Re: Coronavirus
 

The infected have risen from 2092 to 4028 in 5 days.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Variants

Re: Coronavirus
 

Hopefully, the vaccines will work against anyone getting seriously ill.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That information on its own does not mean we have to start worrying. They are doing a tremendous amount of testing at the moment, so it’s not surprising the numbers detected are going up. If the testing reduced to the levels of four weeks ago, the numbers would go down again.

Most of these cases detected are asymptomatic, and owing to the vaccination programme, very few are being admitted to hospital. As long as the NHS is not in danger of being unable to cope, we can carry on regardless.

So my view is, we continue apace with the vaccinations and cease these restrictions as planned on 21 June.

Re: Coronavirus
 

:D:D:D

The funniest bit about this is in the last 7 days cases are up 24%, hospitalisations 25% and deaths 38%. Is there a source for the claim that most people are asymptomatic?

Re: Coronavirus
 

This week: 6.2 million.
Four weeks ago: 6.9 million.
(Source: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/testing)

I'm genuinely interested why people post stuff that's so easily disproved.

Re: Coronavirus
 

“The” infected.............it’s a fairly mild coronavirus not the zombie apocalypse.

---------- Post added at 22:50 ---------- Previous post was at 22:44 ----------

% as you well know are the worst metric. If a week goes by without a person dying, then if one person dies then week after, hey presto a 100% increase.


Your “ deaths 38%” is actually an increase of 16 people.......16...........aaaaarrrrghh..it’s the end I tell you, .........the end .

Re: Coronavirus
 

And what stops such percentage increases continuing, and even rising?

Nothing.

Intervention is required the only questions are how much and when. Same old story as March last year, September, January. Flawed decision making at this stage ends one way: lockdown.

We know you enjoy proposing to steer the country into another lockdown - a staple of your input into this thread even if you don’t realise it - the rest of us are quite sick of them.

---------- Post added at 23:01 ---------- Previous post was at 23:00 ----------

Why change the habit of a pandemic? I’m genuinely interested in the motivation as it’s neither health or the economy.

Re: Coronavirus
 

NHS Test and Trace advert on at the moment says that 1 in 3 peeople with Covid are asymptomatic. That suggests most people with Covid do have symptoms which is reassuring. Where do your more alarming figures come from?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Unsurprising that OB cannot return with any kind of corroboration.

The idea that a majority (>50%) of cases aren't traced by symptomatic testing with an R rate between 7 and 8 is absolutely terrifying given the amount of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated in the population.

I can console him though that life isn't that bad - because he's incorrect.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And what prevents that figure from falling again?

Nothing.

Unless this becomes a sustained increase, there is no need for these constant, irritating alarm bells. We know the number of positive tests are increasing, but we knew that would happen. It is the hospitalisation figure that is important, which continues to stabalise at a very low number.

All efforts now should be focussed on completing the vaccination programme and end the pandemic restrictions on 21 June.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That’s not how it works.

When this becomes a sustained increase.

Did we?

Rising faster than positive tests.

I actually agree with this bit

Yet sadly you contradict yourself with such a laughable proposal here.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If you factor in transmission rate and mortality numbers it is the worst Coronavirus that has ever existed.

MERS and SARS beats it for mortality rate over infections but it spreads no where near as fast and wide as SARS-COV2 and when it has killed so many people world wide I do not know how you can say it is fairly mild with a straight face. In fact you were most likely smirking smugly to yourself when you typed it

Re: Coronavirus
 

Let him will on the next lockdown. Ignorance is bliss as they say.

Re: Coronavirus
 

it just grinds my gears when someone makes light of it. I like many have lost someone close to me to this disease and then someone comes along like this and acts like its nothing

Re: Coronavirus
 

Indeed.

I think it’s no coincidence that those who downplay the pandemic (indeed, borderline deny the pandemic) are the biggest proponents of unregulated, uncontrolled free market capitalism. Human life is, to that end, an expendable commodity so long as someone’s stock goes up a couple of percentage points.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You talk such nonsense, jfman. No-one wants to see unnecessary deaths. However, the decisions made have always been a balance between the health of the nation and the economy. As a self proclaimed ‘economist’ it is surprising that your comments seem to indicate so strongly that the economy doesn’t matter.

