Coronavirus

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

But the more that are infected and asymptomatic, the higher the likelyhood of spreading the infection through greater viral load - so if only one is infected and unvaccinated, less likely to infect others.

But if one is infected, don't the others (in class) have to isolate whether jabbed or not?

Serious question because the 'rules' as I see them are all over the place

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Paul

or just a tad dramatic ...

No, Wales is being dramatic.

Non-league football club Chester face going out of business after they were told they may have breached Welsh coronavirus rules by playing in front of crowds.

The sixth-tier club's Swansway Chester Stadium straddles the English-Welsh border with the front gates, car park, ticket office and main office door in England but the pitch in Wales.

Sporting events in Wales are currently restricted to just 50 spectators under Covid regulations but Chester hosted crowds of 2,075 and 2,116 in National League North fixtures against AFC Fylde and AFC Telford United on December 28 and January 2 respectively.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sp...vid-rules.html

and

Six Nations loss due to Covid rules could 'devastate' Cardiff economy

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-59897028

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

It’s the one in the middle

Don’t see how being in hospital with COVID either unvaccinated, vaccinated or boostered skews anything.

All two or three of them.

So not 2 children as per your previous conclusion? Your error is applying the 20,000 hospitalisations to the rate the ONS provide. Perhaps you could see if the school have a statistics textbook you can borrow. It’d help you reach a considered conclusion rather than take your lead from what you read on the internet.

which makes it a whopping total of 2.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

So not 2 children as per your previous conclusion? Your error is applying the 20,000 hospitalisations to the rate the ONS provide. Perhaps you could see if the school have a statistics textbook you can borrow. It’d help you reach a considered conclusion rather than take your lead from what you read on the internet.

Well I’m extrapolating from a barchart so it’s approx, but in that ball park.

I suppose you see 3 from 2 and think that’s a huge 30% increase?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well I’m extrapolating from a barchart so it’s approx, but in that ball park.

I suppose you see 3 from 2 and think that’s a huge 30% increase?

The fact you are using the 20,000 figure at all to reach your conclusion when the ONS have already calculated the rate based on the population figure for each age group is where you are going wrong.

3 from 2 is a 50% increase but I digress.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Carth

But if one is infected, don't the others (in class) have to isolate whether jabbed or not?

Serious question because the 'rules' as I see them are all over the place

No they don't as if you're under 18 yrs 6 months you don't need to isolate if you're a close contact unless you test positive yourself...

[Carth]

Originally Posted by nffc

No they don't as if you're under 18 yrs 6 months you don't need to isolate if you're a close contact unless you test positive yourself...

aah right . . . so how would vaccinating all 5yr olds save schools. . . and from what?

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by Carth

aah right . . . so how would vaccinating all 5yr olds save schools. . . and from what?

I think the idea is to jab the kids in an attempt to try and stop them spreading it to the teachers, my grandson is just six years old and I can tell you now there is no way his parents will let him get the jab, it's nonsense to jab kids that young imo, unless of course they are in the vulnerable category.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

The fact you are using the 20,000 figure at all to reach your conclusion when the ONS have already calculated the rate based on the population figure for each age group is where you are going wrong.
.

Ok help me out then.

U.K. population 67million.

ONS stats say 130 in every 100,000 aged 85 are in hospital (according to your interpretation)

There’s 670 x 100,000’s in 67 million.

That would mean, according to your interpretation, that there are 130 x 670 over 85’s in hospital with COVID = 87,100 and that’s just that one group.

I therefore suggest you are interpreting the information incorrectly.

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by Pierre

ONS stats say 130 in every 100,000 aged 85 are in hospital (according to your interpretation)

There’s 670 x 100,000’s in 67 million.

No, because most of the 67 million aren't over 85.

There are about 1.5 million over 85s. So 15 x 130 = 1950 in hospital.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...-by-age-group/

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

No, because most of the 67 million aren't over 85.

There are about 1.5 million over 85s. So 15 x 130 = 1950 in hospital.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...-by-age-group/

What are you on about, it’s already been divided by age group. See attachment- middle chart (in earlier post)I used the over 85 metric which is (looking at the chart) around 130, per 100,000.

It doesn’t state per 100,000 of what. According to JFman’s interpretation the ONS stats state that is the hospitalisation rate per 100,000 per “Population”

I believe it is pro-rata per those actually hospitalised.

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by Pierre

What are you on about, it’s already been divided by age group. See attachment- middle chart (in earlier post)I used the over 85 metric which is (looking at the chart) around 130, per 100,000.

