4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Dec 23, 2021 19:26:08 GMT
The NHS coped with 34k in hospital last year. The proposed omicron wave figures won't come close to that. The NHS can cope with that level of wave, especially with the evidence of it being milder and needing less time in hospital It's easy for you to say that. I'm still waiting for an appointment to get my arrhythmia treated. I should have been treated within four weeks of diagnosis, and the only reason they wait that long is because there's a high risk of stroke if they treat it immediately so they prefer to put patients on four weeks of warfarin first. It's been three months and I've heard nothing about when I might have a chance to be treated, and my case is considered urgent. For anything that isn't life-threatening there probably isn't even a waiting list to go on.
Anyone who tells you the NHS is coping is lying.
|
|
3,927 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Dec 23, 2021 20:01:17 GMT
"There are also signs that the effect of booster doses is waning. Two doses of a vaccine were shown to offer limited protection against catching Omicron, which was then restored with a booster dose. However, the report says this protection drops by between 15% and 25% after 10 weeks. This is still better than having no booster dose and the protection against severe disease or death is likely to be even greater” www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59769969I find this extremely depressing news, less than 10 weeks of full protection from the booster. Since its surely not logistically possible to boost everyone every 10 weeks, it feels like catching covid is going to be inevitable.
|
|
2,347 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Dec 23, 2021 20:12:25 GMT
"There are also signs that the effect of booster doses is waning. Two doses of a vaccine were shown to offer limited protection against catching Omicron, which was then restored with a booster dose. However, the report says this protection drops by between 15% and 25% after 10 weeks. This is still better than having no booster dose and the protection against severe disease or death is likely to be even greater” www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59769969I find this extremely depressing news, less than 10 weeks of full protection from the booster. Since its surely not logistically possible to boost everyone every 10 weeks, it feels like catching covid is going to be inevitable. It's endemic so unfortunately, it's the case most people will be exposed at some stage. The boosters and jabs will protect the vast majority of people from hospitlisation and death though
|
|
300 posts
|
Post by properjob on Dec 23, 2021 21:20:31 GMT
With time they can refine the vaccines to target the new varient more effectively the booster will help buy that time.
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Dec 24, 2021 8:30:32 GMT
We really need to retire the phrase 'Avoid like the plague' given how many people are so determined not to take basic measures to avoid an actual plague.
|
|
2,347 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Dec 24, 2021 9:02:20 GMT
South Africa leading the way? You only have to stay at home if you have symptoms.
|
|
4,559 posts
|
Post by Mark on Dec 24, 2021 9:11:40 GMT
South Africa leading the way? You only have to stay at home if you have symptoms. This is where it will end up eventually, especially once Omincron has gone through a significant proportion of the population (which it will, due to its high transmissibility). I can see by next winter we probably won't be routinely testing for Covid and it will be treated much more like the flu.
|
|
2,347 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Dec 24, 2021 9:27:10 GMT
South Africa leading the way? You only have to stay at home if you have symptoms. This is where it will end up eventually, especially once Omincron has gone through a significant proportion of the population (which it will, due to its high transmissibility). I can see by next winter we probably won't be routinely testing for Covid and it will be treated much more like the flu. I actually think it will be sooner here: thryll change the quarantine requirement to 5 days in the next couple of months, and then by Spring no need to test if you're asymptomatic and have had your jabs, and then by summer no testing as standard
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 24, 2021 9:41:30 GMT
This is where it will end up eventually, especially once Omincron has gone through a significant proportion of the population (which it will, due to its high transmissibility). I can see by next winter we probably won't be routinely testing for Covid and it will be treated much more like the flu. I actually think it will be sooner here: thryll change the quarantine requirement to 5 days in the next couple of months, and then by Spring no need to test if you're asymptomatic and have had your jabs, and then by summer no testing as standard You've literally just made this up
|
|
2,347 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Dec 24, 2021 9:43:51 GMT
I actually think it will be sooner here: thryll change the quarantine requirement to 5 days in the next couple of months, and then by Spring no need to test if you're asymptomatic and have had your jabs, and then by summer no testing as standard You've literally just made this up It's called having an opinion. I'm not pretending it's anything other than that.
|
|
4,960 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Dec 24, 2021 9:53:38 GMT
If you continue to make things up, zahidf, you'll be invited to join Sage. 🤣 Please don't let the so and so's grind you down.
