Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[Barnfred 55]

I hope you're right. I think it's wishful thinking though.

There's a hell of a lot of propaganda about atm, and it's all designed to get people out and spending.

Fingers crossed that the vaccines do their job, because if they dont and we go through another autumn and winter like the one we just got out of, and another 4 months or so lockdown is needed, there's going to be an utter meltdown of society as we know it.

The people don't need propaganda to get them out spending Dave. Millions of people all across the UK are champing at the bit to go on holidays, arrange weddings, go to restaurants, get smashed in bars. If anything, the propaganda is being used to hold them back.

 

[Goat]

Why wouldn't we see a lockdown if lots of people are being hospitalised and many are dying from Covid19 in a surge of infections? I mean, these events are openly talked about by the scientific community as real possibilities. Many even expect that to happen.

The vaccines will hopefully makes sure those deaths are kept way down below what we've seen so far in surges. However, they will be disruptive to all our lives. So, again, I ask why wouldn't we see a lockdown? The odds must be strongly in favour of it.

Show me 1 real scientist claiming lockdowns are expected to happen.

 

[Brennan]

I stand by that. I know Welsh is your first language, but cant you read English?

I don’t speak Welsh, thanks for confirming you still believe we’ll be in a lockdown in July.

 

[davek]

Show me 1 real scientist claiming lockdowns are expected to happen.

7th April 2021.

Government advisers on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) have predicted that the re-opening will lead to a third wave of Covid-19.

Scientists say even if we stop mixing indoors and gather in groups of up to six people or two households outside it's a case of "when" not "if" it will happen again.

SAGE papers released yesterday suggest the roadmap could unleash a deadly third wave which could potentially be size of the second wave in January for hospital admissions.

What's more, it is almost unavoidable - despite the success of the vaccine rollout so far.
SPI-M-O said: “It is highly likely that there will be a further resurgence in hospitalisations and deaths after the later steps of the Roadmap.”

The reason for this the combination of three things together. Some people - mostly children - are ineligible for vaccination, others choose not to get a jab, and people who’ve had the vaccine don’t get 100% protection.



Imperial estimated only 44.6% of the population will be protected against severe disease by June 21, “plateauing” at 61% later in summer.

In “most” scenarios, the peak of a third wave is smaller than that of either the second wave in January 2021, or the first in April 2020.

However, there are some “plausible” scenarios given to SAGE - if there is poorer vaccine efficacy and few measures at Step 4 - where the number of hospital cases could match the 35,000-odd peak we saw in January.

Warwick has a central assumption with an admissions peak of around 10,000.

But Warwick and LSHTM’s lower efficacy scenarios both predict a late summer surge could see admissions back up to around 30,000.

 

[davek]

I don’t speak Welsh, thanks for confirming you still believe we’ll be in a lockdown in July.

You're welcome.

 

[BlueToff]

Why wouldn't we see a lockdown if lots of people are being hospitalised and many are dying from Covid19 in a surge of infections? I mean, these events are openly talked about by the scientific community as real possibilities. Many even expect that to happen.

The vaccines will hopefully makes sure those deaths are kept way down below what we've seen so far in surges. However, they will be disruptive to all our lives. So, again, I ask why wouldn't we see a lockdown? The odds must be strongly in favour of it.

but we shouldn't see that because of the exact reasons I posted

no, the odds aren't 'strongly in favour of it'

 

[roydo]

7th April 2021.

Government advisers on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) have predicted that the re-opening will lead to a third wave of Covid-19.

Scientists say even if we stop mixing indoors and gather in groups of up to six people or two households outside it's a case of "when" not "if" it will happen again.

SAGE papers released yesterday suggest the roadmap could unleash a deadly third wave which could potentially be size of the second wave in January for hospital admissions.

What's more, it is almost unavoidable - despite the success of the vaccine rollout so far.
SPI-M-O said: “It is highly likely that there will be a further resurgence in hospitalisations and deaths after the later steps of the Roadmap.”

The reason for this the combination of three things together. Some people - mostly children - are ineligible for vaccination, others choose not to get a jab, and people who’ve had the vaccine don’t get 100% protection.

View attachment 125956

Imperial estimated only 44.6% of the population will be protected against severe disease by June 21, “plateauing” at 61% later in summer.

