advertisement


Coronavirus - the new strain XI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tony L said:
I missed the presentation, but from what I can tell from the news reports they at least made the concept of exponential growth perfectly clear along with the fact the NHS will become overwhelmed if things are allowed to continue as-is. We now need to see some real political leadership from Johnson, Hancock etc...

PS Yeah, right.
Click to expand...

The Treasury is reported to blocking restrictions that would affect business
 
I think he was referring to the indirect health risks from unemployment etc of a weaker economy. I actually felt they were pretty open.

Hopefully we get a formal update from the government today both in the HOC and briefing this evening. I think it would be poor and most people would think poor if there is no Government response to this briefing. It does include evidence we could have 50k cases a day before we even get to half term plus associated increases in hospitalisation and deaths.
 
Last edited:
Tony L said:
I’m hugely disappointed with him. He has a forensic legal mind and attention to detail, yet again he seems gagged with Labours all-pervasive focus group mentality. The thing that infuriates me is he unquestionably has the ability to rip this shower of shysters apart yet, just like Corbyn on Brexit or anti-Semitism, he sits on his hands ‘triangulating a strategy’ rather than showing any courage of conviction or ideology. I don’t understand why Labour insist their leaders shouldn’t lead and must sit on the fence on everything. From what I saw from PMQs this week (just a few replay clips as I forgot to watch it) Angela Rayner gave Johnson a damn good kicking, as did Ed Miliband last week. So why is Starmer hiding under the desk on Ridge/Marr? I just don’t get it, I don’t understand why running away from core topics is viewed internally as a good look, but after Corbyn and now Starmer it is now what I expect from the party.
Click to expand...
The same thing is happening to Starmer as happened to Corbyn. Both were/are subject to the machinations of the Iain McNicol cabal (now under new leadership). The only difference being that they are trying to constrain Starmer, whereas they wanted to kill Corbyn
 
flapland said:
It does include evidence we could have 50k cases a day before we even get to half term plus associated increases in hospitalisation and deaths.
Click to expand...

It's important to realise that 50k cases per day might equate to 3k hospital admissions per day in steady state (extrapolating from last week,) which would match the peak in April. We had 200 daily admissions on less than 4000 confirmed cases at the middle of last week (remembering that hospitalisations lag positive tests by some days.) It'll be 'interesting' to see how the figures change, as the increase was still looking linear last week...
 
A second full lock down will be an absolute disaster. I despair at certain people not following the rules, many of which are in this shit how govt.

Unfortunately, you cannot switch off peoples anxiety, regardless of measures put in place individuals will worry about paying bills & having a job. I am relatively comfortable but the thought of a total lock down absolutely terrifies me.

Personally I would like us to adopt certain restrictions & keep them in place so businesses can adapt. I don’t have a problem with people being fined & certain hard supervision measures being in place.

I want kids to be in school & medical treatments to continue. As it stands nothing has really worked in combatting this disease, yes I know Germany have done ok but we are decades behind them so it is largely irrelevant.
 
Re the slide above that shows cases increasing infection across all age groups, the rate of increase (the slope) is also broadly similar between them. That implies (?) that there is no significant difference in transmission (or the mechanism thereof) between children than between younger adults or older folks, which undermines the argument about school safety even further.
 
gavreid said:
Re the slide above that shows cases increasing infection across all age groups, the rate of increase (the slope) is also broadly similar between them. That implies (?) that there is no significant difference in transmission between children than between younger adults or older folks, which undermines the argument about school safety even further.
Click to expand...

Yes, especially if you factor the two highest groups (teens through 30s) are almost certainly the highest risk-takers and the very youngest may be sheltered/controlled to some degree to protect grandparent carers. That assumed and it starts to look very even.
 
gavreid said:
That implies (?) that there is no significant difference in transmission (or the mechanism thereof) between children than between younger adults or older folks, which undermines the argument about school safety even further.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that it implies that transmission rates and increases in them are broadly similar across age groups and, whilst that could be due to the same transmission methods / processes across age groups, they might not be.
 
