Re: Coronavirus
 

This is what happens anyway when you try and flatten the curve.


What people who are always in favour of this don't remember is that your integral under the curve has to be the population. So once you have successfully flattened it initially, you have to release, and your subsequent infection lifts the next infections to the same level if not higher if the virus is still around. We saw that last summer having basically got rid of covid via distancing and closing things, we then allowed things to open, nothing happened until we allowed more foreign holidays again and people brought the virus in from Spain and Greece again to a largely susceptible open population.


Of course, one doesn't need to explain what happened next and needed more curve flattening last winter to stop it. We now have more protection with infection and those who have had the vaccines, of course.


So restrictions now, will probably (along with other effects) bring the virus down more than the natural (also downward at the moment) trend, but risks a more severe peak again. If it can be allowed to let it happen now, then it probably would be the best thing provided the NHS doesn't get too overwhelmed.


Let's not forget we're now around a week where the infections have been lower than the equivalent day the week before, which is promising.

---------- Post added at 12:45 ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 ----------

Interesting how they've reached that conclusion.


Considering the amount of people who are double jabbed here are still getting some infection (even if it's usually milder) this implies there isn't sufficient immunity there. But you see it much less that people who have actually had covid are getting it again.


I guess it depends on the detail, samples they were looking at, and that we still don't understand the longer term yet with the virus.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Interestingly, those paragraphs don’t actually say what you claim they do. There’s no comparison of the overall number of infections under both models, nor hospitalisations or deaths.

In other news the behavioural scientists and sociologists of the JCVI have finally released the minutes of their May meeting confirming the strategy of using mass infection of children to boost immunity in the population. Little wonder they held off on publication until after the strategy had been carried out, rushed out on a Friday night to be buried under COP 26 coverage.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Did you not see the graphs in that item, jfman? Come on, pay attention!

---------- Post added at 20:17 ---------- Previous post was at 20:15 ----------

It makes sense. The virus has minimal impact on children, and we need to get to…you know…herd immunity. :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Tell that to the parents of the kids who were hospitalised or have died.

“We did have a vaccine but decided your kids health and wellbeing was less important as we chased a pipe dream through mass infection”

Re: Coronavirus
 

Oh, we’re stooping to that level now, are we? I notice you haven’t commented on the graphs.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Models have been wrong before.

I’m not stooping anywhere - essentially the recommendation overruled by the CMOs was for mass infection. Which has consequences.

We are back to where you’ve always been that deaths and hospitalisations are a price worth paying for the pipe dream of a return to 2019. Despite widespread availability of highly effective (and safe) vaccines for children.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Except….oh, never mind. The words hind legs and donkeys flashed into my head.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not your most insightful post, I’ll be honest, OB.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Strange fantasy, but each to their own, I suppose… :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm old enough to remember something called 'Muffin the Mule' :erm:

I highly doubt it would get aired today :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

16 in 2020 and only 1 under the age of nine, and even then you don't know if they had co-morbidity issues.

17 so far in 2021 under the age of 14, again with not knowing other health factors.

only around 33 for the whole pandemic.

I'd like to see how those numbers stack up against all other causes of child death.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/trans...covid19intheuk

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...nglandandwales

As usual JFmans attempt to take a higher moral stance is mute.

Still

Those recent comments haven't aged well.

No doubt, when a new strain appears in 2027 and measures have to be taken, he'll claim he was right. There's no time frame with "inevitable" is there?

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s early days for Plan B, Pierre I’d not count your chickens as you did with the schools reopening in January so your point is moot.

A number of deaths that are avoidable through vaccination, plus the implications for wider spread of community transmission. I’d certainly prefer to have my moral stance than indifference to the long term health impacts and deaths resulting from Covid-19.

I don’t think anyone would credibly claim 2027 is Plan B from 2021. It’s clearly a reference to winter. School mid-term offers some respite, but that will not last.

Re: Coronavirus
 

This depends though surely. Ministers, the new health body, Whitty/Vallance etc will all be looking at the data.


If a measure is likely to have an impact on the virus and is not likely to have other effects which are disproportionate to it, it's likely it will get invoked either in a local/targeted way or on everyone - for example it would be difficult to lock down businesses and the country for the sake of infections which could be controlled more specifically e.g. restrictions in a local area.


