Coronavirus

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

As long as each variant weakens as it mutates, it is a decreasing problem.

And if like the going away in the summer hypothesis in 2020 that doesn’t happen? It’s an increasing problem.

So in the same of keeping the economy open at all costs I presume you support higher taxation to support those unemployed by the virus and to put the NHS into position to cope with three to four surges a year?

[Taf]

Originally Posted by Paul

According to the official UK site 93.3% have had at least one dose, and 87.5% both
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

You have to read the graphic properly. Only 68.9% have received the full number of doses. And from the post I made earlier:

The ONS estimate for the population aged 12 and over, which is 48,375,273. With 43,250,509 first doses having been given in England, that would leave an estimated 5.1 million eligible people who have not received a dose of vaccine.

The NIMS figure for the population aged 12 or over is 54,328,630, which would leave around 11 million eligible people in England who have not received a dose of vaccine.

Originally Posted by Taf

You have to read the graphic properly. Only 68.9% have received the full number of doses.

I read it properly, thanks.

As posted, 93.3% have had at least one dose, and 87.5% both - which of those figures do you contest ?

The third dose (booster) was not offered to everyone initially, so obviously that number is lower.

Since 45.13 million is 93.3%, then the 100% figure must be 48.37 million.
Which means 3.24 million (12+) in England have not received a dose of any kind.

... around 11 million eligible people in England who have not received a dose of vaccine.

I have no idea where you get 11 million from, as above, its 3.24 million.

The 2020 ONS data shows Englands population as 56.5 million, of which about 8.4 million are under 12 (making 48.1 million who are 12+, which basically agrees with the 48.37 above).

Also, I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make anyway ?

[Taf]

Originally Posted by Paul

I have no idea where you get 11 million from, as above, its 3.24 million.

as previously posted:

The ONS estimate for the population aged 12 and over, which is 48,375,273. With 43,250,509 first doses having been given in England, that would leave an estimated 5.1 million eligible people who have not received a dose of vaccine.

The NIMS figure for the population aged 12 or over is 54,328,630, which would leave around 11 million eligible people in England who have not received a dose of vaccine.

https://fullfact.org/health/expose-e...on-vaccinated/

---------- Post added at 18:53 ---------- Previous post was at 18:47 ----------

Originally Posted by Paul

As posted, 93.3% have had at least one dose, and 87.5% both - which of those figures do you contest ?

I was stressing that there is still a large percentage of people who are not fully vaccinated. One dose was shown not to be sufficient. Then two. And those that have not yet had the third or booster are at far greater risk and have been a source of new mutations.

Between 5.1 million and 11 million. Those are numbers not to be sniffed-at. And evidence is showing that it's mostly those unvaccinated who are laid-up in critical care wards because of covid.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by jfman

And if like the going away in the summer hypothesis in 2020 that doesn’t happen? It’s an increasing problem.

So in the same of keeping the economy open at all costs I presume you support higher taxation to support those unemployed by the virus and to put the NHS into position to cope with three to four surges a year?

That may well be true.


But a fully open economy (with inherent risks of sickness absence as there always is with people actually going to work) has a much better chance of supporting those who are unable to work whilst ill or to fund the improvements needed in the NHS to improve capacity and cope with the 3-4 waves of covid admissions we will probably get (though this is ever decreasing in terms of severity to expected cases this year compared to last and 2020) usually whenever there's a variant which has significant immune escape for our 2020 vaccines which take no account at all of the virus having since mutated (so the new vaccines which are coming are probably a game changer themselves).


Certainly more so than closing places or restricting the way they trade by reducing their capacity or making people uncomfortable by having to wear masks, check in, install spying apps on their phones etc. There is obviously a reduction in trade in these places when such measures are introduced, after all. And it is things like travel (fuel duty), pubs/restaurants (alcohol duty) and having fun which bring in tax and which if they were not open would make this task harder, not easier - or you would need to completely plan again where and how you taxed people to get the required income.


"support those unemployed by the virus"? I'm assuming here you mean people who are unable to work due to being permanently incapacitated, as opposed to those who the virus response has meant their job no longer exists? In which case, what support do they need other than what incapacity benefits already exist?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nffc

That may well be true.

But a fully open economy (with inherent risks of sickness absence as there always is with people actually going to work) has a much better chance of supporting those who are unable to work whilst ill or to fund the improvements needed in the NHS to improve capacity and cope with the 3-4 waves of covid admissions we will probably get (though this is ever decreasing in terms of severity to expected cases this year compared to last and 2020) usually whenever there's a variant which has significant immune escape for our 2020 vaccines which take no account at all of the virus having since mutated (so the new vaccines which are coming are probably a game changer themselves).

If updated vaccines are rolled out, and not two variants out of date by the time they are, then yes they do have the potential to be a game changer.
Sunak as Chancellor had already questioned the expenditure involved, raising the question of whether we genuinely mean learn to live with the virus and not just the pretend it’s 2019 approach. If we won’t even pay for that there’s going to be nothing in terms of improving ventilation in public buildings.

Certainly more so than closing places or restricting the way they trade by reducing their capacity or making people uncomfortable by having to wear masks, check in, install spying apps on their phones etc.

