Coronavirus Thread

[Nuneatonfox in Manchester]

1 minute ago, z-layrex said:

Some ICU's are admitting patients who have had both jabs so it's not 100%.

Yeah we all knew that from the start, the same as most other vaccines. 
Let me respectfully ask you what you would propose.

Restrictions forever?

 

 

[z-layrex]

2 minutes ago, Nuneatonfox in Manchester said:

Yeah we all knew that from the start, the same as most other vaccines. 
Let me respectfully ask you what you would propose.

Restrictions forever?

 

 

No no, was just saying. Some people seem to think it offers 100% protection.

[filbertway]

2 minutes ago, Nuneatonfox in Manchester said:

Yeah we all knew that from the start, the same as most other vaccines. 
Let me respectfully ask you what you would propose.

Restrictions forever?

 

 

Naaah, he's already said 4 more week to get more people vaccinated I believe. I'd be on board, but I'd want to hear a bit of detail and promises from the government about what numbers of vaccines they want to see before restrictions are eased

 

[martyn]

12 minutes ago, Nuneatonfox in Manchester said:

Yeah we all knew that from the start, the same as most other vaccines. 
Let me respectfully ask you what you would propose.

Restrictions forever?

 

 

Just because someone might be cautious doesn't mean they advocate for Restrictions forever. It really doesn't need to be so black and white as that.

 

In this interim period with 50% of the adult population vulnerable to some non trivial degree (unvaccinated and partially vaccinated), there's no harm in a small pushback to the June 21st date to collect more data to firm up the links between cases, hospital admissions and vaccine status, and use the time to get as many double dosed as possible. It's a shame the Delta Variant was allowed to seed here such that the goalposts have changed.

 

There'll come a point where we reach the maximum vaccine reach we can, and then it will make sense to take stock and figure out what the tactics are going forward.

 

I'm hopeful they'll open up AZ vaccines to under 40's again tbh, the risk/benefit ratio must be starting to skew again.

Edited 10 June 2021 by martyn

[Sol thewall Bamba]

3 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Naaah, he's already said 4 more week to get more people vaccinated I believe. I'd be on board, but I'd want to hear a bit of detail and promises from the government about what numbers of vaccines they want to see before restrictions are eased

I could just about get on board if they said "give us 2 weeks to do Xmillion more jabs and then we'll progress", but it won't go like that, the next variant will be along or they'll decide they want to jab the kids or whatever and it'll be pushed back again. 

[Nuneatonfox in Manchester]

3 minutes ago, martyn said:

Just because someone might be cautious doesn't mean they advocate for Restrictions forever. It really doesn't need to be so black and white as that.

 

In this interim period with 50% of the adult population vulnerable to some non trivial degree (unvaccinated and partially vaccinated), there's no harm in a small pushback to the June 21st date to collect more data to firm up the links between cases, hospital admissions and vaccine status, and use the time to get as many double dosed as possible. There'll come a point where we reach the maximum vaccine reach we can, and then it will make sense to take stock and figure out what the tactics are going forward.

 

I'm hopeful they'll open up AZ vaccines to under 40's again tbh, the risk/benefit ratio must be starting to skew again.

Yes but there will always be a reason to delay the reopening. In a few weeks some people will want to cautiously wait for the autumn booster jabs, then it will be close to winter so we will need to protect the nhs from the seasonal illnesses. If we don’t re-open properly now I don’t think we ever will. Hospitalisations are rising slightly but with younger patients who don’t need to stay as long. Ventilator use is also still low and there was just 6 hospital deaths In England today Obviously there is a lag but the slight upward trend of deaths have started to flatten off according to a poster on bluemoon who has access to all the data.

 

[dsr-burnley]

36 minutes ago, z-layrex said:

Some ICU's are admitting patients who have had both jabs so it's not 100%.

I haven't seen any figures for ICUs, but the figure for admissions to hospitals from the first 9,000 Indian variant cases was 90 unvaccinated, 7 fully vaccinated.  But when we bear in mind that the fully vaccinated group contains twice as many people as the unvaccinated group, and the fully vaccinated group (because of their age and infirmity) have a record of being at least twenty times (probably more) likely to need to go to hospital than the unvaccinated, then we are talking about something like 99.8% protection.  In medical terms, it's as near to 100% as you can reasonably get.

[martyn]

36 minutes ago, Nuneatonfox in Manchester said:

Yes but there will always be a reason to delay the reopening. In a few weeks some people will want to cautiously wait for the autumn booster jabs, then it will be close to winter so we will need to protect the nhs from the seasonal illnesses. If we don’t re-open properly now I don’t think we ever will. Hospitalisations are rising slightly but with younger patients who don’t need to stay as long. Ventilator use is also still low and there was just 6 hospital deaths In England today Obviously there is a lag but the slight upward trend of deaths have started to flatten off according to a poster on bluemoon who has access to all the data.

