Re: Coronavirus
 

Thats what happens when you listen to the parnoid, & antisocial media.

People are not actually dying in the streets, or being carted off to hospital in droves.
The reality is that life is pretty normal in every place Ive been in the last few months.
In the entire time since March 2000 I still [personally] only know of a handful of cases.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Same . . . and it's a very small hand.
Last one was a chap booked to do some work in the garden . . delayed 10 days due to testing positive. When he did turn up, he said he felt no different, had no symptoms etc, but had to isolate due to testing positive. Cost him 9 days lost work . . in gardens.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well with a husband with lung cancer I intend wearing a mask and following all safety measures for the foreseeable future. Hopefully we will avoid Covid and possibly all the other nasty seasonal infections.

Re: Coronavirus
 

While rare, I doubt “However, the NHS is not in danger of going under” will age well.

The statement today essentially conceded measures will be needed in the future. Which begs the question of why not take lesser actions sooner, for a shorter period. Rather than having to resort to stronger actions later.

Almost everyone I hear of testing positive has been vaccinated. With infection induced immunity not guaranteed to persist (evidenced in Iran and Brazil) and vaccine induced immunity waning (Israel) the importance of keeping case numbers down and rolling out boosters for all - not just over 50s - has never been stronger. Otherwise we will just meander from wave to wave hoping for the best.

---------- Post added at 20:32 ---------- Previous post was at 20:28 ----------

A spineless Government that deceived the electorate with a promise of freedom day now scared to roll back until it’s too late. Hoping for the best has never been a mitigation strategy. However with the Government listening to the same behavioural scientists, and clowns like Jenny Harries are getting promoted, do we expect anything less than the groupthink of British exceptionalism?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Surely with all these people getting the virus will it not make them more immune after getting it, I've heard of a very few getting it twice but it does seem to be pretty rare.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Jeremy Beadle's perhaps. We suffered quite badly, three died and another was on a ventilator for months, not good for a small to medium sized company

Same, other half has blood cancer, I was distancing from her before lockdown began.

---------- Post added at 20:49 ---------- Previous post was at 20:49 ----------

They all come out of China, always have

Re: Coronavirus
 

Sadly, such immunity - like vaccinations - wanes over time.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Because no-one has a crystal ball. At this point the level of hospitalisations are manageable, the NHS isn't presently in danger of going under.



Whether this will continue to be stable over the coming months or if it will spike again like it did previously, neither the NHS bosses (who will only consider their own situation) nor the politicians, CMOs, Vallance etc advising them (who do have a wider context) know.


Don't forget there are other impacts of restrictions which don't consider the benefits if any to the NHS. So if we close or impact trade on businesses most of whom have been planning for Christmas especially in hospitality would lose out again, the impact of this no longer has the furlough scheme, or any rates holidays, which simply still have to be paid for, and also from other activities which have been unable to take place such as performing arts with socially distanced performers or audiences (in the latter, this impacts on the capacity hence numbers of tickets they can sell) who are only just getting back on their feet, all of this would need careful consideration to halt again, and off the basis of "we think more people might go to hospital" isn't perhaps sufficient yet.



It'd be equally foolish for them to introduce restrictions now when there's no clear evidence of a worsening in hospitalisations, or to not do so if this does happen, it's not known where this will end up yet. But, if it continues to predominate in children, and there continues not to be spill over into vaccinated adults resulting in hospitalisation, then there shouldn't be concern over those refusing jabs, since they have had their chance, and rolling out boosters to more people will probably help keep it at bay for a while longer until it's stopped spreading in kids because they've either been jabbed or had it.

It's not simple to measure though, mainly because the memory effect of the immune system will mean that a decline in antibody levels (which most studies are looking at) matters less. If the immune system can still recognise the virus and make antibodies, then it doesn't matter if there are no antibodies at the time, you will still manage to fight it. The thing with a lot of viruses (this may be the same but you see it with flu as well) is that as the virus mutates the recognition of the T-cell and antibody response is evaded to the point it no longer recognises the virus to respond pre-emptively to exposure, so you get ill as it can't respond before it attacks cells.


