Re: Coronavirus
 

Businesses will have more chance of surviving if they got themselves back to normal again. If they have too many people on their books, those people need to look for alternative employment. We are told it's a workers' market out there, with an unprecedented number of vacancies.

The only area I can think of where continued furlough payments could be justified is in the travel industry, because it's the government that is imposing restrictions which severely limits the profitability and employment needs of these businesses.

It's strange that you are suddenly so concerned about the economy when you were spouting forth a little while ago how spending all this money was of no consequence. At such low levels of interest rates, you said, it would cost us nothing. I think you forgot that loans still had to be paid back!

Re: Coronavirus
 

There’s no going back to 2019 just because they removed restrictions as you can see with many sectors complaining people are staying away.

It’s not strange that I’m concerned about the economy but you’ll note I said businesses and jobs. Your first paragraph proposes to throw a generation on the scrap heap, in low quality, low paying precarious work that Government subsidises through tax credits. That doesn’t create a growing, sustainable economy it simply entrenches stagnation and recession in the long run.

Can you source me the repayment plan for the £2 trillion of national debt?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Maybe we could sell our gold reserves . . . oops sorry, I didn't notice the word trillion after the £2

:D

Re: Coronavirus
 

I doubt we have much after a certain G. Brown sold it all at knock down prices.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That is strange post coming from you, jfman. Let’s start at the beginning. Wasn’t it you who said that the National debt was not important?

Make up your mind, old chap!!

Re: Coronavirus
 

I fail to see the contradiction.

Where’s that repayment plan? What cuts/tax rises are being proposed to clear this worrying £2 trillion of debt?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nope.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes.

You appear to be basing your calculations on a number of erroneous assumptions.

A) the vaccines are 100% effective
B) no new variants come along which are more infectious/debilitating/lethal
C) because the hospitals aren’t as busy as they were in January, they’re not busy/ICUs aren’t full (currently around 1k in ventilation beds, vs 4K in January)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

A) Where did he state that ?
B) That applies to any virus, including the obvious 'flu'. If you based lockdowns on such a "might happen" we'd never stop.
C) ICU's have always been busy, the point is they are not overrun, nor complaining they might be (certainly not around here anyway).

Re: Coronavirus
 

The higher the level of covid cases the more people will need hospital treatment. This in itself causes an issue as the NHS try to make a dent in the backlog of cases.

A couple of other thoughts

1) we’re about to move to that time of year where we spend most of our time socialising indoors

2) a percentage of the populations immunity is already on the wane, whilst boosters are coming online we could potentially see spikes due to this too.

I do love how some people act so blasé in all of this, they must be expert virologists & immunologists

Re: Coronavirus
 

The Delta variant still infects vaccinated people and their virus levels are similar to unvaccinated people. Also vaccinated people can pass on the Delta variant, which increases the potential for new variants to pop up.
CDC

Re: Coronavirus
 

Unfortunately I knew a bloke that was blasé about it. He's now dead. True he did have an underlying lung condition and not in the best of health, but had been double jabbed.

This virus is still potentially fatal to a signicant number of people. Those that aren't vulnerable but don't take precautions because they only think about themselves need to reflect on their potential to be life threatening to others. Something as simple as a mask in enclosed spaces isn't a big ask.

Re: Coronavirus
 

A big jump to perhaps 180+ tomorrow.

You'd think that after all this time, case reporting would have become standardised, and not still on a random 7-day cycle.

Re: Coronavirus
 

In other words, people should get vaccinated. Problem solved.

There will still be some people who fall ill, and an even lower proportion who need hospital treatment and some will die.

But other viruses and other types of illness do that, too. We mustn’t get this out of proportion. Further restrictions will not be necessary unless something very significant arises in the meantime.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Can't work out if I clicked into the oldest posts in the thread or the newest one.

The problem with waiting until "something significant" happens rather than a proportionate measure to something that falls below the threshold of "significant" is that your response then is lockdown because it's too late. Fundamentally, you didn't think the original outbreak was significant enough and here we are, 150 000 deaths later despite lockdowns. Who knows what it'd have been without them.

