Re: Coronavirus
 

This sounds interesting.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ast...19-2021-10-05/

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's interesting as my experience to date (5 flights) is that cabin crew were pretty tight on it and there were also announcements from the flight deck about wearing masks, making wearing a legal requirement rather than a policy.

Which airline was it?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Jet 2, the return flight may be a different experience.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

You must have missed the sign…

https://www.heathrow.com/at-the-airp...afety-measures

Re: Coronavirus
 

Maybe Seph is four foot six and very youthful looking. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Some of us look up the info before we get to the airport... ;)

Also...

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...9&d=1633531353

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...0&d=1633531353

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.jet2.com/en/flights/safe...ce-mask-policy

Re: Coronavirus
 

Pierre wore a mask to board the flight though.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’ve answered all those points earlier.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Overkill...:rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Apparently not, considering one of the previous replies…;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Paranoid overkill.

Apparently the virus has evolved and now targets airports & aeroplanes rather than pubs, shops, nightclubs, concert stadiums, cinemas (well pretty much anywhere really). :sleep:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Or…

It gets to all those places, too…

Re: Coronavirus
 

And don't forget it'll know if you've been naughty or nice a xmas time;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

The silliest one was that the virus could get you when you were standing up walking around a pub but not when you were sat at your table.


Edit: Or indeed that you can pack 30k fans into the City Ground every 2 weeks or whatever with no virus risk whatsoever but 30k on the Forest for the bonfire night is obviously a super spreader event. Snowflakes at the city council no doubt.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Indeed, same with Goose Fair - our local fair turned up ok, and we'll be going to Ilkeston (next week I think). City Council muppets.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It also knew if you didn't wear a mask if you went the toilet in a pub. Damn intellegent virus. Be careful, it's watching you.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I hate the airport experience that much there could be a sign saying “bomb this way ->” and I’d probably miss it. Where’s my flight and where can I get a glass of wine. :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

To think I looked to Canada as a forward looking Country.

https://twitter.com/BernieSpofforth/...48080767721480

Re: Coronavirus
 

The company I work for has just announced that there will be compulsory COVID vaccinations for all US staff - no jab, no job. I have popcorn ready to see how that one goes...

* obviously much easier to do this in the US than Europe due to more relaxed employment laws

Re: Coronavirus
 

Interesting development . . methinks there could soon be a popcorn shortage due to everyone else watching this one ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Much easier to buy a gun in the US and go ape shyte in the office, I'll keep my eye on the news to see who snaps first.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

What are the testing figures like?


We do a lot of LFT and PCRs so more likely to find people with the virus in them and mild/no illness.


Also don't forget how your hospitalisations are measured - is it people who went in with Covid or other things who then tested positive and what about people who caught Covid in hospital? Are they counted? Is the figure a fair test between countries?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Also, how do the restrictions vary between countries? eg no jab, no entry to some events; does one country have more working from jobs than the other; what is people's behaviour like on social-distancing and mask-wearing?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Does this answer your question?

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavir...ormed-each-day

Re: Coronavirus
 

What’s the vaccine/efficacy mix?

The first thing I’ve gleamed from a cursory Google is that Austria extended vaccinations to 12-15 year olds months ago, and school age (particularly high school age) is where Covid is most prevalent in the UK.

Austria could, despite a lower vaccination rate, be much closer to herd immunity than we are if there’s a better distribution of vaccination across the population. It’s not an absolute number.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

To be honest, I wasn't even sure what your question was :)

Basically each country does things their own way. e.g. Who is eligible for a test? Do you have to pay? How ill do you have to be to get hospitalised or into IC?...

IIRC, in the early days Vietnam hospitalised every case.

And the US is about to massively increase the amount of testing it does (stable door, anyone?)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/healt...e-covid-tests/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

It does, yes. We measure the number of deaths caused by coronavirus as anyone who dies within 28 days of a Covid test. Which other countries do that?

We record all deaths from Covid, others do not.

And so on. If we are going to compare our figures with those of other countries, it must be on a like-for-like basis otherwise they are practically worthless.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think different figures in the UK measure different things.

For example, the ONS stats record deaths caused by Covid 19, not by patients who had Covid 19. Other UK stats record patients who died with Covid 19 where it was present but always not the cause.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don’t know unless they’re suppressing thousands of cases that figure is fairly standalone, unless you think they’re just not testing but on a per 100k basis that’s been shown to be the opposite they are testing more than us.

