When will this shit end?

[DeanoL]

16 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

can you see us requiring restrictions every winter, particularly if they're expecting a bad flu season?

I don't think so - I think we'd scale up NHS capacity if it came to it - but there's also the depressing Darwinian angle - there will be fewer people left without immunity by this time next year.

4 minutes ago, Havors said:

Yeah its hard to stop myself literally banging my head on the desk  with some of the shocking math.  

The math you couldn't even understand? If there's a problem with the maths by all means point it out but I think your problems are with my assumptions which is where we disagree.

[Havors]

 

Not sure how accurate this is but not reason not to believe it at the moment. The CDC in the US have decided to start reporting the disease the same way a disease has always been reported previously....  But only for vaccinated patients.... 

The mind boggles.... 

[Havors]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I don't think so - I think we'd scale up NHS capacity if it came to it - but there's also the depressing Darwinian angle - there will be fewer people left without immunity by this time next year.

The math you couldn't even understand? If there's a problem with the maths by all means point it out but I think your problems are with my assumptions which is where we disagree.

You assumed 100% people could get infected and all people had the same chance of going to hospital. Probability is maths and you couldnt grasp it. I don't need to go any further. 

[BobWillis2]

12 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I don't think so - I think we'd scale up NHS capacity if it came to it - but there's also the depressing Darwinian angle - there will be fewer people left without immunity by this time next year.

The math you couldn't even understand? If there's a problem with the maths by all means point it out but I think your problems are with my assumptions which is where we disagree.

I think everyone disagrees that if you catch covid and the vaccine doesn’t work you’ll end up in hospital. 

[efcfanwirral]

An extremely long thread that touches on our perception of what normal is, how he reckons there's no chance of going back to the life we had and that covid measures are part of our lives, whereas the things we used to enjoy are not

And how people aren't prepared to accept this yet, because they want the old ways back and will get angry about it at first...sounds quite familiar 

[fraybentos1]

12 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I don't think so - I think we'd scale up NHS capacity if it came to it - but there's also the depressing Darwinian angle - there will be fewer people left without immunity by this time next year.

The math you couldn't even understand? If there's a problem with the maths by all means point it out but I think your problems are with my assumptions which is where we disagree.

Is it not just a matter of semantics?

Not read all your posts but you seem to suggest that if any covid cases lead to hospitalisations then the link isn't broken? Which seems a bit OTT if true.

One of the guys said the link was 'severed' which is maybe a good way of looking at it, obv the vaccine doesn't work for everyone and even if they do end up in hospital that doesn't mean it hasn't worked for them as it still may have saved their life.

[fraybentos1]

2 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

An extremely long thread that touches on our perception of what normal is, how he reckons there's no chance of going back to the life we had and that covid measures are part of our lives, whereas the things we used to enjoy are not

And how people aren't prepared to accept this yet, because they want the old ways back and will get angry about it at first...sounds quite familiar 

He's an economist and not a good one either. Don't give a fuck what he says tbh

[DeanoL]

2 minutes ago, Havors said:

You assumed 100% people could get infected and all people had the same chance of going to hospital. Probability is maths and you couldnt grasp it. I don't need to go any further. 

Yeah, because that was the way to simplify it as much as possible, so that you could follow the maths. That lets you look at an theoretical worst case scenario - which gives you a starting point from which you can start adding other controls. And you said the very simple maths was too confusing. And that you work with numbers so it was definitely not you being too dim. But it is. 

I can't believe it's taking this much effort to convince people that if infections go up, hospital admissions will go up. I didn't think it was that controversial a statement. Once you accept that is true it's clear that you have to therefore limit infections to keep admissions at a manageable level. They can be 10, 100, 500 times higher than we could deal with pre-vaccine but there's still a number, and exponential growth means 500 times higher isn't that much.

But no, cases don't matter at all, sure, live in fantasy land. Was good enough for Boris last summer so good enough for you I guess.

[efcfanwirral]

2 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

He's an economist and not a good one either. Don't give a fuck what he says tbh

Kinda speaks to my point a bit. I'm  the same - my first instinct is to dismiss or even get angry if I read something like that but he makes some good points - there'll be more variants, this won't be the last lockdown and we won't just snap back to normal after everyone has had two vaccines. 

[DeanoL]

4 minutes ago, BobWillis2 said:

I think everyone disagrees that if you catch covid and the vaccine doesn’t work you’ll end up in hospital. 

Okay - so how are you determining if the vaccine "works" or not then? What constitutes it working to you? 

[FakeEmpire]

6 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

An extremely long thread that touches on our perception of what normal is, how he reckons there's no chance of going back to the life we had and that covid measures are part of our lives, whereas the things we used to enjoy are not

And how people aren't prepared to accept this yet, because they want the old ways back and will get angry about it at first...sounds quite familiar 

It's certainly fair to say that "normality" is a long, long way off. Our politicians should stop lying for good press & just manage peoples expectations rather than this psychologically damaging approach of promising one thing and then dripfeeding information which suggests the opposite.

