Re: Coronavirus
 

The thing is that following the science isn't an exact thing because especially at the cutting edge (which this is, as it's a new virus and understanding changes) the views change and this can even depend on who you are asking.


Even now there are plenty saying that we need to move to "Plan B" (whatever that entails, since it seems to be a list of possible options) or more to control it (yet actually it isn't running out of control - cases are decelerating, and hospital admissions aren't at a high level on the current measuring), and others saying (including SAGE modelling, which has a habit of being an overestimate even at the most optimistic) that it will be fine on the current parameters. And yes, those who ask for more restrictions are probably right that it will reduce cases and hospitalisations but that if everyone stays at home all day there will be other effects from this, if for example people didn't go clothes shopping, then all the clothes shops wouldn't make any money, and they would have to close, resulting in job losses, repeat this for anything which could be affected, with no furlough it would literally be that.


It's also pretty fair to suggest that a lot of the NHS, unions etc, are relatively Labour-leaning and don't like the Tories, so would definitely like to see what's in no doubt a right-leaning Tory government put under undue and perhaps unjust pressure.



The key point is that none of the key medical people such as Whitty and Vallance are yet calling for restrictions. These are the people the Government will listen to, and in their situation, it is definitely an advisory capacity since again they can only really advise on the situation with the virus itself, not the idea of "living with" the virus, which is something Whitty suggested some while back.



To me it seems unsurprising that with the levels of vaccination we have, with a variant which is now pretty transmissible and more so than the original (which wasn't too bad here either) the infection has shifted into primarily children (who aren't vaccinated) and adults who have chosen not to.

---------- Post added at 22:41 ---------- Previous post was at 22:36 ----------

I know they have to put a window on it but surely the follow up needs of known complex patients could mean the GP pops forward a longer time slot.


If someone (like me) who hasn't been to the GP for years on end presents with something relatively routine you'd expect the initial consultation would be a 10-15 minute job to gather info and stuff, but based on that if any follow up needs longer, then this should be longer - and if you're asking Mrs Scott with her bunions, piles, dodgy ticker and arthritic knees to come in for her pain next week, that this might take 30-45 mins, that's surely the time slot you say it needs to see her?



Maybe it's obvious to me but less so to others you adapt to the needs of the people you're serving?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Agreed, but longer time slots means seeing less patients…

Less doctors, longer time slots, less appointments

Re: Coronavirus
 

. . . and A&E taking up the slack, which is causing more problems.

2 aspirin, large brandy, fat joint . . doesn't cure you but who cares :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, I suppose it depends doesn't it (though you aren't wrong).


If you know that the appointment for Patient A will take 10 mins but the one for Patient B will be 40, but you can't allocate more than a 10 minute slot for each patient (which means you discard the obvious solution), do you then:
- force B out after 10 minutes, knowing that you're only 1/4 through the way, and that at the best case you'll still need that appointment time with them later anyway
- keep the appointment running ignoring the fact you're over time and that your schedule is full and you will be making all of your subsequent patients who are already waiting at least 30 minutes late. (Which is a cumulative effect on both your schedule through the rest of the day especially if you have more Bs - or even As who need longer - booked in, meaning you'll run late all day and end up finishing late)


Thing is, if you basically neglect patients' needs like anything else the situation can and probably will get worse and then you'll just put pressure on other areas of the NHS anyway due to it not being dealt with properly to begin with. And if they have lost staff (no matter what the cause) then this isn't going to be anything they can fix quickly as even a qualified medic who has completed their first course still then needs to take years specialising as a GP, Effectively you need to know a little about absolutely everything in order to push it down the right path later.


They could theoretically make up some of the more routine or simple tasks by using nurses to triage things before they get to a GP but then I suppose there's a shortage there too.


The working conditions probably aren't favourable - I think a lot of hospitals have their staff doing 12 hour shifts. Which is a long time in itself, when it's a busy job to do to start off, then you have the travelling to and from work, getting sleep before you have to do it again the next day, and the possibility that finishing late will erode your time between shifts anyway. Though given that a 48 hour week is only 4 shifts they probably get more clear days off, it might be better all round to reduce that time to 8 hours and rotate people more often, then they could have more rest between working times which would probably be less tiring and less of a deterrent to people wanting to work there.



The NHS has always had pressures especially at this time of year and needs help sorting them out, covid isn't going to realistically make the cause or effect any better or worse, last year what we saw was mainly covid and an almost eradication of breakouts of flu or noro or other seasonal illnesses which we might see again - but as a lot of vaccinated people probably won't get covid that badly but might get flu, we might see a lot of unvaccinated covid patients mixed in with a lot of flu patients and perhaps the odd few who have been vaccinated but it hasn't worked or the immunity has waned before they could get a 3rd jab... remains to be seen.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Watch out for those aspirin:nono:

Re: Coronavirus
 

The Prime Minister has said on many occasions now that measures will be introduced if hospitals would otherwise be overwhelmed, and that there is no sign of that happening yet.

He has also made it clear that current figures are completely in line with predictions, so we can draw from that the clear understanding that once those predictions are exceeded, consideration will be given for measures to be imposed.

Here is the PM's latest coverage that I am aware of.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ases-top-50000

[EXTRACT]

"The numbers of infections are high but we are within the parameters of what the predictions were, what Spi-M [modelling group] and the others said we would be at this stage given the steps we are taking. We are sticking with our plan.”

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes because he judged it so right with the initial lockdown. Weeks later than it needed to be which caused tougher measures and thousands of unecessary deaths, the most in Europe. You've got to question the credibility of someone who proudly brags about ignoring his own advice, shaking the hands of covid patients, then contracting covid and nearly dying himself. An expert in epidemiology he isn't or anything else, except a bit of pointless Latin.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why are you trying to justify your view of the government's arrangements by reference to what happened at the beginning of this pandemic when comparitively little was known about it? The comparison is even more perverse when you consider that the parameters now set are completely in line with the scientists' own predictions. So is your view that the scientists advising the government have got it wrong? You don't rate Prof Whittey then, who is on the same page?

I think your remarks are simply party political in nature and unrelated to the actual problem the government is grappling with. Anything the PM does will be wrong in your eyes. The PM makes a statement - so you have to disagree with it.