Once you're in actual lockdown that's it for months as the road to easing restrictions gets trodden a further time.

Sensible measures should be considered to prevent lockdown if cases are seen to rise exponentially. Hospitalisations and deaths only follow, albeit at a lower rate than previously.

Without sensible measures people will only stay home themselves and not spend money in any case. City centres will never recover.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

If the numbers converge yes, however the ONS studies have the number of people with antibodies falling. There are emerging cases of reinfection and people double vaccinated are becoming infected.

So while the theory is sound it certainly feels like there's a lot more at play.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well……good comedy if nothing else.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Any idea why the antibodies in some (or all) people are falling?

Are they being 'destroyed' by the natural body immune system as 'fakes'?
Do they simply fade away over time -half life of 56 days?
Are they designed to decay, meaning the need for further shots and a money spinner?

:shrug:

Re: Coronavirus
 

:confused:

Laughing at someone’s death?

---------- Post added at 22:46 ---------- Previous post was at 22:43 ----------

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58270098

It’s a new virus - there’s a lot we don’t know.

Re: Coronavirus
 

All antibodies are only a temporary protection, lasting a few months. But there are other parts to the immune system that are much longer lasting - it can be years to entire life, depending on the disease. We don't know how long this will last for COVID, but people who recovered from SARS-Cov-1 are still immune almost 20 years later, which is encouraging.

People who were vaccinated early in Israel are now getting reinfected because their antibodies have waned, but mostly don't get seriously ill because the other protections are still working.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The trouble with your approach, jfman, is that we will never reach a point at which you agree it’s safe to go back to normality.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is no magical return to 2019, OB. The sooner you accept that, the better.

We could be multiple variants, waves and vaccination campaigns from ever reaching a “manage Covid like flu” situation.

It’s also not “my approach” it’s the approach of almost every single Government in the world. Even Sweden.

Re: Coronavirus
 

All governments will have to face reality sooner or later. It's already started to dawn on Australia and New Zealand that it is near impossible to stop the virus and that they will have to take a different approach when their people are fully vaccinated.

Your approach is permanent restrictions, and heavy reliance on lockdowns, which would not be accepted by the public. It would result in mass disobedience and would therefore be ineffective.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Buddy, you really need to give up on your prognostications - remember last September, when you said And yet…

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...2&d=1630397283

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1630397010

Re: Coronavirus
 

I know. I admire Old Boy’s perpetual optimism in a way, and that being proven incorrect persistently doesn’t prevent him from pursuing his ideological wet dream of no state intervening in a public health emergency.

Perhaps given the huge amounts being paid to consultants he should offer his services and guide some fledgeling economy through the wilderness into economic growth at the expense of it’s neighbours.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think you may be missing a key point here which is, normality itself evolves.

We won't go back to how life was before Covid-19. we may get somewhere near it, but it won't ever be the same.

Two things that i can think of that have changed permanently.

1. WFH/Hybrid working.
2. Travel testing

On both of those we're down a path which we wont turn back from.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Apologies, I'll aim higher next time ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Maybe the insight is reasonable as in well considered, balanced ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Is insight part of the same function as foresight and hindsight? :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

It will be a combination of (re)infections and vaccines that means our bodies will "learn" and remember CV type viruses even if they do mutate. If similar enough we will have some protection and we will learn that new "stage".


What we mustn't have is fear because that allows those in charge to bring in rules/legislation etc that we normally won't tolerate and some of those will be very hard to remove later. Those with power like to exercise it and keep it.


1. Remote/hybrid working - this will (hopefully) remain.
2. Travel testing - this needs to be better focussed, cheaper and much faster. It will be really hard to do if we go back to millions of Brits heading to the Med for a week in the sun. When/where/how do you test and what do you do with non-negative tests?