In “most” scenarios, the peak of a third wave is smaller than that of either the second wave in January 2021, or the first in April 2020.

However, there are some “plausible” scenarios given to SAGE - if there is poorer vaccine efficacy and few measures at Step 4 - where the number of hospital cases could match the 35,000-odd peak we saw in January.

Warwick has a central assumption with an admissions peak of around 10,000.

But Warwick and LSHTM’s lower efficacy scenarios both predict a late summer surge could see admissions back up to around 30,000.

You know how and why they do this modelling? I mean, I do; its similar to stochastic modelling that the BOE and other bodies use for predicting economic forecasts.

 

[davek]

but we shouldn't see that because of the exact reasons I posted

no, the odds aren't 'strongly in favour of it'

There'll be no more lockdowns?

Is that a serious point of view?


They are inevitable.

 

[bebo86]

There'll be no more lockdowns?

Is that a serious point of view?


They are inevitable.

Mate take a break from this thread eh

 

[roydo]

There'll be no more lockdowns?

Is that a serious point of view?


They are inevitable.

They are not inevitable, but they are not impossible.

I note you didnt respond to my post re stochastic modelling, so I will explain. Scientists and economists and clever folk know what happened in the past when X, Y or Z occurred. What they dont know if A, B, or C will happen in the future.

So they use their knowledge of what did happen, to make computers produce outcomes depending upon their input data. The more bad stuff they input, the worse the outcome, and vice versa. So, for example, in that "prediction" you posted, it was clear as day that the data input was towards the bad outcome scenario. "Low effagacy, low vax take up". Both demonstrably not the case in the UK.

But they need to have them. In case.

 

[davek]

You know how and why they do this modelling? I mean, I do; its similar to stochastic modelling that the BOE and other bodies use for predicting economic forecasts.

I was asked to provide examples of scientific forecast of a lockdown scenario. So I provided it.

Modelling seems to have obtained a derogatory connotation of late. The Warwick model predicts multiple scenarios not unreasonably based on a series of eventualities it seems to me. A surge has been deemed "inevitable" by Whitty, so it's a matter of determining what the outcome of that surge will be vis-a-vis the extent of vaccine roll out, efficacy of those vaccines and emergence of possible variants of concern.

 

[davek]

They are not inevitable, but they are not impossible.

I note you didnt respond to my post re stochastic modelling, so I will explain. Scientists and economists and clever folk know what happened in the past when X, Y or Z occurred. What they dont know if A, B, or C will happen in the future.

So they use their knowledge of what did happen, to make computers produce outcomes depending upon their input data. The more bad stuff they input, the worse the outcome, and vice versa. So, for example, in that "prediction" you posted, it was clear as day that the data input was towards the bad outcome scenario. "Low effagacy, low vax take up". Both demonstrably not the case in the UK.

But they need to have them. In case.

Inevitable according to Chris Whitty.

 

[roydo]

I was asked to provide examples of scientific forecast of a lockdown scenario. So I provided it.

Modelling seems to have obtained a derogatory connotation of late. The Warwick a model predicts multiple scenarios not unreasonably based on a series of eventualities it seems to me. A surge has been deemed "inevitable" by Whitty, so it's a matter of determining what the outcome of that surge will be vis-a-vis the extent of vaccine roll out, efficacy of those vaccines and emergence of possible variants of concern.

Yeah, depending on what they input into the modelling they asked the thing to do.

IF X Y C happened, what would A B C be?

I guarantee that if the input data was 95% vax take up and 92% success, (cant spell that effergy word), the data output would be a moon away. I used to use a simpler version of one.

Like I said, not inevitable, but not impossible.

 

[roydo]

Inevitable according to Chris Whitty.

You clearly didnt read or understand the rest of my post.

 

[wainy]

Inevitable according to Chris Whitty.

Weren’t you calling him a government puppet and deriding everything he said a few months ago?

fwiw it’s worth I hope the test events go well and people can get some semblance of normality back. The most vulnerable have been vaccinated but unfortunately deaths are inevitable, I would be eager to see what the scientists and government would accept as a daily death rate. New cases should now be irrelevant really (at this point) as it would appear the vaccines are working nicely.