When will this shit end?

[northernringo]

6 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Bit out of date...

This one is more recent

 

 

It is literally the last figure from NHS England's official data...

115 admissions on June 1st (published June 3rd).

Here are the previous values:

25-May-21	26-May-21	27-May-21	28-May-21	29-May-21	30-May-21	31-May-21	01-Jun-21
88	95	83	92	69	80	98	115

Doesn't seem out of date to me...

 

[steviewevie]

46 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

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.

Saying that I hardly see her these days as she's always out with friends, so she's hardly locked up.

[squirrelarmy]

21 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

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

There will be a correction being printed in size 6 font on a middle page in a few days time

[DeanoL]

Gonna have one more shot at explaining this before I head off for the day as I don't think people have quite got it. My core point is quite simple: 

Lockdown isn't a political decision.

Government policy throughout this entire thing has been to only lockdown when the stats clearly show the NHS will be overwhelmed, and lockdown as late as possible. Given that in each lockdown we saw NHS capacity hit about 99% at the peak we pretty much got that spot on. 

I think it's comforting to see it as a political choice. Something Boris can choose to do or not. Because if that's the case, political and social pressure works - other Tories will fight him, people won't accept another lockdown and therefore it's impossible. It's a nice thought. Means we get our freedom back in June, maybe July, and we're home free. There won't be another lockdown because people just won't accept it. Comforting, because it means this shit is definitely over.

But it's not the reality.

In some countries it sort of is - Australia used short, sharp lockdowns to save lives and stamp it out. Most people here agree the first lockdown was weeks too late and we should have gone earlier, as it would have saved 1000s of lives. We think the same about the post-Christmas lockdown too. Had those happened earlier, it would have been a political decision - trading off economic activity for lives. Bit icky but it's reality.

But Johnson has consistently refused to put in place any lockdown until people have gone up to him and said "based on current projections, the NHS will be unable to cope in 2 weeks unless we lockdown now". And in each of those cases, 2 weeks later the NHS has been at breaking point. We acted just in time.

I don't think people really get what "the NHS being overwhelmed" means. Because it never happened. But it means the PM going on TV and saying "our hospitals are full, we can't treat you" or "we're choosing to only treat those under 50 years old". This stuff was discussed. The NHS had a triage plan in place for getting overwhelmed which meant turning away older people. It would have been absolutely horrendous and we've come within a hair's breadth of that three times in this whole thing. 

So when people say "no-one would accept another lockdown" my immediate response is "they won't accept being told anyone over 50 that gets ill now will be left to die either." And until we start massively improving funding in the NHS, those are the two options.

Now, I think we'll be fine. I think the vaccines are good enough. I think they'll outpace the spread and it'll all be okay. But if we open up, then for some unforeseen reason it looks like we won't be, that hospitals are filling up again, then we will go back into lockdown. Because there's no way Johnson is going on TV to tell people the NHS is shut. Or y'know, telling Matt Hancock to do it. 

And I don't  think we should lockdown longer "just in case" a variant or "just in case" the vaccines don't quite do as well as it looks. I'm just living in reality enough to admit that if those things do happen we'll be back here again because there's no other viable option. 

And I'm sort of reluctant to post this because it's pissing in people's porridge and some people are desperate to believe that this is over for definite on 21 June. But there are no definites with this. It's all on how well the vaccines do. 

Edited June 3, 2021 by DeanoL

[steviewevie]

So there isn't a Nepal variant, but there is a Nepal mutation?

[zahidf]

10 minutes ago, northernringo said:

It is literally the last figure from NHS England's official data...

115 admissions on June 1st (published June 3rd).

Here are the previous values:

25-May-21	26-May-21	27-May-21	28-May-21	29-May-21	30-May-21	31-May-21	01-Jun-21
88	95	83	92	69	80	98	115

Doesn't seem out of date to me...

 

Ah fair enough.

[Ozanne]

 

 

[BobWillis2]

4 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Gonna have one more shot at explaining this before I head off for the day as I don't think people have quite got it. My core point is quite simple: 

Lockdown isn't a political decision.

