Re: Coronavirus
 

As well as being completely incorrect throughout your post, the best bit is the final sentence portraying these as mutually exclusive endeavours.

Masks don’t detract from vaccines or vice versa. Your fundamental misunderstanding throughout the pandemic is to portray every mitigation as binary, as opposed to compounding and aggregating each other’s success.

That, plus pushing mass infection despite the clear impact it has on the health service and deaths. How many deaths are worth paying to reach herd immunity through mass infection, OB?

It has little to do with Government control and merely a basic desire to avoid further lockdowns. Despite clearly favouring economic outcomes over health ones, you seem to forget that fundamentally people will self-select themselves out of the economy by spending less - working from home, etc. At a time the poorest in society are getting hit with benefit cuts, increasing energy costs and food costs. The last thing you want or need is the generally white middle class spending the next six months to a year on Microsoft Teams. Which they absolutely will.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's dropped so far that it is now half of the new infection rate.

And 30% of new infections are of the doubly-vaccinated.

And there's a new more-transmissible variant on the loose.

So in summary, you won't be seeing herd immunity any time soon.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Apologies for going a little off topic but I'll share my perspective. One key advantage Twitter has is that it's not behind a paywall whereas the FT is. So, journalists can re-publish highlights of their content on the platform to distribute that content more widely and act as a promotional tool for the publication itself.

---------- Post added at 21:18 ---------- Previous post was at 21:13 ----------

Some may be tempted to dismiss it as it's not their favourite publication but this intervention looks quite significant to me.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...e_iOSApp_Other[COLOR="Silver"]

Re: Coronavirus
 

The trouble with that is the hospitalisations are by no way rising out of control, over the last few months they've been relatively static, still mirroring the new infections but further behind and a lot lower than before.


There are also a couple of main issues I can see with this:
1. That the infections now are largely speaking spill over effects from it ripping through unvaccinated secondary school kids, and the kids themselves. If a +ve child is in contact with an unvaccinated adult even with mild or no symptoms it's likely they will spread it and depending on age and underlying conditions this may be more severe but if the adult was vaccinated they may well escape completely or just get an illness like a cold for a few days. Bristol, which seems to be one of the more severely affected areas right now, is also one of the lowest vaccinated places. Of course, there's nothing stopping anyone over 12 from getting a jab now, so, these people really only have themselves to blame, so why should those who have suffer because of those who are denying covid and refusing the vaccines for some reason Karen off facebook said. It's perhaps unsympathetic to suggest they should just get it and face the effects but actually that's probably what's going to happen anyway.
2. That what the actual concern is, is clearing the backlogged non-covid procedures, which they have had basically since March to make a decent fist at, and because the NHS is fundamentally woefully dysfunctional at an organisational level, hasn't made hay whilst the sun shone, despite the worst-case predictions we'd see a wave of covid or flu or noro or all three in the winter. So we should, of course, introduce covid restrictions to try and save their woeful planning, without looking into why and stopping this happening again? I do admire the NHS but the idolatry of the last 20 months is almost Orwellian.



The other point worth raising about "Plan B" is that, it is not a single set of measures which will be all implemented, but a set of things which are mooted to try and get covid infections down. So not all of it may be introduced if the government decided to tighten things; and without bringing back furlough, at even more cost to the taxpayer and national debt which still has to be paid back, it would not have to be too excessive otherwise you'd see more companies fold or job losses etc etc because of distancing or disproportionate responses.



Mask wearing is utterly pointless and ridiculous in its current form. Neither the masks people have been told to wear (I recall when they started to make them common last year, some of the rags were basically showing how you could make a face covering out of a kitchen towel paper) nor the way people use them (wearing them over their chin, not over mouth and nose, not touching the mask or taking it on and off without washing it and your hands) make it fit for purpose, and that's even if it worked at all; insistence on surgical N95 type masks would probably help, but no doubt they would then be the next thing ripped off the shelves in large quantities by a few panic buyers depriving the general public of fair supplies, so that probably isn't workable either right now. So it needs to stay as it is. If it's crowded it's best to wear one but ultimately choice of the individual (and Hugh - it is a term from the media, and South Park pandemic special used the US equivalent... it's comical, but I guess it serves a similar purpose...)


The one mitigation I can see actually being effective is the WFH recommendation, for tasks which don't require being in the workplace, and aren't better done 1:1 face to face, it limits the casual mixing and extra journeys in the workplace, and saves on transport emissions too. But then how many school age children are in offices?