Good fun if you like that sort of game, I suppose.

[EDIT]

Maybe you should read this, Mr K.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ed-challenged/

[EXTRACT]

The first myth is that the UK has had the highest Covid death rate in Europe and that this is mainly due to locking down too late in both waves. While it is true that we were highest after the first wave, the situation has changed significantly. Ranked against EU countries, the UK is 11th on Covid deaths and 15th on excess deaths.

Many claim that thousands of lives would have been saved if we had locked down earlier in the first wave, but almost every country with a higher death rate than the UK did lock down early. This gave them very small first waves in spring 2020 but these were followed by very large second waves in the autumn/winter 2021.

Similarly, the claim that the UK made the same mistake in the second wave and that thousands died due to the failure to have a “circuit-breaker” lockdown last October isn’t supported by the evidence. Wales – which did have one – ended up with similar Covid and excess death rates to England.

The current myth is that the UK has the highest Covid rates in Europe now and this is due to our lack of vaccine passports and mask mandates. But these comparisons are flawed. First, because they are based on case rates and ignore the fact that the UK does a lot more testing (test positivity rates also need to be compared – the UK is about average). Secondly, because other countries are at different stages of their third waves and their immunity will wane later than in the UK because their vaccine programmes started later.

The other problem with this interpretation is that Scotland and Wales (which are more valid comparisons) kept their mask mandates and recently brought in vaccine passports, but their rates have been higher than England’s. (This is specifically about mandates – I voluntarily wear a mask in confined spaces and if I’m with anyone at high risk, and encourage everyone to do so.)

The next myth is that only restrictions or lockdowns bring down cases, hospital admissions and deaths. This is clearly not true given what happened in July and September when there were no restrictions and cases fell, most likely due to people voluntarily changing their behaviour in response to risk.

The last myth is that “going early and going hard” with restrictions is always better than waiting. Again, given what happened in July and September when a huge surge was predicted by many, that would have been the wrong advice. Cases actually fell significantly.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think it's right to say they need to sit tight for now. New infections are stabilising in terms of growth, half terms will probably help with this more, as will people now getting the right result on their PCR tests, once that is under control the numbers will probably drop again.



They need to get more steam with vaccinating teenagers and getting the third doses out to the older or more at risk.



All doing Plan A better, rather than doing Plan B, which is a slippery slope really.


Once you have people screaming for more restrictions, then them doing it, then they know that they just need to scream again and/or for more and they'll cave. It needs to be an easily measurable metric, in terms of the healthcare figures, e.g. so many hospital admissions in the last 7 days, plus above so many in hospital over the last 7 days, we'll discuss it. They may already have this planned out but not made public.



You can also guarantee that for some people Plan B won't be enough. Nor will introducing social distancing measures in places again or rule of 6. Even when we had restrictions last winter people saying that the lockdown wasn't tight enough.



Plus I don't have a great degree of confidence that Plan B will do much anyway.
- Masks - well, putting aside the debate on whether they actually work or not, even when the legal mandate was dropped and it became "personal choice" a fair amount of workplaces still seem to encourage that staff do especially when moving around, it's still encouraged to wear them in crowded situations like busy shops, and on public transport, if it was tightened then people using their common sense would drop out of it, and you'd get silliness such as a bus with 1 passenger on it wearing a face covering which isn't really protecting anyone else (and that's even assuming he has anything to protect people from to begin with).
- WFH - I think this is another thing where they haven't really relaxed the advice to work from home if you can, so it would only really make a difference to people who (or their employers have) asked them to go back either partially or in full.
- Covid passports - another controversial one since we know even double jabbed you can catch and spread the virus, albeit less than someone who isn't. Knowing someone you are letting in is vaccinated is one thing, knowing they aren't going to spread covid is another. It is also discriminatory on the grounds of age for those too young to get vaccinated or those with health conditions who have been advised not to by their doctor or whatever, who will presumably need a "negative test" fall back.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Said it was levelling off.


39962 today down from 45140 last week and a lot lower than some of the days in between too.


If we can get(keep) it under control in kids and Bristol then no need to do anything drastic.


My other worry about Plan B is how we exit it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Indeed.

Sooner or later we have to move from preventing the spread of covid to learning how to live with it. It is never going away, and I am curious to know what those who think we should rush back to restrictions, think the exit plan should be.

The scientists who say restrictions will reduce spread are stating the obvious (or at least it’s obvious to us now we’ve been at this for 18 months) but they are speaking from their own expertise, to their own area of expertise. They are concerned with epidemiology, or resource management in the NHS, but they aren’t factoring in issues like the long-term mental well-being of those facing further prolonged separation from loved ones or activities that give their lives meaning and they aren’t factoring in the long-term effect on the economy. Nor should they; there are other experts for that.

It is the politicians job to listen to the expert views from all angles and then devise policy that balances those views for the good of the nation as a whole. The politicians are not necessarily getting it wrong just because they don’t do everything one group of experts wants.

Here in Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon is still furiously virtue signalling and demanding everyone keeps wearing masks in shops, schools etc; in my experience there’s about 60-70% observance of this in major shopping centres but easily less than 15% observance at the university I have just left (but which I now work next door to) and in office and warehouse environments I have visited recently there is next to zero observance at all. Everybody knows we are in the endgame now and that sooner or later we’re all going to catch it. If we’re going to get used to anything, it should be repeated cycles of vaccination and (hopefully) mild infection.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm sure some people would have us trying to fight nature for years.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The important thing is that the vaccination is turning people getting it, spending months on a ventilator and maybe dying into people getting it and having a week or so in bed with a cold. Yes, some people will be more severely ill, but these will always slip through as the immune system isn't perfect nor is a vaccine.


As for masks, well yes there is no doubt they do have some effect but it's likely overstated in terms of a policy regarding mass mask wearing whenever out of the house, as has been dictated in some parts of Aus.



