Coronavirus

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I apologise if that was the case, but that post you quoted here was in answer to yours, which said ‘Whatever’!

Obviously that word means something different to you than it does to me!

The point I was alluding to which generated your response was simply to point out that the consequence of that many infections before the vaccines was completely different to the situation we now face.

Except it hasn’t. The ratios have changed, however the consequences of increasing infections is increased hospitalisations and increased deaths.

Which is why the Government are acknowledging Plan B as an inevitability.

[OLD BOY]

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY View Post

Infections are largely circulating amongst the young people, Andrew,


Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY View Post
You are referring to a problem that is caused by contracting infection without the benefit of the vaccine. These people were, in the main, infected before the vaccine programme kicked in.

You don’t say what your point is, Hugh, so I will have to guess.

While most infections are circulating amongst largely unvaccinated young people, most will not even know they’ve had it or will only develop mild symptoms. If we want to eliminate long Covid cases from the extremely small cohort of young people who might contract it, then we should vaccinate them.

Your approach to the successful vaccination programme appears to be ‘Never mind, let’s carry on with restrictions’. That is perverse and substantially negates the imperative to get vaccinated in the first place.

---------- Post added at 16:08 ---------- Previous post was at 16:06 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Except it hasn’t. The ratios have changed, however the consequences of increasing infections is increased hospitalisations and increased deaths.

Which is why the Government are acknowledging Plan B as an inevitability.

Whatever!

[jfman]

Ah the Old Boy head in sand approach. A timeless classic.

Can I ask what you have to gain from crashing into another lockdown that you seem dead set upon? You’re the most vociferous proponent of letting the virus circulate, maximising hospitalisations and deaths in the process with no real evidence that it will return us to a 2019 economy.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Ah the Old Boy head in sand approach. A timeless classic.

It’s a shame you didn’t see the funny side of that!

Ah, well, never mind. The obvious point I was making is that you cannot equate the number of infections now with the number of infections back then.

The infection rate is having only a relatively small impact on hospitalisations, but still you run across these forums shouting “Fire”! It is quite an over-reaction.

We must keep our eye on the number of people going into hospital, it is true, but the government will not introduce restrictions on the public unless it is clear that failure to do so would lead to the NHS being overwhelmed.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It’s a shame you didn’t see the funny side of that!

Ah, well, never mind. The obvious point I was making is that you cannot equate the number of infections now with the number of infections back then.

The infection rate is having only a relatively small impact on hospitalisations, but still you run across these forums shouting “Fire”! It is quite an over-reaction.

We must keep our eye on the number of people going into hospital, it is true, but the government will not introduce restrictions on the public unless it is clear that failure to do so would lead to the NHS being overwhelmed.

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.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY View Post

Infections are largely circulating amongst the young people, Andrew,


Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY View Post
You are referring to a problem that is caused by contracting infection without the benefit of the vaccine. These people were, in the main, infected before the vaccine programme kicked in.

You don’t say what your point is, Hugh, so I will have to guess.

While most infections are circulating amongst largely unvaccinated young people, most will not even know they’ve had it or will only develop mild symptoms. If we want to eliminate long Covid cases from the extremely small cohort of young people who might contract it, then we should vaccinate them.

Your approach to the successful vaccination programme appears to be ‘Never mind, let’s carry on with restrictions’. That is perverse and substantially negates the imperative to get vaccinated in the first place.

---------- Post added at 16:08 ---------- Previous post was at 16:06 ----------



Whatever!

I thought the point was obvious - you stated people caught long COVID because they weren’t vaccinated, but had previously said current infections were mainly amongst younger people (who are/were unvaccinated), QED it is likely that young people would be getting long COVID.

Now you’re doubling down by stating even if they do get long COVID, it won’t be many of them? You don’t have to have had severe COVID to get long COVID.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-h...nfected-study/

Significant number of those with long Covid were asymptomatic when first infected, study finds

Research found some of those who at first did not seem to be badly affected later developed a large and damaging immune response

Can I ask how you know it is an "extremely small cohort", please?

