Coronavirus

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

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

It’s Jenny, not Jennie.

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

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

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

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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

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

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

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

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

[1andrew1]

Starmer urges 500k daily vaccination target, not pushing Plan B. An interesting approach - if vaccination rates don't improve and things continue to worsen, he can link the need for Plan B to poor execution of Plan A.

Sir Keir Starmer has said the government’s plan A is “failing”. He said the government should respond by beefing up the booster vaccination programme, aiming for 500,000 vaccines to be delivered a day.

Echoing what Jonathan Ashworth said in the Commons earlier (see 11.48am), Starmer said:

"The government said that the vaccine would be the security wall against the virus and now the government is letting that wall crumble.

We’ve seen those that most need it not able to get the jab they need. Only. I think, 17% of children have got the vaccine. And the booster programme has slowed down so much that at this rate we’re not going to complete it until spring of next year.

So the government needs to change these, it needs to get a grip. I think it needs to drive those numbers up to at least 500,000 vaccines a day. And that can be done, I think, by using community pharmacists ... pop-up centres for vaccines, and mobilising those retired health workers as we did before."

Asked if it was time for plan B, Starmer said asking about plan A or plan B was the wrong focus. He went on:

"The question we need to ask is why is plan A failing? And it’s failing because the government has allowed that wall of the vaccine to crumble."

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/coron...?ocid=msedgntp

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by jfman

We call that a Richard on CF.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

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

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

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

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

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

Damned statistics, eh, jfman!

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

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

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

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

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

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

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

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

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

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

Yes.


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


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

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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

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

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

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

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

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

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

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


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

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by nffc

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


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

Correct.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

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

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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

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

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

[Carth]

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