Coronavirus

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

If you can’t commit to backing your own position Old Boy I don’t know how you expect to persuade anyone else of your wishful thinking.

I am backing the modellers, jfman. I think that’s a sensible place to be.

You still haven’t justified your ‘hoping for the worst’ suggestion that further restrictions should be imposed on the public. That sounds like control freakery to me.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I am backing the modellers, jfman. I think that’s a sensible place to be.

You’ve never done that before so forgive my scepticism.

You still haven’t justified your ‘hoping for the worst’ suggestion that further restrictions should be imposed on the public. That sounds like control freakery to me.

That’s because it is a figment of your imagination, OB. Running down the rabbit hole in your own mind you have attributed emotion (hope) to my analysis and input into the thread that simply does not exist.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

You’ve never done that before so forgive my scepticism.



That’s because it is a figment of your imagination, OB. Running down the rabbit hole in your own mind you have attributed emotion (hope) to my analysis and input into the thread that simply does not exist.

So let’s get this clear. Do you still argue for those additional restrictions on the long suffering public, and if so, given that the model seems to be working, what is your justification?

You are the rabbit in the headlights at the moment.

[heero_yuy]

"Is this the room for an argument?"

"I've told you once!"

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

So let’s get this clear. Do you still argue for those additional restrictions on the long suffering public, and if so, given that the model seems to be working, what is your justification?

You are the rabbit in the headlights at the moment.

I’m not sure why this is the rabbit in the headlights moment OB.

A&E overflowing, the military supporting the ambulance service, hospitals at or near capacity, 200 deaths a day. And it’s not even proper winter yet.

I wouldn’t describe a model that stabilises at 73,000 deaths a year and cripples the NHS in the process as working when other countries have far lower rates of cases, hospitalisations and deaths.

None of this, of course, has anything to do with hope as you portray above. You introduce emotive terminology in your post - the long suffering public - when if I recall previously when challenged you couldn’t name a single activity you would do after “freedom day” that was restricted immediately prior to that date. So spare us.

Originally Posted by jfman

None of this, of course, has anything to do with hope as you portray above. You introduce emotive terminology in your post - the long suffering public - when if I recall previously when challenged you couldn’t name a single activity you would do after “freedom day” that was restricted immediately prior to that date. So spare us.

Pretty sure the "public" is actually more than one person.
Plenty of activities were restricted, unless you now believe the "restrictions" actually restricted nothing.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Paul

Pretty sure the "public" is actually more than one person.
Plenty of activities were restricted, unless you now believe the "restrictions" actually restricted nothing.

Nobody is disputing that the public is more than one person, however if one considers restrictions in a balanced (as opposed to in an ideological) way it represented a far more open economy than the various levels of restrictions that preceded it.

The long suffering public could equally be attributed to those being denied routine healthcare and treatments because of the decision to run the pandemic at close to maximum NHS capacity in the hope for an economic outcome that will never be realised. ONS surveys have 91% of those who were clinically extremely vulnerable still restricting their activities, and passenger surveys have the number of commuters at approx 50% of the normal levels. None of that creates a better healthcare or economic outcome if consumers continue to self-select their way out of the economy.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Look at the graphs, why don’t you?

---------- Post added at 13:39 ---------- Previous post was at 13:35 ----------



It’s not my prediction. It’s the scientists’ own modelling. I have already provided the graphs.

---------- Post added at 13:40 ---------- Previous post was at 13:39 ----------



Another one - it’s not my prediction!

Can you provide a link, please, to these predictive models, as the SAGE papers I have found only seem to have indicative scenarios (not "predictions", their words*) about hospitalisations.

https://assets.publishing.service.go..._scenarios.pdf

There’s nothing in the SAGE Minutes about zero level infections around December/January

https://assets.publishing.service.go...96_minutes.pdf

The Imperial College paper (part of the SAGE papers) - Autumn and Winter 2021-2022: potential COVID-19 epidemic trajectories states

https://assets.publishing.service.go...al_College.pdf

A. Summary

This report summarises potential COVID-19 epidemic trajectories until March 2022 based on the recent data and assumptions around changes in contact rates, vaccine effectiveness (VE) and coverage, cross-protection between variants, and waning of natural and vaccine- induced protection.

