When will this shit end?

[zahidf]

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

So they're not going to get a vaccine as a way of protest? Ok...coooool.

you gotta give people hope instead of LONG COVID KEEP STUFF CLOSED FOR 2 MONTHS

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

you gotta give people hope instead of LONG COVID KEEP STUFF CLOSED FOR 2 MONTHS

how about get a vaccine so avoid long covid?

[jimmillen]

1 minute ago, aj6658 said:

But if deaths and hospitalisations are low then does that matter? We are at the stage where the people who are at risk i.e the 1-9 groups who make up 99% of deaths are double jabbed then where is the risk? All we can do is vaccinate those groups - what else can we do? We cant keep moving the goal posts

All evidence is supports the fact that the vaccines work against the variants. 

The important thing is the ratio of deaths & hospitalisations to cases, not the absolute numbers. The whole point about potential exponential growth is that case numbers could get a lot higher a lot faster than you might think. What looks like low deaths and hospitalisations at ~4000 cases per day could look very different if cases shoot back up.

It's essentially a race; in one lane you've got the vaccination coverage that's doing a sterling job of preventing hospitalisations and deaths, in the other you have the virus spread. Progress on the vaccine coverage is going as fast as it can, we might see some rises as production & delivery increase but increases will be incremental. If the vaccine spread grows however, it can just keep accelerating - imagine Usain Bolt doubling his speed every meter.

At some point, as @DeanoL pointed out, the vaccine coverage will cross the "finishing line" first - beyond that point almost any amount of virus growth won't matter as enough people will have been vaccinated that it keeps hospitalisations and deaths under control. However, we're not there yet - and the big decision is whether we will be by 21st June.

One other thing I've not seen a lot of discussion of recently is the likelihood of widespread virus transmission increasing the chances of variants that could be vaccine-resistant. Again, there's a lot more chance of variants emerging with cases into 5 or 6 figures than the low thousands we have at the moment. From evidence so far, it seems that the vaccines do work against variants - but I guess it's possible we could get unlucky... 

[DeanoL]

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

except it wouldn't triple, because lower age groups would need the hospital a lot less

It won't quite triple over two weeks, because people will have been vaccinated in those two weeks. But we've done most of the really at risk folk now, so the benefits there aren't as big as they have been the past few months.

If we have say 4000 cases today, and 40 hospital admissions - then say the number of cases triples to 12000 in 2 weeks (totally made up) we should expect close to 120 hospital admissions surely? It'll be slightly less than that, because of the vaccine effect, but the only vaccine effect is those we've vaccinated in those two weeks (or the two weeks before, allowing for lag). And mostly that's 1st jabs for 20-somethings and second jabs for 50-somethings, neither of which is going to have a huge effect.

Unless I'm missing something?

It was different when we were actively jabbing the most at risk but now we're primarily doing those at lower risk, or bolstering protection for those in "medium" risk the gains are not as good.

[aj6658]

4 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Because the link still exists between cases and hospitalisations/deaths. The 1-9 group making up that 99% were double-jabbed long enough ago for that protection to kick in, and we're still seeing circa 100 hospital admissions a day. That's really low, which is good. But if cases triple, hospitalisations are still going to triple too (well slightly under, as we are vaxxing more people every day) But again, 10 weeks in with tripling every fortnight and that's 218,700 hospital admissions a day and we are screwed.

The proportion of people that end up in hospital after catching it is 100x lower than what it was and it's falling, but it's still linked. It's still a proportion of people that are infected. 

But the correlation is not fixed, it reduces as time goes on as the vaccine has taken effect. we're at the stage were 70% of the population are jabbed once with over 50% double jabbed.  

Look at the data. Infections per day on May 25th 3125 -> 9 days later 4330 so a 38%increase. The level of hospitalisations over the same period-> Dropped 8%.  There is no evidence that increasing infections are causing significant hospitalisations or deaths. 

 

[zahidf]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

It won't quite triple over two weeks, because people will have been vaccinated in those two weeks. But we've done most of the really at risk folk now, so the benefits there aren't as big as they have been the past few months.

If we have say 4000 cases today, and 40 hospital admissions - then say the number of cases triples to 12000 in 2 weeks (totally made up) we should expect close to 120 hospital admissions surely? It'll be slightly less than that, because of the vaccine effect, but the only vaccine effect is those we've vaccinated in those two weeks (or the two weeks before, allowing for lag). And mostly that's 1st jabs for 20-somethings and second jabs for 50-somethings, neither of which is going to have a huge effect.

Unless I'm missing something?

It was different when we were actively jabbing the most at risk but now we're primarily doing those at lower risk, or bolstering protection for those in "medium" risk the gains are not as good.

Nah, the vaccine works better in the younger and fitter people in theory because they have a better immune system. So in theory, more vaxes then would mean less hospitalisations needed, even with one jab. And the hospitalisation rates of younger people are also a lot better than older

[zahidf]

6 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

how about get a vaccine so avoid long covid?

coool. But there mates all got Covid and are fine. 

[thewayiam]

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Nah, the vaccine works better in the younger and fitter people in theory because they have a better immune system. So in theory, more vaxes then would mean less hospitalisations needed, even with one jab. And the hospitalisation rates of younger people are also a lot better than older

Definitely in theory lol. In 34 and had a bit of a reaction to it.

[steviewevie]

7 minutes ago, zahidf said:

coool. But there mates all got Covid and are fine. 

ah right, don't bother then.