I don't think we're looking yet at saying that Plan B will either happen or that we will be fine sticking to the current measures. Most schools have had either this last week, the week before, or both off, and that appears to be the age group and environment which is worst affected. As we have already seen before whenever the schools are open it spreads and whenever they are not it goes down. So the effect of this continuing depends on how many schoolkids are already immune to covid. Once it reaches the threshold it will slow down and stop spreading but this figure isn't going to be known due to the asymptomatic spread more early in the pandemic and also that testing has not until recently been widely available. I do think that a while back Whitty did say around half secondary age kids had already had it and that the remaining half will do. Given that it's now relatively easier to get a vaccine (they are allowing 12+ to book nationally finally) this will probably pinch that age group further. That's still Plan A.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The models show Plan B would make the number of infections worse, so I don’t understand why you are willing us all to go to Plan B. Where is your source for this belief of yours?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Covid has evolved into a religion, all it's followers need is faith.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m not willing anything - I’m telling you it’s inevitable there’s a nuanced difference.

Considering the amount of deeply held (and inaccurate) beliefs you’ve spouted through this thread it’s somewhat ironic that you ask others to evidence theirs.

Hospitalisations continue to rise, deaths continue to rise. That has an inevitable outcome.

A model (I note you say “models” but you have only sourced one) is just a prediction - without knowing how their inputs align with the real world (waning efficacy, reinfections, booster efficacy and rollout) it’s impossible to have one held up as sacrosanct.

I think according to the models in the Spectator we’ve hit herd immunity three times now.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Probably would have without the Delta variant and maybe even without Alpha before it.


When it's more transmissible, and has a higher R number, you need more people for herd immunity.


Delta does seem to be very good at seeking out unvaccinated and people who haven't had the virus.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Sounds like the British Exceptionalism that got us into this mess.

It’ll go away in the summer, being my favourite.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Hospitalisations are no higher than they were on "Freedom Day".

Deaths are up from that date but neither metric is showing an exponential upturn that would scream action.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Considering we had just delayed “freedom day” three weeks I’m not sure that’s the great barometer you think it is.

Let’s face it you have never considered action - however little - to be warranted. Rises don’t have to be exponential to overwhelm NHS capacity either. Exponential rises would mean it would happen quicker. Other factors - like flu - mean winter isn’t equivalent to summer. It’s a moot point.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Just follow the commandments
1 thou shalt not leave home
2 thou shalt not work
3 thou shalt not have human contact
4 follow the teachings of the great sage.........

Re: Coronavirus
 

Thou shalt not spend £5000 a year to get into London then £10 on lunch to keep Pret alive.

Separately, and interestingly, the Daily Mail graphs of the London School of Hygiene and Tripical Medicine Plan A vs Plan B say something differently from what OB portrays.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...crackdown.html

The best case scenario - “people remain cautious for a year” doesn’t sound like a normal economy to me.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As they say in business praise the board.;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Interesting cognitive disassociations being displayed in this thread.

"Scientists don’t know what they’re doing, wanting to vaccinate school kids with a new vaccine without knowing what the long-term effects might be".

and

"Scientists know what they’re doing, allowing COVID to rip through school kids without knowing what the long-term effects might be".

:confused:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Now that Margaret Thatcher's neo-liberalism has been buried and replaced by Boris's high-tax, high intervention state, some are yearning for free market days. The closest they'll come to it is by not wanting children vaccinated so they're willing this to happen.

Well, that's my explanation to explain the contradiction you've noted. Other explanations may exist.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Bloody scientists:mad:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Bloody Forums :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Applies the same way to the other scenarios though doesn't it.


Scientists don't know what they're doing, allowing Covid to rip through school kids without knowing what the long term effects might be - we've already heard of plenty of parents whose kids have also struggled with longer covid type thingies (still really post viral stuff) despite not having been too badly ill with the virus. So you could also say that is true even if it does contradict naturally the 2nd statement, which is probably more based statistically than anything else in that it is known with as much degree of confidence that you'd expect in a virus which has only been around about 2 years that kids don't usually get seriously ill and don't usually go to hospital and die. But still, not known fully.


The main problem is that though there are several options to solve the spread in school kids none of them are a total win scenario.


You could let it rip, but that means more kids ill, more risk of complications, more risk of spill over into adults such as parents, staff, other family members, people who work in shops etc.