Well, it does. Without it, we would have no public services, including the NHS. And we would all be thrown into poverty.

The fixation with the number of positive tests is one you do not balance with the number of people becoming ill enough to be admitted to hospital. As we have now vaccinated all the vulnerable groups, we have effectively avoided the peaks we have suffered to date.

As the vaccination programme continues, we will be avoiding problems with mutations taking their toll of the younger groups. We are already vaccinating the over-30s.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yet you want to remove all restrictions when the vaccination programme is incomplete?

That has consequences that are absolutely inevitable.

Yet you consistently advocate policy positions that end up in lockdown - with the greatest impact on both human health and the economy.

An entirely speculative position.

A sub-optimal vaccination programme increases the chances of a mutation that escapes the vaccine. Every infection of a part vaccinated individual is a dice roll.

I look forward to continued restrictions from June 22. Masks, working from home if you can at a minimum.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm afraid Old Boy only has eyes for your posts. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Hendra virus mortality rate is higher than all three diseases combined, for me the big thing the world has to ensure happens after the pandemic is that we stay away from bats, no more disturbing or encroaching on their habitats and definitely no more eating them, the diseases they carry aren't worth the risk of exposure to and that's the ones they've got we know about, goodness knows what else they've got swishing about in their bellies

Re: Coronavirus
 

That isn't a COV though is it? but yes stay away from Bats :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Stay away from gain of function research too.

I see the Government are considering making the vaccine mandatory for NHS staff. A slippery slope...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Making the vaccine mandatory for NHS and care home staff jolly well should be mandatory. This must surely be the most obvious necessity at this time and yet you are more worried more about less than 20 people being admitted to hospital!

---------- Post added at 17:47 ---------- Previous post was at 17:44 ----------

Really? Which categories of people is it going to infect to such an extent that they are hospitalised?

---------- Post added at 17:50 ---------- Previous post was at 17:47 ----------

I stand corrected, sorry. I had not seen these figures, but I had assumed the surge testing had greatly increased the number of people being tested.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You had assumed wrong Old Boy.

Not for the first time - at least as far back as the virus going away by itself.

As for who will be hospitalised that's a very good question. One for the Bolton hospitals that are treating vaccinated patients I'm sure.

I’m unsure where your “less than 20” figure comes from in relation to hospital admissions. Some irrelevant measure into something unrelated I’d guess.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well done you managed to contradict yourself in 10 words after making your first point.

---------- Post added at 18:39 ---------- Previous post was at 18:37 ----------

I am truly sorry for your loss but your personal experience does not make the rule.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What about 150,000 personal experiences?

Re: Coronavirus
 

No one has denied the pandemic


Says the “I’m not a Marxist”

---------- Post added at 18:43 ---------- Previous post was at 18:40 ----------

That’s fine, as are the other 68.2 million experiences.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If you read very carefully I didn't say anyone did.

I'm not sure what Marxism has to do with anything. Do you disagree that capitalism monetises human endeavour? I mean it's sort of the point. You may be shocked to learn Jeff Bezos doesn't deliver all those parcels himself.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I do not think you are truly sorry for anything tbh


Oh and just for your reference you saying it is a mild coronavirus does not make it that either

Re: Coronavirus
 

I did read it carefully, as carefully as you wrote it, as you’re very good as not saying what you’re really saying aren’t you?

Has Jeff Bezos downplayed the pandemic?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Quite the contradiction in your opening sentence.

Bezos is probably enjoying the pandemic. Almost as much as those on here who want it to drag out longer by making grave errors that end up in lockdown and needless death.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I offered my condolences, whether you accept them or not is a matter for you.

Thanks, I’ll make a note of that reference.

Re: Coronavirus
 

All I see is you saying "it's only mild" " oh sorry someone you cared about died" "but it is still only mild"

so no I do not accept it

you really really should

Re: Coronavirus
 

As much as you? No one on here has demonstrated a love for lockdown or big government more than you.