Probably the most useful aspect of mask wearing (aside from virtue signalling) is that it will reduce the spread from someone who has covid, but then, if you think you have covid because you have symptoms of it, you shouldn't be out the house anyway, and should be isolating and getting a PCR test. So the only real benefit would come from people who are either completely asymptomatic, are shedding the virus before getting symptoms, or have symptoms but don't think it's covid. In all these cases being vaccinated reduces the chance of this anyway. You could quite easily swap the masks with saying that people might be best to do a LFT every other day or indeed any day you're going somewhere where you're likely to be with a lot of people meaning the chances of having an asymptomatic infection is reduced.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s the only way now. Those that want and need the vaccine have had it, 80% of the population aged 12+ Have had it.

Over 8.5 million have had the infection and got over it.

Continue with boosters and annual vaccinations and get on with our lives.

It’s not gone, it’ll never be gone, but it’s no longer the threat it was.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yet still the siren voices keep telling the government to implement plan B. It really is pathetic. Nice to see the government is holding firm on their current stance.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well you say it isn't going away but if we look to past pandemics they have done just that, hope for the best, plan for the worst might be best right now.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Everyone has their own view though on what the answer is, presumably based more on what they know.


So yes, if you ask people in the NHS what they think, they will say that you need lower levels to reduce hospital admissions so there's no-one in hospital with covid, so you need measures like social distancing, WFH, closing businesses, lockdown to achieve that. It'd be difficult to suggest how you can manage that though without having an impact somewhere else. But when you're working between 7-7 and have to do the same the next day you're either sleeping during the day or working with the other when you're not and probably don't have the schedule to go socialising in a pub nor are you aware of the impact there. They're not wrong but it's just one side of the die. And let's not forget how much there is militant unionism in these environments which don't really like any government let alone one which is right-wing by tory standards.


Ask a retailer or someone who owns a restaurant and they'll say they need more normality like no WFH, maximum table capacity, no face masks, so they're not restricted by who they can serve and don't need to reduce staffing or use furlough to cover the temporary issues. They are right too as if SD means you need to reduce your table capacity by 50% to keep them 2m apart then that's half the income you can make in an evening and also that means half the jobs...



People purely motivated by the impact on the public purse will say that restrictions cost us anyway whether it's furlough or in UC because people have been laid off, business rates holidays, less tax from alcohol sales, etc etc.


The media are jumping on this memo about invoking Plan B to the council leaders but is this not necessarily just an honest attempt to get feedback? Otherwise they might say the gov isn't listening to them. It's a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.


But unlike a lot of the others, the government (who let's face it aren't clinicians, that's one reason why they have Whitty and Vallance) need to decide based on what everyone says on what the overall effect is, and if that necessitates within reason a trade off between the economy and controlling the virus, then they will have to decide how much each takes a hit.


Given that there is a possibility that over the next few days we may be over this peak, which I guess will naturally happen when it's ripped through enough of the kids anyway, you can see the benefit in actually sitting tight but making preparations to move into Plan B or whatever if it isn't doing that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You also got to factor in the fact that the majority of the public think and act like it has all gone away.

So as things are no one really struggles except the NHS. They are not important are ? ICU is not really that crucial is it? Well no, not until you get really sick with Covid or have a serious fall and head injury or suffer a stroke, break your back or have some sort of heart attack. Some hospitals are reporting ambulance queues of course not important unless it happens to be you or someone you care for needing one urgently and might die waiting ( not aimed at you but at everyone )

Of course I get the flamed for this kind of emotive post, I have before in this thread but I care about others, not just those I know I do not want anyone to suffer when it can be avoided

---------- Post added at 21:05 ---------- Previous post was at 21:03 ----------

How many hundreds of years did Smallpox kill people ?? and what was it that ended that? it certainly was not sitting back hoping it will go away or hoping for herd immunity. It was vaccines and far too many are refusing to have it to beat it

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, but how far does this end up going? I get the point of saving lives but there is more to consider than that. And there is more to consider than covid pressures on the NHS, which always struggles due to seasonal viruses in winter, and with resources, waiting lists etc.



And how far do you lock down society because the NHS has issues doing its job (which aren't necessarily the fault of society but may be NHS internal politics) and where the actions taken or not probably won't have a huge impact on the NHS anyway.


Let's not forget that for now hospital admissions are nowhere near either the March/April 2020 peak, or the Oct-Feb peak, and are showing no signs other than flutter at the moment. Yes people will be going in with other things and yes partially this is a side effect of going back to normal as opposed to spending most of the time staying at home but it's down to the NHS to prioritise this.


If for example we have a hospital taking in a covid patient but they don't know it because they haven't tested them on admission and they're in for something else, or that they do have covid but don't isolate them, and they infect all the others around them, then the impact of this is not related to any actions or inactions taken outside the hospital, so any restrictions on the community in general would have done nothing to prevent this from happening, it was a failure in the admissions process not to have tested and isolated.


I think the reaction in general that it's largely over is totally understandable. Most people have supported measures, all 3 stay at home periods have been wholly justified, and disruptive on people's lives, livelihoods, mental health and who knows what else, for 18 months plus, and people have done the right thing following the rules (even though those setting them have been less keen to), staying at home, not socialising with their friends, not seeing friends and relatives at all, shopping from home, working from home, not visiting pubs and restaurants, wearing face coverings pretty much anywhere no matter how uncomfortable they are, acting like you have the virus to protect others, getting jabbed when it's your turn, all on the ticket of being sold freedom especially on the latter.



What you're saying isn't wrong at all - but it does fall under the trap of only looking at an isolated proportion of the response and its effects. Boris doesn't have that luxury.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You seem to be confusing pandemic with actual existance of the virus.
The virus is not going away, they never do (with one exception maybe).

It will no longer be a problematic pandemic as the masses become resistant to it.
At the risk of using the F word again, its becoming like the Flu, something you get a jab for every year.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think what you're trying to say is "becoming endemic" ;)


100% agree with you though

Re: Coronavirus
 

At the moment I'm having to repeatedly visit my GP surgery to have a nurse change a dressing. The waiting rooms are pretty much empty, and is with what must be more than 6 GPs. I had to initially see a nurse-practitioner instead. What are they all doing?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

raking in a fortune for making a few phone calls

Re: Coronavirus
 

So the vaccines are of no consequence to you?

Surely you can see the difference in the ratio of the number of infections compared with the number of hospitalisations?