Spying apps? I must have missed those. Masks are fundamentally not a trading restriction, especially in non-optional settings like public transport, healthcare settings, etc.

There is obviously a reduction in trade in these places when such measures are introduced, after all. And it is things like travel (fuel duty), pubs/restaurants (alcohol duty) and having fun which bring in tax and which if they were not open would make this task harder, not easier - or you would need to completely plan again where and how you taxed people to get the required income.

Where and how you tax people is a legitimate point, and something that needs approached anyway with online trade killing off the high street. Similarly with the virus running unabated a sizeable proportion of the public either will not ever, or for the majority of the time, return to city centre offices. Something we are lagging behind our EU counterparts with. This impacts on the economy if they all take personal responsibility and hide away on Microsoft Teams with an entire service sector under threat - a situation exacerbated by the cost of living crisis.

"support those unemployed by the virus"? I'm assuming here you mean people who are unable to work due to being permanently incapacitated, as opposed to those who the virus response has meant their job no longer exists? In which case, what support do they need other than what incapacity benefits already exist?

More people joining that queue after every variant, multiple times per year costs more money. As does the coronavirus health service on a 52 week a year flu season.

Many of the fundamentals that underpinned “running hot” with delta infections to supplement vaccine immunity (e.g. lasting immunity) have been disproven. The rewards (economic growth relative to other approaches) unrealised.

[OLD BOY]

Is this your way of telling us we need another lockdown, jfman? If so, you’re on your own, which is just as well as that cupboard under the stairs is a bit claustrophobic.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Is this your way of telling us we need another lockdown, jfman? If so, you’re on your own, which is just as well as that cupboard under the stairs is a bit claustrophobic.

Link to where I suggested any such thing?

I know it's easier for you to put up a straw man rather than engage with the post at hand but it's incredibly tiresome.

We know you are a mug for a hollow political phrase like "take back control" or "Brexit means Brexit". However if "learning to live with the virus" isn't to follow in their footsteps there needs to actually be learning. Otherwise the economic and health costs will be huge in the long run.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Link to where I suggested any such thing?

I know it's easier for you to put up a straw man rather than engage with the post at hand but it's incredibly tiresome.

We know you are a mug for a hollow political phrase like "take back control" or "Brexit means Brexit". However if "learning to live with the virus" isn't to follow in their footsteps there needs to actually be learning. Otherwise the economic and health costs will be huge in the long run.

Well, it’s you that keeps painting this bleak picture of the virus - how else do we take your posts on this subject?

What would you actually have this government do?

Originally Posted by Taf

as previously posted:

https://fullfact.org/health/expose-e...on-vaccinated/

55.6 million is the entire population of England, including children under 12, who dont get vaccinated. So they do not count (they are not 'eligible').

There are not 62.7 million people in England, the whole UK is only 68 million.

Originally Posted by Taf

Between 5.1 million and 11 million. Those are numbers not to be sniffed-at.

Nor are they correct. The figure is 3.25 million.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, it’s you that keeps painting this bleak picture of the virus - how else do we take your posts on this subject?

On the basis of the words written, as opposed to pretending they said something else. I don't consider that an unreasonable proposition.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

On the basis of the words written, as opposed to pretending they said something else. I don't consider that an unreasonable proposition.

I think you need to reduce your alcohol consumption, jfman, because this makes no sense. Who is ‘they’?

No, don’t worry, let’s just leave it there. Things to do, people to see…

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I think you need to reduce your alcohol consumption, jfman, because this makes no sense. Who is ‘they’?

No, don’t worry, let’s just leave it there. Things to do, people to see…

Anyone you put up a straw man argument against in this post is 'they'. Someone other than you. You are becoming incredibly tedious and tiresome, OB.

If you've anything constructive to state in relation to posts 2076 (or 2075 to which I replied) then I do sincerely welcome it. I suspect you don't.

[Pierre]

I would expect the majority, at the very least a sizeable proportion, of the population to ignore any future covid restrictions. That horse has long since bolted.

I think the nation expects individuals to manage illness as they would with any bad cold/flu

Any lockdown zealots expecting a return to 20/21 ………not going to happen.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I would expect the majority, at the very least a sizeable proportion, of the population to ignore any future covid restrictions. That horse has long since bolted.

That doesn't matter - if required the restrictions would just become stricter to compensate. Closing additional businesses, public transport, reducing opening hours or even introducing a curfew would be options. Nobody instructed to work from home is going to rush into an office, for example. If the pub is closed there's nowhere to go. The presumption that the public would act in bad faith has been consistently disproven, and while the Tories credibility is near zero, if hospitals filled up they'd feel otherwise.

I think the nation expects individuals to manage illness as they would with any bad cold/flu

It'd be interesting to see if that held up against a more severe variant and waning vaccine effectiveness. I doubt many are in that much of a rush to go out and die on the minimum wage in a cost of living crisis. I'm sure they'd welcome 80% salary to sit at home with their feet up again.

Any lockdown zealots expecting a return to 20/21 ………not going to happen.

A straw man army!