Government policy throughout this entire thing has been to only lockdown when the stats clearly show the NHS will be overwhelmed, and lockdown as late as possible. Given that in each lockdown we saw NHS capacity hit about 99% at the peak we pretty much got that spot on. 

I think it's comforting to see it as a political choice. Something Boris can choose to do or not. Because if that's the case, political and social pressure works - other Tories will fight him, people won't accept another lockdown and therefore it's impossible. It's a nice thought. Means we get our freedom back in June, maybe July, and we're home free. There won't be another lockdown because people just won't accept it. Comforting, because it means this shit is definitely over.

But it's not the reality.

In some countries it sort of is - Australia used short, sharp lockdowns to save lives and stamp it out. Most people here agree the first lockdown was weeks too late and we should have gone earlier, as it would have saved 1000s of lives. We think the same about the post-Christmas lockdown too. Had those happened earlier, it would have been a political decision - trading off economic activity for lives. Bit icky but it's reality.

But Johnson has consistently refused to put in place any lockdown until people have gone up to him and said "based on current projections, the NHS will be unable to cope in 2 weeks unless we lockdown now". And in each of those cases, 2 weeks later the NHS has been at breaking point. We acted just in time.

I don't think people really get what "the NHS being overwhelmed" means. Because it never happened. But it means the PM going on TV and saying "our hospitals are full, we can't treat you" or "we're choosing to only treat those under 50 years old". This stuff was discussed. The NHS had a triage plan in place for getting overwhelmed which meant turning away older people. It would have been absolutely horrendous and we've come within a hair's breadth of that three times in this whole thing. 

So when people say "no-one would accept another lockdown" my immediate response is "they won't accept being told anyone over 50 that gets ill now will be left to die either." And until we start massively improving funding in the NHS, those are the two options.

Now, I think we'll be fine. I think the vaccines are good enough. I think they'll outpace the spread and it'll all be okay. But if we open up, then for some unforeseen reason it looks like we won't be, that hospitals are filling up again, then we will go back into lockdown. Because there's no way Johnson is going on TV to tell people the NHS is shut. Or y'know, telling Matt Hancock to do it. 

And I don't  think we should lockdown longer "just in case" a variant or "just in case" the vaccines don't quite do as well as it looks. I'm just living in reality enough to admit that if those things do happen we'll be back here again because there's no other viable option. 

And I'm sort of reluctant to post this because it's pissing in people's porridge and some people are desperate to believe that this is over for definite on 21 June. But there are no definites with this. It's all on how well the vaccines do. 

You overthink things far too much Deano. 

[Euphoricape]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

So there isn't a Nepal variant, but there is a Nepal mutation?

Appears to be a mixture of the Indian variant which is more transmissible, and the South African variant which is more immune to vaccines.. possible government announcement later today.

[km9]

7 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Gonna have one more shot at explaining this before I head off for the day as I don't think people have quite got it. My core point is quite simple: 

Lockdown isn't a political decision.

Government policy throughout this entire thing has been to only lockdown when the stats clearly show the NHS will be overwhelmed, and lockdown as late as possible. Given that in each lockdown we saw NHS capacity hit about 99% at the peak we pretty much got that spot on. 

I think it's comforting to see it as a political choice. Something Boris can choose to do or not. Because if that's the case, political and social pressure works - other Tories will fight him, people won't accept another lockdown and therefore it's impossible. It's a nice thought. Means we get our freedom back in June, maybe July, and we're home free. There won't be another lockdown because people just won't accept it. Comforting, because it means this shit is definitely over.

But it's not the reality.

In some countries it sort of is - Australia used short, sharp lockdowns to save lives and stamp it out. Most people here agree the first lockdown was weeks too late and we should have gone earlier, as it would have saved 1000s of lives. We think the same about the post-Christmas lockdown too. Had those happened earlier, it would have been a political decision - trading off economic activity for lives. Bit icky but it's reality.

But Johnson has consistently refused to put in place any lockdown until people have gone up to him and said "based on current projections, the NHS will be unable to cope in 2 weeks unless we lockdown now". And in each of those cases, 2 weeks later the NHS has been at breaking point. We acted just in time.