The figures are exactly where they were forecast to be, so no need to panic, Mr Mainwearing.

Re: Coronavirus
 

How is sitting back and doing nothing hoping for the best but planning for the worst? I'd explain it as hoping it'll die our or mutate into something far less deadly in much the same way cow pox is less deadly than small pox to use your example whilst developing a vaccine and a sensible mandate for masks and distancing of course ymmv and you interpret it as sit back and do nothing.



I was thinking of all the different deadly flu strains like Russian, Asian and Hong Kong that are no longer with us, plus sars, H1N1, Spanish bird flu and the ones that whilst with us are controllable with drugs like aids and the plague.

---------- Post added at 00:52 ---------- Previous post was at 00:51 ----------

:zzz: whatever

Re: Coronavirus
 

From the information I have seen (I know it's Wikipedia so I'm sure there are other sources) 'Asian' flu turned into the Hong Kong flu so died out naturally, but both the 'Hong Kong' flu variant and the 'Russian' flu variant are still with us. However we have vaccines for them which will be part of the yearly programme.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957%E..._and_aftermath
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Russian_flu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_K..._and_aftermath

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

There are two Ebola vaccines that have been approved so far, and a couple more in development (so, good news…).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_vaccine

Re: Coronavirus
 

I expect they are all working from home making phone calls.

This new system is driving residents in my neck of the woods up the wall. This is not the kind of service they want at all. But, hey, the doctors like it so I guess we can all get stuffed.

---------- Post added at 10:39 ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 ----------

Yes, I didn’t think you’d have an answer! :D

---------- Post added at 10:46 ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 ----------

Yes, but what is it in the figures that lead you to suspect that suddenly the virus is going to go back on the rampage? If you are just going to keep these measures ‘just in case’, we will never be free of them. It is ridiculous to compare the situation now with the situation we were faced with before the vaccines came along.

These figures were predicted, everything thus far is going to plan. Most new infections are amongst young people, who are not turning up to the hospitals with worrying symptoms. Most don’t even know they have it. Therefore, you don’t need to worry about the number of new infections. The number of hospitalisations is the figure to watch, and as long as these numbers don’t show signs of increasing exponentially, everything is under control.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Hospitilisations are key but there is obviously a link between infections and the subsequent number of hospitilisations and deaths. An increase in infections will lead to an increase in the latter two - although obviously much, much smaller. Infections are a bit of a canary in a cage.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Infections are largely circulating amongst the young people, Andrew, whereas the bulk of hospital admissions are elderly or otherwise frail patients.

The infection rate is no longer as relevant as it was.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Absolutely, the more people who are vaccinated, the lower the link to hospitilisations and deaths as vaccinations focus on the most vulnerable first.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The (over) 200,000 people suffering from Long COVID whose may disagree with you…

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...k/7october2021

Or
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...-b1934861.html

Or
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-09-29...-covid-symptom

Re: Coronavirus
 

One of the interesting things about the covid vaccines and particularly the viral vector ones is that you could probably within reason put whatever RNA code you want in there. So that could in principle include a "signature" to allow recognition of a spike protein or similar antigen in an ebolavirus or even a cold, noro or HIV.



How effective it would be in reality, is why we have clinical trials.

Re: Coronavirus
 

2 families on our road now have 3 generations in hospital with severe symptoms of the virus. The first to show a positive test were their kids attending the same school.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There will always be spillover and always some for whom the vaccine doesn't work.


It's quoted as 95% effective against hospitalisations but that still means for every 100 people who get it that 5 will end up in hospital, but that's no doubt much better than without it.


They shouldn't be closing schools and won't admit otherwise but kids are absolutely super spreaders of covid. You can see this in the figures. But if kids go home or to their grandparents and either they're not vaccinated or their immunity has waned then they will get it too and it will also easily spread between unvaccinated kids sat in a classroom all day.


No doubt this trend is likely to continue and spillover into older groups is being watched, until either enough kids have been vaccinated or had covid to slow it down.


The kids themselves will likely be fine if they get it though. And the effect of it spreading into other groups will be lessened by vaccines.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Long Covid . . the successor to 'Post-viral Fatigue', which has been around for years.

Covid 19 is obviously worse than a bad bout of the flu and has probably affected more people (the Flu figures have been lower) which gives a higher incident rate of Post-viral Fatigue, but it's nothing new.

https://theconversation.com/what-is-...rvivors-146851

Re: Coronavirus
 

You are referring to a problem that is caused by contracting infection without the benefit of the vaccine. These people were, in the main, infected before the vaccine programme kicked in.

The number of people impacted should decrease as more get vaccinated. There are still too many refuseniks out there who seem to have a death wish. That’s on them.

---------- Post added at 13:26 ---------- Previous post was at 13:20 ----------

Long Covid is horrible and can ruin lives. Following through on the Covid jabs, however, should prevent this in the vast majority of cases.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well that's hardly a surprise considering your post couldn't have misrepresented mine harder if it tried, still it was a valuable contribution well made :erm:

---------- Post added at 15:51 ---------- Previous post was at 14:11 ----------

Iirc Ebola isn't an airborne virus, thank goodness

Re: Coronavirus
 

I apologise if that was the case, but that post you quoted here was in answer to yours, which said ‘Whatever’!

Obviously that word means something different to you than it does to me!

The point I was alluding to which generated your response was simply to point out that the consequence of that many infections before the vaccines was completely different to the situation we now face.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why would they disagree that the infection rate is not the best metric on which to be making decisions about further measures.

Just because they've had COVID, doesn't make them illogical.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Except it hasn’t. The ratios have changed, however the consequences of increasing infections is increased hospitalisations and increased deaths.

Which is why the Government are acknowledging Plan B as an inevitability.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY View Post

Infections are largely circulating amongst the young people, Andrew,


Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY View Post
You are referring to a problem that is caused by contracting infection without the benefit of the vaccine. These people were, in the main, infected before the vaccine programme kicked in.

You don’t say what your point is, Hugh, so I will have to guess.

While most infections are circulating amongst largely unvaccinated young people, most will not even know they’ve had it or will only develop mild symptoms. If we want to eliminate long Covid cases from the extremely small cohort of young people who might contract it, then we should vaccinate them.