Really unless we get a mutation that is so different to what has been experienced in the past and leads to high hospitalisations/deaths etc that some action in needed we really are going to have to learn to live with this. It will become less novel, population immunity will improve and develop.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Variant c.1.2 whilst not a variant of concern is under heavy research due to its potential for vaccine & immune escape. Should that be the case and should it become the dominant strain we are to a degree back at square one.

1. Remote/Hybrid working where possible is here to stay, it's as simple as that. I've attended multiple CIO/CISO conferences in the past twelve months. of all the CIO & CISO's that have either spoken at events or those that I've spoken to individually, I would say around seventy percent are now focused squarely on remote/hybrid working and the challenges faced by it.

2. Testing will get cheaper, quicker & more accurate. New tests are constantly being developed and existing tests will probably be refined and simplified

In the future i imagine it will be similar to using the egates for passport control

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think he's spot on.

I suppose every variant of every virus has that potential but as I've asked before:- Can anyone name any virus in the history of man that has done this? I still await a reply.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think some of it's about right but it's being based on what we already know. Look at the changes from the Alpha to Delta variant which have occured in a period of just over a year.

Parts of the world are acting as petri dishes for potential new variants be that by relaxed restrictions or a lack of progress in vaccinations.

Quite simply, the more cases in circulation, the more chance of variants, the more chance of variants, the greater chance of one that becomes significantly more difficult to deal with.

The above doesn't mean i'm in favour of reimposing the restrictions that have changed most people's lives in the past eighteen months. But we also shouldn't discard their potential necessity just yet.




To answer your question? Documented? probably not as for large periods of history we didn't actually possess the knowledge to determine. Actually occurred ? more than likely

Re: Coronavirus
 

This one?

There’s already evidence of reduced immunity vs variants, and one poor sod who has been infected by original covid, alpha covid and delta covid despite being double vaccinated between alpha and delta.

Will immunity drop overnight from high levels to zero, probably not, so long as booster vaccinations track the virus over time. Major economies are already betting big on this with huge amounts of mRNA vaccines procured through to 2023. You only need to chop away 20-30% from 70% a couple of times to hit near zero effectiveness.

Re: Coronavirus
 

In the history of vaccines the knowledge of any virus variant to evade vaccination would be known as it would have happened and been recorded.
To date I know of none that has unless you do.

Reduced immunity is not vaccine evasion. Try again. The covid19 vaccines have never purported to prevent infection, just reduce the severity, need for hospitalisation and as a consequence death.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You can only reduce immunity so many times before you have none. Hence why countries are intending to procure booster vaccinations in the order of 2 to 3 times their population bases.

I have no real reason to “try again”. The evidence is there for anyone to reasonably consider.

I’m sure every vaccine press release I saw in January quoted efficacy against infection but keep moving the goalposts all you wish. The head in sand approach hasn’t served anyone well in the pandemic, I see no reason for it to have better prospects in 2022.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Your original question was

'I suppose every variant of every virus has that potential but as I've asked before:- Can anyone name any virus in the history of man that has done this? I still await a reply.'

The above was what i gave my answer too, now you change your question

Secondly and as per my initial post c.1.2 is under investigation for both reduced immunity and also potential for vaccine escape. So I'm not entirely sure what you would like me to 'try harder' on ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

The fact that hospital admissions were low was a factual comment.

The reason hospital admissions went up was that the Kent variant came along and was much more infectious. Nobody realised that at the time.

Your little quotes rarely give any context.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So, something unknown came along which completely changed things, and that won’t happen again…

Re: Coronavirus
 

There are the known knowns, and there are the unknown knowns. :D

Hugh, you cannot base policy decisions on what you don’t know. It is the case with everything that things can change. When that happens, you adjust the policy.

There is no other way to do this. Unless your name is Mr Hindsight, you cannot possibly know for sure which of a list of possible unknowns will occur or whether any of them will occur.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No, but you can do risk analysis - there are lots of research/studies showing that the variants lessen the efficacy of the vaccines, so you would plan to mitigate if this increased.

Not say "we don’t know what might happen, so let’s not bother…"

Your definition of risk analysis is "this won’t reduce the deaths, just delay them, so let it happen…".

