Coronavirus

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Today we had approx 57,000 cases
On 29th December we had 74,000 cases (by specimen date)

That’s with the majority of the country in the highest level of restrictions...

Do you still need to ask that question ?

That doesn't mean that they are all really ill, does it? Much much more testing now than ever before, that's where those numbers come from.

I'm pretty sure that you are allowed to ask questions, if you haven't noticed, its a discussion forum.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

While the analysis is sound there’s other factors - there will be overlap between the “already infected” and vaccinated groups whether the former is as high as 20m or not. If immunity starts to dwindle after a year (again this is only a guess) a significant proportion of the already infected from the first wave will lose immunity in the next 26 weeks. If the vast majority are getting a vaccine only proven to be 62% effective this pushes the “all done” date back further.

That’s the quote from your post, jfman. You are peddling panic. Yes, I get the context, but you know what you are doing.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Don’t talk rubbish Old Boy. ONS data shows (linked by PIP) school age children as most likely to have the virus.

You choose your data source you takes you chance.

Schools are not the hotbeds of infection, and if the kids get infected, they are most likely not catching at school and bringing it home, but vice-versa.

https://www.who.int/docs/default-sou...rsn=320db233_2


https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02973-3

As you point out

Now they are either catching it from their parents going to non-essential retail or schools are driving transmission.

most likely the former not the latter. So focus on the actual issue.

This is also the SAGE position that closing schools drives down R.

No it isn’t........they’ll tell us in 2 weeks.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

That doesn't mean that they are all really ill, does it? Much much more testing now than ever before, that's where those numbers come from.

I'm pretty sure that you are allowed to ask questions, if you haven't noticed its a discussion forum.

Questions yes, but no banter

There evidence doesn’t really back up that we are testing more and getting more cases for that reason alone. The reasons for getting a test (having symptoms) haven’t substantially changed in the last 2-3 weeks.

We are back to Pierre’s favourite question however of will this increase in cases flow through to hospitalisations/deaths. That said, with increased spread in schools it will not have exactly the same impact on those two figures, although concerns over multi-generational mixing at Christmas will have a lot of people holding their breaths for the next 3-6 weeks.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

That doesn't mean that they are all really ill, does it? Much much more testing now than ever before, that's where those numbers come from.

I'm pretty sure that you are allowed to ask questions, if you haven't noticed, its a discussion forum.

Unfortunately, Max, certain posters on here seem unable to engage in discussion. They prefer ridicule and rudeness to get their point across, which normally means you’ve won the argument.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

You choose your data source you takes you chance.

Schools are not the hotbeds of infection, and if the kids get infected, they are most likely not catching at school and bringing it home, but vice-versa.

https://www.who.int/docs/default-sou...rsn=320db233_2


https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02973-3

As you point out

most likely the former not the latter. So focus on the actual issue.

No it isn’t........they’ll tell us in 2 weeks.

I’m sure you’d accept that data from up to October when some countries hadn’t opened their schools (and indeed, some states in the US still haven’t) has severe limitations.

You can’t really say there’s limited evidence for something when for the period in question (March to September in England) they were closed.

A similar study, selectively choosing March to July, would be able to say there’s no evidence of transmission in pubs.

---------- Post added at 20:54 ---------- Previous post was at 20:53 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Unfortunately, Max, certain posters on here seem unable to engage in discussion. They prefer ridicule and rudeness to get their point across, which normally means you’ve won the argument.

And others will misrepresent your argument for one they want to be having, rather than the point you actually made because of the inadequacies of their case.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

That doesn't mean that they are all really ill, does it? Much much more testing now than ever before, that's where those numbers come from.

I'm pretty sure that you are allowed to ask questions, if you haven't noticed, its a discussion forum.

Of course it doesn’t mean they’re ill. but you asked why it was needed. the answer is fairly obvious, however in case it isn’t I’ll spell it out for you.

Tier 2,3 and potentially to a degree tier 4 have allowed for these numbers. Now imagine what would happen if we removed the restrictions, cases would increase massively, subsequent hospital admissions, patients requiring ICU and unfortunately deaths would increase massively relative to current rates.

The job of lockdown or restrictions is to try and keep the fire to a slow burn, without them in place it would akin to a raging inferno.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by nomadking

How is that any different from outside of school hours?

The point being Sherlock that for those at risk, school is a safe space where they can be monitored and evaluated daily.

The most at risk will already be under some kind of social services care package, but then take that away we’re they are now away from daily seeing eyes......and social workers won’t/ can’t be able to keep an eye on them, they are more at risk of all kinds of issues, abuse, neglect etc.

And of course the borderline cases, that over a period of 6 months may have crossed the line.

Anyway, if you can’t see or understand the issue I can’t help you.. go and do some reading.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Unfortunately, Max, certain posters on here seem unable to engage in discussion. They prefer ridicule and rudeness to get their point across, which normally means you’ve won the argument.

Not really, in some cases it means you can’t fix stupid

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

The point being Sherlock that for those at risk, school is a safe space where they can be monitored and evaluated daily.

The most at risk will already be under some kind of social services care package, but then take that away we’re they are now away from daily seeing eyes......and social workers won’t/ can’t be able to keep an eye on them, they are more at risk of all kinds of issues, abuse, neglect etc.

And of course the borderline cases, that over a period of 6 months may have crossed the line.

Anyway, if you can’t see or understand the issue I can’t help you.. go and do some reading.

Bingo.

Give them overtime from Dido Harding’s loose change.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Where did I say that, maybe you should try reading the post before making smart arsed comments, see below.


Didn't Whitty or some Sage expert say that the majority of people who get Covid rarely have severe symptoms, and only have a relatively mild condition similar to a heavy cold?
If so why are we all cooped up like prisoners? I get the wearing of masks and other mitigations to lessen the spread, but the measures in place, especially in areas with very few cases, seem extreme.

So the above isn’t a question as to why current restrictions are required ?

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Of course it doesn’t mean they’re ill. but you asked why it was needed. the answer is fairly obvious, however in case it isn’t I’ll spell it out for you.

Tier 2,3 and potentially to a degree tier 4 have allowed for these numbers. Now imagine what would happen if we removed the restrictions, cases would increase massively, subsequent hospital admissions, patients requiring ICU and unfortunately deaths would increase massively relative to current rates.

The job of lockdown or restrictions is to try and keep the fire to a slow burn, without them in place it would akin to a raging inferno.

Keep your smart-arsed comments to yourself, how well did the lockdown go in Wales a few weeks ago?

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Keep your smart-arsed comments to yourself, how well did the lockdown go in Wales a few weeks ago?

Or?

Lockdowns work if people adhere to them or if they can be enforced. Welsh authorities already stated that there were significant quantities of people who were breaching rules.

For every England or Wales there’s countries who have managed to control via lockdown

Why was the first ‘national’ lockdown last year successful in suppressing the spread of the virus ?

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Or?

Lockdowns work if people adhere to them or if they can be enforced. Welsh authorities already stated that there were significant quantities of people who were breaching rules.

For every England or Wales there’s countries who have managed to control via lockdown

Doesn't that just prove that they don't work?

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Doesn't that just prove that they don't work?

Like I said, they do work, but it requires either the public to be obedient and behind it. Or, for it to be enforceable.

We’ve only had one lockdown and that was last year. Everything since has been ‘playing at it’