Re: Coronavirus
 

We’re still waiting. Deaths remain consistently under 100 since the 28th July.

To reflect the sudden rise in infections deaths would have to start to increase in the next week at the latest.

Infections got to first wave Levels (5000 per day) around 22nd September.

During the first wave we were seeing 1000 deaths per day a week later, when we had got to that point.

Re: Coronavirus
 

However in the first wave we didn't have the testing capacity to test everyone - those with symptoms were advised to stay home. So the 5,000 then isn't comparable to 5,000 now.

The deaths figure will also have been skewed by the care home situation, which shouldn't happen again. So to simply say because we don't see 1,000 tests next week is to compare apples with oranges.

The data is showing more cases, more hospital admissions and more patients on ventilators and in intensive care week on week. To stand by and do nothing, or even worse open up further, has an inevitable outcome. Even the deaths figure won't be comparable as you now have to die within 28 days of a test.

Some data from the Lancet on the timeline:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...195-X/fulltext

Re: Coronavirus
 

Admissions.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...9&d=1601839720

On ventialtors

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...0&d=1601839825

Source

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nobody is saying it's at the level it was in April. What I'm saying is the clear trend over the last month is upwards.

While on that scale it doesn't look much, as a percentage growth it's quite significant. If steps aren't taken to stop that growth the outcome is inevitable. It might take a number of weeks to get there, but it's absolutely inevitable.

Given it lags behind cases we can expect to see growth over the next two weeks.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare

On every every Metric, admissions, patients in care, patients on ventilators And deaths the numbers are currently less than the first wave by a factor of 10 or more.

Considering the NHS was not “overwhelmed” in the first wave, there is plenty of capacity and no justification for a second national lockdown unless these figures increase considerably.

There isn’t really even a justification for all the current extra local restrictions, as currently all decision making seems to be made on infection rates.

The Lancet article states In which case we should already be seeing large increases now in admissions and ventilation - and were not.

This can only mean:

- this second wave ( I don’t personally think it is a second wave, but I’ll use the term to refer to this time period) is less Dangerous/ more milder strain.

Or

- the COVID tests are inaccurate - as alluded to by several scientists regarding the false positives issue.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, but the trajectory is inevitable without intervention.

A situation where the NHS essentially had to suspend all non-critical care isn't a serious, viable minimum benchmark to adhere to.

Without genuine, accurate case data for the first wave making any such comparisons is pointless.

What is far more likely is that we are intervening earlier rather than later, to avoid an absolutely inevitable outcome. We don't have a reference point in the first wave for when the first wave hit approximately 5,000 cases per day. Possibly some around mid-February.

Imperial College London estimated that the around 1.8 million people had been infected in the UK by 28th March, when Government figures would have indicated 30,000 infections - a significant order of magnitude lower I'm sure you'll agree.

The Government are weighing up a short intervention earlier in the wave versus a longer one later in the wave, however the absence of meaningful data from the first wave makes comparisons meaningless. What we do know is that testing capacity is being stretched, the time taken to get results (and thus identify close contacts) is taking too long. At this point intervention is inevitable unless the Government want to accept uncontrolled growth.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The problem the Government has with 'unless the figures increase' is that they do can do so dramtically with the course of a few days and the measurements to reduce that can take a long time to take effect. Look at the admissions for March/April. By the time we saw the surge it was too late and led to a month or so of very high admissions.

Re: Coronavirus
 

This is key. Lockdown/some degree of intervention is inevitable - all the way through to next Spring/Summer. The aim is to keep interventions short which means they have to be early in each spike.

Late interventions become longer interventions.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Head of UK task force says fewer than half of the UK population will be vaccinated. Also interesting to note a vaccination won't prevent transmission, it will just limit the damage that it causes.

https://www.ft.com/content/d2e00128-...3-43e51355a751

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is an assumption that people will rush to take the vaccination, we discussed this over lunch today and none of my family is willing to put an untested vaccine into their body until it has at least a 5 year safety record behind it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If someone is keeping track of statements that don't age well, add this one to the list.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Anyone else feel that we're not totally on top of the data?

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...litch-12090306

Re: Coronavirus
 

Wow, that must mean we will have hundreds of thousands of deaths soon....:shocked:

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don’t see how that follows from what I said.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I wouldn't rush to it either. Vaccinate the at risk groups as a priority anyway. The vast majority of the population don't need the vaccine anyway.