Vaccinating kids is a pandora's box and even the JCVI weren't confident which way to go. The risk to the kids of the virus complications is generally lower than adults and the risk of other complications from the vaccine such as heart issues in young teen lads, is much higher than adults, which stacks opposite to the argument for adults where risks of vaccine complications are much lower than risks of the virus (and probably lower in the example situation I mentioned than with kids). And given that the vaccines are predominantly effective against hospitalisation, which doesn't happen in kids as much anyway, and less so against spread and mild illness, you're looking at the argument of "if it's effective enough to stop 1 kid in 30 getting covid at all that's 1 less missing school because of it" which is still a benefit but less marginal than if it was like for example 1 in 2.
You could close the schools, but that has longer term detriment potentially lifetime on their education and prospects no doubt more so than any effects from covid.


Scientists as you will no doubt be aware are all from different backgrounds and different specialism (you only need to look at who's on SAGE for this, we have a mixture of doctors, behavioural scientists etc etc) and of course different views. As the virus and knowledge of it evolves people will change their minds.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The JCVI minutes from May partially read like an anti-vaxxers manifesto.

If the EU, the Russians or the Chinese had state funded behavioural scientists on a committee justifying permitting unmitigated spread in children to boost population level immunity at the same time we were vaccinating kids we would be absolutely laughing our socks off at them.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s a sensible policy. Only a small minority of children are adversely impacted by actually getting the virus. Probably cancelled out by adverse reactions to the vaccinations.

Re: Coronavirus
 

We’ve been through this before.

The vaccine is very safe in children.
The virus is very safe in children.
But
Both the virus and the vaccine can cause serious illness in a very few cases
And
After two doses of the vaccine, in teenagers, the risk of complications rises more than the risk of infection falls.

So the major reason for vaccination of children is not to protect children but to protect the population from potential mutations in persistent wells of infection;
But
There are ethical questions around giving someone medicine that is not for their benefit, especially when there is a small, but present, risk that the medicine can harm them.

So is the benefit to the wider population compelling enough to impose an albeit small risk of complications on a child?

Resolving this question is a matter of medical ethics. It’s the reason why, on present evidence, we don’t vaccinate young children and we only vaccinate teenage children once.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s surely also a question of medical ethics to knowingly and wilfully expose the young to a disease for the purpose of boosting population level immunity?

It’s right there in the minutes that they’ve suppressed for months - removing the right of parents to make informed decisions before the schools returned and exposure was most likely to happen as mitigations and contact tracing were removed in schools.

It’s also surely a question of medical ethics why the CMOs all - almost immediately - overruled the JCVI non-decision they took months to make despite the MHRA approving the vaccines as safe and effective?

It is also a significant question of scientific ethics for a pseudo-regulator to make decisions and not publish their evidence base and rationale for peer review until after hundreds of thousands of infections have occurred off the back of it. -

---------- Post added at 14:47 ---------- Previous post was at 14:45 ----------

The evidence from around the world shows no such thing at all. However, evidence of the health implications of Covid-19 are always going to be dismissed by someone like yourself who has refused to acknowledge the health impacts since the very start.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m not sure whether it’s quite right to accuse anyone of “knowingly and wilfully” exposing anyone to covid when we are in a pandemic and it is already at large in the community. You make it sound like they’re swabbing kids with it during morning assembly.

That aside, inaction is a question of medical ethics as much as action is. Which course of actions causes less harm? The data says restricting use of vaccination in children causes less harm to the individual.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s in there in the minutes whether you consider it reasonable or otherwise. The basic principles of managing a pandemic - testing, contract tracing and isolating were removed from teenagers in this country (for the purpose of boosting population level immunity) at the exact same time vaccinations were rolling out to protect teenagers in others.

I fully expect you to continue to defend the indefensible, so I’m content to leave it there.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Isnt that pretty much how any virus works, and survives ?

---------- Post added at 15:20 ---------- Previous post was at 15:19 ----------

LOL, Classic JFM.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, but I meant more so than other viruses which aren't as transmissible, and even more so with other variants of covid which are in the same category.


I read before that people who are infected with Delta seem to replicate so much virus early on that the immune system can't get a response quickly enough (though it does eventually which is why you usually get the initial replication and some symptoms but not more in vaccinated people) and that they shed so much virus it infects others more. Given that they don't think it takes much to infect someone then they will be able to spread that more easily to others and of course people who have no immunity will get ill easier.


Probably a reason why it's spreading through kids more than usual and they're actually getting ill, if they have more virus in them at the time, then there will be more for the immune system to respond to.