Seeker_UK said:
I would suggest that it implies that transmission rates and increases in them are broadly similar across age groups and, whilst that could be due to the same transmission methods / processes across age groups, they might not be.
Click to expand...

That's right. It's just my cognitive issues making me question myself. One scenario, just for the sake of argument, could be that children don't infect each other readily but instead infect adults, who in turn infect other children. I can't see that it matters that much in the absence of much stricter measures.

Speaking of which, a Cobra meeting has been scheduled for tomorrow (the first since May) followed by PM statement to HoC
 
gavreid said:
That's right. It's just my cognitive issues making me question myself. One scenario, just for the sake of argument, could be that children don't infect each other readily but instead infect adults, who in turn infect other children. I can't see that it matters that much in the absence of much stricter measures.
Click to expand...

No but if the testing was there (!) it might provide alternatives for smarter interventions.
 
4368 cases and over 200 cases hospitalised again - consistently over 200 now (England only Fri and Sat) as Tory MPs get up in the HoC to contradict and undermine the scientific presentation this morning, after Hancock's statement exempting childcare arrangements from local lockdowns!
 
In developing news I see Boots are pausing flu jabs for the under 65, thats free and paid for jabs.

Can't link to article as its only in the BBC live news feed at the moment and doesn't have a standalone article.

The high street pharmacy chain Boots says it is pausing taking any new bookings for flu vaccinations for people under 65 – both the free NHS jabs and privately paid for ones.

It says it’s seen unprecedented demand for the vaccine in recent weeks and is temporarily limiting existing stocks to those at highest risk – people 65 and over.

NHS England confirmed there is no nationwide shortage of flu jabs, but that those eligible for the free vaccine would be immunised in phases, with the highest risk groups receiving it first.

Some 30 million people - more than ever before - will get invites from the NHS programme this winter as the population faces the dual threat of flu and coronavirus. For the first time, people over 50 in England will be eligible as well as secondary school pupils in year 7.
 
I've just seen a post written by a FB friend. She says:

"I read an open letter to covid deniers and the opening lines made me laugh "''Well, for starters, go f^^^ yourselves. You are the real reason 2020 sucks. The lockdowns are difficult and the pandemic is frustrating. We are in truly unprecedented times. But in a series of years that keep getting worse since Bowie died, you guys are working really f^^^ing hard to make sure this one sucks the most.''

Seems like a reasonable argument to me.

Jack
 
Tony L said:
Yes, especially if you factor the two highest groups (teens through 30s) are almost certainly the highest risk-takers and the very youngest may be sheltered/controlled to some degree to protect grandparent carers. That assumed and it starts to look very even.
Click to expand...
Even, yes, but the majority dying are older with health issues. Seems we currently live in a society where the youth will throw millions at Sir Tom for his bravery but wouldn't give a **** if they killed him by passing on the disease.
 
Ragaman said:
Even, yes, but the majority dying are older with health issues. Seems we currently live in a society where the youth will throw millions at Sir Tom for his bravery but wouldn't give a **** if they killed him by passing on the disease.
Click to expand...

Younger folk take risks, I’m sure we all did at that at that age. I did all kinds, some wonderfully crazy shit, and I’m sure no one is deliberately looking to harm others. It is just that ‘indestructible/can’t possibly happen to me’ thing that goes with the age range. I’m sure a fair number will wake up to a horrific reality that their carelessness killed their grandparent, their handicapped sister or whoever, and that will be a hell of a thing to carry around for the rest of their life. It’s not an easy fix and at that age a year feels like an eternity. There are clearly some idiots, but I really feel for them, it must be a total nightmare to miss such a crucial and formative time of your life. I can’t imagine what it would have been like to miss 1980-81 or whatever from a social perspective, and that’s effectively what we are asking of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top