Re: Coronavirus
 

Interesting selective quoting, as you well know there's also known unknowns and unknown unknowns. Thus rendering the rest of your statement true to form, incorrect.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No, I don’t accept that, jfman. We will have to accept that the virus is out there, just the same as any other virus. We had no immunity to this one, which is why it struck us so hard, just like the so called ‘Spanish Flu’ did in 2018-21.

Once the immunisation programme is complete and the boosters designed to tackle variants are given with appropriate regularity, this virus will cease to be a major concern.

Re: Coronavirus
 

How long would it take a to develop said 'booster' to work with a potential new variant? & then how long would it take said booster to be approved for use?

Unless of course you're planning to create 'boosters' for every possible permutation of the virus.

Meanwhile in the real world, a potentially more infectious and potentially more lethal variant spreads across the global population.

IMHO we will for the next five to ten years be reacting to this virus.

You're right, we do have to accomodate to the virus being out there. your approach of is one of ignorance as opposed to damage limitation.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You know that is not correct. Sure, I pointed out that lockdowns should be avoided because they only delayed the progression of the virus. Australia and New Zealand are finally having to admit that lockdowns on their own do exactly that. What changed was the vaccine, which we did not know would ever be available for this virus. Indeed, the prospects did not look good, because scientists has been looking for an antidote to coronaviruses for a very long time without success.

As I explained to Hugh above, what changed again later on to increase the infection rate was the Kent variant. That is why Boris’s promise not to cancel Christmas had to be undone.

Variants are indeed a problem, but worldwide vaccinations and boosters should prevent that. So what will your excuse be then for continuing to hide in the cupboard under the stairs?

Don’t get me wrong, I know you’ll find one. :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 18:58 ---------- Previous post was at 18:56 ----------

Well, the plan is for giving everyone a booster which will deal with the Delta variant this autumn. Were you ignorant of that fact?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Something you covid doom mongers may wish to consider.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...6&d=1630433614

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan..._medium=social

Re: Coronavirus
 

What's your source for everyone getting the booster, Old Boy?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58271911

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, flu does it regularly. That's why they have to keep formulating new vaccines (and they still aren't very effective)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Then you should be able to post a peer reviewed link to any study that says so.

Don't worry, I'll wait.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You can flippantly dismiss OB, as many on here do. But he has been consistent on this point throughout and he has been proven correct. Lockdowns without an effective and swift vaccine program, just will leave to more lockdowns.

The pursuit of zero Covid through lockdowns as sought by Australia and NZ is a monumental folly, and the accolades the politicians initially received for their response to the pandemic will be revised.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Plenty of reading for you here
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm
https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consum...luenza-vaccine

Re: Coronavirus
 

Quelle surprise.

I hope you’ve fixed that faulty crystal ball, Mystic Meg.

---------- Post added at 20:43 ---------- Previous post was at 20:40 ----------

And what does a partly effective vaccination programme and decreasing immunity in the face of new variants lead to?

Lockdowns.

New Zealand and Australia have spent less time under restrictions than we have. I couldn’t even go for a pint for almost 10 months in 13. And I wouldn’t rule out the pubs closing before Christmas if we don’t mitigate now.

If OB was ever right at all New Zealand and Australia can just shield the vulnerable and all will be fine.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Maybe they should do just that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No, but then I credited you with the intelligence to understand that we’re talking about future variants. I’m sorry I won’t make that mistake again.

Now, if you can, why don’t you answer the question I asked about how long it would take to develop and approve new vaccines.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Unlikely to do so, however if it's proven a credible policy anywhere in the world they have it on the table.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No you were on about “boosters”, I assume of existing vaccines.

Where do you mention new vaccines?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I would of thought the use of quotes around boosters means I’m highlighting OB usage when what should actually be meant is new vaccines.

I apologise if that wasn’t clear enough, tomorrow we can try crayons so long as you promise not to eat them. But right now I have an earnings call to be on.