I suppose win for a virus is one which spreads easily between hosts whilst not killing them or debilitating them to the extent they stop what they're doing.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Viral load, doesn't seem unreasonable to assume anything that cuts the load down, like a mask is probably a good thing!

Only problem with that is for this virus to mutate into that it actually has to evolve into an entirely new virus, which it may well do incidentally but I wouldn't bank on it

Re: Coronavirus
 

The better thing would not be to rely on whatever protection (which is nowhere near watertight) a mask offers.


Distancing - which means fewer people would get near whatever viral load someone is shedding - is effective.


As is testing and isolating if you have symptoms, and if you're in an environment where there's risk, doing lateral flow tests if you don't.


Much better people who have covid stay at home rather than relying on a mask to protect others. Unless it's a N85 or similar which actually do work, most people don't use them properly anyway, which makes them worse.


I'm still waiting for the person to explain the protection offered by someone walking into a pub, putting a mask on as they come off the street, walking to a table and sitting down with everyone else as it's table service, then taking the mask off, sitting in the pub chatting/watching the football/singing along to the music for a couple of hours whilst enjoying a few drinks and possibly some food, is actually a thing which works. Because to me it looks like the activities which are likely to generate aerosol are the seated ones cheering or singing or at the very least talking where the 30 seconds walking to your table is unlikely to infect anyone more.


Of course, if we all stayed at home all day every day and never went shopping, to work, or to anything else, it'd stop the viral load totally, but that's not workable.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What evidence? Our scientists disagree with you.

---------- Post added at 19:11 ---------- Previous post was at 19:09 ----------

Surely, because teenagers were rarely ill with it, and so there was no point. As I said earlier, it’s a balance of benefits isn’t it? Vaccinations also cause harm.

Re: Coronavirus
 

MPs told to mask up in Parliament.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59132968

Re: Coronavirus
 

More pointless panic. As a human race, we are all becoming like ducklings, following faithfully the mother of every panic fad that emerges.

How utterly depressing this is. When will people get back to thinking for themselves?

If they were really serious about preventing infection in the House of Commons, they’d take the roof off. :rofl:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Or work from home, as many office staff now do.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's not all or nothing - it's about graduated responses.

As has been proven, wearing a mask, as well as other options, reduces the chance of infecting others - why wouldn't people want to reduce the chance of infecting others?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yeah, yeah! Vaccinations….

Re: Coronavirus
 

No HazMat suits for life, it's the only way.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Another massive fall, under 30k positive tests recorded in England today. Schools will be back now though.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Got my booster and flu jab last night, so far no ill effects.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Just got a text reminder to book a flu jab at the local surgery.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Because its just pointless ?
Its a waste of time trying to avoid the inevitable.
Covid is not going to suddenly vanish, just like other common viruses, you're going to get it eventually.

Did they wear masks before Mar 2020, just in case they passed on the Flu, or Measles, or anything else at all ?

Its just turned into mindless paranoia now.
If they are fully vaccinated (as MPs should be) then they have no need to worry about getting infected.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I can just see the conversation in your local A&E…

Doctor - "I don’t understand why Mr OldBoy is so seriously injured - the Police said the car crash he was involved in was at under 30 miles per hour?"

Mrs OldBoy - "I think it was because he insisted on not wearing his seat belt and had the driver’s airbag deactivated - he said the car had good brakes, and that one thing should be sufficient; anything else would be unnecessary…".

Re: Coronavirus
 

That wasn't the reason...the mask steamed my bloody glasses up. :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Which obviously impaired your vision, so technically you were driving in an unsafe manner . . . no insurance payout :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I havent seen this mentioned previously ;

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...and-from-april
The paper seems unable to count as the 1.2 suddenly becomes 1.45 .....
(Maybe 0.25 are part time, kinda confusing though)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, it is the Grauniad.

Re: Coronavirus
 

They are right about the core point of the story however, that all 1.6 million NHS staff will have to have the vaccine.

Re: Coronavirus
 

My kids have big old happy hats on this morning. Hertfordshire County Council has mandated masks in schools again - https://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/abo...nts-and-carers

Packed them off this morning with their masks and spares.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The evidence that the JCVI themselves ignored.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ourable-models

As I say if this was all above board the minutes, evidence and justification would have been published ahead of schools going back.

You enjoy the soup of British exceptionalism all you wish Old Boy, however there’s no real reason after so many deaths that our world leading behavioural scientists and sociologists are any better than those elsewhere in the world. They couldn’t even convince the 4 CMOs in the UK and devolved administrations.