I don't think people really get what "the NHS being overwhelmed" means. Because it never happened. But it means the PM going on TV and saying "our hospitals are full, we can't treat you" or "we're choosing to only treat those under 50 years old". This stuff was discussed. The NHS had a triage plan in place for getting overwhelmed which meant turning away older people. It would have been absolutely horrendous and we've come within a hair's breadth of that three times in this whole thing. 

So when people say "no-one would accept another lockdown" my immediate response is "they won't accept being told anyone over 50 that gets ill now will be left to die either." And until we start massively improving funding in the NHS, those are the two options.

Now, I think we'll be fine. I think the vaccines are good enough. I think they'll outpace the spread and it'll all be okay. But if we open up, then for some unforeseen reason it looks like we won't be, that hospitals are filling up again, then we will go back into lockdown. Because there's no way Johnson is going on TV to tell people the NHS is shut. Or y'know, telling Matt Hancock to do it. 

And I don't  think we should lockdown longer "just in case" a variant or "just in case" the vaccines don't quite do as well as it looks. I'm just living in reality enough to admit that if those things do happen we'll be back here again because there's no other viable option. 

And I'm sort of reluctant to post this because it's pissing in people's porridge and some people are desperate to believe that this is over for definite on 21 June. But there are no definites with this. It's all on how well the vaccines do. 

Please don't patronise us by having one last shot at explaining. 

Some people have been explaining for over 3000 pages now.

[efcfanwirral]

5 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

 

 

I think its now more of a case of how long the delay is rather than whether there will be one. It probably needs a number attached to it - a target.

 

[stuartbert two hats]

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

It won't quite triple over two weeks,

[Ozanne]

4 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

I think its now more of a case of how long the delay is rather than whether there will be one. It probably needs a number attached to it - a target.

 

I think you might be right. The daily data is delayed as well which automatically makes me think something is up (that's just me, it probably means nothing though).

[efcfanwirral]

2 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I think you might be right. The daily data is delayed as well which automatically makes me think something is up (that's just me, it probably means nothing though).

Yeah that's always my thoughts too. 

If we don't set a target, I can see some unrest because, and I feel the same, if they say "2/4 weeks" most of us will be like "yeah right and then it'll move again" but if there's a realistic target of some kind that would at least give something concrete to aim at instead of us all assuming it'll just keep moving 

Edited June 3, 2021 by efcfanwirral

[steviewevie]

16 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

oh bollocks.

[stuartbert two hats]

35 minutes ago, northernringo said:

It is literally the last figure from NHS England's official data...

115 admissions on June 1st (published June 3rd).

Here are the previous values:

25-May-21	26-May-21	27-May-21	28-May-21	29-May-21	30-May-21	31-May-21	01-Jun-21
88	95	83	92	69	80	98	115

Doesn't seem out of date to me...

 

Where do you think the (normally reliable) fact check twitter account is getting their data?  Seems a bit odd to have such different numbers.

[Fuzzy Afro]

22 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Gonna have one more shot at explaining this before I head off for the day as I don't think people have quite got it. My core point is quite simple: 

Lockdown isn't a political decision.

Government policy throughout this entire thing has been to only lockdown when the stats clearly show the NHS will be overwhelmed, and lockdown as late as possible. Given that in each lockdown we saw NHS capacity hit about 99% at the peak we pretty much got that spot on. 

I think it's comforting to see it as a political choice. Something Boris can choose to do or not. Because if that's the case, political and social pressure works - other Tories will fight him, people won't accept another lockdown and therefore it's impossible. It's a nice thought. Means we get our freedom back in June, maybe July, and we're home free. There won't be another lockdown because people just won't accept it. Comforting, because it means this shit is definitely over.

But it's not the reality.

In some countries it sort of is - Australia used short, sharp lockdowns to save lives and stamp it out. Most people here agree the first lockdown was weeks too late and we should have gone earlier, as it would have saved 1000s of lives. We think the same about the post-Christmas lockdown too. Had those happened earlier, it would have been a political decision - trading off economic activity for lives. Bit icky but it's reality.

But Johnson has consistently refused to put in place any lockdown until people have gone up to him and said "based on current projections, the NHS will be unable to cope in 2 weeks unless we lockdown now". And in each of those cases, 2 weeks later the NHS has been at breaking point. We acted just in time.