“A like for like basis” is a convenient straw for some to clutch to in order to avoid unfavourable comparisons. Seph has drawn us towards a very interesting observation here that shouldn’t be easily dismissed. There could be something useful to learn from comparisons, but there of course has to be a willingness and not just a belief grounded on quicksand that we must be the best in the world.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That is not the basis for the ONS measurement of deaths due to COVID.

The ONS state https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=%2fp...ek3820211.xlsx

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...5&d=1633619810

Re: Coronavirus
 

What does this mean Andrew? Working from jobs? If you have a job you're working surely.

Re: Coronavirus
 

"Working from home" probably…

Re: Coronavirus
 

I dunno I know plenty of folk with jobs and “working” is a stretch.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes.

---------- Post added at 16:24 ---------- Previous post was at 16:24 ----------

:D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes but it's correct that you have to understand how your figure is measured.


If you look, for example, at a common quoted official death metric for a covid-19 death, it's simply counted as a death within 28 days of a positive test; the implication that this is significant time to count the death as due to covid is likely in a lot of cases. What it could also potentially include is someone who tested positive with mild symptoms, recovered within a week but then died in a car accident or something within 28 days, presumably that would still count on the official figures. But you do have to have a metric which can be measured consistently and doesn't depend on a more objective view of someone who has processed the paperwork, where in some cases, it's difficult to say whether covid has contributed to the death significantly or not.



Given that different countries have different measuring criteria you need to look at what they are actually measuring and how they are measuring it. The Austria comparison is interesting if they are doing more tests but maybe we are targeting them better. If for example they are just slinging tests at everyone and expecting them to do this twice a week and record it, which is registering a high number of tests which are unlikely to come back positive, as opposed to targeting testing capacity at unvaccinated school kids who are highly likely to have it and likely with mild or no symptoms. Or if they are counting LFTs and/or PCRs and what cycle they run at.



The observation is interesting because they have, superficially at least, higher testing capacity and a similar vaccination rate but are still registering fewer new cases and fewer deaths/people in hospital. But even those figures aren't necessarily measuring the same thing everywhere. Whereas you'd be clear that say looking at figures from London or Manchester are likely to be using the same testing basis.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Only those deaths with COVID as the underlying cause are counted, not any death within 28 days of someone who has COVID.

As I showed on the previous page of this thread

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=7437

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yet the government website says:


https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths


It is absolutely silly though. People who haven't died of covid shouldn't count.

Re: Coronavirus
 

They don't count in the later ONS stats though.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I know. They are two different studies, like the ONS infection was revealed earlier to be as high as January. Quite how this can be the case with hospitalisations nowhere near is presumably only possible if it's mainly kids getting it now, or simply that the vaccine has reduced the illness in most jabbed people to be mild enough not to require it.



Given that they tend to work such studies by extrapolating from a stratified sample of the population, it is often likely to lead to something inaccurate. But then, the official figures only count the first positive test.


I don't think there's a significant variance between the ONS and Gov death figures though, despite the metrics being different, or wasn't at least last time I looked between them.


Suppose there's a reasonable assumption in most cases that someone who has died within 28 days of a positive test has probably died because of something related to catching covid, and if they do even include the car accident after recovering in the figures, these are unlikely to be high enough to be statistically significant anyway.

Re: Coronavirus
 

All hail glorious private healthcare.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ic-says-report

Re: Coronavirus
 

And people who died after 28 days should.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, 28 days is plenty of time to be in ICU and then die. It's silly on plenty of levels.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...efore-pandemic

We did this analysis on a potential MERS outbreak but didn't think it was relevant. Ooer....

Re: Coronavirus
 

Some further 'benefits' of lockdowns, distancing (and masks, obviously) ;

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

From what I understand, they are saying that your natural immunity to some viruses wanes over time (potentially as they mutate - I don't think they've ever really been sequencing things like noroviruses or colds as much as they have with covid-19) which means that the longer you're not exposed to a cold virus the more likely you are to get ill with one (and probably the more you are the more likely your immune system will be able to recognise it and fight it off.


The viruses are still circulating as they have reservoirs in other species (which may or may not cause the same illness) for example noro is in shellfish and oysters so even if humans aren't getting them they're still out there.