Re: Coronavirus
 

:D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ok smart arse, get out a big fat crayon and point to the post where you ask OB

Re: Coronavirus
 

Can you explain, in detail, the distinction? In particular the differences in regulatory processes for approval of both "boosters" and "vaccines"?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don’t need to. Toffeelees can answer.

Re: Coronavirus
 

None then.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I wasn’t in discussion with you and your interjection was of no relevance to me. After I have concluded my discussion with Mr Toffifee I may look at your post. Contrary to what you may think about yourself……….. not really a priority in my world.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yet here you are, almost every day. Pointless retort after pointless retort. Adding no value.

I'm still waiting for the distinction between a booster and a vaccine - which seems key to the point being made that you dove head first in to counter with seemingly little understanding of the subject matter. Although that hasn't stopped you before.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I do apologise, mrmistoffelees, I had assumed that you knew that it had taken next to no time to produce the booster for this autumn.

As I have been reading in a number of articles over several months now, it takes about six weeks to produce a vaccine to tackle a new Covid variant.

Here’s one of them.

https://www.ft.com/content/26f396c2-...7-aa6784a2abd9

Re: Coronavirus
 

OK let us say It took six weeks to develop the Pfizer/Moderna/Astrazeneca vaccine? that would mean it took approximately six months which is being generous. for it to be approved for use and for usage to then start ? ?

So, now, let us new variant that's more infectious than delta, has a vaccine escape from current vaccines & also resistant to existing immunity. It's a possibility that this occurs.

Just think about what that means in terms of being able to spread, infections & hospitalizations & ultimately deaths.

Like i said, we're only going to be able to play catch up against variants for the next few years and this is why we need to maintain a significant degree of caution. Unless of course you want us to return to the lockdowns of earlier this year & last year

---------- Post added at 14:45 ---------- Previous post was at 14:45 ----------

The booster is just supplies of an existing developed vaccine is it not ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

A booster is just another dose of vaccine. It might be a vaccine from a different manufacturer, or using a different vector, if that’s proven to prompt a better immune response to the formulation given in the original vaccination. But it is still just a dose of vaccine and is not developed or distributed in any fundamentally different way.

I believe at present with Covid the assumption is that the booster, if given, is just a third dose of whatever the patient has already had, though there is ongoing research looking at the efficacy of mixing manufacturers.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The time to develop a vaccine isn’t the issue - the mRNA companies say it can be days. Approval can be, to some degree, expedited. However mass production and distribution will remain a bottleneck.

The countries that are moving quickly with booster shots are just adding a third Pfizer shot, however Pfizer themselves are developing an updated vaccine for approval.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Partly, but it has been modified to tackle the variant.

As for the first part of your post, this is your imagination working overtime. Things can be fast tracked, and the South African variant was known about last year and hasn’t arrived on these shores in any great numbers yet.

You are looking for problems where there aren’t any. Solutions are now at hand.

Sorry, mate, but you are going to have to go back to normal. I’m not sure what you are worried about, whether it’s furlough being terminated, going back to the office or what, but whatever is motivating your desperate wish to keep restrictions in place, you will just have to get used to it. It is all at an end now (and hopefully, overseas travel will soon be back to near normal as well).

We’re not going back to lockdowns and all the associated crap, that’s just how it is.

Now, where was that nightclub I was thinking of going to when normality returned? :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

It took nine months for us to get the first vaccines developed and into production use.

We already have a delta variant thats significantly more infectious than the original, why is it not possible that further potentially worse variants may appear? which require us to go through either the same process all over again?


There is no going back to normal, normal has changed, much like the world changed after 9/11

I've never been on furlough, I've WFH since before the pandemic hit albeit with significant international travel, which i dont mind doing. TBH the last eighteen months has very little difference to my life.



If you read my previous posts, you'll see that I've clearly stated that i have no wish for the lockdowns we've had to suffer being reintroduced. but, we must keep the option available in case needed. The wearing of masks/social distancing is a simple yet effective method of trying to control the spread of infection.

This brings us to your biggest problem when you debate OB, You're selective in what you read/consider before replying.

