Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[Harryflashman]

Anyone want to consider @peteblue or all those like him who need to do staff Rotas and order beer or restaurants with food orders but have no idea if they’ll be setting fire to piles of money or but cutting their own throats by not ordering ? It’s outrageous in my opinion .

 

[Bruce Wayne]

You don't have to be a statistician to know that 6000 deaths a day won't happen.

From what I can recall, that was the worst case scenario (I know it was alleged earlier that these models don't account for probability). I don't know the conditions that would need to apply for such a scenario to unfold. Do you?

That logic disqualifies 99% of the population from having an opinion on 99% of issues. I don't think argument holds up at all. Where people have shown models and there is evidence in other countries that is very different, then it's right to have discussions. We also are entitled to think the worst case scenarios are pie in the sky, because the numbers which would be required to get to that point would be astronomical. You don't need to be an expert to think that is not going to happen in a highly vaccinated society.

When we know that not all options have been modelled then people are right to question the reason why. As long as people debate calmly and sensibly then that's good. People can disagree on issues and still get on, it's shouldn't be a problem.

This is what I don't get, as when you say this people often get rather whiny as though they're being deprived of their free speech or something. No one is saying that at all, and you're free to give your views on whatever you like. The thing is, it's utterly bonkers that me, you, or anyone else on this forum thinks that our uninformed bloviating is in any way equivalent or should be given equal weighting to any of the members of the Sage panel. It feels laughable to even have to point this out.

 

[Amw79]

Most recent SAGE minutes from 16/12 says that hospitalisations are likely to be between 1,000 and 2,000 per days by end of the year, with a likely peak of 3,000 early next year.

The 6,000 potential deaths per day is from 2 papers on modelling done by the Warwick University for SAGE and the cmmid (centre for
mathematical modelling of infectious diseases), and that seems to represent the high end of the range, of the worst case scenario.

SAGE and the government won’t be using this 6,000 per day in their decision making, as it’s extremely low likelihood, and has all the worst case assumptions in there. If people on here are saying - this seems well high, you can bet that SAGE and the gov will know this as well.

Indeed as per the first para, SAGE are using the 3,000 per day peak as the likely outcome, and looking at what impact this would have on NHS.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Anyone want to consider @peteblue or all those like him who need to do staff Rotas and order beer or restaurants with food orders but have no idea if they’ll be setting fire to piles of money or but cutting their own throats by not ordering ? It’s outrageous in my opinion .

As he's a Tory he'll be having speakeasy's all over the place during Christmas. He'll just require everyone to wear a tie and if questioned he'll pretend he's hosting an ESSG meeting.

 

[grandjoeblue]

From what I can recall, that was the worst case scenario (I know it was alleged earlier that these models don't account for probability). I don't know the conditions that would need to apply for such a scenario to unfold. Do you?

This is what I don't get, as when you say this people often get rather whiny as though they're being deprived of their free speech or something. No one is saying that at all, and you're free to give your views on whatever you like. The thing is, it's utterly bonkers that me, you, or anyone else on this forum thinks that our uninformed bloviating is in any way equivalent or should be given equal weighting to any of the members of the Sage panel. It feels laughable to even have to point this out.

I don't even think 6000 a day would die if the whole of the UK decided to meet in the middle of London indoors for a 5 day festival.

The 6000 a day is complete nonsense regardless of whatever they've used as it simply won't happen.

 

[neil999]

Honestly would do high st vouchers for those who get vaxxed

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I don't even think 6000 a day would die if the whole of the UK decided to meet in the middle of London indoors for a 5 day festival.

The 6000 a day is complete nonsense regardless of whatever they've used as it simply won't happen.

"No" would have been quicker to type

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Honestly would do high st vouchers for those who get vaxxed

Microsoft vouchers, just for bantz.

 

[mill]

Only 62% double jabbed - that really shocked me when i read it last week. I don't know how what can be done to help improve that number but it needs to be increased. Even a 5% increase on that figure is bound to make a tangible difference in such a big city.

Demographics play a bit role in this. There’s a much lower vaccination rate amongst certain communities (particular BAME communities).