You’ll be bereft when it’s over.

---------- Post added at 19:11 ---------- Previous post was at 19:09 ----------

Suit yourself.

Re: Coronavirus
 

“Luckily” that won’t be for some time until the booster vaccines are out there.

I think you’ll find I’m offering credible alternatives to lockdown. No restrictions from June 22 isn’t one of them.

Re: Coronavirus
 

#5407. Are you having memory problems?

Re: Coronavirus
 

The longer the virus is allowed to swirl around, the easier it becomes for new variants to come along. Any new variant might be milder and/or less transmissible, or it maybe it could lead to worse affects and/or greater transmissibility.
Eg

Re: Coronavirus
 

Read that post and none the wiser, OB.

Your original statement

Re: Coronavirus
 

16 is less than 20. :beer:

---------- Post added at 19:43 ---------- Previous post was at 19:38 ----------

That’s why we have a vaccine. Even increased transmissibility will not be a problem when all the susceptible groups are vaccinated. We are there or thereabouts now.

We are continuing through the younger age groups now in case new variants transmit more deadly to them.

Re: Coronavirus
 

16 is less than 20.

It’s a shame Pierre was talking about deaths, you were talking about hospitalisations.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Let’s hope none of the variants is vaccine-resistant…

Re: Coronavirus
 

I hope you're not making potentially fatal assumptions there - i.e. that the existing vaccines will work against ANY new variant and if they don't that a new vaccine can be rolled out worldwide in a matter of days, because just look how far we are away from worldwide vaccination and we've been jabbing people as fast as we can for nearly 6 months.

If you're gamble doesn't pay off we could all be starting the whole sorry affair all over again. After all, you do know we're only playing catch-up with a virus which has got form for getting away from us. It's done it (possibly more than) once and is pretty likely to do it again - every time the virus replicates there's a chance it could mutate and that's kind of like playing virus russian roulette as the more often you pull the trigger.......

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think we all share that hope.

However, do you have any legitimate reason to think that may be the case?

The Kent, Indian, Brazilian, South African variants are all non-vaccine resistant.

We’ll feel better by not worrying about “what ifs” and focusing on “what ares”

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ah false comforting hope.

Comforting, but false.

Better to manage the pandemic in the real world not Pierre's hopes and dreams.

Re: Coronavirus
 

He making a perfectly acceptable assumption based on available evidence. The vaccines currently work on all variants.


So much fear and trepidation, do you get out of bed in the morning or just lay there quivering under the covers all day?

Re: Coronavirus
 

The available evidence is that mutations reduce efficacy. To that end it's inevitable that a vaccine resistant variant will arise unless action is taken to drive down cases and roll out the vaccine. They're complementary actions, not competing ones.

There are no short cuts.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And in the “real world”, all the variants so far are non-vaccine resistant. Not my hopes and dreams, just the real world.

What world do you Live in? Oh I know it’s the ‘let’s all live in a totalitarian dystopian world”

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's not how risk management works...

---------- Post added at 20:38 ---------- Previous post was at 20:37 ----------

You mean on this virus that's been around for 18 months, that people said "don't worry about it" at the beginning of last year, and that we are still learning about, including the issues with Long Covid?

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/covid...190403035.html

Re: Coronavirus
 

Vaccines have lower efficacy against variants.

Some of them are unable to reach the herd immunity threshold. That leaves us knee deep in a pandemic with risks of hospitalisations and deaths. In the real world.

---------- Post added at 20:40 ---------- Previous post was at 20:39 ----------

In fairness to Pierre he's been pretty consistent for the last 15 months he has no interest in managing the risk.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not inevitable, but possible, even probable, and if that happens we’ll deal with it each year, like the “flu”

Oooh, yes I’ve said the ‘F” word

Just roll out the vaccine, if hospitalisations threaten the NHS, then localised restrictions could be considered but there is no suggestion anything like that is required at the moment or the near future.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's already half way there.

National restrictions remain required it's too late for local restrictions to contain the Indian variant.

There's no chance of "normal" from June 22. Zero.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well the “Ifs” are potentially infinite, if your risk management expertise is as good as your research expertise, I’ll get a second opinion.

