[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The hospitalisations must lag the infections - say by at least a week. The deaths must lag the hospitalisations - say by at least two weeks.

If there's a downward trend on infections, the other metrics will follow.
Didn't I do some fag packet maths on this?

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 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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

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

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

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 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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'.