Re: Coronavirus
 

Did you run out of oranges ?

---------- Post added at 06:05 ---------- Previous post was at 05:59 ----------

The government covid site does not support that statement either.

https://i.ibb.co/5TWZHhR/Capture.png

Re: Coronavirus
 

I was trying (and obviously failed ;)) to show that the comparators were so far apart, they weren’t even two type of the same thing (fruit), just two things whose only similarity was they were/could be globular.

Re: Coronavirus
 

£3.31 million to open classroom windows and doors, I suspect. Dripford and his clueless talking shop do it again. I wonder how much was spent on consultants?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-58917096

Re: Coronavirus
 

Matt Hancock's pub landlord would have done it for half that price! ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-58922518
full report can be seen here...........
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-58922518

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well worth reading this Twitter thread # from John Burn-Murdoch on why the UK differs from its peers in Europe on Covid at the moment. Some extracts below but only a full read does it justice.

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/sta...01652207239176

Re: Coronavirus
 

The actual figures don't back this up so much though.


If you look at the stats from the ONS, which given that T&T managed to tell around 40k people who had covid they didn't recently, is probably more accurate than the official figures right now, you'll see:
- most age groups are relatively static (and low) in terms of infections
- there is a slight uptick in the last few weeks in 35-50 (which is likely the group who are working in schools and parents of school age children)
- Age group of below year 7 (i.e. primary age kids) was higher but is now declining
- Age group of year 7 to 13 (i.e. secondary age kids) is accelerating rapidly, after being high until the end of July and then going up again from the middle of September.


So, it's clear what we're seeing now is something which is mainly related to the schools being open (given that secondary age kids would be freely socialising with their friends over the summer) and possibly related activities from the schools being back such as after school clubs, scouting etc without restrictions, contact sports etc. Along with a bit of overspill into their presumably AZ-vaccinated parents whose immunity isn't as good or they haven't been vaccinated.



Presumably other countries are doing this too, so what makes it different here? Do the schools in France and other places have restrictions, distancing, face coverings etc? Or is it just that they're way ahead of us at vaccinating kids, not doing it through the schools as we seem to be, and not up against resistance from as many parents about vaccinating their kids? Sure thing it isn't as effective at stopping the infection kids tend to get, but even if it was only 10% effective at that, that's 3 kids in a typical class size of 30 who would have no effects of getting the virus plus effects on onwards transmission. Unless this roll out speeds up, we're now going to be looking at high figures as it rips through the schools until either everyone's had it (who hasn't already) or they catch up with the vaccines. But the encouraging thing from the data is that it doesn't appear to be causing a major issue in other age groups yet, or hospitalisations, which it clearly was by this time last year with the schools and universities open. (Though that was mainly seeming to be the universities, and you'd expect the majority of students to be double jabbed or to have already had covid).


He is probably right about the sick pay issues making it less advantageous for people to isolate (and get tested knowing they will have to if it's positive if they have something which could be covid, and dismissing it as a cold, which also has onward transmission implications) but this is in a group who have long since been offered jabs and either are double jabbed or refused it.


Mask wearing has little effect in a population where over 80% of adults have been vaccinated. It only ever had a chance of working where people had covid and didn't realise, and with this, first of all asymptomatic and presymptomatic spread is less common with delta than alpha or wild type covid, and your susceptible population is much reduced by the vaccination, in any case a cloth or paper face mask as opposed to a surgical N95 type is unlikely to have more than a minimal filtering effect anyway, so the effect is likely masked (pun not intended) in the other countries by their wearing of masks being somewhat unnecessary, given that people with symptoms which could be covid, should be staying at home and getting a test.


As for gatherings, surely this (in clubs, concerts, theatres, sports grounds etc) is necessary economically, and to get back to normal after some time of such things being banned or restricted, and again, it's only an issue if people turn up who actually have the virus - basically see above. And really, people should turn their nose up at people meeting their friends (when double jabbed, and unlikely to have the virus) because it's making things worse when kids have covid?