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 24, 2021 9:57:40 GMT
If you continue to make things up, zahidf, you'll be invited to join Sage. 🤣 Please don't let the so and so's grind you down. Feel free to show us something that SAGE have made up
|
|
2,347 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Dec 24, 2021 10:12:00 GMT
If you continue to make things up, zahidf, you'll be invited to join Sage. 🤣 Please don't let the so and so's grind you down. Ha thanks! I'm just trying to stay positive on all this covid stuff.
|
|
2,347 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Dec 24, 2021 10:14:00 GMT
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 24, 2021 10:17:13 GMT
That's the guardian not SAGE. If you look at the original report (available on gov.uk) you'll see how this has been cherry-picked, out of context from the modelling by the Guardian. If you want to demonstrate that they have falsified something, please present their original report as opposed to something that the media have sensationalised to sell newspapers
|
|
311 posts
|
Post by olliebean on Dec 24, 2021 10:19:27 GMT
No, they weren't wrong. They didn't say it would definitely happen. They said it was plausible. Which it was, given the available data at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2021 11:12:46 GMT
I prefer to stick to the facts and what the experts say, they give scenarios, the health professionals worry about the health service, other sectors worry about theirs and the Government have to try and balance things.
I still think testing will be about especially amongst the young and when people have symptons as there are now and developing medicines which will lessen the effects of the virus.
But hey so many people want to travel so things spread. Has any country had a border lockdown but allowed things to carry on totally as normal inside and I wonder what the cases would be like there?
Now we hear about 3 to 4 months immunity so won't the elderly/vunerable be needing another booster in the new year. Its like some never ending circular queue you reach the front then rejoin the end. Some comey sketch with an elderly person on a zimmer doing it!
|
|
|
Post by FrontroverPaul on Dec 24, 2021 12:45:15 GMT
We've all (a four adult family) just tested positive. All double jabbed + boostered. All wear masks whenever shopping, travelling or indoors anywhere except at home.
Nobody so far has any symptoms. At least with everyone in the household affected we don't need to individually isolate but it's really scary when you find out you've actually got it.
|
|
|
Post by sfsusan on Dec 24, 2021 13:19:48 GMT
Has any country had a border lockdown but allowed things to carry on totally as normal inside and I wonder what the cases would be like there? I thought New Zealand did this? They currently have 11 cases per million, compared to the UK with 1,400 per million.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2021 13:43:29 GMT
Has any country had a border lockdown but allowed things to carry on totally as normal inside and I wonder what the cases would be like there? I thought New Zealand did this? They currently have 11 cases per million, compared to the UK with 1,400 per million. I can remember their PM doing a strong lockdown and it being said she bought her country time. But NZ is in a totally different location to UK and about 8% of our population. Ideally this could work but you have to allow nationals back in and do you then quarantine them? It is always hard to say which country has done things the best. Some do more tests so get more cases. Even deaths per population isn't as accurate as you may think as you have to factor in social conditions, life expectancy, average age of population too. On the last point we are ahead of the likes of Belgium, US and Italy ( old population I seem to recall) slightly behind France and Spain but 50% worse off than Germany and about 35% worse than Sweden who had a luch lighter restriction regime. The one mind blowing figure as regards this was South Korea who have under 100 deaths per million population ( pop over 51 million) and I'd be fairly confident their case numbers and figures were accurate compared to bigger less developed and rural countries.