Your approach to the successful vaccination programme appears to be ‘Never mind, let’s carry on with restrictions’. That is perverse and substantially negates the imperative to get vaccinated in the first place.

---------- Post added at 16:08 ---------- Previous post was at 16:06 ----------

Whatever!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ah the Old Boy head in sand approach. A timeless classic.

Can I ask what you have to gain from crashing into another lockdown that you seem dead set upon? You’re the most vociferous proponent of letting the virus circulate, maximising hospitalisations and deaths in the process with no real evidence that it will return us to a 2019 economy.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s a shame you didn’t see the funny side of that! :D

Ah, well, never mind. The obvious point I was making is that you cannot equate the number of infections now with the number of infections back then.

The infection rate is having only a relatively small impact on hospitalisations, but still you run across these forums shouting “Fire”! It is quite an over-reaction.

We must keep our eye on the number of people going into hospital, it is true, but the government will not introduce restrictions on the public unless it is clear that failure to do so would lead to the NHS being overwhelmed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nobody is equating the numbers of infections then (previous waves)with now.

What they are doing is comparing figures with last week, last month, etc. Where the metrics are going up across the board.

Vaccinations don’t make figures from last week incomparable with this week, or last month with this month. The numbers of additional people benefitting from vaccination in that time is negligible, and more likely to be among age groups highly unlikely to be hospitalised or die anyway.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I thought the point was obvious - you stated people caught long COVID because they weren’t vaccinated, but had previously said current infections were mainly amongst younger people (who are/were unvaccinated), QED it is likely that young people would be getting long COVID.

Now you’re doubling down by stating even if they do get long COVID, it won’t be many of them? You don’t have to have had severe COVID to get long COVID.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-h...nfected-study/ Can I ask how you know it is an "extremely small cohort", please?

Re: Coronavirus
 

36,567 new positive tests today, well below last Monday's figure, and the 4th successive day of decline, 2nd in a row where this has been significant.



If this carries on for the next week (and it probably will given we know where the issues are) then it will be in a much better situation without doing anything else.


Boris is right to wait, for once.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So far, the metrics relating to hospitals show a slight upward fluctuation, but nothing to worry about yet. That is set to decline again from a news report I heard recently, and if that happens, there is no need to panic.

If the graphs start to show signs of going steadily upwards, we may need to consider the position again, but until or unless that happens, no further restrictions are necessary.

By the way, that’s what the government and Whitty think as well, so that’s good enough for most people.

Re: Coronavirus
 

With the best will in the world OB, given your stance throughout has been that mass infection isn’t a problem forgive me for not finding your analysis from a single speculative news story particularly reassuring.

Well consider me fully reassured given their track record of responding too late.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Pretty sure what they previously said wasn’t good enough for you - you were quite vociferous in your disagreement… ;

Re: Coronavirus
 

The key point is that hospitalisations tend to lag new infections by a week or two. The proportion has just gone down but the shape of the curves is still similar.



The trend in infections is now declining and has been for a few days, but this time last week it was going up.

Expect hospitalisations to do something similar.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

It depends why infections are falling. All things being equal - yes. However the problem with the mass infections in school strategy is that while it’s easy for the figures to come down (there’s only so many susceptible schoolchildren left) the onward transmission into other age groups won’t be as easy to curtail and that’s where the hospitalisations and deaths are happening.

Re: Coronavirus
 

A few days can be a long time with this but they do need to be in possession of the trends and consider multiple angles which even Whitty and Vallance don't. When your decisions could affect all sorts of things it's important you take time to decide what is the right course and what the exit plan is if you do tighten things.

We don't need a repeat of last years tiers where they were keen to escalate measures but conversely didn't have a clear de-escalation plan and ended up back in a full lockdown twice.


As for mass infection, well, isn't that what happens with most viruses? We don't do mass vaccination for flu, colds, noro, or other viruses, and don't lock down for them (aside for targeting flu jabs at the higher risk groups). For all of these they're just allowed to spread and people are advised to stay home if they have it. I suppose with covid it's different as without vaccination the death and serious illness risk is higher but the vaccine has reduced this, and aside from the risk of kids getting "long covid" (a term I still hate, it's post-viral effects same as you can get with other bad viruses) from the increased exposure, and that of spill over events into older people potentially evading vaccines, we aren't hugely far off allowing that to actually be the answer, or at least a potential outcome, not that anyone would actively encourage or condone it as an approach to take. Whilst we still have this level of hospital admissions we're still at the "best it doesn't happen" stage, but this is clearly what the boosters are designed to help with.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

They are clearly going to be (in the main):
- double-vaccinated adults for whom this protection isn't sufficient to stop them getting seriously ill, either because their immune system hasn't responded to it, enough, or because the vaccine just didn't work well enough
- adults who have had the opportunity to be vaccinated but have declined the offer
- adults who have been advised not to be vaccinated for various reasons but mainly medical (or else they will be in the above)
- kids with medical issues for whom getting covid would still be an issue.


You will see that the infection levels do seem to correlate with schools being open. When we had the first restrictions which eased over the summer then stayed low until the schools and universities went back, it then went out of control again, until the schools shut in January again and it went down again, but then when we got the delta in, along with schools reopening, it went up. You even saw it go down in Scotland first and then back up again and same with England a few weeks later with school holidays, and we're now seeing it go down again as it's half term.


You're right that it will eventually hit the buffers when it runs out of kids who haven't had it but we don't know how far this is and how much risk we have from spill over until it does.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The fact a decision is complex isn’t a justification to shirk responsibility, hope for the best and end up having to impose stricter restrictions anyway. Which is inevitable if this “wing and a prayer” approach that has served Britain so well to date is persisted with.

You may hate the term “long covid” but I’d hazard a guess those who suffer it might dislike it more?

In an area where elective hospital procedures are being cancelled and the military are supporting, people are being asked to avoid A&E unless “life threatening” I’d hazard a guess that the wait and see approach is doomed to failure.

Re: Coronavirus
 

They have had that kind of message pre-covid when hospitals are full of people throwing up across wards because they have a noro outbreak or if they have a lot in with complications of flu though.