[nffc]

36,567 new positive tests today, well below last Monday's figure, and the 4th successive day of decline, 2nd in a row where this has been significant.



If this carries on for the next week (and it probably will given we know where the issues are) then it will be in a much better situation without doing anything else.


Boris is right to wait, for once.

[OLD BOY]

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.

So far, the metrics relating to hospitals show a slight upward fluctuation, but nothing to worry about yet. That is set to decline again from a news report I heard recently, and if that happens, there is no need to panic.

If the graphs start to show signs of going steadily upwards, we may need to consider the position again, but until or unless that happens, no further restrictions are necessary.

By the way, that’s what the government and Whitty think as well, so that’s good enough for most people.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

So far, the metrics relating to hospitals show a slight upward fluctuation, but nothing to worry about yet. That is set to decline again from a news report I heard recently, and if that happens, there is no need to panic.

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.

If the graphs start to show signs of going steadily upwards, we may need to consider the position again, but until or unless that happens, no further restrictions are necessary.

By the way, that’s what the government and Whitty think as well, so that’s good enough for most people.

Well consider me fully reassured given their track record of responding too late.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

So far, the metrics relating to hospitals show a slight upward fluctuation, but nothing to worry about yet. That is set to decline again from a news report I heard recently, and if that happens, there is no need to panic.

If the graphs start to show signs of going steadily upwards, we may need to consider the position again, but until or unless that happens, no further restrictions are necessary.

By the way, that’s what the government and Whitty think as well, so that’s good enough for most people.

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

[nffc]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

So far, the metrics relating to hospitals show a slight upward fluctuation, but nothing to worry about yet. That is set to decline again from a news report I heard recently, and if that happens, there is no need to panic.

If the graphs start to show signs of going steadily upwards, we may need to consider the position again, but until or unless that happens, no further restrictions are necessary.

By the way, that’s what the government and Whitty think as well, so that’s good enough for most people.

The key point is that hospitalisations tend to lag new infections by a week or two. The proportion has just gone down but the shape of the curves is still similar.



The trend in infections is now declining and has been for a few days, but this time last week it was going up.

Expect hospitalisations to do something similar.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

So far, the metrics relating to hospitals show a slight upward fluctuation, but nothing to worry about yet. That is set to decline again from a news report I heard recently, and if that happens, there is no need to panic.

If the graphs start to show signs of going steadily upwards, we may need to consider the position again, but until or unless that happens, no further restrictions are necessary.

By the way, that’s what the government and Whitty think as well, so that’s good enough for most people.

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?

[jfman]

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 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.

[nffc]

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.

A few days can be a long time with this but they do need to be in possession of the trends and consider multiple angles which even Whitty and Vallance don't. When your decisions could affect all sorts of things it's important you take time to decide what is the right course and what the exit plan is if you do tighten things.

We don't need a repeat of last years tiers where they were keen to escalate measures but conversely didn't have a clear de-escalation plan and ended up back in a full lockdown twice.


As for mass infection, well, isn't that what happens with most viruses? We don't do mass vaccination for flu, colds, noro, or other viruses, and don't lock down for them (aside for targeting flu jabs at the higher risk groups). For all of these they're just allowed to spread and people are advised to stay home if they have it. I suppose with covid it's different as without vaccination the death and serious illness risk is higher but the vaccine has reduced this, and aside from the risk of kids getting "long covid" (a term I still hate, it's post-viral effects same as you can get with other bad viruses) from the increased exposure, and that of spill over events into older people potentially evading vaccines, we aren't hugely far off allowing that to actually be the answer, or at least a potential outcome, not that anyone would actively encourage or condone it as an approach to take. Whilst we still have this level of hospital admissions we're still at the "best it doesn't happen" stage, but this is clearly what the boosters are designed to help with.

[Sephiroth]

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.

Well, why were infections falling before the younger cohort was introduced to the figures?