The general distrust of authorities and institutions, poor communication and misinformation and frankly, access to vaccinations (due to not being able to get time off work etc) have all played a huge part in the figures.

Some of it is just numbers aswell. Fully vaccinated is classed as triple jabbed. I had mine yesterday (I’m 40). It’s going to take alot longer to get around everyone.

Just to give you context, tower hamlets has a ‘fully’ vaccinated rate of just 18%.

 

[tsubaki]

Just been pinged by NHS Test and Trace (my bosses PCR test was positive). A bit confused as nowhere did it ask if I had symptoms, just told me to do LFTs.

 

[ToffeeTim]

From what I can recall, that was the worst case scenario (I know it was alleged earlier that these models don't account for probability). I don't know the conditions that would need to apply for such a scenario to unfold. Do you?

This is what I don't get, as when you say this people often get rather whiny as though they're being deprived of their free speech or something. No one is saying that at all, and you're free to give your views on whatever you like. The thing is, it's utterly bonkers that me, you, or anyone else on this forum thinks that our uninformed bloviating is in any way equivalent or should be given equal weighting to any of the members of the Sage panel. It feels laughable to even have to point this out.

I'm not getting whiny, I just don't agree that people can't disagree with Sage after 2 years of pandemic. They always lean towards the intervention/restriction/lockdown viewpoint at every point. I would like to see more balance and a full analysis of the implications of another lockdown provided as well. I feel another lockdown will do considerably more societal damage than the health benefits of a lockdown.

You can keep calling people uninformed or whatever, but not all advisors think the same, and not all advice is good advice. And that's fine, because that's life and people think differently. But I do not feel there is enough balance to the debate, and people are too quick to call for restrictions. We are in a very different, and better place, than 12 months ago, due to the vaccine. So the no.1 issue as far as I see it, is increasing take up of the vaccine. That's the most practical thing we can all do.

 

[navidson]

Just been pinged by NHS Test and Trace (my bosses PCR test was positive). A bit confused as nowhere did it ask if I had symptoms, just told me to do LFTs.

"Anyone aged 5 years and over, who has been identified as a contact of someone with COVID-19 and who is not legally required to self-isolate, is now strongly advised to take a rapid lateral flow device (LFD) test every day for 7 days or until 10 days since their last contact with the person who tested positive for COVID-19 if this is earlier. If any of these LFD tests are positive they should self-isolate in order to protect other people."

 

[navidson]

Just been pinged by NHS Test and Trace (my bosses PCR test was positive). A bit confused as nowhere did it ask if I had symptoms, just told me to do LFTs.

I'm in the same boat - My fiance is currently self isolating after a positive test and i'm doing daily LFT's

 

[Amw79]

I'm in the same boat - My fiance is currently self isolating after a positive test and i'm doing daily LFT's

Likewise. We’re touch and go if family can come for Xmas. Her isolation ends before Xmas, but if I get it before then, Xmas is cancelled. Todays LF just come back negative. Bit of a pain like.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I'm not getting whiny, I just don't agree that people can't disagree with Sage after 2 years of pandemic. They always lean towards the intervention/restriction/lockdown viewpoint at every point. I would like to see more balance and a full analysis of the implications of another lockdown provided as well. I feel another lockdown will do considerably more societal damage than the health benefits of a lockdown.

You can keep calling people uninformed or whatever, but not all advisors think the same, and not all advice is good advice. And that's fine, because that's life and people think differently. But I do not feel there is enough balance to the debate, and people are too quick to call for restrictions. We are in a very different, and better place, than 12 months ago, due to the vaccine. So the no.1 issue as far as I see it, is increasing take up of the vaccine. That's the most practical thing we can all do.

Well presumably, as I haven't looked, the alternative Sage group does provide a different perspective and would do so from a slightly better position than you or I. Having worked with the Go-Science team, however, I know that all of their reports and other work does tend to be pretty robust and considers matters from a range of angles, so I'd be fairly confident that a process overseen by them would be equally robust and comprehensive. They won't be the "lockdown fetishists" that some here like to portray them as.