For now at least, it's clear where the issue is. And the measures should be targeted there, or at least probed first to see what's happening. I don't necessarily agree they should close the schools, but they could restrict to online lessons for some things, face covering use, more distancing, stopping after school activities, whilst they accelerate getting jabs into the secondary age kids (plus year 7s who aren't 12 yet) to try and reduce it. As it's just this age group why should the general population have more restrictions when they're vaccinated, and don't have the virus anyway?


This whole making healthy people behave as though they're ill may have had value about a year back, but really needs to stop now, or at least calm down.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think that’s bollocks, but if you can back it up with data, I’ll listen. Otherwise you shouldn’t have wasted your time posting it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Unfortunately, not bollocks, but facts. It's all there in my Tweet link but here's the direct links:
https://twitter.com/sarahoconnor_/st...290115/photo/1
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/sta...131974/photo/1

---------- Post added at 22:22 ---------- Previous post was at 22:17 ----------

He's discussing the differences between the UK and other European countries.

The biggest take-away for me from it is that we're a bit like Israel - that country had an early mover advantage with vaccinations but their effectiveness declines over time leading to s resurgence without a timely booster.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But he's ignoring the facts where our cases are.


Secondary school aged kids haven't had vaccination waning because they haven't had a vaccination to wane.


And since they are never perfect, and were only really intended to prevent hospitalisation and death, it's not too surprising there has been a spill over from high infections in kids to adults, though admittedly less than it was.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yup - issue is we've vaccinated late with children as he acknowledges.
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/sta...916612/photo/1

Re: Coronavirus
 

Do you read what you write ?

This is so wrong its laughable, try telling it to any 3rd world country, or war torn country. Theres a hell of a lot more poverty elsewhere.

Poverty alone is not likely to increase your chance of catching it, in fact, it may well reduce it - as your less likely to go out much and mix with others.

The last bit has more chance of having some truth to it, its certainly likely that poverty could mean poorer health, and thus more chance of it being serious if caught (but vaccinations of course massively reduce that chance).

Re: Coronavirus
 

That’s not *quite* the issue.

There’s a slight difference in the application of medical ethics at play here that is obfuscated every time a journalist lazily states that the UK “lags” is “late” or has “fallen behind” with vaccination in under 18s.

The benefits of the vaccine to the individual are marginal in that age group. At present, data indicates that double vaccination elevates risk above reward, although the main side effect (myocarditis) is still very rare. The benefits are mainly to the population at large, in eliminating wells of infection and sources of potential virus mutation.

So yes, the UK’s overall vaccination rate is now lower than some European countries but there are sound reasons why that’s the case. Giving the reason as “late” is a disservice to the vitally important practice of medical ethics. The UK’s decision is well-considered, balanced and justified with regards to the needs of the individual - individuals who are still children in this case.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Interesting that the JCVI haven’t published minutes of their meetings since February so we have no meaningful way to critique their British exceptionalism in this case, despite the MHRA approving the vaccine as safe and effective three months earlier.

Even if we accept it the pace of vaccination of children, in particular in England, is slow considering the pace of vaccinations in May.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The comparison is to the UK's peers in Western Europe.

If people are living in poverty then their access to private transport etc may be reduced thus increasing their chances of infection or they have to be live in a multi-generational household, again thereby increasing their chances of infection.

Re: Coronavirus
 

J.F. old chum, your contributions in this area have long since taken a turn down the rabbit hole. What would be genuinely interesting is if you could, just once, back up your insinuations with some authoritative evidence.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Likewise, what was previously well considered input from yourself has deteriorated into nationalist flag waving. If the EU were behind us in vaccinating kids I’m convinced you’d make the contrary argument.

It might comfort some to think we are the best in the world, however looking at our cases, hospitalisations and deaths I can’t help but feel uneasy.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don’t recall saying my such thing. I pointed to a differing approach to medical ethics. Whether it’s better to prioritise the herd or the individual is an interesting and important subject. I find it surprising that European countries suffering far greater problems with vaccine hesitancy in their populations than we are, should seem more ready to press an issue in this way. As for the British approach, I see no data as of right now that supports the idea that we should be in a hurry to vaccinate children when the benefit to them is so low, the risks to the individual, though low, border on exceeding the benefits to that individual. The argument about giving space for virulent mutations is not persuasive, given the dramatic reduction in the number of variants of interest over the past 6 months. There are now only 2, recently designated, and both have been circulating in South American countries since last December/January.