 

I understand that there'll always be some reason to postpone/delay things, although I wouldn't be proposing an indefinite delay myself, just long enough if necessary to get sufficient data to build more confidence in modelling the link between cases, hospitalisations and vaccine status, such that under current conditions we can be sure that it won't lead to an unsustainable surge in hospitalisations. In the interim, get as many 2nd doses in arms as possible. There may also be a compelling case that the risk/benefit of opening up AZ to under 40's again is swaying in favour of vaccinating again, which would speed things up.

 

When we get maximum vaccine coverage, or as near as we can, then it's a separate discussion around how we look to deal with things in the future. It's just a shame the Delta variant cocked things up, we'd be reopening fully otherwise i suspect.

Edited 10 June 2021 by martyn

[yorkie1999]

26 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

I haven't seen any figures for ICUs, but the figure for admissions to hospitals from the first 9,000 Indian variant cases was 90 unvaccinated, 7 fully vaccinated.  But when we bear in mind that the fully vaccinated group contains twice as many people as the unvaccinated group, and the fully vaccinated group (because of their age and infirmity) have a record of being at least twenty times (probably more) likely to need to go to hospital than the unvaccinated, then we are talking about something like 99.8% protection.  In medical terms, it's as near to 100% as you can reasonably get.

How many of those fully vaccinated fell into the group of only having recently been fully vaccinated and therefore the second dose hadn't had time to work fully.

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Fortunately I looked it up before I answered so I could be sure I knew what it meant.

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pandemic

 

But I suppose what you are saying is that we are in the grip of a disease vastly deadlier than your average pandemic and so we need to take special action.  And that is what we're discussing.  Certainly the figures as they are now are nowhjere near enough to justify any sort of restrictions, and what the speculation is all about is whether things will once again turn to hell in a handcart if we release the restrictions.  But just to say "we are in a pandemic" as if that justifies anything - whatever your definition of pandemic, that is not helpful.

No I was saying you don't know what a pandemic is.  Despite having looked it up.  Seasonal flu isn't a pandemic.  

 

We are closer to a normal daily life with each passing day but people griping and moaning at every setback as though they're the only ones suffering and the universe owes them something is what's not helpful.

Edited 10 June 2021 by Carl the Llama

[dsr-burnley]

7 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

No I was saying you don't know what a pandemic is.  Despite having looked it up.  Seasonal flu isn't a pandemic.  

 

We are closer to a normal daily life with each passing day but people griping and moaning at every setback as though they're the only ones suffering and the universe owes them something is what's not helpful.

Pandemic, like most English words, has a range of definitions.  I made my comment based on your definition of pandemic, so if you want to bang on about it now, it should be put onto the "liguistic pedantry" thread.

[Carl the Llama]

18 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Pandemic, like most English words, has a range of definitions.  I made my comment based on your definition of pandemic, so if you want to bang on about it now, it should be put onto the "liguistic pedantry" thread.

Eh?  I haven't given one, all I said was you don't know what it means since you'd just told me you've never lived outside of one.  An absurd claim.  Now you're following it up with another.  Come back to reality.

 

Edit: Unless you're saying the comment I initially responded to was made based on the CDC link I gave a few posts later in which case we can leave linguistic pedantry alone and move onto temporal pedantry.

Edited 10 June 2021 by Carl the Llama

[Sol thewall Bamba]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-hospitals-nhs-england-data-b1862804.html

 

Good to see we're starting to be more targeted with our reporting now the numbers are down so low.

[Babylon]

2 hours ago, Costock_Fox said:

So the facts I talk about are that we set out on this 16 months ago to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed, the data shows that the groups we need to be worried about are the over 60’s and anyone with certain conditions.

Have you looked at the data regarding the delta strain a few pages back? 3.75% of Delta cases so far needing emergency care is a worrying number do you not think?

 

2 hours ago, Costock_Fox said:

The government correctly identified that vaccinating these people would prevent 99% of deaths and then proceeded to vaccinate them. They have now been vaccinated and we know that 2 doses of the vaccine give you excellent immunity against every current strain of the disease. We also know that 7/10 people in the UK have antibodies against Covid.

 

Why would we not now be at a stage when we can lift restrictions and let people make their own choices? 

If we start hitting 60,000 cases a day again (the Delta variant is growing rapidly) and 3.75% of them need emergency care, do you think we'll cope? (These are fag packet stats, based on the data posted, of course age and race plays a part). 

 

2 hours ago, Costock_Fox said:

I’ve seen a scientist today suggest that we need to socially distance forever, I’m also seeing SAGE recommendations regularity to not open the country in 11 days. 

Look, post the source. Because there are scientists at the extremes on both sides of these arguments. Anyone in charge isn't remotely suggesting social distancing forever, because it's frankly absurd. 

 

The numbers are not amazing with Delta, so I'm not surprised they are cautious about opening up. Remember, this wasn't set in stone. It was "at the earliest" and would be decided by the data. The data was going the right way, Delta could shaft that. 

 

2 hours ago, Costock_Fox said:

IRegarding models- aren’t we below even the worst of the predicted models?
 

It's about inline with what they predicted months ago with us being vaccinated, and the rollout has been better than expected. So it's about right. The scary peaks were if we didn't get vaccinations. 