|
|
2,347 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Dec 24, 2021 17:10:40 GMT
New modelling from SAGE out. Seems like Blair is right: step 2 won't do anything worhwhile, it's lockdown or nothing. (FWIW I think they are being overly pessimistic. Much like in September)
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 24, 2021 17:15:04 GMT
New modelling from SAGE out. Seems like Blair is right: step 2 won't do anything worhwhile, it's lockdown or nothing. (FWIW I think they are being overly pessimistic. Much like in September) Can I ask why you think they are being overly pessimistic? There's absolutely nothing to suggest this If you can provide some kind of evidence or anything to suggest that this is the case Im all ears. Otherwise this is literally just a stick your finger in the air comment I've said this several times in previous posts, SAGE's previous models were not overly pessimistic. Newspapers picked the scenario that best fit their article, regardless as to whether that was the most or least likely outcome
|
|
2,347 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Dec 24, 2021 18:10:36 GMT
New modelling from SAGE out. Seems like Blair is right: step 2 won't do anything worhwhile, it's lockdown or nothing. (FWIW I think they are being overly pessimistic. Much like in September) Can I ask why you think they are being overly pessimistic? There's absolutely nothing to suggest this If you can provide some kind of evidence or anything to suggest that this is the case Im all ears. Otherwise this is literally just a stick your finger in the air comment I've said this several times in previous posts, SAGE's previous models were not overly pessimistic. Newspapers picked the scenario that best fit their article, regardless as to whether that was the most or least likely outcome Because in my opinion they aren't putting as much stock into prior immunity and to the booster effect in their calculations. A rise in cases doesn't lead to an equal rise in hospitlisations Anyway, I've couched it as an opinion. And anyway, you've ignored my point out, which is that going back to stage 2 is pointless as it wouldn't make much difference. Its lockdown or nothing realistically.
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 24, 2021 19:31:59 GMT
Can I ask why you think they are being overly pessimistic? There's absolutely nothing to suggest this If you can provide some kind of evidence or anything to suggest that this is the case Im all ears. Otherwise this is literally just a stick your finger in the air comment I've said this several times in previous posts, SAGE's previous models were not overly pessimistic. Newspapers picked the scenario that best fit their article, regardless as to whether that was the most or least likely outcome Because in my opinion they aren't putting as much stock into prior immunity and to the booster effect in their calculations. A rise in cases doesn't lead to an equal rise in hospitlisations Anyway, I've couched it as an opinion. And anyway, you've ignored my point out, which is that going back to stage 2 is pointless as it wouldn't make much difference. Its lockdown or nothing realistically. It just absolutely baffles me as to how you can form that opinion when the data clearly shows where we are in terms of reduction of severity through prior immunity or otherwise but we also know that this is up against increased virulence at the moment . This isn't subjective it's objective. Unless you've got data to show otherwise, then your hypothesis here has already been proven incorrect by the data already available to us. On your second point, it all depends on where we are on the infections curve relative to the point at which the proposed restrictions are or aren't introduced. If you predict that your ultimate peak takes you over max capacity just slightly, then yes you can deem them effective, if not then you have to go further. It's all relative to the situation that you find yourself in. I'll give an example, you could choose to wear factor 50 sun cream in the middle of summer but if you're spending all day inside on that particular day, it's pointless right? On the other hand, if your somebody that is going to spend all day outside in the sun, it stops you from getting sunburnt.
|
|
2,347 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Dec 24, 2021 20:05:11 GMT
Because in my opinion they aren't putting as much stock into prior immunity and to the booster effect in their calculations. A rise in cases doesn't lead to an equal rise in hospitlisations Anyway, I've couched it as an opinion. And anyway, you've ignored my point out, which is that going back to stage 2 is pointless as it wouldn't make much difference. Its lockdown or nothing realistically. It just absolutely baffles me as to how you can form that opinion when the data clearly shows where we are in terms of reduction of severity through prior immunity or otherwise but we also know that this is up against increased virulence at the moment . This isn't subjective it's objective. Unless you've got data to show otherwise, then your hypothesis here has already been proven incorrect by the data already available to us. On your second point, it all depends on where we are on the infections curve relative to the point at which the proposed restrictions are or aren't introduced. If you predict that your ultimate peak takes you over max capacity just slightly, then yes you can deem them effective, if not then you have to go further. It's all relative to the situation that you find yourself in. I'll give an example, you could choose to wear factor 50 sun cream in the middle of summer but if you're spending all day inside on that particular day, it's pointless right? On the other hand, if your somebody that is going to spend all day outside in the sun, it stops you from getting sunburnt. Well SAGE have basically said that we've gone past the time when stage 2 restrictions would be effective. If 3 months of then will only reduce deaths by 15%.