I suppose one possibility is that if we say that it takes 20 mutations of a cold virus to make it swerve your immunity, and that it does 1 mutation every month, if you get exposure to a cold virus 5 months after your previous one your immune system will recognise it from the one it saw 5 months ago and know what to do, so you either don't get ill or don't get it as badly; but if you've gone the full 20 months then it's unrecognisable (in the theoretical situation) so you'll get the full effects of it.



So if the measures put in place to combat covid (whether or not they actually worked, we have mixed less with others) stop other viruses spreading too (which is logical) it's entirely correct that you'll see a spike in other things, which is exactly what the CMO said in the summer.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Add to that the 5 month infection "resets" the clock to the next 20 providing the mutations are "linear". So if you are infected say every 8 months your immunity may give protection from serious illness each time and each time you body learns a bit more.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Here we go again.........:rolleyes:
Before 2020, an independent report judged the UK as being the 2nd best country in the world for being prepared for a pandemic.
Another independent report identified that the UK had a large store of supplies ready for a pandemic.
Which country had enough PPE?
Government funded research was being done using the MERS virus to develop a vaccine for it, to test the methodology for something similar coming along. That is how Oxford University managed to get a vaccine so quickly. They were effectively working on it before COVID 19 actually appeared.
Government funding was also being used to make the UK more self-sufficient on vaccine production.
Of course all those things don't get reported by the media as it doesn't suit the agenda.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes indeed - here we go again.

I assume you mean the Global Health Security Index which ranked the United States the number 1 ranked to respond. Without knowing their full methodology it's impossible to know if their analysis was inadequate or the political leadership in both countries.

I don't dispute that Government funding was a huge part of vaccine provision - contrary to BoJo's claims it's a huge demonstration of what states can achieve that the private sector cannot.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As you say, here we go again…

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...b6d14c3363e8d2

tl:dr - great planning, crappy leadership & implementation of the plans.

Lions lead by donkeys.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Plans are brilliant things, but usually only work up to the point where you try to implement them ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I beg to differ - but then I would, having spent half my working life as a Project & Programme Manager.

Plans work when they are based on realistic assumptions, agreed timescales, resources, & deliverables, with the support of senior sponsors to drive the plan forward, and the buy-in of those impacted by the plans.

Don’t have those things, delivery is sub-optimal…

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s all very well to criticise, but you were not having to make the decisions.

The nature of Covid was not fully understood at the beginning and the scientists were giving conflicting advice on how to deal with it. First it was the herd immunity plan and then suddenly we were into full scale lockdown mode.

The mask problem was worldwide, and every country had difficulty and delay in acquiring enough for their populations. We were well stocked apparently, but there were logistical problems with distribution. Again, the scientists were telling us that masks were ineffective in the early days.

Foreign travel policy was constantly changing, but opening up our borders had to be in line with the situation on the ground in other countries. We could have had a blanket ban on foreign travel, like Australia, but their policy has been nothing short of a disaster, causing great resentment in the country.

A legitimate criticism was about Track & Trace (although that is working better now), but the rate at which everything was moving was so fast, we were always going to be caught on the back foot.

In the end, of course, Boris came through, and his foresight in putting money into the vaccine programme was second to none and it transformed our ability to get back on our feet.

I keep comparing this to how Mr Hindsight would have fared if he was in charge, and believe me, it wouldn’t have been a laughing matter!

Re: Coronavirus
 

OB in springing to the Conservatives defence shocker.

At least you admit they ignored every pandemic preparedness plan ever written in history and acknowledge the plan for mass infection, and hoping for the best. Also known as the “herd immunity” plan.

Re: Coronavirus
 

In fairness to them this was what the likes of CW were also saying at the time. Let's not forget that Boris, Hancock etc are politicians and don't have an in-depth medical knowledge and are relying on what their advisers are saying.


Or indeed, that a pandemic plan for something like flu or even SARS/MERS (which were no less dangerous in severe cases, but were less contagious as a result of more cases being severe than with covid-19) wouldn't necessarily fit every virus which could cause a pandemic.