If you wish to fulminate over your loathing of the British state that’s your business, but it is just a bit tedious to keep reading it. Some engagement with the ethical issues, rather than rehearsing your favourite conspiracy theories, would be welcome.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I see no great purpose to consider the ethical issues the JCVI used (or didn’t, we don’t have the minutes after all) when the MHRA approved the vaccine as safe and effective in teenagers with millions of doses administered worldwide with other countries who have presumably considered the same ethical issues.

Equally very quickly after the JCVI announced their non-decision the CMOs all approved the vaccine. So I fail to see how ethics can be held up as a reasonable justification for the delay considering they were overruled anyway.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Boris and Carrie Johnson accused of breaching lockdown rules



Boris Johnson and his wife Carrie have been accused of breaching lockdown rules last Christmas by spending the day at Downing Street with a friend.

Just before Christmas 2020 the Government scrapped plans for an easing of lockdown rules - and Tier Four rules were put in place across the South East of England.

That meant a ban on mixing with anyone not from your household indoors - even on Christmas Day.

https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/n...aching-6074159

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, that's just shocking...:rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

How very strange - the June minutes have no mention of COVID, except in relation to the impact it has had on other vaccination programmes…

https://m.box.com/shared_item/https%...w/849032554320

Also strange that there were no meetings (or minutes of meetings) at a time the Delta variant was hitting the U.K.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The first thing to note is the denial is that lockdown rules weren’t broken, not that she wasn’t there.

Without knowing the living arrangements of the guest we can only assume she was in a support bubble with them and not a “Christmas bubble”. One quirk of the support bubble was that you could change it as often as you liked, although guidance advised to not form another bubble for a period of time (10 or 14 days if I recall) this wasn’t mandatory.

I don’t feel particularly strongly about the story if the alternative was for their guest to spend Christmas Day alone.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's a good point, if she lived alone and wasn't part of another support bubble she could have formed one with Boris and Carrie, provided they weren't in another.


She has denied any wrongdoing also.


I haven't seen anything indicating whether or not their guest is/was in a relationship, but Wikipedia suggests she was (when younger) a victim of FGM, so that may suggest not...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Some young hack at the Grimsby Telegraph thinking they may have story that could get them noticed! I'm sure all of Grimsby are furious at this news.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's the Grimsby Herald reporting a story in The Mirror which itself was reporting a story in Harper's.
Evidently, not much local news or reporters in Grimsby at the moment, so they are resorting to such page-fillers.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Regional titles have always carried a few pages of national news. Most parts of the country just don’t generate enough news to fill the pages 5 or 6 nights a week. In this case the piece is bylined to a “network content editor”, who seemingly produces national copy for all of Reach’s regional titles.

Reach, incidentally, is the publisher formerly known as Trinity Mirror, which (aside from being my former employer) also owns the Daily Mirror.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I see the old ‘gotcha’ mentality is still alive and kicking.

I mean, who cares?

Re: Coronavirus
 

the people who had xmas ruined might be a bit put out.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Maybe they should have been a bit more adventurous. :D:D:batty:

Re: Coronavirus
 

I agree - why should those who set the rules, and who tell everyone else to follow the rules, follow the rules themselves.

Good point, well made…

Re: Coronavirus
 

As others have said, if you set the rules, you have to be squeaky clean following them, or you will look like you expect others to do as you say but not do the same.


This may well have been allowed, but potentially not in the best taste in the circumstances. Like all the other technicalities from the pandemic like Cummings, Jenrick, Hancock etc etc. Perhaps all allowed on some sort of loophole but definitely not in the general spirit the rules were there for.


When your response is being criticised, and received a fair amount of such at the time too, for being too slow and not hard enough, as well as giving out multi million pound contracts to your friends with little experience or suitability to do the job, as well as this, it doesn't make you look good, and gradually erodes the public support for what you're doing. Yes it was uncharted territory, but, that doesn't excuse not following the clear rules you expected others to follow.