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 24, 2021 20:24:28 GMT
It just absolutely baffles me as to how you can form that opinion when the data clearly shows where we are in terms of reduction of severity through prior immunity or otherwise but we also know that this is up against increased virulence at the moment . This isn't subjective it's objective. Unless you've got data to show otherwise, then your hypothesis here has already been proven incorrect by the data already available to us. On your second point, it all depends on where we are on the infections curve relative to the point at which the proposed restrictions are or aren't introduced. If you predict that your ultimate peak takes you over max capacity just slightly, then yes you can deem them effective, if not then you have to go further. It's all relative to the situation that you find yourself in. I'll give an example, you could choose to wear factor 50 sun cream in the middle of summer but if you're spending all day inside on that particular day, it's pointless right? On the other hand, if your somebody that is going to spend all day outside in the sun, it stops you from getting sunburnt. Well SAGE have basically said that we've gone past the time when stage 2 restrictions would be effective. If 3 months of then will only reduce deaths by 15%. The data you've posted above isn't 'SAGE' it's from LSHT (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine). Whilst I don't disagree with what they're saying, the mortality here is looking at deaths fromCOVID and COVID alone, as you usually would in a study like this. The real life implications of this are more complex, as we've discussed many times on this thread and relate to the NHS' ability to carry out other essential treatment too. As I've posted in the previous message, that I really don't believe you have read and digested, it's all relative to the situation that you find yourself in. A 15% reduction could be significant in some circumstances but less so in others. Can I also remind you that we're talking about deaths here too. If that 15% included a close member of your family then I'm sure you'd think before being quite so blasé about it. Whilst we do have to consider the other implications of any kind of restrictions that are introduced it's also important not to just dismiss hundreds of deaths as 'only 15%' I'd strongly advise having a read through some of the papers that are posted on the gov.uk website to understand exactly how the data is portrayed by science. Scientists present the data in order to be picked up by policy makers who make the final say on where to go with this data. I also find it useful to view it from this point and think 'what would I do based upon this information' as opposed to reading what the media has to say, which sadly tends to have an agenda and has already had this decision made for their readers. If you do decide to do this and would like a hand interpreting the data (some of it is very jargon heavy at times) drop me a DM and I can help out. Communication of science is as important as the science itself in my opinion. I'd like to point out that in general, I do agree with allowing people to make 'informed' decisions on their actions during this pandemic. However, the issue here is that there is so much noise and incorrectly portrayed information in the media that people's 'informed 'decisions are based of warped interpretations of reality that come through the likes of the Daily Mail. I do genuinely believe that if factually correct information, portrayed to the public in an easy to understand manner would go so far in allowing us to make better decisions to avoid ending up in situations where we have to think about legal restrictions again
|
|
2,347 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Dec 26, 2021 16:04:21 GMT
Die is cast now. Hopefully the govt was right!
|
|
721 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Dec 26, 2021 16:15:21 GMT
Mum’s care home locked down lunchtime on Christmas Day. So has started spreading there now (Oxfordshire). All double vaccinated and boosted, as are all the staff. So far so good, mum tested positive on lateral flow test but symptoms of a bad cold and no more. No cough yet, sneezing a lot. Poor carers in visors masks etc having to look after everyone in their rooms and presumably not come into work when they have it…that is what makes this soooo hard as so easy to catch. I would emphasise this home had no previous outbreaks and procedures very rigorous (they even took part in research trial where they had on site lab to do own pcr testing). Fingers crossed
|
|
2,347 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Dec 26, 2021 16:40:43 GMT
Mum’s care home locked down lunchtime on Christmas Day. So has started spreading there now (Oxfordshire). All double vaccinated and boosted, as are all the staff. So far so good, mum tested positive on lateral flow test but symptoms of a bad cold and no more. No cough yet, sneezing a lot. Poor carers in visors masks etc having to look after everyone in their rooms and presumably not come into work when they have it…that is what makes this soooo hard as so easy to catch. I would emphasise this home had no previous outbreaks and procedures very rigorous (they even took part in research trial where they had on site lab to do own pcr testing). Fingers crossed Sorry to hear that about your mum. Fingers crossed it stays mild and clears up soon
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Dec 26, 2021 18:35:50 GMT
|
|