This will be why the immune system can't respond as well if you're exposed to the virus when vaccinated, though antibody levels and some recognition will give it a head start, because the spike proteins already mutated slightly, and natural infection will mean your immune system recognises more of the virus. It's like trying to do an ID check with just a picture of someone's eye not their whole face.

Most of it is concentrated in school age kids and the hotspot in the SW around Bristol which appears to be where most of the false negative PCR results came from. Once those are ironed out, the latter no doubt is easier, it will appear more normal again. Hospitalisations have barely wavered from the current magnitude since the last month or two.



Round where we are most of the areas have been relatively static in terms of positive tests for some time now, I think most Notts councils are about 60-90 positives a day.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m not going to extensively engage in your misinformation exercise, I’ll leave that to Hugh, however we absolutely know that without some kind of intervention cases will continue to rise.

Many have gone before you denying the inevitable rise of the virus and been proven incorrect time and again.

As I say restrictions are inevitable - Javid acknowledges this reading between the lines - the only question is where and when. The most effective time is absolutely now.

The economic impact is a red herring. When even a small proportion of people - the clinically vulnerable, their families spend less up to large proportions - those who can work from home continue to do so all winter against a backdrop of rising cases many businesses will be adversely affected in any case. They will just do so without Government support.

Hospitalisations rising isn’t speculation. It’s inevitable without intervention.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But none of this is true based on the current data. It may be more revealing when the ONS publish this week's report tomorrow, but this trend is pretty clear, and given that the trend is well below 2% in any of the more at risk groups, then it is not yet inevitable that the cases will end in increased hospitalisations. Though if we do get some more significant spill over in the older age groups, who are better protected with vaccination, then yes this will happen, and yes, restrictions will then presumably be inevitable.


It's half term in some places here, and next week in some more, some places even have 2 weeks here. That will probably do a fair amount to halt the spread in this group, More so if a lot of the cases are in the SW, for reasons detailed earlier.


It will probably be better to target restrictions at this hotspot if it doesn't - returning to school bubbles, remote teaching, after school clubs scaled back, distancing and masks with secondary kids, accelerated vax take up, local restrictions in Bristol etc, rather than a national approach, but then we did see last year that local lockdowns weren't wholly effective.


The point about people staying away from things naturally is valid and that's a decision they will naturally have to take based on their own personal circumstances and responsibility, but, the point of closing restaurants etc, surely removes that discretion for people who aren't at risk, and let's be fair in the case of something like nightclubs, that's a sector which is predominantly visited by the younger age groups, pretty much under 30s, who are neither massively at risk from hospitalisation or death nor likely to exercise caution, which isn't overall a bad thing, you're not likely to get older people or people with health conditions in there, and presumably if you do, they are aware it's a virus risk. Though the subsequent risk of spill over infections still needs to be considered.


It strikes me more that Javid was saying to the hesitant, look, it's still there, if you don't get your jabs, we may need to restrict, which seemed to be a reinforcement of plan A predominantly, to make it work better, but saying, look if you don't we will have to move in the other direction, to be honest WFH is probably the most useful measure they would be able to implement. That guidance really should have continued to be reinforced until we're through the winter.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I only wear a mask to go to the doctor's and only because they won't let you in if you don't wear one complete rubbish. I'm not vaccinated nor do I intend too after looking at the information and seeing the steady appearance of new variants which aren't impacted by the vaccine. I dislike strongly the coercive element there is with vaccination and the idea of the vaccine passports is disgusting and is not something I'd have expected in a non communist country. But each to their own do whatever makes you feel safer or better just don't insist on it applying to everyone.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The message is ‘steady as she goes’. Nothing changes at this time. I thought that was pretty clear, Seph.

Re: Coronavirus
 

“Based on the current data” is a selective way to plead ignorance about the ongoing trend and the likelihood of the trend continuing in the absence of any intervention.

It’s certainly better to target restrictions than not, however failure to implement any only leaves the sledgehammer approach of national, extended restrictions, restrictions on trade, gatherings, etc. Which is entirely undesirable but inevitable if rises go unchecked against a backdrop of waning immunity, slow booster rollout, slow teenage rollout, etc.

Which is why it has little to do with personal responsibility at all - for the many people who through employment or otherwise have no alternative but to share enclosed public spaces with covidiots.