Figures are useless without analysing the reasons behind them and looking at the causes and where they sit. As I mentioned the other night the infections are largely in school age children so what's the point restricting adults who aren't getting it?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not respectable media, only ‘opinion’ pieces in the Telegraph, Spectator, and arses like Toby Young and Laurence Fox.

It’s about as accurate (and as derogatory) as calling someone who won’t wear a mask or speaks out against lockdowns as a ‘COVID lover"…

And regarding your comment about "hospitalisations are by no way rising out of control, over the last few months they've been relatively static" - but they’re static at between 800 and 900 per day since July…

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, 800-900 per day (provided it isn't concentrated in a particular area) across the country is probably manageable, and let's not forget how this figure is broken down, given that hospitalisations are also counting people who catch covid whilst already in hospital, or who don't go in because they have covid but somehow also have the virus. Not to mention that they are still popping covid positive patients in wards where there is other stuff going on, where they need to keep them apart, this isn't helping the former, and probably isn't helping the NHS either.


So yeah, face nappies is partially tongue in cheek, but do they really work in the current situation? Or do they anywhere? Lithuania has tried to combat their latest surge by vaxpasses and face coverings, neither of which has worked. Aside from telling people to get jabbed, allowing anyone to do so, and then just letting it rip, it's difficult to suggest what actually works now. It even seems that Delta is too transmissible for even lockdowns and closing non-essential businesses again to work, and then you have the unbelievably slow exit plan to reopen everything again. It doesn't work, we have to live with it now.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Can you lay out the current plan for paying back the national debt? Or even the 2019 post austerity version as we’d “balanced the books”?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Presumably there is a degree of accumulation with hospital admissions - people don't stay for a fixed period of time so even if hospital admissions flatlined (they haven't) then the number of Covid patients hospitalised would increase over time.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is and a single admission staying in for 6 months is clearly worse (more so cumulatively) than milder admissions who are discharged after a day or two of oxygen; even if the latter number is much higher.


Again, a situation where looking behind the figures gives the real answer.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's not so much the uptick in infections but the increase in hospitalisations and deaths.

The benefit of applying more moderate measures now is to reduce the need to introduce more aggressive measures later on, with the negative economic impact that brings.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The point with the latter half is more that people won't support it as much unless there's a clear risk or issue, as opposed to "oh well we'd better put lockdown restrictions back on just in case there's a spike" which won't be supported as much as "so the NHS is full up with covid patients again and can't treat anyone else", ideally, you'd do it as you were about to reach the 2nd but much more towards the 2nd than the first.


Whilst the levels of hospitalisations currently aren't low they are relatively stable (as are the number of new infections) so the time to do anything would be when it's starting to race out of control (if it does) and then targeted measures on the groups who are affected as opposed to everyone is probably better than targeting everyone including vaccinated people and people with natural immunity from having the virus (you could, for example, ask unvaccinated people and kids to wear face coverings again since they're most likely to have and spread covid).

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ideally you’d have public health messaging that endorses the inevitability of the second when you are much closer to the first.

However that’d rely on politicians following their own rules.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Given that on any given day UK hospital admissions can be around the 56,000 mark, 800-900 due to COVID is only 1.14%

---------- Post added at 09:35 ---------- Previous post was at 09:29 ----------

It's not even hospitalisations as that can vary from someone rocking up at A&E with Covid symptoms and being sent home with a packet of Paracetamol 4 hours later to someone not being able to breathe arriving by ambulance.

The number of COVID patients in ICU/HDU and Deaths should be the metrics.

---------- Post added at 09:44 ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 ----------

According to the Nuffield trust there are 6,270 critical care beds in the NHS (I think England only)

at the moment there is 823 COVID on Ventilation (so that may not even be in ICU)

so that's 13% - I don't know at what level it would be deemed a concern.

Obviously beds does not equal Staff, but the NHS have had enough time to be ready for any winter spike, which given the vaccination program, I would think it impossible for it to reach the levels of late 2020 - if it does it would just prove that the vaccinations don't work!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Epidemiology isn't that simple.

The more infections that occur, the more likely there are to be mutations, and if large enough viral loads cause infections in previously vaccinated (because nothing is 100%), a possible mutation is one that has learned to overcome the vaccination, which is a survival trait (for the virus), so will spread more.

One way to minimise this risk is wearing masks, to help protect others from any infection you may have.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't profess to be an epidemiologist, but there's a lot of ifs, buts and maybes in that analysis.