I think the general idea was that if they shielded CEVs, then allowed the rest of the country to mainly get on with it, they would get the virus, and enough would have had it and mainly survived to then allow the CEVs out after a while knowing they wouldn't then get the virus or would do so at a rate which the NHS could then have had chance to 1. prepare for 2. cope with. It maybe would have worked, but, let's not forget also no-one really knew a lot about the virus back then, and they'd ignored the fact that 1. non-CEV people could still get severely ill and need hospital treatment 2. that there would be far too many getting it in a few weeks of letting it do this to keep the NHS from getting like Italy 3. that in any case, shielding wasn't going to be sufficient.


It's actually good government that they did see that the original plan wasn't going to work, in the face of actual on the ground evidence in the UK, and that of the changing knowledge of the virus, and change their plans, which they have not been afraid to do throughout.



Finally, the notable critics of the "herd immunity" approach ignore the fact that it's what we've been actually working to achieve for the last 10 months. By putting vaccines in people's arms, you're achieving precisely that. Once vaccinated you have immunity same as if you've been infected (but precisely how specific and how long lasting it will be in either case isn't really known yet).

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

The fact they say it only means it’s agreed Government policy. Politicians are conveniently hiding behind scientists when it suits them.

Re: Coronavirus
 

To quote your goodself: 50 % correct so better than most. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Boris is spot on though when he said the other day that the financial hit of lockdowns, furlough etc etc from the covid response has to be paid back, and that Thatcher would have done the same - for the faults she did have, Maggie was spot on about how to turn the economy around. We can't keep generating debt and it has to be clawed back somehow.


I also think he's fundamentally right about the labour issues - having got by on cheap labour the firms need to wise up and pay a fair wage, though understandably this will increase their costs and that this will probably be passed onto the consumer, though this should have happened anyway as we shouldn't ethically have been paying labourers from abroad a pittance to do it anyway, although this could still have happened with freedom of movement, so isn't specifically a Brexit issue.


As for energy. Well, it's clear we can't rely on reliable supply from wind or solar, and we don't have anywhere to use HEP really, if we're deciding not to use coal, and Mad Vlad is being a pain over gas, there's really only one option. One just needs to ignore the hippies who harp on about Fukushima (natural disaster which we aren't exposed to) or Chernobyl (Dyatlov being a dick) and understand that it's incredibly safe to run, the isotopes are easily cleanly disposed of (the half life is high, and they aren't high gamma emitters, so can easily be buried in a concrete box) and that it generates large amounts of reliable energy, it's an absolute no brainer in my view...


This was happening both ways, remember "following the science"? Though I do remember Harries, van Tam and Whitty all going on about how face coverings were more harm than good, then all of a sudden, when the government wanted to do it, then "the science has changed". Well, I doubt it had. And I'm still doubtful that they do have that much of an effect.

Re: Coronavirus
 

jfman attacks the Conservatives shocker ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Quite.


Ideologically I bleed Tory but I don't see how they should be exempt from justifiable criticism just because.


Look at the good things people do, and help improve the not so good.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well they’re not very good. :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

They're better than Labour, the autocratic undemocrats and head and shoulders above the SNP. However that's like saying a dog turd is better than a cat turd or cow turd. They're all turds.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That was the scientists’ advice, jfman. I think overall the government dealt with it as best they could in the circumstances.

---------- Post added at 10:57 ---------- Previous post was at 10:53 ----------

Hiding behind the scientists? Whose advice are they supposed to take, jfman? As stated above, the government ministers are not experts. You would be the first to complain if the government didn’t follow their advice.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The best they could. That’s the best line yet.

---------- Post added at 11:21 ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 ----------

You’ll never accept figures as like for like because it’s an easy deflection.

Re: Coronavirus
 

How is it a deflection? As an economist, you should appreciate that if Country A includes all deaths from Covid including those who had Covid when they died and Country B with a similar population only recorded Covid deaths in hospitals, you’d expect the figures of Country A to be higher, wouldn’t you?

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s a deflection because you’ll never accept that it’s been handled badly, despite 150,000 deaths by ONS methodology. The idea that other countries are fudging their figures to the extent to render comparisons meaningless is fanciful.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I quoted an actual example, jfman. Each country has its own system of recording and this makes comparisons of any worth difficult, if not impossible.

No, I don’t think we handled the pandemic badly. Not everything went right, but nor did it in other countries either. This was unchartered territory for everyone.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Dont waste your breath, you know hes always right, and anything the government does is wrong (because they are conservative).

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m not claiming to always be right, but the idea that country comparisons aren’t possible to evaluate where responses went well or badly is just living in denial.