---------- Post added at 22:57 ---------- Previous post was at 22:56 ----------

People hear what we want to hear. The warning klaxons are ringing, OB. I hope you’ve not paid the deposit for the CF Christmas Party.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Fatal mistake of expecting the person you are exchanging with to have any regard for objective data or the truth.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Pierre who still relies on the delay in death registrations to “prove” less people died yesterday than the day before.

I’ve even better news Pierre. The stats don’t show that anybody died of Covid today. :)

It must be disappointing to stare at the inevitability of restrictions, even if personally unaffected. You’d think you’d learn.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I love how everything that happens today has to spawn divisive titles such as "covidiot" and who does that apply to ? People like me that won't routinely wear a silly fabric mask that has zero chance of stopping a .14 micron virus or the people that do. Perhaps it applies to those who haven't had a vaccine that doesn't fully protect you or prevent you passing covid on to others or to those that have had it and are going to need constant updates for how long.

There is no right or wrong here and the infighting and further division of society with big tech companies deciding what information we can and can't have is alarming given those same companies don't pay their share of taxation but we're happy to let them censor us.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Unless you are a certain member here.
They are are always right, and everyone else is always wrong.
The government is of course always wrong, even when they are right. :dozey:

Re: Coronavirus
 

I supported the furlough scheme, so I’m happy to point out where they do well. It just happens so sporadically it might appear like never. Even backbench MPs are publishing reports about chronic incompetence and groupthink in the Covid response and it’s the same people leading (bar Hancock) and the same scientists advising (SAGE, JCVI).

On the other hand other members are happy to forgive their incompetence and personal indiscretions as irrelevant. Something I doubt they’d feel if we had a Labour Government led by Starmer, Corbyn or Milliband.

We won’t get out of this, in health or economic terms, by burying our heads in the sand. If Javid had nothing to say today it’d have been buried on BBC Parliament. He’s laying the groundwork to blame the public for not heeding the warnings and low vaccination rates for Plan B.

Re: Coronavirus
 

We have had contradictory advice from the get go the science has changed like the season's it's no surprise everything and everyone is struggling to do the right thing when the right thing this month might not be next month. This obsession with misinformation is not helping either because as with everything else covid related it's a very fluid definition that constantly changes and we're seeing doctor's and scientist's cancelled out because they don't agree with this month's accepted narrative it's ridiculous so is it any wonder governments and people are unsure what to do.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The virus is spread in aerosol droplets, which are much larger - they don’t exist in isolation when breathed out.

But I’m sure you knew that…

Re: Coronavirus
 

When it comes to vaccinations, the medical consensus is a definite yes. No vaccine is 100% effective but what we have is far better than nothing and has enabled us to step out of lockdown. I think what we can all agree on is that no one wants to head back there.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Something I posted earlier today…

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes the droplets can be bigger but the virus is able to travel short distances independent of the droplet (as I'm sure your aware) and at .14 micron those fabric masks are worthless if you want an effective mask lobby the government for full face cbrn rated masks then I'lltake it seriously. It isn't a vaccine by any measure that applied before covid 19 it doesn't prevent infection, it doesn't prevent death from the virus, it doesn't prevent you passing the virus on and it's effect is lessened by time and is worthless against emerging variants.

This "vaccine" is an unproved rushed experimental drug for which we have zero real data on it's medium to long term effects because so many stages in the usual research and development of medications were swept aside to get it out the door but it's ok they did some computer modelling. There is no real ground for anyone to be smug and self satisfied with their position everyone needs to do their own research and make a decision based on what they feel is best for them. As I said the coercive element in all of this should have more people questioning then there is.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I realise now that, in the past, I might have been unkind to some long standing members by calling them covid-deniers or accusing them of spreading misinformation.

Wow.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yeahhhhb …. I’m not sure what’s most distressing about this post. It could be its absolute blind faith in batty, pseudo-science internet conspiracy theories, or it could be that you’re forcing me to be seen agreeing with Jfman about something. :erm:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Is the incubation period different to those who are catching covid after numerous jabs.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well then...

Not sure that naked virus particles can travel far to be honest. Drying a virus tends to be quite bad for it, especially an enveloped virus such as SARS-COV-2. This study - https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mSphere.00637-20 shows that masks, even cotton ones do have some effect. The effect is more pronounced for 'live' virus (as tested through plaque assays) than 'live' and 'dead' virus (as tested through RT-PCR)

Is the protection 100% - no. Is the protection significant - yes.