Plus, avoiding A&E unless it's urgent is kind of the point of A&E isn't it? If you haven't had an accident and aren't seriously ill then you don't go, you go to a walk in or the doctor's or stay in bed. They don't need people turning up at any time or under any conditions who could be treated more effectively elsewhere which is presumably one reason why arrivals are triaged.


I get that the response is somewhat area-dependent too, and that one particular area is getting affected more than others at the moment (and that is a good reason not to make national restrictions) which can make the local healthcare system more pressured, but in terms of raw numbers of hospital admissions, it's not growing out of control (e.g. doubling every few days), it's marginally below the levels of last year (if it stays around the 1k mark a day it will probably be no major pressure) although last year it was on a much quicker upward curve than this, and still far below the levels of 4k odd a day we were seeing last January when the NHS really couldn't cope. There is no doubt figures relative to the capacity available which would show this quite easily. And as well if people aren't in hospital as long then this can influence a raw number anyway.

Re: Coronavirus
 

On a short term, localised basis. Yes. Not nationally, and not for the duration of winter which it will be unless something changes.

There is of course a massive range of “urgent” things that fall below “life threatening”. A broken arm or leg, for instance, would most definitely be urgent but fall beneath the benchmark of “life threatening”.

Hospital admissions can be problematic without falling into your, presumably completely arbitrary, criteria of

• Doubling every few days
• 4k cases a day

This is where presumably the inevitable Plan B comes into play. We know where both of your criteria land: lockdown.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The issues with Plan B is that it has effects to be annoying but isn't either targeted enough at where the issues are or hard enough to effect hospitalisations.


Given that it's a menu to select from and that maybe not all of it will be applied either...
- Face coverings - well they certainly don't work by themselves and don't have an effect if a non-infected person is in a shop by themselves. Given that the definition of where this could be used is still so vague "in some indoor settings" they could look at the most likely issues and say it's now expected again in schools and on PT where there will be a large number of kids mixing at certain times of the day.

- WFH - a lot of people are still doing this or at least most of the time. Some people can't do it at all and presumably they won't be closing these jobs off again (or determining what isn't essential) without reinstating furlough. Unlikely to have an effect in any case on transmission in schools, or family transmission between infected school kids and their parents, grandparents etc.
- Vaccine passports - Nigh on useless as being vaccinated doesn't mean you aren't going to get or spread covid. But there is admittedly a reduction which makes things safer. Also need to have some fall back for people who can't be vaccinated either because of medical reasons or age, but this again (like face nappies) would depend on the settings you mandate it in. But on the other hand, the settings which are most likely to be super spreader events (nightclubs for example) aren't usually frequented by people who are likely to be hospitalised if they catch covid.



Most of this admittedly depends on what we don't know as opposed to what we do (i.e. what measures they will use and how) but even if they told people who couldn't WFH they just go into work as normal and those who can do, and mandate face masks and vax passports in any public indoor setting, it's difficult to see this would go far enough at reducing transmission in the groups at risk to go to hospital with covid sufficiently. Probably the main effect would be that it would be annoying, and you could see a lot of people just not putting masks back on, for example, which would reduce their effectiveness.


Plus there's little point in Plan B at all if the cases continue to dip as they are. That is the most likely way that hospitalisations will drop maybe in a week or so as they usually do.


Yes, they were arbitrary as the figures from last year don't take account of the vaccination effect, but you'd be sure that Whitty and Javid would have some form of measurement which indicates "danger"...

---------- Post added at 17:54 ---------- Previous post was at 17:52 ----------

I suppose the two key questions for invoking Plan B otherwise would be:
1. When and how would you remove these restrictions once cases and hospitalisations do drop
2. What would be the next stage if it has no effect, how would this be measured to ascertain the need for more restrictions and what would be appropriate tightening, and again, what would the exit plan be

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's not that simple. As I said before, the vast majority of infections (which means no more than a positive test) are in younger people, who are not going into hospital with this in any great numbers.

---------- Post added at 18:09 ---------- Previous post was at 18:06 ----------

And of course the onward transmission group are largely double-jabbed.

---------- Post added at 18:15 ---------- Previous post was at 18:09 ----------

My stance on mass infection at present is indeed as you say, but that was not the case prior to the vaccination programme.

I think you are mistaking what I said when the coronavirus was emerging in this country. I didn't say it was not a problem back then, but that we had to let it pass through the population because a lockdown would only pause the spread.

I think subsequent events have proved that lockdowns alone do not stamp out the virus.

---------- Post added at 18:17 ---------- Previous post was at 18:15 ----------

Hospitalisations have increased only marginally. Infections are already falling so far. Why the concern, other than to be argumentative?

---------- Post added at 18:21 ---------- Previous post was at 18:17 ----------

They are now in line with my point of view, and Prof Whitty is a person that most sensible people believe does not have an agenda as some of his colleagues do. That's why I mentioned him.

---------- Post added at 18:26 ---------- Previous post was at 18:21 ----------

You criticise those of us supporting the current government approach as 'hoping for the best'. However, you have presented very little in the way of figures to support your risk-averse approach. Clearly, you are 'hoping for the worst'.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The thing is, none of us can see where this is going. All of us can suggest where it might but that's not going to necessarily be right.


With the benefit of hindsight those who are saying we need restrictions now may well be right, this downward trend over the next few days may turn into a spike again when the kids are back, we need more than Plan B by that stage as everyone's vaccines drop like scales from Saul's eyes, and the hospitals have to treat people in the street.


Or we could see that this trend is the buffers, cases dip and go back to very low levels (<1000 a day), hospitalisations and deaths become almost unheard of.



Both of those are extreme and unlikely to happen any time soon though.


In all likelihood the SAGE modelling will probably be over-pessimistic as it usually has been, though even that is suggesting now that the current measures will be enough.


I wasn't really posting on here during the earlier stages but I don't need hindsight to tell you that I was in favour of all three periods of national restrictions, a week or so before, and tighter controls internationally, along with faster roll out of the vaccines. I just don't see that anything in the current trends suggests it is suddenly going to roar out of control.


