Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36108602)

But the more that are infected and asymptomatic, the higher the likelyhood of spreading the infection through greater viral load - so if only one is infected and unvaccinated, less likely to infect others.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36108578)

or just a tad dramatic ... :erm:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36108603)

It’s the one in the middle

Don’t see how being in hospital with COVID either unvaccinated, vaccinated or boostered skews anything.

All two or three of them.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36108606)

So not 2 children as per your previous conclusion? Your error is applying the 20,000 hospitalisations to the rate the ONS provide. Perhaps you could see if the school have a statistics textbook you can borrow. It’d help you reach a considered conclusion rather than take your lead from what you read on the internet.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36108607)

Well I’m extrapolating from a barchart so it’s approx, but in that ball park.

I suppose you see 3 from 2 and think that’s a huge 30% increase?

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36108604)

But if one is infected, don't the others (in class) have to isolate whether jabbed or not?

Serious question because the 'rules' as I see them are all over the place

Originally Posted by nffc (Post 36108612)

No they don't as if you're under 18 yrs 6 months you don't need to isolate if you're a close contact unless you test positive yourself...

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36108613)

aah right . . . so how would vaccinating all 5yr olds save schools. . . and from what?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36108608)

The fact you are using the 20,000 figure at all to reach your conclusion when the ONS have already calculated the rate based on the population figure for each age group is where you are going wrong.
.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36108619)

ONS stats say 130 in every 100,000 aged 85 are in hospital (according to your interpretation)

There’s 670 x 100,000’s in 67 million.

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 36108624)

No, because most of the 67 million aren't over 85.

There are about 1.5 million over 85s. So 15 x 130 = 1950 in hospital.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...-by-age-group/

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36108628)

What are you on about, it’s already been divided by age group. See attachment- middle chart (in earlier post)I used the over 85 metric which is (looking at the chart) around 130, per 100,000.

It doesn’t state per 100,000 of what. According to JFman’s interpretation the ONS stats state that is the hospitalisation rate per 100,000 per “Population”

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36108628)

I believe it is pro-rata per those actually hospitalised.

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 36108636)

Well aside from the fact it's admissions over the week rather than numbers in hospital,

Originally Posted by roughbeast (Post 36108574)

Privatisation doesn't happen that way and the encroachment of private insurance won't be done that way. It will be done, and is being done, by stealth, bit by bit, without making waves in the political pond. With perennial underfunding the NHS becomes less effective and less available. If waiting queues for knee ops, cataracts, hip replacement, physiotherapy etc are months or years long, people with the cash will go private. Private insurance companies are burgeoning currently, tempting those with the funds to take whole or partial cover for all or some of their health needs. If you or I have taken out a £15.00 a month dental plan we are part of that trend. Private schemes giving access to GPs is currently being piloted without any particular government action or change in law.

Recently, I went to my doctor to have my troubled left knee looked at. I have been on a waiting list for surgery to tidy up my cartilage for four years! The doctor said it has been so long I have dropped off the list and that they will have to do X-Rays and soft tissue scans again before they can operate. There is a six-month wait to get a consultation. She offered me private consultation to speed things up. I refused on principle, so will have sleepless nights and difficulty walking downstairs until I get seen to. I pay an osteopath £48 a pop to keep me going. This service is not, and never has been, available anywhere in the NHS, so I'm not jumping any queues.

An old school friend of mine has cataracts that are making it impossible to drive at night and give him 'yellow-outs' when the sun is low. He has been told that he won't get them removed until he is virtually housebound. His job, as a buildings inspector, requiring a lot of driving is in jeopardy. The company running this contracted-out function of local authorities has lost patience. My friend has dug deep into savings to pay to get the op done!

There are 100s of thousands out there in long queues without the budget to jump the queue or who still hang on to their principles. In time, a decade or so, the majority will be on some kind private health insurance because, in the end, health, quality of life and saving life is a priority. People will not suffer for years if they can possibly pay a consultant or fund a monthly premium. In time we will be in exactly the same position as the USA, without a single change in legislation or any media furore. Those who protest loudly will be pronounced to be the looney left. We will have bog standard NHS hospitals with limited services and limited access for the poorest 25% to life-saving drugs and then a network of top-notch private hospitals and private services in NHS hospitals for the other 75%. Free at the point of need will be a principle still, but realistically only taken up by those with limited funds..