Based on your own research of the vaccine, what statistical end points would convince you of the efficacy and safety of the vaccines? What would be a statistically significant cohort size? How many confounding factors will you take in to account? What p and CI values will be significant?

I have to admit, my statistical knowledge of vaccine trials is not up to deciding for myself so I have delegated this to the experts of the MHRA.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

:clap::clap::clap:

Re: Coronavirus
 

You do know, that even if I accepted that argument for the mRNA Vaccines. That only accounts for the Pfizer & Moderna vaccines.

The AZ & Johnson & Johnson vaccines use the Adenovirus Vector method to carry the spike protein. A method used I understand since at least 2010. So I'm afraid you are wrong. It is not experimental, it is also not a drug!

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'd also strongly wade in with the point that unless any of us are somehow vaccine experts, the MHRA, JCVI, CMO and his deputies, and Jenny Harries know plenty about this and it would no doubt ruin their careers if they advised incorrectly which caused a massive issue.


These jabs - even AZ - have been used all over the world and not just in the UK, and have been administered to billions of people over the last 10 months or so. If there was an issue then it would have been picked up in clinical trials or at some point through the world (e.g. the issue which was identified with AZ and blood clotting) and they would do something about it.


It's one thing taking the word of union people or the like who have a vested interest in a certain thing happening and aren't objective. But medical ethics doesn't work that way, Whitty, JVT, Harries etc are all doctors at the top of their fields, as are the experts on the MHRA who decided on the vaccines' suitability and the JCVI on how best to implement them. They know what to look for and realistically should be trusted.


Neither the viral vector nor mRNA lipid envelope vaccines use novel technology.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Jenny Harries ffs

Re: Coronavirus
 

Which university did she get her ffs from?

Re: Coronavirus
 

The university of incompetence.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There were no clinical trials that was a stage that was removed there is nothing but computer modelling which failed to show the unique proteins these vaccines create in every individual. Before covid 19 there were widespread concerns over mRNA covid hits and it's fine and people are now stuck in a never ending cycle of boosters. There are a lot of medical companies and individual's questioning various aspects unfortunately they are deemed to be misinformation and are being removed from the internet it was one such company that caused me to start looking further.

They were heavily involved in the last major Ebola outbreak sadly losing three of their doctors and have been client's of the company for many years comprising of immunologists, epidemiologists and virologists and now they are cancelled from the internet. This is happening a lot and why are companies that were reputable enough to be involved in various outbreaks around the world and had government contracts now disreputable. When did Facebook, Google, Amazon and Twitter become sufficiently qualified to decide what is or isn't relevant medical information.

Of the hundreds of people I know and other hundreds I work with 1 person has had confirmed covid they were unwell for two weeks and then returned to work albeit remotely people are not dropping dead in the streets and there is data now questioning the mortality rate of covid putting it below the 6% figure which would put it into flu territory. Yes people have died from it and that is heartbreaking as it is whenever people die but the loss of perspective here is palpable or are we now entering a time where we lock the country down every year for the flu?.

When only one version of information is allowed it will become accepted as the truth but the number of qualified individual's and companies being silenced and disregarded should be causing concern. After covid you'll have less civil rights, less access to information and less privacy but hey as long as we are safe.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Hmm, do explain more...

Re: Coronavirus
 

AZ Oxford
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00836-z Pfizer
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-re...vid-19-vaccine Moderna
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389 And as I personally took part in the Novavax clinical trials (as a subject), I can confidently state your assertion has no connection with reality.

Hope this helps…

Re: Coronavirus
 

thought you got the placebo.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No real point in debating it, any more than I’d get bogged down in a debate over whether the sky is blue or grass is green. Some things are just self evident truths.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I wonder what her lawyers would make to it all...