It's just another to add to the list of shame and I'm a Tory and (reasonably speaking) pro-Johnson.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Except….

https://metro.co.uk/2021/10/18/boris...tmas-15443718/

Gotcha!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Bless…

After, the PM is renowned for his veracity and adherence to the rules…

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think that's the only reason he's kept the current job ( unlike all the others he's been sacked from for telling porky pies). Lying is one of the core competences of the post.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Just watching a report on BBC 10:00 news about the increase in COVID deaths, very worrying and when you look at the initial graph on the government website it looks like a significant upturn.

But the graphs on death data seem to tell a different tale? No upturn in any of those……

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s called scale.

Re: Coronavirus
 

3 charts going down = 1 chart going up. Regardless of “scale” they should still show an upward inflection.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If you look at the graphs on the government website cited on those graphs, you can see the upward trajectory in deaths. The graphs you're looking at go back 18 months and are too small to show this.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Using the 7 day average it’s the same graph as the middle of the three you’ve taken from the Government website, covering a shorter time period and displaying against a different scale. The purpose of a 7 day average is to even out peaks and troughs that arise around weekends as fewer deaths get reported and it catches up in subsequent days.

The two other graphs measure something different - by date of death not date reported. These will always drop off towards the end because of the administrative delays in recording dates of death. That’s specifically why the portion most to the right is grey because it is considered incomplete.

This is all semantics really, as I’m sure it’s been covered numerous times, as they’re still dead.

Edit: https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...&postcount=872

Nomadking explains here - now if you go back and look at the figures for the start of November they’ll have caught up/evened out. The plateau comes later in the month than you suggested.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You made no such statement, again, read what you actually posted.

LOL, Your just making this up as you go.

---------- Post added at 02:57 ---------- Previous post was at 02:54 ----------

For once Im in agreement, this is just totally "who gives a f++k" what they did last xmas day, I'm quite sure the rules were broken right across the country.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Except…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...re-bubble.html

Except…

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1634635521

Re: Coronavirus
 

I suspect the Prime Minister can make an argument for being ‘not present’ even if technically in the building …

Re: Coronavirus
 

Can Carrie?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I wonder if this will trigger Plan B?
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-sky...-rise-12431158

---------- Post added at 11:00 ---------- Previous post was at 10:58 ----------

I quoted from someone's Tweets on twitter. Given the limited character space, context is everything. I'm sorry for any confusion.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I find it useful to assume that nothing worth saying is ever said on Twatter.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I believe she had gone out delivering food parcels, winter clothing, and thick fleece blankets to all the homeless people in the area . . . although I may be mistaken ;)

---------- Post added at 11:05 ---------- Previous post was at 11:04 ----------

:tu:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Should have put the rug rat in the pram and took it with her like normal people do then.

sounds to me like they have abused the system.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If depends on the poster. If it's just a random, I would be inclined to agree with you. If it's a reputable journalist - as in this instance - I wouldn't. To me, it's more rhe person than the platform.

Re: Coronavirus
 

One mans reputable journalist is another mans muck spreader . . different opinions eh, where would we be without them :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

But you yourself just acknowledged that the platform’s limited character space causes problems. That being the case, what’s prompting reputable people to keep struggling with it, if it’s inadequate as a means of communicating their expertise?

I contend that with Twatter, even if you’re a reputable journalist, it’s about being seen and esteemed by your peer group rather than the detail of what you want to say. And if the primary purpose of a communication is to be seen and esteemed by the “right” people rather than the serious examination of ideas, then that communication’s seriousness as a means of discussing ideas is still suspect.

In short … I stand by my opinion of Twatter. If something is worth saying on its own merit, rather than as a means of looking good in front of your mates, then say it somewhere else. If you’re a senior staffer at the FT for example, you could try using that platform.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Considering the cases are pretty much almost all in secondary school age kids and not yet having a similar impact on hospitals as previously (which seems to be the tipping point) then I'd suggest probably not.


It isn't rising very much and mostly seems to be in the SW where apparently a lot of people had PCRs and then given the incorrect results so these have spread it when they should have been isolating.