In practice the vaccination of children is inevitable. The question is why we are dragging our feet against the evidence?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I agree with you on this and see the inevitability that we will eventually end up vaccinating children over 5 like the US are starting and maybe even younger as they do more trials.


Definitely more so if we do get more effective vaccines against transmission and milder infection but then you'd see that would probably need to be rolled out to everyone then.


As I understand the reason why the JCVI etc are a bit tetchy about it is simply a question of benefit/risk management. It is still logically true that kids who get covid in the majority do not get ill enough to be hospitalised and do not get ill enough to die. So whilst there will be some reduced transmission effect from doing so, a vaccine which is highly effective at reducing these, is a group which is not susceptible to it anyway, is being administered with less tangible benefit other than a more marginal effect on transmission. Where I would disagree with them is that this effect is still helpful.


The other issue is the risk from side effects of the vaccine, and how the chance of these stacks up against the chance of getting ill from covid. You could indeed argue that if the chance of side effects which need hospitalisation from the vaccine is higher than the chance of covid infection causing the same that the vaccine is not worth it. But then, side effects from a vaccine aren't infectious.

Re: Coronavirus
 

only with parental consent.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59163899

Even better news.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If it saves them from paying £30 testing their kids when flying over to Benidorm from the Covid capital of the world most of the plebs will do it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

They’re having a staycation.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

£500 per patient is an absolute snip, compared to the cost of intensive care which it is intended to prevent.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Hopefully, we're getting it cheaper? NICE/NHS (I forgot who actually buys it) tends to get cheaper deals and the US system is so full of middlemen waiting to take a cut their prices are always mad.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Indeed, you would hope so. In which case it’s an even bigger snip …

Re: Coronavirus
 

Kids don't need to be tested.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Maybe not now, who knows what the future holds.

Re: Coronavirus
 

12+ do for a lot of European countries, including France, Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain.

https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/...-teens-1244725

And children under 18 (U.K. resident) have to take a test on day 2 after arriving back in the U.K. (under 5s exempt).

https://researchbriefings.files.parl...3/CBP-9203.pdf

Re: Coronavirus
 

The end of the world beckons, presumably.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well you could read the posts to get my point or respond with meaningless hyperbole.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m well aware of all that, the exchange began in regards to vaccinating 5yrs+

And I was commenting in that context.

Re: Coronavirus
 

When 5+ vaccination is widespread throughout the EU, USA and other major travel zones there will be no real reason for any rational country to not insist upon testing unvaccinated arrivals from high risk areas - including children.

On top of the clear epidemiological benefits, the economic disadvantage to anti-vaxxers is also desirable. Behavioural scientists in other countries - focusing on their own areas of expertise rather than being co-opted into epidemiology - will inevitably advise this.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Oh, I’ve read the posts, jfman. That’s where the hyperbole lurks.

I look forward to your words of wisdom when the number of infections decline near to the base line by December/January.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There’s a "brave"* prediction…

I’m surprised you didn’t say "by 2035". ;)

*"Yes Minister" definition of "brave"

Re: Coronavirus
 

“The base line” sounds quite woolly, OB.

Not like you to have an unclear definition to pin your hopes against. Is that a baseline of 200 deaths a day? Hospitals cancelling routine appointments? The working from home brigade not saving Pret?

Re: Coronavirus
 

The base line of new infections was what I was referring to, the base line being 0. As you must know, I was referring to the graphs I posted earlier.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Zero new infections? :confused:

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't think anyone on this thread that has made predictions has faired well, myself definitely included.

I don't think anyone in the whole wider national debate, that has made a prediction, has faired well either....including politicians, CMO's, both flavours of Sage and the media.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I said ‘close to the base line’. It’s the base line that indicates 0 infections.

Do you deliberately misread my posts or are you speed reading? ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

There’s a massive difference however between wishful thinking (it’ll go away by itself), ideologically driven analysis against state intervention (the Spectator having us reaching herd immunity every month or so) at all costs, and some who are making best effort analysis without ulterior motives.

All predictions are based on underlying assumptions that are rarely communicated by the media. Nobody goes back to ascertain what went well (or what didn’t) in any given model - it just gets dismissed within the binary of being right or wrong.