Re: Coronavirus
 

About 50 million

Re: Coronavirus
 

As part of the Phase 3 trial, which supposedly never happened…

---------- Post added at 13:28 ---------- Previous post was at 13:27 ----------

Well, Boris hasn’t sued anyone who’s called him incompetent on forums/social media/tv programmes/newspapers/magazines/books…
;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Truth is of course a defence in such matters... ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Those trials were far below the usual standards there was a reason why when covid hit it was said by most a real vaccine would be years away because following the normal standard at that time would have taken years. How do you explain it happening in a year or are we saying pharmaceutical companies took years previously for the fun of it corners were cut in the research and development to get it out of the door and the consequences of that are completely unknown. If it's all above board why is it every pharmaceutical company demanded a waiver of liability from governments before making the vaccine available you all have more faith in their products then the companies do.

Put in a FOI on medium to long term effects of the vaccine just don't hold your breath. Maybe it is ok but nobody can state that with certainty not even the companies and the fact that everytime a new variant comes out you need a booster shows this is not a vaccine in the traditional sense. There are questions here and anyone who asks them or discusses them is labelled misinformation and cancelled when did that become ok?.

I'm a field officer that's where I'm happiest and can't wait for the docs to give me the all clear so I can go back and I may not be articulating things very well as I'm not a medical professional but then neither are most if not all of you. The two months in the intelligence department of the company has been the most depressing two months of my life the amount of information that's being withheld is staggering and the fact we are not getting all the information compounds the depression. The religion of covid is damaging and distracting from a lot that's going on.

Re: Coronavirus
 

First it was Now it's So, according to you, those trials that never happened were below the usual standards? :rolleyes:

There is a very simple answer to your question about https://www.immunology.org/coronavir...developed-fast

Also

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03626-1

Think of it as the way military technology advanced quickly during WW2.

Hope this clarifies things for you.

---------- Post added at 14:58 ---------- Previous post was at 14:45 ----------

This link gives more detail on how the timescale was shortened.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...elopment-speed

Re: Coronavirus
 

I decided to have a quick look at some European Medicines Agency assessments for AZ and Pfizer vaccines along with Fluenz, the flu vaccine my kids got a couple of weeks ago. The EMA reports are long but are at least publicly available.

All three vaccines contain new ingredients never used before in pharmaceuticals and so get special attention. All three are genetically modified products with the AZ and flu vaccine being whole virus (the Pfizer vaccine is purely synthetic but uses modified mRNA)

The doubts about the COVID vaccines are have they been tested well enough and for long enough. Luckily, those reports have that information;

Astra Zeneca
Trials started in June 2020 with a data cutoff in December. The total number of subjects was 16,550

Pfizer
Trials started in June 2020 with a data cutoff of November. The total number of subjects was 37,796

Fluenz Tetra
Trials started in April 2009 and ran for 6 months. The total number of subjects was 5893

The trial periods were roughly the same length of time. Where things sped up, as others have said, was that there was an overlap between safety (phase I) efficacy (phase II) and clinical outcomes (phase III) trials with no pause in between.

Here are the reports if you would like to do your own research or have trouble sleeping;

Astra Zeneca - https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documen...-report_en.pdf
Pfizer - https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documen...-report_en.pdf
Fluenz Tetra - https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documen...-report_en.pdf

Re: Coronavirus
 

You never seem to explain your point of view with any clarity, jfman.

Maybe it's because your views are the first thing that comes into your head, designed simply for you to take a contrary position to the post you have just read.

For some reason - for example, your stated opinion that a resurgence of the virus in this country will be sufficient for hospitals to be inundated, triggering another lockdown - your stated view takes no account at all of the vaccination programme. The vast majority of people being taken into hospital for Covid reasons are unvaccinated, partially vaccinated or have underlying health conditions that have weakened their bodies, in which case they are susceptible to other diseases as well.

There is huge difference between now and last year, which you fail to acknowledge. Only an unforeseen major new development will lead to things getting out of control.

As for your comments about Jennie Harries, I do think you owe us an explanation. If, indeed, you have one.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

This is incorrect.

Vaccines have changed the risk of hospitalisation and death, this is correct. However they are still linked. Vaccines fundamentally represent a one off reconfiguration of the ratios. Ten per cent one week, fifteen the next. These roses inevitably continue until something happens.

Quite dismissive of the millions of lives with underlying conditions there, OB. They’ve a right to life as much as anyone else.

It’s Jenny, not Jennie.