I don't think people really get what "the NHS being overwhelmed" means. Because it never happened. But it means the PM going on TV and saying "our hospitals are full, we can't treat you" or "we're choosing to only treat those under 50 years old". This stuff was discussed. The NHS had a triage plan in place for getting overwhelmed which meant turning away older people. It would have been absolutely horrendous and we've come within a hair's breadth of that three times in this whole thing. 

So when people say "no-one would accept another lockdown" my immediate response is "they won't accept being told anyone over 50 that gets ill now will be left to die either." And until we start massively improving funding in the NHS, those are the two options.

Now, I think we'll be fine. I think the vaccines are good enough. I think they'll outpace the spread and it'll all be okay. But if we open up, then for some unforeseen reason it looks like we won't be, that hospitals are filling up again, then we will go back into lockdown. Because there's no way Johnson is going on TV to tell people the NHS is shut. Or y'know, telling Matt Hancock to do it. 

And I don't  think we should lockdown longer "just in case" a variant or "just in case" the vaccines don't quite do as well as it looks. I'm just living in reality enough to admit that if those things do happen we'll be back here again because there's no other viable option. 

And I'm sort of reluctant to post this because it's pissing in people's porridge and some people are desperate to believe that this is over for definite on 21 June. But there are no definites with this. It's all on how well the vaccines do. 

 

This is where I have to disagree. Lockdowns absolutely ARE a political decision.

The alternative is ugly, yes, but phrases like “PM was forced to lockdown” or “no choice but to lockdown” are inaccurate. It’s ultimately his choice.

 

I can think of three examples of countries where the government has decided against locking down despite the threat of health services being overwhelmed.

 

In Sweden, most of the public went into voluntary social distancing anyway. So despite the lack of an official lockdown, behaviour changed to such an extent that the health service was not overwhelmed (albeit the death rate was significantly higher than comparable Scandinavian countries)

 

Brazil and Inidia saw much uglier outcomes with triage having to come in to play, mass burials and the like.

 

It’s not clear whether we’d end up like Brazil/India or whether we’d end up like Sweden if Boris hadn’t locked down on all three occasions but either way my point is that it absolutely is his choice. He just prefers it to the alternative. 

[thewayiam]

17 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

What's happened in brief is, that everyone wanted these restrictions being relaxed etc. A shit load on here are very much for open it all up etc. What it turn you have is this issue that will now delayed summer and put pay to things.

In a kind of Boris way, people moan he's taking too long with stuff and restricting and he is.  But then people wanting back to normal as fast as possible/too early is now delaying shit, well it will won't it. This much as been obvious for weeks. Albeit I believe this Portugal thing does deserve travelling people time to get home.

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

this traffic light travel thing is a bit stupid really, especially when we could be at the start of a surge in cases of the Indian variant. Just bin holidays abroad. I think only people going abroad should be those visiting families, but they still would need to do the quarantine thing.

[steviewevie]

thread on latest from PHE

The vaccines bit in that PHE risk assessment in thread post 2 mentions the uncertainty around how effective the AZ vaccine is against delta/indian...even after 2 doses.

[Hannibal Schmitt]

15 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

this traffic light travel thing is a bit stupid really, especially when we could be at the start of a surge in cases of the Indian variant. Just bin holidays abroad. I think only people going abroad should be those visiting families, but they still would need to do the quarantine thing.

If it would have worked the indian variant wouldn`t have come into the UK. Allowing travels to Asia, South America and Africa and putting some of them on the amber list in this situation was bollocks and irresponsible. Its much clearer here - everyone vaccinated/tested/recovered from safe countries with low incedences inner EU can travel and the others only very restricted - only for families or work or reasons by the government approved, red countries like SA, India, Nepal, Brazil, UK and a few others even more restricted.

[steviewevie]

[Homer]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

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.

Can't imagine why she'd think that of you.

[Havors]

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

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? 

You miss the point. They wont get that high because the vaccines work. 

Like I said your premise that the NHS cant cope is all based on the vaccine not working. If the vaccine works then hospitalisations cant go up. The link between infection and severe illness is broken. 

The vaccine companies are already working on boosters which will be even more effective against the variants. People will need an annual shot.