However, Richard Murphy's thread is just ridiculous. He not only suggests Step 4 is cancelled but recommends an immediate roll back of Stages 2 and 3 and back into lockdown. It's just not a viable option for the UK public at this point.

[DeanoL]

6 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

Is it not just a matter of semantics?

Not read all your posts but you seem to suggest that if any covid cases lead to hospitalisations then the link isn't broken? Which seems a bit OTT if true.

One of the guys said the link was 'severed' which is maybe a good way of looking at it, obv the vaccine doesn't work for everyone and even if they do end up in hospital that doesn't mean it hasn't worked for them as it still may have saved their life.

To a degree it is but plenty of people are taking "the link is broken" to mean "infections don't matter" - which is why I think it was bad wording to start with. 

[Toilet Duck]

1 hour ago, sjseabass said:

Hmmm - which of these does the (say) 90% effectiveness of the vaccine actually mean?

1. 90% of vaccinated people have complete protection from Covid all the time, 10% have no protection at all

2. All vaccinated people have complete protection from Covid 90% of the time, 10% of the time they don't (perhaps because of viral load)

3. Some mixture of the two, depending on age and comorbidity

I've never seen anyone confirm which of these it is.

It’s closer to the second one, but really it’s none of the above. @Havorsmight explain probabilities a bit better than me…Vaccination reduces your risk of developing Covid. For example, in the 22,000 people that got the vaccine in the Pfizer trial, 8 developed symptomatic disease, so their chance of getting Covid was 8/22,000. In the unvaccinated arm, there were 162 cases, so the chance was 162/22,000 (or thereabouts, I can’t remember the precise numbers in each arm)…8/162 is ~5%, so the vaccine had ~95% efficacy in preventing symptomatic disease, but the chances of developing symptomatic Covid are not 5% or anything near it (your chance is reduced by 95%, but your chance of picking it up in the first place may have been much lower to begin with)…If there’s more virus around your chances increase, if there less around, your chances decrease and the vaccines compound that risk (so “effectiveness”, or how well the vaccines work in real world use, changes based on the prevailing conditions). Lots of other things influence how well the vaccines work at an individual level (underlying genetics, co-morbidities, medication etc as well as environment, exposure amongst other things). In the early stages post-vaccination, when circulating neutralising antibody levels are high, it will have better sterilising protection compared to later on when antibody levels wane and we need to make them again if we get infected (but that would still protect you from developing a more serious infection). We can use boosters to keep the antibody levels high though. Our immune systems are complex and lots of things influence how well they perform at a given point in time…but 90% of people don’t have a force field around them, while 10% of people are sitting ducks. As things fully open up, everybody’s chance of getting infected increases (so long as the virus is still around). The aim is to have enough people vaccinated so that it doesn’t translate into lots of people developing symptomatic disease. The most reassuring piece of data we currently have is that high risk individuals in frontline healthcare (ie those with the greatest intrinsic risk) aren’t getting infected more frequently as cases increase.

[zahidf]

6 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

An extremely long thread that touches on our perception of what normal is, how he reckons there's no chance of going back to the life we had and that covid measures are part of our lives, whereas the things we used to enjoy are not

And how people aren't prepared to accept this yet, because they want the old ways back and will get angry about it at first...sounds quite familiar 

lol that guy is a moron. He assumes the vaccines are worthless on a first dose (when,, they aren't, even against the Delta variant) and is just doom mongering rubbish about how the third wave is going to be even worse than Jan. Nothing about how we will be getting more and more treatments and amended vaccines as well.

He wants us to go all the way back to Step 1 NOW as well. 

I assume that wasn't posted as an example of a realistic way forward?

[fraybentos1]

1 minute ago, efcfanwirral said:

Kinda speaks to my point a bit. I'm  the same - my first instinct is to dismiss or even get angry if I read something like that but he makes some good points - there'll be more variants, this won't be the last lockdown and we won't just snap back to normal after everyone has had two vaccines. 

A glance at Israel can show what is possible (domestically at least) within months.

Globally a different matter of course.

But this particular guy you posted is a moron, I've seen him a lot before talking about the economics of an Indy Scotland.

He also has no credentials in terms of science that I know of.

[zahidf]

Just now, DeanoL said:

To a degree it is but plenty of people are taking "the link is broken" to mean "infections don't matter" - which is why I think it was bad wording to start with. 

I think infections do still matter but its fair to say it matter a lot less than it used to

[Havors]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

Yeah, because that was the way to simplify it as much as possible, so that you could follow the maths. That lets you look at an theoretical worst case scenario - which gives you a starting point from which you can start adding other controls. And you said the very simple maths was too confusing. And that you work with numbers so it was definitely not you being too dim. But it is. 

I can't believe it's taking this much effort to convince people that if infections go up, hospital admissions will go up. I didn't think it was that controversial a statement. Once you accept that is true it's clear that you have to therefore limit infections to keep admissions at a manageable level. They can be 10, 100, 500 times higher than we could deal with pre-vaccine but there's still a number, and exponential growth means 500 times higher isn't that much.