---------- Post added at 16:53 ---------- Previous post was at 16:14 ----------

We call that a Richard on CF.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The latest figures still show there's a massive increase in secondary age kids and also in the Somerset/Wiltshire/Bristol area where presumably the testing failures were, but the remaining areas still as you were.


Some schools here have half term this week and next week, others have 1 week which seems to be either, that's probably going to be the same in most areas.



I see some areas have also (correctly IMV) introduced mask wearing in schools again, even if this has a minimal impact it's worth it because it's in a high infection environment at the moment.


If the effects of basically having the schools closed for a week or two doesn't have an effect, they need to be doing more about vaccinating this group - at present I've read that this is mainly being done through the schools. Considering I think they are just getting a single dose of Pfizer like the adults are (well, apart from 1 dose not 2) I don't understand why they can't just book appointments/walk in to the vaccination centres which presumably is a better solution anyway?


Since they've had since June now I'm not sure what else can be done for vaccine hesitant adults, they might just have to catch it.


Hospitalisations do still seem to be trending way below the SAGE estimates from a few months back though.

Re: Coronavirus
 

..

Re: Coronavirus
 

And there you have it. The kids are spreading the virus, but they are not being hospitalised. It’s the oldest in the population whose hospitalisation numbers are greatest.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yet hospitalisations rise, deaths rise.

Quoting another member does not equate to quoting authoritative fact. The reality is all metrics are going in the wrong direction to some degree.

The fact most infections are in the young is only a positive for those on an individual level. On a macro level there’s enough in other age groups to create problems very soon. The question is whether we want to avert that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Those with underlying conditions are not only vulnerable to Covid, jfman. If you applied that logic to everything, you would need a permanent lockdown.

The vaccines are intended to prevent continuing restrictions to our freedoms. By promoting a return of restrictions, you are disregarding these benefits entirely and adopting an extreme risk-averse approach.

Yes, the spelling should have been ‘Jenny’ - I copied and pasted from a previous post of another poster.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Maybe if you didn’t copy and paste and applied your own critical logic to the situation?

The vaccines may be intended to do these things - that doesn’t necessarily mean it will. As I say, alarm bells are ringing and when restrictions inevitable return to some degree I fully expect you to be disappointed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Starmer urges 500k daily vaccination target, not pushing Plan B. An interesting approach - if vaccination rates don't improve and things continue to worsen, he can link the need for Plan B to poor execution of Plan A.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/coron...?ocid=msedgntp

Re: Coronavirus
 

:rofl: :rofl:

Re: Coronavirus
 

You assume that it will, but this assumption is based on events prior to when we had the vaccines.

I only copied and pasted Jenny Harries’ name because I’d forgotten what it was! I do not copy and paste other articles as some others do without an appropriate acknowledgement.

By the way, you can relax a bit on the hospital admissions front. About a quarter of those patients were not admitted for Covid at all - they were admitted for other reasons, and at some point just happened to be tested and came out positive. They probably acquired it in hospital anyway!

Damned statistics, eh, jfman! :D

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...-not-admitted/

Hospitalisation figures do not paint full picture, with as many as a quarter of those listed having been admitted for another reason

At a press conference from Downing Street on Wednesday evening, Dr Jenny Harries, the chief executive of the UK Health Security Agency, took the public through slides showing that there were currently 7,891 people in hospital with Covid in the UK.

What she failed to mention is that this figure does not only include people admitted with Covid, but also those who test positive for coronavirus while in hospital for another condition.

Hospitals were instructed to distinguish between the two groups earlier this year, but so far it has not filtered down into the official figures.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The stat is for those in hospital with COVID - does it not accurately reflect that?

Re: Coronavirus
 

You are trying to be clever again, Hugh. Yes, that is correct, but it is how this statistic is being used that is suspect.

Even you must see that it is completely wrong to use that statistic as a reason for more Covid controls when Covid was not even the reason for admission - indeed, many of these patients may not be showing signs of having any symptoms.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes.


But as well as people who caught covid in the "wild" whose symptoms were serious enough to present themselves to hospital, it also includes people who caught covid from another patient (or staff member/visitor) whilst in hospital for something else, or who presented with something else (e.g. a broken arm) and tested positive in a routine covid test with no symptoms of it.