Like I say based on available evidence, as the evidence changes so will the conclusions.

Re: Coronavirus
 

There’s plenty of evidence for vaccine escape.

You’re simply using a tedious metric that, if taken to extreme, a 10% efficacy vaccine could be described as working despite being absolutely useless.

Countries are already buying further vaccines for their populations. They aren’t doing that because this will all be over in a few weeks.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It looks to me (could be wrong) that you (and others) want lock downs to continue until everyone in the UK has been vaccinated and no new variants have appeared, which seems a tad silly to me.

Let me explain before you turn purple . . . there are other countries in the World with the same problems, and many of those are nowhere near our vaccinated population level. This means that unless you really lock down for months (or years) by closing all access to this country there will be further variants arriving daily/weekly/monthly until the whole world has been vaccinated and there have been no more variants anywhere for a period of time (3 months? ).

Doesn't seem a sound plan to me, but hey if that's what you want . . .

Re: Coronavirus
 

Really? Can you name one virus (out of the many) that has actually developed vaccine resistance?

Before you name Flu there is this.

Link you might find it an interesting read.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The UK Government literally use the term vaccine escape to describe reduced efficacy. So this one.

The arbitrary threshold to reduce vaccine efficacy to zero as a definition of vaccine escape isn’t something I’ve seen outside this thread.

As evolution chips away 5% here and 10% there this has huge implications for population level immunity.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So no then, just so we’re clear.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't want lockdowns to continue infinitum, like everyone else I've pretty much had enough. But what certain older members of the CF community seem to have conveniently forgotten (if they understood in the first place) is there has never been any promise from the government that restrictions will be lifted on the 21st June, only that the 21st is the earliest they could be lifted. They have already started to prepare us for possible ongoing restrictions for some time after the 21st.

Maybe you've hit the nail on the head and we should lock down once and for all until the rest of the world catches up. As long as the virus is out there and mutations are happening we run the risk of going on the merry-go-round again and again before we realise repeating the same old approach has done nothing but left us bankrupt and still with no end of the pandemic in sight. I really hope I'm wrong and if we get a straight 12 months of life as it used to be with no sign of a resurgence I'll happily come back here and say "I was wrong!".

Re: Coronavirus
 

Who to trust. Government scientists or Pierre.

Not a tough one. Clear?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Pierre, every time :p:

Re: Coronavirus
 

No, we know that. But there has to be clear and evidential reason for not lifting restrictions, and there isn’t one.

---------- Post added at 22:45 ---------- Previous post was at 22:38 ----------

Agreed, not tough at all, just your very poor interpretation of a governmental term.

Clear?

---------- Post added at 22:46 ---------- Previous post was at 22:45 ----------

Never knowingly disappoints

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Another variant, and this one is airborne

oh hang on, aren't they all otherwise why wear masks?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well let's be clear.
Neither you nor any Government scientist can name any virus in the history of man that has become vaccine resistant.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I disagree with Pierre on many things but I don't doubt his sincerity here.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If it achieves complete vaccine resistance it's evolved into something that is no longer covid 19, at least that's how it was explained to me by a boffin on the box

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm not sure why 100% resistance is being held up as the bar when the Government (and others) use the term vaccine escape to describe reduced efficacy.

As I said to Pierre his ludicrous binary approach would have a vaccine that works 10% of the time as "working". That said, given he considers Coronavirus "mild" and continues to wilfully downplay the pandemic, it's no real surprise that he extends his ignorance to vaccine escape.

However his blind optimism usually results in disappointment so I take some comfort from that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

We had 2 Covid deaths reported in our locality a couple of days ago . . .

one was from January and one from March, so that's probably two of the recent deaths reported that have sod all to do with the current situation.

But the figures don't lie do they :rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Did they die of Covid or with Covid? ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

When I was walking the dog this morning, bumped into a local medic (anaesthesiologist at LGI) who was also in the field - I asked her (open question, no "how bad is it") her thoughts on current state of play on COVID (didn’t mention Indian Variant).

