Coronavirus

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Carth

Population of London is around 9 million.
If infections are running at 500 per 100,000, my rough calculation gives 45,000 infected people in London.
Apparently only 10 to 15 percent of those infected will need to be hospitalised . . meaning 4,500 people need a hospital bed for Covid alone, never mind all the other illnesses and injuries that also require hospital treatment.

My math could be wrong . . I still have a couple of bottles to finish off

Yes, whilst the figure is important in terms of the NHS, the point I was making was that people should not be scared witless about this pandemic!

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Paul

Really ?

Have you read this topic, its full of experts ....

You should know by now that l am not a expert...

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The point being made is there is an alternative to a total lockdown that would ruin the economy. Why isolate everyone when most people will escape the impact of this virus unscathed?

You are just running with this scaremongering mantra.

Hey, do you realise that if infections are running at 500 per hundred thousand, that works out as 5 per thousand? And per hundred, that’s 0.5!

Go figure and start thinking for yourself.

A discredited alternative that nobody, anywhere in the world, continues to pursue. Nor is there any evidence the economy will perform any better as millions of people are shielding and less economically active.

You’re starting to sound like a Covid denier Old Boy.

---------- Post added at 09:15 ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, whilst the figure is important in terms of the NHS, the point I was making was that people should not be scared witless about this pandemic!

Nor should they bury their heads in the sand that it doesn’t exist.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

[COLOR="Blue"].

Agreed. But this rot started well before the Referendum.

Agreed.

If it's any consolation, the profession should now become relatively more attractive given the decline in other sectors like high street retail and leisure and hospitality.

---------- Post added at 10:05 ---------- Previous post was at 09:57 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The point being made is there is an alternative to a total lockdown that would ruin the economy. Why isolate everyone when most people will escape the impact of this virus unscathed?

Old Boy this is simply not the case. There is no hospital capacity to handle extra patients as things stand.

[jfman]

He simply has to be trolling. On one hand the vaccine will sort it by Spring but in the meantime let’s take the greatest risks - risks we’ve avoided to date - for a fraction of a percentage point in GDP.

To support my view he’s trolling I think we should note from his return the new signature on every single post - another area where regardless of facts Old Boy has decided to repeat the same flawed mantra ad infinitum/nauseam (delate as applicable).

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by jfman

He simply has to be trolling. On one hand the vaccine will sort it by Spring but in the meantime let’s take the greatest risks - risks we’ve avoided to date - for a fraction of a percentage point in GDP.

To support my view he’s trolling I think we should note from his return the new signature on every single post - another area where regardless of facts Old Boy has decided to repeat the same flawed mantra ad infinitum/nauseam (delate as applicable).

That's right anyone with a different point of view is trolling

[jfman]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

That's right anyone with a different point of view is trolling

Far from it, but the one constant throughout OBs posts is to be consistently wrong and to push an idea that nobody - anywhere - continues to pursue.

I’d previously thought he held a sincere belief that it wouldn’t be that bad or that it would magic away the economic problems. However, against all the evidence, he still disagrees.

Even with a vaccine - that could be rolled out to our most vulnerable by spring - he still holds the same view. If you hold the same view on something regardless of evidence (from anywhere in the world) or changes in circumstances I can only conclude it’s to simply be provocative.

Telling people to “go away and think for themselves” and come up with a conclusion no rational Government anywhere in the world has come up with is the stuff of internet conspiracy nutjobs.

Ok folks, let’s play the ball, not the man please

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The point being made is there is an alternative to a total lockdown that would ruin the economy. Why isolate everyone when most people will escape the impact of this virus unscathed?

You are just running with this scaremongering mantra.

Hey, do you realise that if infections are running at 500 per hundred thousand, that works out as 5 per thousand? And per hundred, that’s 0.5!

Go figure and start thinking for yourself.

Got a link for that figure, please?

---------- Post added at 10:50 ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 ----------

Originally Posted by Carth

Population of London is around 9 million.
If infections are running at 500 per 100,000, my rough calculation gives 45,000 infected people in London.
Apparently only 10 to 15 percent of those infected will need to be hospitalised . . meaning 4,500 people need a hospital bed for Covid alone, never mind all the other illnesses and injuries that also require hospital treatment.

My math could be wrong . . I still have a couple of bottles to finish off

The "500 per 100k" is a ongoing amount, not a static figure.

For instance, my Mother in law has been in hospital with covid for nearly 4 weeks...

So, every day/week (depending on where those figures came from), it could be another 4.5k needing another hospital bed.