The figure also doesn't take into account how long people are staying in hospital which is naturally an indication of severity though the figures for ICU admissions and patients on ventilators will take care of that in a way.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But that doesn’t affect the statistic "Patients admitted to hospital", which is on the rise.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It is only correct if the patients admitted to hospital are admitted because of Covid.

If they are admitted for a completely unrelated condition and simply happen to test positive for Covid, it is wrong to quote those figures to justify more restrictions.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, but if one person went into hospital with covid and wasn't quarantined, and then ended up on a ward with 15 or so others, who then caught it, even if no-one else was admitted in those few days, that figure would go from 1 to 16.


And it may be currently increasing, but it has spent the last few months oscillating within a similar amount. If it moves significantly ahead of this amount it would be potentially concerning. But this hasn't happened yet and it's no certainty that it will.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Correct.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And it doesn't stop the NHS being overwhelmed, either.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And you assume it’ll be fine, as you always have. And always been wrong.

As I said. Vaccines nudge the dial, it doesn’t prevent the reality that a large and increasing number of infections results in a large and increasing number of hospitalisations and deaths.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm pretty sure that computers would still generate data that statistics are rising months after everyone is dead . . . not that we'd still be arguing over it :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

The two are linked; but the proportion of hospitalisations and deaths relative to cases has decreased significantly since the vaccination.


If you look at the numbers admitted (however that's worked out, it's been a fair test throughout) during Oct-Jan last winter compared to during May-July this year, positive tests were around 80k at the start of January and 50k in July, yet we were seeing 1000+ people die a day at the peak last winter and I think the recent peak is around 200, and that's a figure which fluctuates with reporting lag. In the case (which may well not reflect the actual figures) that without vaccines you'd maybe see 10% positive tests present to hospital but with you'd maybe see 0.1% that's reduced this by a factor of 100, but in the case of 50k positive tests a day, that's still 50 of those who will end up in hospital as opposed to 5000.



So yes, a larger number of positive tests will result in a larger number of hospitalisations, but a smaller number than before, and by some margin. And we probably wouldn't be able to take over 100k for a sustained period without seeing the same pressures in the NHS, unless it continued to be predominantly in school kids, but then, this trend can't peak for long.


It could well be fine, the increasing trend could also lead to more pressure and some restrictions again, only time will tell that.


But, if you look at the rate of change in case rates - from here, but also attached - (effectively a second derivative, showing if the cases are accelerating or decelerating), today's figure is actually a slight curve off, more crucially, when we've seen this happen it's showing it's just off the peak. Again, half-terms, and actually getting the lid on the SW area will no doubt help with this, if people are getting the right test result now then this will help as they'll need to isolate instead of going to the pub, football, etc, or even school and infect others. It's a similar risk to asymptomatic spread but probably worse, if people go to places thinking they have a cold because their PCR result came back negative and then they cough all over the supermarket then loads of other people will get covid.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And it measures patients who are admitted to hospital with COVID, not tested after they had been admitted.

The clue is in the title "Patients admitted to hospital"

---------- Post added at 21:33 ---------- Previous post was at 21:32 ----------

No, it wouldn’t, because the 15 weren’t admitted to hospital with COVID.

---------- Post added at 21:34 ---------- Previous post was at 21:33 ----------

No, because there would be no one to enter the data… ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm pretty sure that it is included in the figure and always has been.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No need to waste any of our energy. You should have just left it there.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Can you provide a link, please?

I can see why it would be included in the "COVID patients in hospital" but not why it would be in "COVID patients admitted to hospital".

Update - found the definition

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/deta...ed-to-hospital I see what you mean…

Here’s the NHS definition, which feeds into the GOV U.K. stats.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistic...ital-activity/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nice constructive argument there. Well done, you have excelled yourself.
I seem to recall seeing it mentioned but can't remember where. In any case, the patients in hospital (as opposed to actual admissions) is probably the more important figure.


Incidentally, I think most of the people I know who have had the virus got it from within a hospital setting (or onward transmission from it). Given that initially there was a fair cry about CV19+ people being discharged into care homes, and that seemingly the issues with infection control still exist, amongst already sick people, it's certainly something in my view, that the NHS management needs to look at. And I don't think it's anything new considering they seem to have similar issues with norovirus most winters. Surely it's common sense to me to keep CV19+ patients isolates as much as possible and ensure staff in the same areas have PPE and change it in a controlled area before doing anything else, but what do I know?