It doesn’t state per 100,000 of what. According to JFman’s interpretation the ONS stats state that is the hospitalisation rate per 100,000 per “Population”

Well aside from the fact it's admissions over the week rather than numbers in hospital, I've re-read the ONS site and I still believe my interpretation is correct. And 1,950 feels like a reasonable figure. 87,100 is clearly bonkers.

Also it says "The hospitalisation rate for COVID-19 was at 18.41 per 100,000 in week 52", which seems about right if you average out all the age groups.

But I agree the ONS could make a lot clearer

Originally Posted by Pierre

I believe it is pro-rata per those actually hospitalised.

Wouldn't it add up to 100,000 in that case?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

Well aside from the fact it's admissions over the week rather than numbers in hospital,

Fair observation.

I've re-read the ONS site and I still believe my interpretation is correct. And 1,950 feels like a reasonable figure. 87,100 is clearly bonkers.

Agreed, 87,100 is clearly bonkers. Which is why JFmans assertion that it is per population is clearly incorrect.

Also it says "The hospitalisation rate for COVID-19 was at 18.41 per 100,000 in week 52", which seems about right if you average out all the age groups.

I think the stats are just there to confuse you.

You correctly state that the overall hospitalisation rate for the week was 18.41 per 100,000 across all ages…and that could well be at a population level too.

But the chart, just below that statement, that I refer to, says something completely different.

Wouldn't it add up to 100,000 in that case?

No, it would depend on the hospitalised total and be based against that. As mentioned earlier if the hospitalised total is 20,000, then the pro-rate figure of 100,000 is one fifth of that.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by roughbeast

Privatisation doesn't happen that way and the encroachment of private insurance won't be done that way. It will be done, and is being done, by stealth, bit by bit, without making waves in the political pond. With perennial underfunding the NHS becomes less effective and less available. If waiting queues for knee ops, cataracts, hip replacement, physiotherapy etc are months or years long, people with the cash will go private. Private insurance companies are burgeoning currently, tempting those with the funds to take whole or partial cover for all or some of their health needs. If you or I have taken out a £15.00 a month dental plan we are part of that trend. Private schemes giving access to GPs is currently being piloted without any particular government action or change in law.

Recently, I went to my doctor to have my troubled left knee looked at. I have been on a waiting list for surgery to tidy up my cartilage for four years! The doctor said it has been so long I have dropped off the list and that they will have to do X-Rays and soft tissue scans again before they can operate. There is a six-month wait to get a consultation. She offered me private consultation to speed things up. I refused on principle, so will have sleepless nights and difficulty walking downstairs until I get seen to. I pay an osteopath £48 a pop to keep me going. This service is not, and never has been, available anywhere in the NHS, so I'm not jumping any queues.

An old school friend of mine has cataracts that are making it impossible to drive at night and give him 'yellow-outs' when the sun is low. He has been told that he won't get them removed until he is virtually housebound. His job, as a buildings inspector, requiring a lot of driving is in jeopardy. The company running this contracted-out function of local authorities has lost patience. My friend has dug deep into savings to pay to get the op done!

There are 100s of thousands out there in long queues without the budget to jump the queue or who still hang on to their principles. In time, a decade or so, the majority will be on some kind private health insurance because, in the end, health, quality of life and saving life is a priority. People will not suffer for years if they can possibly pay a consultant or fund a monthly premium. In time we will be in exactly the same position as the USA, without a single change in legislation or any media furore. Those who protest loudly will be pronounced to be the looney left. We will have bog standard NHS hospitals with limited services and limited access for the poorest 25% to life-saving drugs and then a network of top-notch private hospitals and private services in NHS hospitals for the other 75%. Free at the point of need will be a principle still, but realistically only taken up by those with limited funds..

This may well be the future, my partner has private health insurance through her work and I can take it out for £10 a month or something silly, my eye issues are such I could do with just ringing a GP for advice every now and then and obviously that's not possible with the NHS anymore and with every interaction with my surgery the liklihood of me taking it out increases but so far I've stopped myself because that's what they want

[1andrew1]

COVID-19: T cells from common colds can protect against coronavirus infection, study finds

Imperial College London researchers warn "no one should rely on this alone" and insist people should still get vaccinated as the "best way" to protect against COVID.

People with high levels of T cells from common colds are less likely to catch COVID, according to a new peer-reviewed study.

Researchers said the findings could help provide the blueprint for the production of new vaccines which give longer-lasting immunity and would protect against current and future coronavirus variants such as Omicron and Delta.

Imperial College London researchers say the high levels of T cells and the role in fighting COVID is an "important discovery" - but warned "no one should rely on this alone" and insisted people should still get vaccinated as the "best way" to protect against COVID.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...finds-12512900