 

2 hours ago, Costock_Fox said:

There is no reason to deviate from that plan unless I am missing something?

Delta cases have risen 84% in 5 days, 3.75% of of cases up until a day or two ago had needed emergency care. One jab 1% ish were admitted to hospital, two jabs barely anyone. Again, it's not the full data. But it screams... get the second doses into people as quick as we blooming can. Lets say they push it to July 1st, that could mean 4m extra doses of second and first jabs. 

[DennisNedry]

11 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-hospitals-nhs-england-data-b1862804.html

 

Good to see we're starting to be more targeted with our reporting now the numbers are down so low.

 

Christ, I had no idea that that was how numbers were reported previously.

 

So even the low numbers we have now are inflated.

 

So many smoke and mirrors. I feel lied to!

[filbertway]

It's definitely important to actually produce stats people that are in hospital because of covid and not in hospital for something else but have tested positive for covid. 

[OrielCaziado]

10 minutes ago, filbertway said:

It's definitely important to actually produce stats people that are in hospital because of covid and not in hospital for something else but have tested positive for covid. 

This was something that I was puzzled by in the days when it was really bad. I knew two people who died with COVID on the death certificate who caught it in hospital when in already in a very bad state. 

[FoxesDeb]

11 minutes ago, OrielCaziado said:

This was something that I was puzzled by in the days when it was really bad. I knew two people who died with COVID on the death certificate who caught it in hospital when in already in a very bad state. 

I can't remember the exact details, but I'm sure it was documented previously that although people may have had covid mentioned on the certificate, it couldn't actually be listed as the cause of death if it wasn't, and therefore these deaths weren't listed as a covid death.

 

This may have changed since though, it was quite some time ago. 

[whoareyaaa]

9 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

I can't remember the exact details, but I'm sure it was documented previously that although people may have had covid mentioned on the certificate, it couldn't actually be listed as the cause of death if it wasn't, and therefore these deaths weren't listed as a covid death.

 

This may have changed since though, it was quite some time ago. 

No it wasn't 

[Costock_Fox]

43 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Have you looked at the data regarding the delta strain a few pages back? 3.75% of Delta cases so far needing emergency care is a worrying number do you not think?

 

If we start hitting 60,000 cases a day again (the Delta variant is growing rapidly) and 3.75% of them need emergency care, do you think we'll cope? (These are fag packet stats, based on the data posted, of course age and race plays a part). 

 

Look, post the source. Because there are scientists at the extremes on both sides of these arguments. Anyone in charge isn't remotely suggesting social distancing forever, because it's frankly absurd. 

 

The numbers are not amazing with Delta, so I'm not surprised they are cautious about opening up. Remember, this wasn't set in stone. It was "at the earliest" and would be decided by the data. The data was going the right way, Delta could shaft that. 

 

It's about inline with what they predicted months ago with us being vaccinated, and the rollout has been better than expected. So it's about right. The scary peaks were if we didn't get vaccinations. 

 

Delta cases have risen 84% in 5 days, 3.75% of of cases up until a day or two ago had needed emergency care. One jab 1% ish were admitted to hospital, two jabs barely anyone. Again, it's not the full data. But it screams... get the second doses into people as quick as we blooming can. Lets say they push it to July 1st, that could mean 4m extra doses of second and first jabs. 

I haven’t seen anything that says 3.7% of infections with this variant result in hospitalisations, Google throws up no such article- post it.

 

I’m not arguing for a second that people shouldn’t have the second jab.

[filbertway]

2 minutes ago, Costock_Fox said:

I haven’t seen anything that says 3.7% of infections with this variant result in hospitalisations, Google throws up no such article- post it.

 

I’m not arguing for a second that people shouldn’t have the second jab.

 

I believe he's using this, which was posted a day or two ago

[filbertway]

Just now, filbertway said:

 

I believe he's using this, which was posted a day or two ago

I dont know what emergency care counts as though, because of those only 126 went to hospital.

 

0.25% chance of being hospitalised after having at least one jab

 

 

[FoxesDeb]

10 minutes ago, whoareyaaa said:

No it wasn't 

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n352

[dsr-burnley]

25 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

I can't remember the exact details, but I'm sure it was documented previously that although people may have had covid mentioned on the certificate, it couldn't actually be listed as the cause of death if it wasn't, and therefore these deaths weren't listed as a covid death.

 

This may have changed since though, it was quite some time ago. 

There's two different figures.  One is the number of deaths within 28 days of a positive test.  This makes no attempt to assess whether coronavirus was a factor, and it is not affected by what's on the death certificate.  The other is the number of registered deaths, and this only goes of what's on the death certificate (whether primary or secondary cause of death) and doesn't cross-reference to any testing.

[Costock_Fox]

12 minutes ago, filbertway said:

 

I believe he's using this, which was posted a day or two ago

Well that doesn’t back it up at all to be honest which confirms what im saying, if you have had 2 doses you are very unlucky to be very ill, most vulnerable here have so I don’t expect the data between now and 21st to throw out anything that suggests a lockdown is needed.