But no, cases don't matter at all, sure, live in fantasy land. Was good enough for Boris last summer so good enough for you I guess.

Wow you are on your own planet with this one.  Trust me the maths is fine for me my job entails a lot of probability formulations. 

Pretending you simplified so we could follow the maths is complete bollocks. 

[BobWillis2]

3 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Okay - so how are you determining if the vaccine "works" or not then? What constitutes it working to you? 

Maybe you meant to say ‘if you end up in hospital the vaccine didn’t work for you’

rather than ‘if the vaccine doesn’t work for you, you’ll end up in hospital’ 

because for some reason you’re just not seeing the context of what you’ve actually said. 

 

 

[zahidf]

4 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

Kinda speaks to my point a bit. I'm  the same - my first instinct is to dismiss or even get angry if I read something like that but he makes some good points - there'll be more variants, this won't be the last lockdown and we won't just snap back to normal after everyone has had two vaccines. 

I dont think he presents them as fair points though. Hes presenting them in the worse possible scenario which isnt really realistic given 2 doses.

 

And things will get back to normal post 2 doses because want it t be that way and the much reduced hospitalisation and death rates wont warrant anything else. 

[DeanoL]

Just now, zahidf said:

I think infections do still matter but its fair to say it matter a lot less than it used to

I think the key point is the tolerance for cases is much higher. We can deal with them being loads higher than before. But we can't deal with them being say, 100x what they are now. But the scary thing with exponential growth is you can get there very quickly if you have no controls at all.

And y'know, that's the only reason we're still talking about extending this phase of lockdown at all - concern over the load on the NHS if we get that sort of growth. 

Just now, Havors said:

Wow you are on your own planet with this one.  Trust me the maths is fine for me my job entails a lot of probability formulations. 

Pretending you simplified so we could follow the maths is complete bollocks. 

Sorry mate I didn't have a time to develop a full working model for you. But good luck with your fictional job.

[efcfanwirral]

 

7 minutes ago, FakeEmpire said:

It's certainly fair to say that "normality" is a long, long way off. Our politicians should stop lying for good press & just manage peoples expectations rather than this psychologically damaging approach of promising one thing and then dripfeeding information which suggests the opposite.

However, Richard Murphy's thread is just ridiculous. He not only suggests Step 4 is cancelled but recommends an immediate roll back of Stages 2 and 3 and back into lockdown. It's just not a viable option for the UK public at this point.

 

6 minutes ago, zahidf said:

lol that guy is a moron. He assumes the vaccines are worthless on a first dose (when,, they aren't, even against the Delta variant) and is just doom mongering rubbish about how the third wave is going to be even worse than Jan. Nothing about how we will be getting more and more treatments and amended vaccines as well.

He wants us to go all the way back to Step 1 NOW as well. 

I assume that wasn't posted as an example of a realistic way forward?

Yeah I agree those parts are pretty mad at this point, that said I think we'll get there in winter.   Posted more around the bigger picture psychological bit which I find interesting and is a different perspective and way of thinking than we normally have on here. - we are all very very defensive of our old way of life, and we get a bit angry if it's suggested that it might not be coming back as we knew it. A discussion point, but the immediate attacks on the source and not the words were interesting to see as they were my own reaction too.

Edited June 7, 2021 by efcfanwirral

[zahidf]

Just now, DeanoL said:

I think the key point is the tolerance for cases is much higher. We can deal with them being loads higher than before. But we can't deal with them being say, 100x what they are now. But the scary thing with exponential growth is you can get there very quickly if you have no controls at all.

Point is the growth is a lot slower with vaccines so eventually, it wont be exponential to the same degree. 

[DeanoL]

3 minutes ago, BobWillis2 said:

Maybe you meant to say ‘if you end up in hospital the vaccine didn’t work for you’

rather than ‘if the vaccine doesn’t work for you, you’ll end up in hospital’ 

because for some reason you’re just not seeing the context of what you’ve actually said. 

 

 

Maybe, to be fair in the context that I originally said it, it really didn't matter, but I feel like that was a week ago.

[zahidf]

Just now, efcfanwirral said:

 

 

Yeah I agree those parts are pretty mad at this point, that said I think we'll get there in winter.   Posted more around the bigger picture psychological bit which I find interesting and is a different perspective and way of thinking than we normally have on here. - we are all very very defensive of our old way of life, and we get a bit angry if it's suggested that it might not be coming back as we knew it. A discussion point, but the immediate attacks on the source and not the words were interesting to see as they were my own reaction too.

Well its because the source seems a bit nuts and what he is saying its completely OTT...

I think this because of his words, not despite them!

[jimmillen]

5 minutes ago, Havors said:

Wow you are on your own planet with this one.  Trust me the maths is fine for me my job entails a lot of probability formulations. 

Pretending you simplified so we could follow the maths is complete bollocks. 

Well, I must be on that planet too, 'cos it was very obvious DeanoL was making some massive assumptions for the sake of simplifying what he was trying to explain. 

Of course, I was reading it without immediately assuming he was "on the other side", which might explain it. 🙄