She told me that the local hospitals are gearing up for in increase in hospitalisations for COVID patients.

---------- Post added at 10:13 ---------- Previous post was at 10:09 ----------

"more transmissible".

---------- Post added at 10:16 ---------- Previous post was at 10:13 ----------

But in Risk Management you focus on the likely scenarios with the highest impacts, not potentially infinite scenarios.

Re: Coronavirus
 

End of the day I am glad it is not people like Pierre that makes the hard choices because if it was there would have been a lot more deaths and grieving families this last 15 months.

Hopefully those more vulnerable to the virus are inoculated now and wise enough to know they still need to take care and hopefully the hospitals do not fill up over the summer or at least those who catch it bad able to fight it

I personally do not think we are ready for back to normal and do not think we will be for a long long time but that does not mean we can not re open everything we just need to take care and we also need to be protected from those who refuse to face realities. Some form of social distancing and mask wearing needs to remain in my opinion ie antivaxxers deniers and selfish a holes can stay away from me

Re: Coronavirus
 

Management basics, don't want to get caught out IF there's a huge increase


Meaning what? We now have to wear 3 masks and stand 20ft away from anyone else?


Agreed sort of, but the risk potential here is determined by ever changing (conflicting) data and 'expert' opinion that has been wrong before ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

And still continuing.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1622454744

Re: Coronavirus
 

That doesn't take account of intervention.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You can’t help yourself can you?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I see, vaccination isn't intervention. Got it!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Considering that this will now most likely be a seasonal illness, then we should expect an increase around from august onwards.

I would hope any and every hospital are always in a state of readiness.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's clearly not what I said.

Those models are projections that have assumptions in them.

Vaccination is intervention. Lockdown is intervention. Unless one of those lines matches exactly what happened (forecast vaccine rollout, vaccine efficacy, levels of restrictions) it's impossible to say that the modelling was wrong.

Re: Coronavirus
 

How do you know I’m not Matt Hancock?


So we’ll just keep continually wearing masks for the thrill it gives us, and not base it on any evidence.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Easy.

He has advocated lockdown and restrictions.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That were clearly wrong

---------- Post added at 11:25 ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 ----------

Only to the face of the public.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Grateful if you could point to the line that most closely matches our vaccine rollout, school closures and various levels of restrictions from January to date? (Oh, and also forecast a new variant).

Otherwise I’m happy to chalk this up as further baseless speculation on your part.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What is the source for your chart?

Re: Coronavirus
 

a lot of people in the orient have worn masks due to the environment for years and years and they managed. What is wrong with taking precautions ?

Proverbs 22:3 The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Unfortunately the simplistic analysis from some works on the basis that masks aren’t 100% effective therefore they are ineffective.

Just as well they don’t think of vaccines the same way.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

The actual report can be found here and it appears to contain whole a shed load of information to keep all those who enjoy nitpicking through any links posted.
https://assets.publishing.service.go...r_England_.pdf

However I decided I have better, and less brain numbing, things to do on such a lovely day than do more that speed read it. :D

Over to someone who enjoys ploughing through government articles.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Am I seeing things, or is this the first sign of admission that all the projections made by the many and varied 'experts' in the Covid scenarios are nothing more than educated guesses?

:D :p: ;)


oh, and even I mentioned new variants 'arriving soon' about a week ago, they always seem to spring up nearing a lifting of restrictions ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

That should keep jfman happy for a while.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If I turn the brightness right up I can read it while having a beer in the garden on this fine bank holiday ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I would have thought China woud be Alpha, but the WHO doesn't like upsetting the CCP.

Re: Coronavirus
 

We have wee nippy calling the Indian variant April 02 ffs, talk about trying not to offend anyone, unbelievable!

Re: Coronavirus
 

How many has there been up to now?

Re: Coronavirus
 

3883

https://nextstrain.org/ncov/global

Re: Coronavirus
 

BREAKING: UK Reports Zero Covid-19 Related Deaths Since Pandemic Began.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...began-12322274

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nooooooo....we can’t remove all restrictions and open up on June 21st, that would go against whatever expert Sky news has rolled out today.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Oakshott?