Also, take the person into context. David King is a former CSA admittedly, but neither he nor Vallance are medics (unlike Whitty, Harries and the deputy CMOs) in fact I think King is a retired chemistry professor from Oxford. He's also not a SAGE member, he heads up IndySage who are mainly a bunch of lockdown zealots who like to make a lot of noise on twitter.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

When you posted your calcs on the 28th August, the 7 day COVID death rate was 12 - it’s now 121.

There are now 10 times the number of COVID patients in ICU than there was then.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...2&d=1634647270

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...3&d=1634647270

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...4&d=1634647589

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...5&d=1634647589

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

This would at least appear logical considering the hospitalisation of double-jabbed people is still low and most of the positive tests are in unvaccinated school kids.


At some point it will hit the level where enough people have had it or been vaccinated enough to stop it. Wonder what that's called :p

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Do the rising numbers of infections, deaths and hospitilisations in the UK suggest vaccines on their own are insufficient to bring the pandemic under control and we need to consider measures like a return to mandatory mask-wearing, like those countries which are not experiencing the same uptick as us? Or is it a temporary increase that will be resolved once more people have the boosters?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Seems to me people are still wearing masks, cleaning everything in sight, etc.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Tbh I've only worn one a handful of times since they lifted the legal requirement.


They just don't seem to be effective enough to work, and they do only work to begin with if you have covid, and if you have covid symptoms you should be at home.


The fact we have no masks and in Scotland / Wales they're more restrictive yet still seeing similar relative numbers (plus they have vaxpasses) implies they aren't making a great deal of difference there.


The more important measures are
- Not going out and getting a test if you have symptoms of the virus
- If you're in close contact i.e. live with someone who has had it or been close to a positive test, test yourself if you're going anywhere
- Avoiding doing things which are unnecessary and working from home if you can
- Keeping social visits and house party type things to minimum


None of that needs face nappies or lockdowns to do, just using your common sense.

Re: Coronavirus
 

"Face nappies"?

<snigger>

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why are you so obsessed with government control, Andrew? Stop pulling your hair out about the number of infections. The higher it rises, the more immunity in the country will be strengthened.

The PM has already said that the criteria for measures being reintroduced is whether the NHS can cope, and at present it is, because the vaccines are working.

Mask wearing is not effective. The masks we buy in the shops are not surgical masks, people don’t wear them correctly and those that do can be seen with the masks gapping when they should completely seal the face.

The concentration should be on stepping up on the vaccinations and monitoring hospital admissions and lengths of stay.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As was previously posted just over a fortnight ago when you posted the same misinformation…

Re: Coronavirus
 

I said "infections, deaths and hospitilisations". It suits no one to discard the rise in the latter two.

I also said "measures like a return to mask-wearing" as an example of some of the measures we previously had. I didn't intend to trigger the mask-wearing debate again - plenty of independent studies answer this question better than me or you ever can.

I'm sure hospitlisations and their duration are monitored and obviously the booster vaccinations need to be rolled out as quickly as possible. The question is: Will we need to do more so that we don't top the wrong charts in Europe?

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.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ifs, buts and maybes have generally been the cornerstones of all the Covid analysis up to now . .. go where the guesswork leads and we'll make further guesses when the data changes ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

More COVID patients go into ICU than get ventilated.

Such as our own Dear Leader
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52192604

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

But that was an extraordinary case, he went in as Bojo and came out as Tony Bliar with a blond wig on, amazing what a case of the snots can do;).

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's almost as if a highly infectious novel virus had happened, and people were having to work on the knowledge they had at the time, and review/change things when they discovered more...

---------- Post added at 12:12 ---------- Previous post was at 11:58 ----------

Your previous post... ;)

Also, A&E attendance (someone rocking up at A&E with Covid symptoms and being sent home with a packet of Paracetamol 4 hours later) is recorded separately from A&E admissions (someone not being able to breathe arriving by ambulance.), so would not count towards the published Admissions figures for COVID.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Which is what I said, but you're using 'grown up' words ;) :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

...... Taken from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45783005

from 2018 where the "average" over a year on particular days hit that. So that is a proven statistic and not guess work.

I think numbers from 2018 before all this happened are valid as to volumes the NHS could handle pre-pandemic. In the 3 years since it may be more or less, I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers are actually lower at the moment due to people staying away from hospitals.