And people will always use their common sense, or enough will anyway, and lessen their activities, work from home, wear masks more to control it anyway. We don't need the government to tell us this. All the Labour people should be following the leader and doing it now he's finally committed to today's Plan B stance...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Unfortunately, a reasonably large percentage of the U.K. population don’t have common sense…

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not wrong.


But you would expect sufficient do. Especially in high infection areas.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Do you have a link for that, Hugh? :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

None of which was relevant to my original post, asking if vaccines mean anything etc wtf was that all about, in fact don't bother, life's to short

Re: Coronavirus
 

I said that because your post did not appear to take into account the impact the vaccination programme is making.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, September 2020 Boris told people to use "common sense" and then the infections & hospitalisations rocketed…

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news...-east-19026349

On a related note re links…

;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

As I recall, Hugh, that’s because the new Kent variant was much more infectious than the dominant variety in the UK at that time. Nothing to do with the public not having common sense.

---------- Post added at 20:10 ---------- Previous post was at 20:06 ----------

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-b1880583.html

Your search skills seem to be letting you down, Hugh!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, however that only means they are at lower risk than previous waves. The risk across the whole population isn’t zero or even insignificant. Which is why we, and other countries, are approving booster doses.

Neither, evidently, does the vaccination campaign.

As I say, where hospitals are cancelling all elective surgery, military supporting and telling people not to come to A&E is not indicative of a health service coping.

There’s no real reason to believe they are right because you agree. If anything, it makes me more concerned that you agree with them, not less.

Suggesting mitigation to avoid the worst is, self evidently, not hoping for the worst.

I’m not sure I need figures to evidence that mitigations work that we can look at the many countries who have successfully implemented them and look at their contrasting outcomes.

At least when Plan B is implemented, and all these mitigations are reintroduced, you will be on board because Whitty says so.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not as badly as yours, it seems, as there is nothing in that article regarding "extremely small cohort" of long COVID (or at all), and the data was from February, before the Delta Variant struck…

Regarding "common sense", I’m sure you’ll remember last September, Boris said that ‘common sense’ is the ‘single greatest weapon’ against the coronavirus. In October, as cases soared in the second wave, Boris told people to ‘live fearlessly but with common sense,’ dismissing the case for a two-week ‘circuit-breaker’ lockdown - he announced a four-week national lockdown a few weeks later. In late November, he assured us that a regional ‘tier system’ guided by ‘common sense’ would end the need for national lockdowns; in February, during a three-month national lockdown, Johnson said the tier system was no more…

The problem with the Government saying "use common sense and take personal responsibility" is that they can then blame the population when things go wrong…

Anyhoo, back to our home-grown Kent Variant - I’m interested in your reasoning of why the Kent Variant overcame peoples’ "common sense"?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think the general point was more that restrictions and what people were doing was probably more likely to have carried on working with the 3 tier system and whatever mitigations we had. (Which I don't agree is correct, I'll go into that later). But when we had the new variant which let's not forget took control in what people would call "lockdown" (even though we were under some form of such from March all the way to this July) and then spread over December pretty much unchecked in the SE and then over the whole country due to Christmas mixing and then the whole country basically being put in tier 4, then took some while of lockdown to get down again. So the "commonsense" measures had to be replaced by something formal because they didn't work. But this wasn't anyone's fault really I don't think let alone Johnson's and I don't really agree with the suggestion anyway.


But let's be clear here. Lockdown I and subsequent easing did work, it worked without masks, it worked with staying at home, thinking of others, and keeping your distance when you were out. We weren't doing so much testing then, but correlate to hospitalisations and then look at the rough proportions we did get it under control but then allowed foreign holidays. So it spiked again in Europe and people brought it back. That stage perhaps shouldn't have been allowed, we then get the spike of younger people who'd been away going back to school, university, work etc.


These autumn measures from last year look very similar to what slippery slope some think we should go down now, in that they were never going to control it.


So we had masks in shops in July, about 2 weeks after a lot had opened (but not freely - we still had distancing, and a lot of things like singing in churches was restricted to defined groups only, this only got lifted this July), then rule of 6 from early September, which was never going to work, which then became the lowest tier, no way that was going to keep anything in check because there was no herd immunity (nowhere near) and no protection for a susceptible population, with no ability really to get a test either. Tier 2 restrictions were probably not enough either, given that the main restriction on there was banning indoor mixing entirely. Tier 3 didn't do much either other than cripple hospitality with the "substantial meal" rule. None of it worked, and even the tightened 2nd version led to a 4th tier going in front of it. It was also easy for them to escalate but there wasn't a clear motive to de-escalate - Nottm had the highest rate in the country when the universities went back, it calmed down there but then spread over the wider city area, so they were eventually going to put 4 areas of Notts as well as the city into tier 3, but then looking at the stats, they then put the whole county in instead, after some delay - if it's bad enough to consider it do it then and then add the rest later. Like red listing countries which was also too slow. In the mean time they had worked hard here to get the levels down but then Hancock wouldn't change it "in case it went back up" so the tiers basically became an excuse to add more restrictions on more areas until we had national stay at home again. It didn't work, and you can see the same dithering around and the same poking with no de-escalation with "Plan B". I think that even tier 1 was a lockdown of some sorts (face coverings, rule of 6, curfews on hospitality) and then you consider places like Leicester were never taken out of restrictions in July 2020 and then a lot of the NW was put under more later. It was also a bit vulnerable to political posturing from people like Andy Burnham - whose point about supporting affected businesses I totally agree with, but wasn't the time to argue with lives at risk. The situation is much different now, but yet we look to fart about with half-arsed measures which most of us are already doing.



Not to mention that I doubt in some cases even the "tier 4" controls would stop Delta quickly. Given the vaccines it does have to - within reason - be allowed to run its course a bit.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well it would be a drastic diversion from your usual position, to not provide any evidence whatsoever, ever, ever, ever,………………..ever, to back up any of your assertions.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think you mean *IF*, not 'when'. ;)
There is currently no indication its going to be implemented.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Indeed.


Especially given that over the last few days there has been a marked decrease in new infections.


Although we don't know if this trend is due to continue, given that we do know some potential reasons behind the infection figures, and that these are now under control more, there's no indication that trend is unlikely to continue at least until the schools are all back from half term.