One model being held up recently as a positive outcome of where we are headed has the important caveat of people voluntarily restricting their own behaviour and contacts for a further year. Again this isn’t binary “hiding under the stairs” or acting like it’s 2019 - if the vast majority of people plant themselves somewhere on the spectrum between the two that has wider economic implications for where and how much consumers spend.

One model of doom uses 2019 behaviour. Something that simply isn’t credible against a backdrop of tens of thousands of infections per day.

---------- Post added at 10:59 ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 ----------

So it’s entirely subjective. It could be 1,000 cases, it could be 30,000 cases. As long it’s relatively flat.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Some good news
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/med...cid=entnewsntp

Re: Coronavirus
 

Brilliant, although you would be disappointed if an antiviral designed to fight covid didn’t perform better than one designed to fight a different respiratory illness that isn’t even caused by the same class of virus. It’s remarkable that Molnupiravir works at all really, but just as well because this one is still going to be a good few months away from widespread availability.

Biomedical science is where it’s all happening right now though isn’t it. So many remarkable achievements in such a short time.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Just to confirm (as I don’t want to misinterpret/misunderstand what you’re saying) - are you predicting that by December, or January at the latest, the number of new COVID infections daily will be just above zero?

(And to avoid further confusion/misinterpretation, what is "just above zero" - 10, 100, 1000, 10,000 per day?)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Wonderful seeing all these great treatments and vaccines developed or in the pipeline.

---------- Post added at 12:13 ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 ----------

I suspect you might find it easier going on this forum if you were a bit more specific with your predictions. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Look at the graphs, why don’t you? :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 13:39 ---------- Previous post was at 13:35 ----------

It’s not my prediction. It’s the scientists’ own modelling. I have already provided the graphs.

---------- Post added at 13:40 ---------- Previous post was at 13:39 ----------

Another one - it’s not my prediction!

Re: Coronavirus
 

So are you aligning with the prediction or aren’t you?

Re: Coronavirus
 

For God’s sake, jfman! This has nothing to do with whether I am ‘aligning with the prediction’. It was you who accused those of us who were saying no more restrictions were necessary of ‘hoping for the best’. Once again, you are twisting this into a completely different argument.

It is not a case of hoping for the best at all. The justification for taking no further action is that the modelling suggests a sharp decline in the infection rate during November/December, and the current number of infections is also well within that modelling. So yes, the modelling is a good basis to work on.

So, I say again, where is your justification for imposing more measures now, unless of course you are ‘hoping for the worst’?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Old Boy you are going around in circles all by yourself. You responded to me with a meaningless post that didn’t actually address the point I was making, now you seem to be attempting to make a half baked prediction that you don’t wish to be pinned down to in the long run.

If you have nothing further to add - like what that figure will be, what level of hospitalisations it gives, deaths etc. or offer your own opinion on what level would warrant concern then I can only presume you’re at your own baseline of ideologically supporting no restrictions regardless of outcomes. Which is fine - just don’t try to tart it up as anything insightful or giving due consideration to reality.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Unfortunately, once again you are not listening. This is the scientists’ own model, and of course it is sensible to be guided by that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If you can’t commit to backing your own position Old Boy I don’t know how you expect to persuade anyone else of your wishful thinking.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I am backing the modellers, jfman. I think that’s a sensible place to be.

You still haven’t justified your ‘hoping for the worst’ suggestion that further restrictions should be imposed on the public. That sounds like control freakery to me.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You’ve never done that before so forgive my scepticism.

That’s because it is a figment of your imagination, OB. Running down the rabbit hole in your own mind you have attributed emotion (hope) to my analysis and input into the thread that simply does not exist.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So let’s get this clear. Do you still argue for those additional restrictions on the long suffering public, and if so, given that the model seems to be working, what is your justification?

You are the rabbit in the headlights at the moment.

Re: Coronavirus
 

"Is this the room for an argument?"

"I've told you once!"

:D

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m not sure why this is the rabbit in the headlights moment OB.

A&E overflowing, the military supporting the ambulance service, hospitals at or near capacity, 200 deaths a day. And it’s not even proper winter yet.

I wouldn’t describe a model that stabilises at 73,000 deaths a year and cripples the NHS in the process as working when other countries have far lower rates of cases, hospitalisations and deaths.

None of this, of course, has anything to do with hope as you portray above. You introduce emotive terminology in your post - the long suffering public - when if I recall previously when challenged you couldn’t name a single activity you would do after “freedom day” that was restricted immediately prior to that date. So spare us.