Fair enough.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

That’s right, hospital admissions and deaths are the ones to watch. However, the NHS is not in danger of going under and so the Health Secretary Sajid Javid will not be announcing further measures at the 5pm briefing this afternoon.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And if you don't have an infection (for which the obvious signs are symptoms) then wearing a mask achieves nothing at all.


Wearing a mask is also less effective if it isn't worn properly, e.g. over the mouth and nose, or if it's taken off without being sanitised before being put back on, or if it's been touched or put on with dirty hands, or if it's been held around the chin, or if it's not made of sufficient material to stop the virus from going out of it.


Considering coronaviruses haven't changed, and are a particular area of expertise for Prof Whitty, why is it that at the start of the pandemic, both the CMO and both of his deputies, were all documented as saying that masks didn't really do a lot if you didn't have symptoms and weren't a worthwhile measure for general use (or terms to a similar effect) yet as soon as the politicians wanted to do it, the "science changed" and they were now saying the total opposite.

---------- Post added at 17:01 ---------- Previous post was at 16:58 ----------

As a fair number of MPs have said, effectively locking down for what is (at present) no more than seasonal winter NHS pressures, and because the NHS can't cope with its workload, is a bit of a slippery slope.


What next, we shut the country down because the hospitals can't do infection control as effectively as they should and can't control norovirus outbreaks?


The government is spot on not buckling in because the NHS asks for it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You may wish to lookup "asymptomatic"…

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art...s-asymptomatic https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-00142-8

Science ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Another OB post for the history books.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, I know about it ;) hence saying the obvious signs were symptoms, not that only people with symptoms could have the virus.



But I don't think it's fully known yet how much asymptomatic people do spread it, considering that in reality, they aren't going to be doing much which would, compared to someone with the virus (i.e. they aren't going to be coughing, sneezing etc) and how much aerosol spread from simply breathing or talking is not understood yet particularly how this actually dissipates for a while.



In the earlier times of the pandemic they were saying that a lot of the younger age groups were getting covid but with no symptoms, this appears to be much less of an issue with the Delta variant as kids are actually getting signs.


It may not be perfect but in the vast majority of cases people who have been double-jabbed and been exposed to the virus don't get an infection. You can see that with the ONS data where school age kids are mainly getting it and there isn't really any marked increase in the people they are in contact with e.g. teachers, parents, other family members, which you would expect if immunity is waning, given that close contacts of a positive test are being recommended to get a PCR test, they too would register positive even with no symptoms.


But this is something I'd like to see more official detail on - whether people testing positive have symptoms or not, which would perhaps also help any leverage on people doing more LFTs or wearing face coverings if they were still seeing a high amount of double jabbed people testing positive with no symptoms.



However, we also have to consider the nature of a PCR test is ultimately flawed because someone testing positive for a virus isn't necessarily infectious. So your asymptomatic positive tests could well have had the virus in the samples but if their cells aren't replicating and emitting the virus then they aren't infectious and the virus fragment could have got into the sample another way. I recall reading there is now a saliva test which is actually able to detect transmissible covid infections rather than a person who simply has a covid fragment of mRNA in their throat/nose swab.


If we look at the current data, as well as a massive bias in school age kids, we're also seeing at the moment, the effects of the lab returning a large number of positive samples as negative, which is showing in the SW and Wales in particular where rates have gone up in comparison to the rest of the country which is more static (most authorities in Notts have been relatively constant in the 70-100 per day). It will probably take a few days for the effects of this transmission to show in the figures and to show in the effects of people now testing positive who are isolating where they weren't before and this in itself will probably drive these rates down.

Re: Coronavirus
 

From my post And

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2774707

Re: Coronavirus
 

Morocco has banned direct flights from the UK.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm just waiting for the next "accidental virus" to come out of China likely before covid has finished.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, he was right. :D

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58985617

---------- Post added at 19:04 ---------- Previous post was at 19:02 ----------

At 100,000 a day you would think we are running out of people to get infected.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Devastated

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm off to the Canary Islands next month for a week and am really hoping that Spain doesn't follow Morocco's lead or add some onerous conditions for tourists from the UK.

Friends in Belgium have decided against visiting due to what they perceive as a bad Covid situation here.