The deaths to cases figure ratio would be wildly disproportionate if anyone was substantially covering up Covid related deaths by denying they were linked to Covid.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You may find this an interesting read, then, jfman.

https://newseu.cgtn.com/news/2020-04...EtO/index.html

Re: Coronavirus
 

From April 2020, probably not to be honest.

Worldwide testing capacity has gone through the roof since then, as has understanding of Covid symptoms and now it links to other underlying health conditions.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Kinda sums up what OB was saying.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So the number of deaths was under-reported?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Or under reported in other countries and over reported here?

Re: Coronavirus
 

That would be handy…

Re: Coronavirus
 

Which is it though?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Either, neither, or both…

Re: Coronavirus
 

Father in law tested positive on Thursday night.

He’s on a virtual hospital ward and the fire brigade have dropped off oxygen monitoring kit.

Horrific head cold & no sense of smell is how he describes it but the worst part of it is he’s going up the walls self isolating as he loves being out and about.

Seeing as though we all had Sunday lunch together last week, SWMBO and I have been doing. lateral flow tests so far all clear.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ian Duncan Smith bloviating in today’s Mail on Sunday…

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...0&d=1633864027

A) Considering most of the bombing raids were at night, they probably weren’t going into the offices "as Hitler’s bombs were raining down"
B) Bombs aren’t contagious - workers didn’t pick up unexploded bombs and take them home to their families
C) You didn't catch explosions from being too close to co-workers.
D) 1.37 million people were evacuated during the Blitz from cities.
E) Some Ministries were de-centralised into the Regions, or moved out of London completely.
E) There was an shortage of laptops, broadband, and home wifi in 1940 to enable "home working"

But other than that, "True story, Bro…"

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, exactly


We're talking about a contagious disease which is easily spread from person to person not a bombing raid which you can see coming from an enemy who you can ultimately reason with.


Not to mention the whole office work was completely different back then.


I actually think IDS was by some distance the worst of the Tory opposition leaders. Cameron got elected, and actually Hague was very similar in terms of how electable he would be (even though he was more from the opposite side of the party ideologically) but they were in such a mess after Major and the defeat to Blair that I doubt anyone would have won an election at the end of that term. In a sense they would have probably been better keeping Hague in because he would have done a better job than IDS or Howard (who was only marginally better) and perhaps then not needed Cameron, given how that ended up, we may well be in a completely different place (or may have already left under Hague...). I dread to think what would have happened if IDS was PM, people think Johnson is bad, but he's an educated moron, IDS is just a moron.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well IDS as a bit of a muppet, and thats a bit of a daft comparison.

A more accurate one would be that people kept going to the office (and life carried on as normal) during every Flu epidemic (at least in my lifetime).

By some accounts, we are due another one this year.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Flu epidemic, educated moron, or blitz?

. . or even all 3 :shocked:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Our GP advised our daughter to get a 'flu jab "ASAP", but his surgery will NOT be offering them (again) so she (we) should book at the local Tesco.

I've just been on the Tesco site. NO appointments available before Xmas, and their system doesn't allow people to book after then.

And no sign of the booster covid-19 jab for "those at higher risk or over 60".

Re: Coronavirus
 

It does seem strange we’ve gone from vaccinating millions of people per week to the rather glacial speed of booster/teenage vaccinations. Second doses were 400,000 a day six months ago.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Our local supermarkets are offering the flu jabs but people around me here in Manchester have been mainly using our local Chemists who seem to have more capacity. I have just done a quick google and see that there are some alternative listings in the Cardiff? area. so it may be possible to track down a Pharmacy/Chemists in your local area.

Maybe the following search will be helpful and hopefully you will find somewhere near. Fingers crossed for you. xx

https://www.google.com/search?q=chem...client=gws-wiz

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m not sure I buy all this speculation about a major flu epidemic this winter.

I get the argument, but I think those most likely to succumb to respiratory viruses have already died of Covid. I guess we’ll see soon enough whether the lockdown did more harm than good.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Quelle surprise.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Only 35% of the population of England have had COVID.

https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/now-casting/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Wife daughter and myself are just getting over a nasty cold/mild flu that's lasted almost 2 weeks.

I'm 67, doctors surgery usually blasts me with texts about the flu jab but I've heard nothing (yet) . . and nothing about a Covid booster either :shrug:

Re: Coronavirus