---------- Post added at 22:05 ---------- Previous post was at 22:05 ----------

Sorry Hugh, just seen your edit - see what I mean now lol? :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

But are still less than 6 weeks ago.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There’s no point in engaging extensively with someone who clearly doesn’t understand the situation. And isn’t willing to.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nice mirror you're talking to there.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And less than the peaks of every wave before. We can all point to a worse situation, that doesn’t mean the current situation is desirable nor sustainable: Hence the Saj preparing all the freedom lovers for a Merry Christmas.

---------- Post added at 22:35 ---------- Previous post was at 22:35 ----------

That’s funny, you replied!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Do you have a link?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, you did shout it out in public.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Who says that's a reality ?
Also, whats a "large" increase ?

In the last month, cases have risen, from an average of about 35,000 to an average of about 45,000.
Is that a large increase ? Its 10,000 so you could reasonably say yes.

Admissions however from around 740 to 900.
Thats 160, so not really very large
Also, the rate 'per case' is actually lower.

The Deaths average has fallen.
Deaths within 28 days average from about 125 to about 115 per day.
Deaths with covid listed as a cause average from about 130 to about 90 per day.

The reality for the last month seems to be a largish increase in infections, a small increase in admissions, and a fall in death rate.

Deaths and admissions are lower than early September atm.
Compared to Jan this year, cases are slightly smaller, admissions and deaths are way way lower (and the NHS did not collapse in Jan).

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

Re: Coronavirus
 

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

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

---------- Post added at 23:24 ---------- Previous post was at 23:19 ----------

It means we wait and watch because the current situation is ok.

That may or may not change.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Except, of course, that Covid is not responsible for such admissions.

---------- Post added at 23:29 ---------- Previous post was at 23:26 ----------

Nudge the dial? They have made a tremendous difference, but for some curious reason you absolutely refuse to acknowledge it.

Incidentally, the big rise in infections are in young people. It’s the vulnerable elderly that are being admitted to hospital.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What do you mean by "such admissions?"

Re: Coronavirus
 

I guess we should stop responding to your posts then. Where’s the fun in that?

---------- Post added at 23:35 ---------- Previous post was at 23:33 ----------

Admissions that are not due to Covid.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Debating, surely?

---------- Post added 22-10-2021 at 00:37 ---------- Previous post was 21-10-2021 at 23:52 ----------

An admission is an admission and too many admissions will overwhelm the NHS.

If admissions do continue to rise and threaten the NHS, what other ways are there to reduce admissions apart from Plan B?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Oh, so it doesn't matter whether or not the increase in hospital admissions are due to Covid, if they get busy, we should all wear facemasks anyway!

Seriously, Andrew, what are you like? :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

How else do you propose reducing hospital admissions? Instructing everyone to drive at 10 mph? Banning contact sport?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59011321

I can live with that, been doing it for 19 months now anyway.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I disagree. The government has set the parameters that will decide if and when restrictions should be reimposed. They should stick to the criteria and not be influenced by those peddling their own agendas.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes don't be influenced by the scientists advising government even though they've been telling us for months that we must follow the science

Doesn't seem like that long ago we were clapping the NHS workers, now those nasty parasites we call a government have declared war on GP's

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

They have? I totally missed that one. Please provide a link.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not enough of them trying to cope with far to many patients imo. It is bad, I've been tempted several times recently to sign up with private health care through my partners work but everytime I have to spend 7 hours in the polyclinic because my GP won't see me I think this is exactly what the government want so feck 'em I'll put up with it. My practise was described as inadequate but it worked so much better then than it does now

Re: Coronavirus
 

Speaking to friends who are GPs, one of the major challenges is the increase in older patients* (who often have complex needs, so a 10 minute standard appointment isn’t sufficient, and they require more appointments due to the complex needs).

Also, there are fewer GPS - there are now just 0.45 fully qualified GPs per 1000 patients in England – down from 0.52 in 2015. https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-su...neral-practice



*5.5 million over 75, 1.6 million over 85, 600k over 90.