1. Based on the latest data available to 8 October 2021 on the UK Coronavirus Dashboard, 85% of the population aged 12+ in England have received one vaccine dose and 79% have received two doses.
2. The projected scale of the winter wave is sensitive to small changes in assumptions about vaccine effectiveness including boosters, cross-protection from prior non-Delta infections, and waning of natural- and vaccine-induced protection. It is also sensitive to the assumed level of social mixing reached by 1 December 2021.
3. In the most optimistic scenario we have considered (“central” VE, cross protection, waning of natural- and vaccine-induced protection, effectiveness of boosters, and lower contact rates), current levels of protection in the population combined with the delivery of boosters should maintain the epidemic at levels similar to or lower than currently observed.
4. However, under more pessimistic assumptions around contact patterns or underlying assumptions around the extent and duration of immunity (see Table 1), we project a substantial wave of total infections, hospitalisations and deaths, totalling 9,900 (95% CrI: 6,000, 14,200) deaths by 31 March 2022. In this scenario with more pessimistic assumptions, the current booster programme and vaccination of 12-15 year olds would thus not be sufficient to maintain the epidemic at low levels

* These trajectories are not predictions or forecasts, but indicative scenarios as the timings and scale of any future peaks remain highly uncertain

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Can you provide a link, please, to these predictive models, as the SAGE papers I have found only seem to have indicative scenarios (not "predictions", their words*) about hospitalisations.

https://assets.publishing.service.go..._scenarios.pdf

There’s nothing in the SAGE Minutes about zero level infections around December/January

https://assets.publishing.service.go...96_minutes.pdf

The Imperial College paper (part of the SAGE papers) - Autumn and Winter 2021-2022: potential COVID-19 epidemic trajectories states

https://assets.publishing.service.go...al_College.pdf

* These trajectories are not predictions or forecasts, but indicative scenarios as the timings and scale of any future peaks remain highly uncertain

In fairness to OB he made his statement (not prediction) based on these graphs. They certainly look close to zero following plan A rather than plan B for November through July.

[Carth]

indicative scenarios Just the same guesswork then . . wrapped up in even more sparkly glitter paper to make the words seem more important than they are

It's like gambling isn't it . . study the form, analyse the course and weather conditions, shove £20 on to win . . . horse comes 5th

[jfman]

Originally Posted by pip08456

In fairness to OB he made his statement (not prediction) based on these graphs. They certainly look close to zero following plan A rather than plan B for November through July.

But where is the source that outlines the underlying assumptions? Because if it’s the same model I saw in the Mail (which it looks very much like) it projects people “remaining cautious” for a year, with the alternative being Plan B plus a return to 2019 activity in three months.

Comparing apples with oranges.

[nffc]

It's common sense to suggest now that restrictions - even Plan B type - will just push the peak later, which to an extent, we can't necessarily keep doing.


In England there are now very few legal restrictions and even recommendations relating to covid. Cases still continue to fall (another big drop today) despite schools being back for a week. As they did in July and August before they went back again.


It seems indicative that actually they were right to basically open up in July and get some immunity in before the winter. We may be seeing this now, against the backdrop of it rising again, or we may see it do this again over the winter. Or we can restrict again and let the virus just come back again when it's lifted.

Originally Posted by jfman

But where is the source that outlines the underlying assumptions? Because if it’s the same model I saw in the Mail (which it looks very much like) it projects people “remaining cautious” for a year, with the alternative being Plan B plus a return to 2019 activity in three months.

Comparing apples with oranges.

Here’s the Source paper - the pre-pandemic baseline was about population mobility, not about zero infections. The is nothing in the Sky article about "zero infections".

https://assets.publishing.service.go..._scenarios.pdf

Here, we consider four scenarios: three scenarios in which mobility returns to pre-pandemic “baseline” levels but after different lengths of time (3 weeks, 3 months, or 6 months), and one scenario in which mobility stays at its current level for the remainder of the simulation

If you look at the data table on page 4, it shows a substantial increase in the number of forecast infections in all the modelled scenarios.



Even the most conservative model shows an additional 1.6 million infections in the period Jan 2022-Sept 2022.

[Taf]

Graphs from the start. ONS figures.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59181370

Booster jabs to open earlier for booking in England

Its not 100% clear but I think all this means is you can use the booking system earlier (after 5 months).

However, the actual booking must still be 6 months after your last jab.
Before, you could not even use the booking system until 6 months had passed.