whatever the definition of "vulnerable" is meant to be.
Link from your linked report

How is that any different from outside of school hours? The first closure was not long before the Easter holidays.
Very little of that document referred to closure of schools, and most of what it did mention, was related to ALL children(eg no exams).

Re: Coronavirus
 

Your statement is still not supported by facts, no matter how you want to spin it.

26 weeks immunity? You are having a laugh!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Somewhat ironically it’s your “open the schools at all costs” mantra here that closes everything else to keep R under control. Hugely damaging what little of the economy remained in Tier 3 restrictions and giving them absolutely no hope of Tier 2.

I’d like schools to be included in restrictions so those parents still have jobs to go to.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I didn’t say that. But with the vaccination programme, we will in all probability see a much better situation come the summer.

Re: Coronavirus
 

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.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not what was said Old Boy no matter how much you claim it to be. Anyone can go and read the posts for themselves.

Pierre, for example, didn’t need to elaborate on the point as he clearly understood the point I was making and it wasn’t that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

With 2 million doses, we will get there, but even 1m will make a complete difference with the ability of our hospitals to cope.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I can go and find the post if you want OB - despite the fact the virus was already spreading in countries with weather equivalent to a North European summer you clutched at that straw last year.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Realistic I can cope with. Unfortunately, all too many comments on this forum are well to the left of that. You can’t blame others for trying to redress the balance.

---------- Post added at 20:25 ---------- Previous post was at 20:21 ----------

Herd immunity is how this works. You can bleat all you like, but it’s nature.

Incidentally, it’s what the vaccination programme relies upon. :rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

You know I mean herd immunity by allowing the virus to pass through the population uncontrolled. A policy so discredited now even Sweden have abandoned it and the King apologised.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I understood your point old chap, but simply didn’t agree with it!

Re: Coronavirus
 

You literally did not understand it if your take away was that immunity would only last 26 weeks. Anyone can go back and read it for themselves.

As I say, I know your arguments in this topic are often found wanting but it’s not acceptable to misrepresent my posts in this manner.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You’re nearly correct. The statement you’re looking for is ‘A controlled, managed route to herd immunity, is how this works’

It’s a shame we don’t know how long the triggered immune response will last, herd immunity may never be achievable.....

Re: Coronavirus
 

This stupidity knows no bounds, does it?

Earlier last year there was a good deal of speculation that Covid would die down with the summer months, as SARS did and as conventional flu does. I recognised quite early on that hot countries were also having to contend with an exponential spread of the damn thing and amended my view on that basis.

Whilst the virus did indeed subside in the UK this summer, I am not entirely convinced that Covid is in any way seasonal. I think that was coincidental with the impact of the lockdown.

---------- Post added at 20:32 ---------- Previous post was at 20:31 ----------

Except that I did not say ‘uncontrolled’.Twisting the facts as usual.

Re: Coronavirus
 

None of it credible as it already has a presence in the Southern Hemisphere.

Alas, there was no straw left to clutch at.

It also subsided in lockdown, but I have yet to see you advocate that idea.

Re: 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 ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Perhaps you could explain yourself in terms of my comment, which was clearly that if you seriously think that immunity only lasts for 26 weeks, you are simply being alarmist and with no facts to back up your case.

You stated this quite clearly, and that is what I was responding to. I don’t care about other points you were making - this one was clearly nonsense of the first order.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I did not state this and it is quite clear for anyone else to go back and read the post you quoted.

I absolutely will not seriously engage with a post that has fabricated an argument that I did not make but nice try. :D

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=2313

(Link for other members to consider if I said immunity from infection or vaccines would only last 26 weeks)

Re: Coronavirus
 

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.

Re: Coronavirus
 

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

Re: Coronavirus
 

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

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

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

Re: Coronavirus
 

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.

Re: Coronavirus
 

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.

Re: Coronavirus
 

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 ----------

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:

Re: Coronavirus
 

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.

Re: Coronavirus
 

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.

Re: Coronavirus
 

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

Re: Coronavirus
 

Bingo.

Give them overtime from Dido Harding’s loose change.

Re: Coronavirus
 

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

Re: Coronavirus
 

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

Re: Coronavirus
 

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 ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

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

Re: Coronavirus
 

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’

Re: Coronavirus
 

They don’t work if you keep schools open, I think that’s now been proven.

The problem is the country has always decided to walk a tightrope opening up as much of the country as they can while having a tolerable level of infections. This carries it’s own risk - mutation - and now we are seeing a more virulent strain.

While the vast majority of people will not go on to develop severe illness the problem is the virus spreads quickly enough that the NHS would quickly become overwhelmed without intervention. If ONS are estimating that 600,000 people at any one time have it and 24,000 people are in hospital (not an estimate) then there isn’t much headroom for allowing the figures to rise. If ICU hits capacity the number of fatal outcomes will also disproportionately rise.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Hugh pointed out there are 17m vulnerable in the UK. Once you've removed people living with them and supporting them there's not many people left.

That's one area where your theory fails to work.

Another other area where it fails to work is hospital capacity. That can't be ramped up rapidly enough leading to non-covid patients being turned away and wards over-run.

It's simply a pipe dream, with a particularly strong brand of tobacco in that pipe!

Re: Coronavirus
 

No as it just proves that those who are ignoring the rules are selfish bell-ends...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Iirc wasn’t it leaked that three London ICUs were at their capacities on New Year’s Eve ?

---------- Post added at 21:17 ---------- Previous post was at 21:15 ----------

I don’t think that’s 100% true. Certainly there will be a percentage of people who fit that, but there are some people who are genuinely weary/exhausted of living the best of two thirds of a year under some form of restrictions.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm really sorry to hear that mate.

Re: Coronavirus
 

To my knowledge hospitals are segregating with specific wards for c-19 patients, not only that, but also specific routes into hospitals for c-19 vs standard admissions.

Unless you have entire hospitals given over to c-19 I’m
Not sure how the NHS can’t stop aerosol transmission ?

And then factor in asymptomatic transmission

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, with London hospitals securing capacity in Yorkshire. From a few days ago
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...run-Covid.html

This alone should help Old Boy appreciate his theory is fatally flawed.

Like a wine that's gone off, his theory doesn't improve no matter how many times it's re-opened.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I actually find the cold sobering pessimism of the forum quite refreshing. If I wanted bombastic wishful thinking, not grounded in science, to make myself feel better in my ignorance I’d read the Daily Mail / Telegraph / Express articles from the “back to the office/summer holiday” push in July/August. Oh the Christmas we should be having :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Was it?

Perhaps if we only tested 400 people a day instead of the thousands we currently do, we could use the positive test figures to prove the recent lock downs worked too :p:

bloody statistics eh :rolleyes:


edit: oh, and according to Hughs graph I'm a vulnerable person . . . but nobody has informed me of such, and my place of work hasn't treat me any different :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Sorry Old Boy, but you've forced me to ask the question - are you indicating Nomadking won this argument then? :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Really ?

Have you read this topic, its full of experts .... :rofl:

Re: Coronavirus
 

The start of many ?

https://apple.news/AfAhyTRpYTgK4OfwQpjxH9w

Re: Coronavirus
 

Almost inevitably. What court in the land is going to rule in the Government’s favour when it’s ignoring the science?

Re: Coronavirus