Coronavirus

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Why? You'll only describe them as small in any case.

Let's just call it a small number. I'll say it has the potential to grow as cases grow. You'll claim there's no evidence for that. I'll say it stands to reason as it has throughout the pandemic. And we can continue on the merry go round for another 4 weeks.

Old Boy implied the number to be zero. Which it is not.

You know very well I didn't mean zero. I meant that young people are not being hospitalised in significant numbers.

We have surely seen the graphs which showed the number of people hospitalised by age groups. The vast majority were over 50s.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You know very well I didn't mean zero. I meant that young people are not being hospitalised in significant numbers.

Yes, I conveyed your belief that the number wasn’t significant in my post directly responding to you.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Pierre

There’s very little granular data and depends what your definition of “younger” is, but if you want to score a point as OB posted his as an absolute statement, I would doubt him to be correct.

That said, it’s irrelevant as the numbers are so low. Even now in the North West, where the vast majority of those being infected are “younger”, those being hospitalised are still the over 85’s, not the young.

---------- Post added at 19:26 ---------- Previous post was at 19:21 ----------



With an option to do it sooner if the data allows.

If we get to July 7th and hospitalisations remain under the threshold ( which they are now, well under the SAGE prediction level for opening up) hen they should open up on the 8th along with an apology.

Yeah, it's annoying not having more granular information. I can find more granular data for;

Cases
Deaths
And vaccinations
-------------------------------------------------
Wait, found it!!

Summary
Underlying data (see the second tab 'Time series')

It looks like the hospitalisation rate per 100,000 is still the highest in the 85+ cohort but it has dropped like a stone which is great. It's not clear if the admissions are for COVID or if COVID was found on admission. I see that the death rate in ages 75-85+ from COVID is now lower than the 45-74 cohorts.

[tweetiepooh]

I was thinking and chatting with family last night about the small changes and why they couldn't release some restrictions on private gatherings in homes. I mean changing from inviting one family round to two or maybe three couples isn't really increasing the chances of spread much.
Then I remember the great British public who wouldn't use a bit of common sense and slowly ramp up but would go wild, have a big shing ding with no controls.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

I was thinking and chatting with family last night about the small changes and why they couldn't release some restrictions on private gatherings in homes. I mean changing from inviting one family round to two or maybe three couples isn't really increasing the chances of spread much.
Then I remember the great British public who wouldn't use a bit of common sense and slowly ramp up but would go wild, have a big shing ding with no controls.

That is the biggest problem. The public are thick.
Half these restrictions wouldn't be necessary if we could rely on people to use common sense, but we can't.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Mr K

That is the biggest problem. The public are thick.
Half these restrictions wouldn't be necessary if we could rely on people to use common sense, but we can't.

as a member of the public do you include yourself in that statement?

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Mr K

That is the biggest problem. The public are thick.
Half these restrictions wouldn't be necessary if we could rely on people to use common sense, but we can't.

Expecting the public to be able to put up with such major changes in their lives for such a significant period of time doesn't make them thick IMHO

collectively, the public can be easily swayed & unsurprisingly there will be a significant amount of lockdown fatigue.

Lockdown 1. Almost everyone in my area strictly adhered to the rules.
Lockdown 2. (The lockdown that wasn't) people in my area took greater risks (myself included)
Subsequent lockdowns? pretty much a free for all

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Expecting the public to be able to put up with such major changes in their lives for such a significant period of time doesn't make them thick IMHO

collectively, the public can be easily swayed & unsurprisingly there will be a significant amount of lockdown fatigue.

Lockdown 1. Almost everyone in my area strictly adhered to the rules.
Lockdown 2. (The lockdown that wasn't) people in my area took greater risks (myself included)
Subsequent lockdowns? pretty much a free for all

Yep. And not so much of the “humble”!

[jfman]

Some interesting back of cigarette paper calculations on Twitter.

Had we red listed India when we red listed Bangladesh we would have kept out 96% of Delta seedings.

Yes, it'd inevitably have grown, but it could have bought is an extra 4 to 7 weeks before the current "wave" got to where it is now.

We could all have been down the lap dancing after all on June 21st had the Government took such a simple step.

Still it's only 4 weeks and we can get the economy going by spending £30 every 3-5 minutes or so.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by jfman

Some interesting back of cigarette paper calculations on Twitter.

Had we red listed India when we red listed Bangladesh we would have kept out 96% of Delta seedings.

Yes, it'd inevitably have grown, but it could have bought is an extra 4 to 7 weeks before the current "wave" got to where it is now.

We could all have been down the lap dancing after all on June 21st had the Government took such a simple step.

Still it's only 4 weeks and we can get the economy going by spending £30 every 3-5 minutes or so.

Link for that claim?

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Link for that claim?

Jfman said . - the back of a cigarette paper

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jfman

Some interesting back of cigarette paper calculations on Twitter.

Had we red listed India when we red listed Bangladesh we would have kept out 96% of Delta seedings.

Yes, it'd inevitably have grown, but it could have bought is an extra 4 to 7 weeks before the current "wave" got to where it is now.

We could all have been down the lap dancing after all on June 21st had the Government took such a simple step.

Still it's only 4 weeks and we can get the economy going by spending £30 every 3-5 minutes or so.

It must be frustrating for BoJo that his well-intentioned punt to get into India's good books resulted in him having to postpone full opening up for a month.

Michael Gove on the BBC being grilled about the delay in placing India on the red list:
https://twitter.com/BBCBreakfast/sta...95837570121729

No references to Brexit in this thread (or any thread), Mr K. If I see such references, they will be removed.

[jfman]

In fairness - to some degree - everyone is trying to get into India's good books, hence the acceptance of renaming the Indian variant. Nobody was that bothered about Brazil or South Africa.

---------- Post added at 13:26 ---------- Previous post was at 13:19 ----------

Originally Posted by pip08456

Link for that claim?

With the previous cigarette paper health warning

https://twitter.com/declamare/status...019214852?s=19

It also uses modelling which is in a close contest with polling with the least popular thing on the forum.

[Mad Max]

Just watching the Hungary V Portugal game, there's 67K at the game, do they have Covid under control there?