Just looked up the stats for General/Acute hospital beds in London - in November (latest figures on the website), they had around 19k beds in total.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistic...nal-DE5WC.xlsx

[1andrew1]

Regional restrictions in England are "probably about to get tougher" to curb rising Covid infections, the prime minister has warned.

Boris Johnson told the BBC tougher measures may be required in parts of the country in the coming weeks.

He said this included the possibility of keeping schools closed, although this is not "something we want to do".

But he added ministers had to be "realistic" about the spread of the new variant of the virus.

Mr Johnson said the government was "entirely reconciled to doing what it takes to get the virus down," and warned of a "tough period ahead".

He said increasing vaccination would provide a way out of restrictions and that he hoped "tens of millions" would be vaccinated in the next three months.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55521747

Maybe it's simpler and more enforceable to go to a new national lockdown?

Liverpool is now asking for a national lockdown.

Liverpool's leaders have called on the government to impose a new nationwide lockdown to halt the spread of the new variant of Covid-19.

Acting mayor Wendy Simon and the city council's cabinet said urgent action is needed because the rise in coronavirus cases had reached "alarming levels".

They said it was "self-evident" the tier system has not curbed the variant.

It had been concentrated in London and south-east England but is believed to be spreading north.

Cases in Liverpool have almost trebled in the past two weeks to 350 per 100,000.

This is despite the city successfully leading the national pilot for community testing, which resulted in it becoming the first city to be taken out of tier 3 and moved into tier 2.

However, the recent rise in cases meant Liverpool returned to tier three on Thursday.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...yside-55520939

[jfman]

As ever Boris knows what's required and accepts it's inevitable yet delays. Action now - especially on schools - combines with the existing closure for the Christmas holidays. To allow them to reopen for 3-4 weeks, for the virus to spread exponentially, only means starting from scratch again.

Unless he's seriously trying to delay it until the numbers of those vaccinated has an impact on hospitalisations/deaths. Feels like last year when they tried to hold of on lockdown to Easter.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55521747

Maybe it's simpler and more enforceable to go to a new national lockdown?

Liverpool is now asking for a national lockdown.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...yside-55520939

If Liverpool council want to lock down Liverpool that’s their prerogative, crack on. But leave the rest of the country to do what’s best for them.

[jonbxx]

We had ‘the talk’ to decide whether to send our kids into school from Wednesday. In the end, the wife and I were not 100% comfortable to send them in but comfortable enough to let the kids decide themselves what they would like to do.

They both recalled what remote learning and the isolation was like earlier in the year and jumped at the chance to go in. We have completed the online forms and are putting together the ‘key worker’ evidence now so they can bring in the required paperwork (the joys of us both working for a company nobody has heard of!)

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

As ever Boris knows what's required and accepts it's inevitable yet delays. Action now - especially on schools - combines with the existing closure for the Christmas holidays. To allow them to reopen for 3-4 weeks, for the virus to spread exponentially, only means starting from scratch again.

Unless he's seriously trying to delay it until the numbers of those vaccinated has an impact on hospitalisations/deaths. Feels like last year when they tried to hold of on lockdown to Easter.

He’s not closing schools, the kids go back tomorrow. He can’t at the 11th hour mandate that. He’s have to give at least a weeks notice so parents could make arrangements.

Will close them from next week? Who knows, would seem pretty pointless by then to just shut them for a week.

No I’m afraid that ship looks to have sailed now.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

If Liverpool council want to lock down Liverpool that’s their prerogative, crack on. But leave the rest of the country to do what’s best for them.

This is the thing though - decision making around school closures and what tier areas go into isn't left to the local authorities themselves.

It'd be quite interesting to see who would do what if it was - assuming of course they are all entitled to London furlough and not Manchester furlough.

---------- Post added at 11:29 ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

He’s not closing schools, the kids go back tomorrow. He can’t at the 11th hour mandate that. He’s have to give at least a weeks notice so parents could make arrangements.

Will close them from next week? Who knows, would seem pretty pointless by then to just shut them for a week.

No I’m afraid that ship looks to have sailed now.

You can be "afraid that ship looks to have sailed now" as much as you please however one thing I find reassuring is that when Boris says something, or Hancock or anyone else, it's no guarantee that there won't be a U-turn. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next week, but it's absolutely inevitable. And when they close it will be for longer.

The good news is he can't hide behind "following the science". When huge swathes of the country are in Tier 4 until Easter it's because the Government put schools at all costs above everything else.