[stuie]

3 hours ago, zahidf said:

That's a decision we've always made. For example during bad flu seasons. I think shouting at people for wanting stuff to reopen that they are killing people post mass vaccination rollout is a tiny bit hysterical

There’s a few on here of this opinion. Had some fool the other week calling me a disgusting man because I really want to go to festivals and get my life back 😂

[Havors]

46 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

If it's that or overwhelm the NHS, they will.

I think that's the difference between our outlooks on this. I don't think any flu strain will ever be bad enough to overwhelm the NHS because it's just far, far less transmissible than even the first strain of COVID. I agree that they may take advantage of acceptance around masks and people's understanding of transmission of flu-like diseases to push minor, uninvasive behavioural changes to make flu season less bad (although the government sort of depend on it to keep the pension pot sustainable...).

But that's why we won't have a lockdown - because we won't need one. Because it won't be that bad and the NHS won't be overwhelmed.

Lockdown has never been a political decision here. We have always locked-down at the latest possible moment to avoid literally overwhelming the NHS. As in, BJ going on TV and saying "I have to level with you, there's no space in the hospitals, if you get ill we suggest you try the following but we can't treat you any more".

Every time.

We've never locked-down earlier to try and save more lives. We've always had the minimum level of restrictions possible to be able to continue with the hospitals not being full. The only reason we're not opening up more now, when there is actually capacity, is because the government want this to be the last time, as economically it's better to open later and open forever (or until the next crisis) than open now and shut down again when the numbers look worrying.

But if they get it wrong and open too early and we get an exit spike and it'll endanger the NHS, we will go back into lockdown. Because there's literally no alternative. 

I don't think that will happen. I think we'd get away with it if we open 21 June. I think if we delay a couple of weeks we will definitely be okay. 

But it's not a choice for the government. The idea of "no lockdown ever again" isn't something that can be promised. It'll be something that'll happen if the numbers show that hospitals are full.

Everything you say is based on the premise the vaccines dont work. If they dont work then whats the fucking point?

Lockdowns CANT happen again.. not during this particular pandemic anyway. The costs far far outweighs the benefits at this point. 

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, Havors said:

Everything you say is based on the premise the vaccines dont work. If they dont work then whats the fucking point?

Lockdowns CANT happen again.. not during this particular pandemic anyway. The costs far far outweighs the benefits at this point. 

I think he's doing hypotheticals...he's already said he doesn't think we'll need a lockdown because of the vaccines.

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

actually my 15 year old kid who I guess is GenZ gets very fucked off with all the sacrifices people her age have had to make for these old fuckers who have also left the planet in a right shit state for her generation to deal with. Sad thing is she includes me in this old fuckers bracket.

[Crazyfool01]

43 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

so there you go...link broken?

(too early to tell ...June 14th etc etc forever)

Didn’t they jab the hell out of Bolton over the course of a few weeks … would it be wrong to suggest a few weeks might make one hell of a difference … 🤔

[Ozanne]

8 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

Didn’t they jab the hell out of Bolton over the course of a few weeks … would it be wrong to suggest a few weeks might make one hell of a difference … 🤔

I don’t think that’s wrong, it makes sense to me. 

[phimill]

Shapps has offically mentioned the Nepal variant...

[zahidf]

1 minute ago, phimill said:

Shapps has offically mentioned the Nepal variant...

A lot less strident than the Mail headline

 

:

There is also "a sort of Nepal mutation of the so-called Indian variant which has been detected, and we just don't know the potential for that to be a vaccine defeating mutation," Shapps says.

 

[efcfanwirral]

Sounds like the results of the trade off is to focus internally first before pushing ahead on international travel. 

Considering variants are our main concern it's pretty ridiculous this wasn't plan A to be honest

[DeanoL]

26 minutes ago, Havors said:

Everything you say is based on the premise the vaccines dont work. If they dont work then whats the fucking point?

Lockdowns CANT happen again.. not during this particular pandemic anyway. The costs far far outweighs the benefits at this point. 

Not really - uncontrolled spread could still cause hospitalisations to hit a point the NHS can't cope with even in a mostly vaccinated population. 

I agree lockdowns won't happen but it's because the vaccines are strong enough. Just not because of the economic costs.

I'll ask you the same question - what do you think will happen if the hospitalisations start getting so high it looks like the NHS will get overwhelmed? Do we go into lockdown, or declare the NHS is full and refuse to treat people?

Don't tell me that won't happen - I already agree with that, I think the vaccines are good enough and if it looks dicey they will just knock back June 21 a bit. We don't need to argue on that. But if there is a new more resistant variant or a very bad flu season, or something else unexpected, what do *you* think will happen? 

[MEGABOWL]

9 minutes ago, zahidf said:

A lot less strident than the Mail headline

 

:

There is also "a sort of Nepal mutation of the so-called Indian variant which has been detected, and we just don't know the potential for that to be a vaccine defeating mutation," Shapps says.

 

They are *literally* making stuff up. And there’s people on what I’ve always thought was my side of things (the left) cheering them on. Weird times.

[Ozanne]

A good morale of the story is to never believe anything the Daily Mail says 😂

[northernringo]

England with over 100 hospitalisations today (115), first time since 27th April that this figure has been above 100.

Hospitalisations continuing to trend upwards it seems....

 

[zahidf]

3 minutes ago, northernringo said:

England with over 100 hospitalisations today (115), first time since 27th April that this figure has been above 100.

Hospitalisations continuing to trend upwards it seems....

 

Bit out of date...

This one is more recent

 

 

[balthazarstarbuck]

8 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Bit out of date...

This one is more recent

 

 

Not sure it is?