2,496 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 |
|
2,496 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. |
|
2,496 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 |
|
2,496 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Dec 26, 2021 16:04:21 GMT
Die is cast now. Hopefully the govt was right!
|
|
754 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
|
|
2,496 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
|
|
2,496 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Dec 26, 2021 20:00:20 GMT
Do they have a negative LFT? (Can't read as paywalled). I suspect in a few months we will follow S.Africas lead and do the same |
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Dec 26, 2021 21:20:22 GMT
Do they have a negative LFT? (Can't read as paywalled). I suspect in a few months we will follow S.Africas lead and do the same Doesn't really matter does it? You can test negative one day then positive the next. If you have symptoms you should isolate, simple as that. |
|
2,496 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Dec 26, 2021 23:06:30 GMT
Do they have a negative LFT? (Can't read as paywalled). I suspect in a few months we will follow S.Africas lead and do the same Doesn't really matter does it? You can test negative one day then positive the next. If you have symptoms you should isolate, simple as that. Daily LFTs. But as I said, s.africa are probably leading the way for how other counties will deal with covid going forward. |
|
311 posts
|
Post by olliebean on Dec 26, 2021 23:19:48 GMT
I've seen plenty of stories of hospitality workers being told by their employers that they have to go into work regardless of symptoms unless and until they have a positive PCR test result, in some cases even after a positive LFT. Absolutely wrong-headed and certainly against the guidance, if not the law (I'm a bit vague about exactly what is legally prohibited now, since it's considerably less than I was avoiding doing anyway).
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 27, 2021 0:28:45 GMT
I've seen plenty of stories of hospitality workers being told by their employers that they have to go into work regardless of symptoms unless and until they have a positive PCR test result, in some cases even after a positive LFT. Absolutely wrong-headed and certainly against the guidance, if not the law (I'm a bit vague about exactly what is legally prohibited now, since it's considerably less than I was avoiding doing anyway). Yeah it's definitely illegal. You are let required to isolate and seek a PCR test if you either start exhibiting the 3 main coronavirus symptoms or have had a positive LFT The government really need to update the symptomatic guidance as this is very different now that many people have prior immunity from vaccination or infection |
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 27, 2021 0:31:18 GMT
Die is cast now. Hopefully the govt was right! . Given that numbers haven't been recorded over Christmas, we'll be in a much better position to assess the situation tomorrow Sadly, in not taking earlier action, I suspect we'll end up suffering more for it in the form of harsher restrictions but let's see |
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Dec 27, 2021 15:34:54 GMT
No restrictions announced, which is good - but make no mistake, this is a purely financial decision not one based on public health. It means struggling businesses get zero financial support or furlough at the hardest time of the year.
|
|
4,993 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Dec 27, 2021 16:08:27 GMT
No restrictions announced, which is good - but make no mistake, this is a purely financial decision not one based on public health. It means struggling businesses get zero financial support or furlough at the hardest time of the year. But most importantly the daily mail is happy... |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Dec 27, 2021 17:26:15 GMT
Great to see ventilator capacity so under-used in London: one-on-one care a huge drain on expert-level resources. Far fewer families in despair. Last years Delta peak occured on the 22nd January when mechanical ventilator use peaked at 1,200. Yesterday 232. Last seven days very, very helpful data on Omnicrom. Next seven can confirm. coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare?areaType=nhsRegion&areaName=London |
|
2,496 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Dec 27, 2021 17:33:22 GMT
Tbh if we aren't doing any this week, doing it in Jan seems pointless.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Dec 27, 2021 17:44:45 GMT
Tbh if we aren't doing any this week, doing it in Jan seems pointless. If anything, the peak would have come forward a week, imo. It's just recollection but we didn't have that cold snap last year we had in early/mid-December this year. Population heavily boosted for Christmas, as well.
Can't map last winters pattern onto this.
|
|
2,496 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Dec 27, 2021 21:05:06 GMT
Worth reading the whole thread but doesn't sound like the NHS is about to collapse (fingers crossed)
|
|
2,496 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Dec 27, 2021 22:23:43 GMT
I think we will follow the US example and change it to 5 days isolation
Some interesting news that Omicron gives a person enhanced immunity against Delta
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 27, 2021 23:55:55 GMT
I think we will follow the US example and change it to 5 days isolation Some interesting news that Omicron gives a person enhanced immunity against Delta This would be incredibly reckless, especially what we know about infectious periods and the fact they aren't requiring a negative test to release from isolation. The things you are quoting here are beginning to get a little far fetched, especially that you aren't able to provide the science to back it. We've said this time and time again, if you can find the data to support a claim, do share it, it helps everyone here to understand your thinking deeper and aids healthy debate. On your second point, of course we would expect infection with omicron to provide some level of defence against other variants of coronavirus. The spike proteins on all coronavirus variants are still similar enough for this to be the case. This is precisely why a booster, produced with the original variant, provides a significant level of protection. I'm not exactly sure how relevant this however, especially as Omicron is fast becoming the dominant variant |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Dec 28, 2021 0:49:40 GMT
Sadly, in not taking earlier action, I suspect we'll end up suffering more for it in the form of harsher restrictions but let's see
The previous post complaining of "cherry-picking" a world-recognised expert over the The Guardian was prize-winning. Not clear what the difference is between this stuff and straight-up trolling - the one here comes after a post pointing out the official data (and link) that those on mechanical ventilators in London are at 17% of last winter's Delta peak.
Maybe it's becasue his goalposts move almost evey day; from the certainty of cases overwhelming the NHS, to ditto on hospitalisations, now to restrictions. The constant is that it's all a catastrophe, "sadly".
The factual truth is that there are 1,000 fewer families TONIGHT with a loved one on a ventilator somewhere in London. That should be acknowedged.
Incidentally, while the page is still there, The Guardian seem to have taken down the most recent top-level catastrophising from its Science EDITOR: 'The science is clear: the case for more Covid restrictions is overwhelming' ...
|
|