The important thing is that the Government shouldn't cave in to people demanding restrictions if they don't believe that overall they are the right thing. The NHS asking for it is logical as more restrictions being there will definitely ease pressure on the hospitals but for a relatively lower level of hospitalisations it is less obvious a decision to make overall.


Starmer is finally doing his job and supporting it for now probably to make the gov think. But what he (and Ashworth) should be doing is challenging their counterparts, saying what in the figures don't justify Plan B if they don't believe it is right now, and what they think will justify it. Even if he does agree with them, if he is making them justify it he is making them think and challenging their decisions.



There's no guarantee the measures will come in - they might do but we don't know what they are working to - and no guarantee they will actually work if they do.

Re: Coronavirus
 

When they say “now is not the time” that isn’t dismissing the idea altogether. We can only wait and see but the nuance between saying restrictions aren’t required to aren’t required *now* isn’t lost on me.

As I said earlier, wishful thinking hasn’t served the UK position well to date.

---------- Post added at 14:57 ---------- Previous post was at 14:55 ----------

Still here not caring, I see.

Grateful if you’d not selectively quote me I think you’ll find the complete quote was

Re: Coronavirus
 

Was making.

And much like your predictions what you said was completely wrong

Re: Coronavirus
 

Experts at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) have predicted that - even without the government's 'Plan B' - COVID cases, hospital admissions and deaths in England will peak in November and start to fall rapidly to much lower levels by Christmas.

According to their modelling, if the government reintroduces restrictions, delaying 'back-to-normal' behaviour until the spring, there will still be a drop in the coming weeks, but rates will rise again much faster next year.

Professor Paul Hunter, an epidemiologist at the University of East Anglia, told Sky News the modelling suggests the UK is close to 'endemic equilibrium'.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...gests-12444117

Re: Coronavirus
 

No matter how you try to spin it, the fact remains there is currently no indication Plan B going to be implemented.


As an aside, I notice Wales (which still requires masks) now has record case numbers, so thats obviously working well for them.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-59050903

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don’t know what the point is that you are making here, if there is/was one. You haven’t said what is/was wrong and frankly I’m not going to try to get blood out of a stone. I know there is/was none there to be squeezed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m not spinning anything - the language politicians use is important. It’s the difference between an “embarrassing climbdown” and “this was the plan all along”. I’m more than happy to revisit this at a later point rather than go round in circles.

Wales with masks having record numbers compared to Wales with masks plus restrictions greater than masks is completely unsurprising. Schools reopening without vaccination is having an affect all around the UK. If the rest of the UK follows Scotland where schools reopened first in August cases will come back down, but hospitalisations and deaths will remain high which is why the booster campaign is to important.

Across the UK the deaths figure reported today is the highest since March, and will likely be linked to case numbers 2/3 weeks ago. So pulling them back down slightly - due to half term in all likelihood - isn’t going to cut it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But the modelling suggests that the figures will go in the right direction with existing Plan A and that Plan B will make it worse. Only time will prove them right, but it's the best scientific advice out there. Therefore, we should go for it as there is no better option that I can see.

Don't forget that despite the four-tier lockdowns we had last year, the number of cases remained persistently high in some areas and went up and down in others. You have to wonder what real impact they had.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There’s one lockdown, there’s three tiers of varying restrictions that work to varying degrees despite your scepticism.

I don’t, at all, wonder about the impact of restrictions on case numbers. It has always been the case that if restrictions aren’t strict enough case numbers can continue to rise and that inevitably leads to lockdown.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If you can catch it again . . and again . . and again . . won't case numbers always be high?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Keir Starmer tests positive for Covid on Budget day and isolates for fifth time

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...=breaking-news

Re: Coronavirus
 

Which means . . I guess . . that there could be at this moment in time 1,000,000 people walking around with very mild Covid symptoms (or no symptoms at all) that they're putting down to just a cold or mild flu, and not bothering to get tested.

Therefore the number of 'reported' cases could well be the tip of a very large Covid iceberg.


Convenient . . does this mean he's now had Covid 5 times . . or just 'tested positive' 5 times?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Who knows,he may have been near someone who had it and had to isolate.but if he didn't have 12 jabs or whatever no we are up to now he could have had it 46 times.
And all that mask wearing did him the world of good.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But we don’t know for sure that the restrictions did work, or whether any perceived beneficial effects would have happened anyway.

The lockdown was clearly effective in lowering the numbers, but the later ‘four levels’ approach - we cannot be absolutely sure about that. I’m sure Andy Burnham would have something to say about that - his area had severe restrictions for many months and those figures just wouldn’t comedown.

Anyway, the situation now looks much brighter and the scientists are even predicting that the infection rate would be better with Plan A than Plan B. I’ll drink to that.

---------- Post added at 16:55 ---------- Previous post was at 16:53 ----------

He’ll cause less damage at home.

---------- Post added at 16:58 ---------- Previous post was at 16:55 ----------

Absolutely correct. He probably has no symptoms at all.

I would expect the virus to continue to circulate like this, but fortunately it can no longer wreak havoc. We must get used to it now and drop any remaining restrictions.

If they tested for flu, the population would doubtless be panicking about that now.

Re: Coronavirus
 

This is a nonsense. There’s plenty of scientific evidence to support the impacts of all of the measures on the R number. These are the basis for the Government Plan B, presumably endorsed by Whitty et al who you were quick to talk up a mere few posts ago.

Is there a source for this claim you keep trotting out because the Government don’t sound so sure on that to me.

As for Andy Burnham the question must be why his region is the exception, not the rule.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Latest from CDC.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm

Re: Coronavirus
 

In English?

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...gests-12444117

[EXTRACT]

Coronavirus cases could fall significantly in November without any restrictions being reintroduced, modelling seen by the government suggests.

Experts at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) have predicted that - even without the government's 'Plan B' - COVID cases, hospital admissions and deaths in England will peak in November and start to fall rapidly to much lower levels by Christmas.

According to their modelling, if the government reintroduces restrictions, delaying 'back-to-normal' behaviour until the spring, there will still be a drop in the coming weeks, but rates will rise again much faster next year.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I had my Booster Jab on Saturday, no doubt there will be another Jab next year