If you don't wish to go back and reread it then I'm more than happy to quote it for you.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As I understand it, altering the formulation for a different genetic variant of the same virus does not then lead to the vaccine requiring the full re-trial and approval process, but simply an updated approval from the relevant authority. IN this sense approval is expedited by the vaccine’s very nature as a tweaked formula rather than a novel medicine.

But as you say, the bottleneck is production which is why we don’t already have delta-specific vaccines in use.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As you’ve been told a million times, there’s no going back to 2019. I’d say it is you that has to adjust, but as someone unaffected by restrictions I’d guess you are retired in your slippers either way.

I’d also say that furlough being terminated is a legitimate concern for anyone in receipt of it - as there is no return to normal it’s their jobs and livelihoods on the line as people spend less money. Somewhere between hiding under the stairs in their ivory towers and simply taking personal responsibility the economy will be operating differently for years to come.

Associated crap is an interesting way of delaying death until we found a vaccine.

Now that’s funny. I hope you have your ID.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Agreed, the World's changed and our patterns of behaviour have changed. There's no going back to 2019.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The focus switched to the Alpha variant earlier in the summer and I believe some updated vaccines are about to arrive which target that. I suspect the focus has now further switched to delta but the planned alpha batches will have to come through first.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There was a lot of focus on Beta because based on lab testing it was believed to have a greater risk of vaccine escape. In the end, Delta is usurping them all.

But anyway...

"Pfizer and BioNTech ... are developing an updated version of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine that targets the full spike protein of the Delta variant. The first batch of the mRNA for the trial has already been manufactured at BioNTech’s facility in Mainz, Germany. The Companies anticipate the clinical studies to begin in August, subject to regulatory approvals."
https://investors.biontech.de/news-r...am-light-delta
(dated 8th July 2021)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Beta is the variant formerly known as South Africa IIRC?

In any case it’s good news that they’ve managed to make progress with a Delta vaccine. I suspect by this time next year we will all be getting a single-dose boost of a Delta variant jab, if not from Pfizer then from one of the other manufacturers, as I suspect they’re all making similar moves.

Of course there is still a shed-load of original flavour vaccine sloshing around, and that’s what we’ve all been jabbed with this year. I expect the various advisory boards will continue to recommend this is used up rather than discarded, given the level of protection it affords.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Here you go.... taken from the bbc


Delta or B.1.617.2, the dominant variant in the UK
Alpha (B.1.1.7) first identified in the UK but which spread to more than 50 countries
Beta (B.1.351) first identified in South Africa but which has been detected in at least 20 other countries, including the UK
Gamma (P.1), first identified in Brazil but which has spread to more than 10 other countries, including the UK

---------- Post added at 16:51 ---------- Previous post was at 16:40 ----------

The above are variants of concern, however the WHO have announced another variant of interest entitled 'Mu'

One wonders if it's justified & ancient or does it perhaps drive an ice cream van.......

Re: Coronavirus
 

Or indeed if it knows what time is love

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's the burning, million Pound question. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

:clap:

When the nightclubs open of course :)

---------- Post added at 16:55 ---------- Previous post was at 16:54 ----------

Cap doffed sir :clap:

Re: Coronavirus
 

3am, surely?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Eternally so

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...-b1912567.html

We've got complacent. Schools and Unis back soon, the Govt wanting everyone to commute on packed trains into packed offices and autumn/winter on the way.

What could possibly happen? Answers on a postcard....

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Unfortunately the number of deaths paints another picture.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not sure on hospitalisations but today we have 1000 people on mechanical ventilation which is the highest it’s been since March

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

As far as I can see , your maths is based on the situation not changing with regards to variants. In eighteen months we have had four variants of concern

The greater the amount of cases, the greater chance of new variants, the more new variants the greater chance there is of one that causes us problems in our recovery.

---------- Post added at 22:23 ---------- Previous post was at 22:22 ----------

Answered above, have you seen what’s happening in Scotland btw ?

Re: Coronavirus