When will this shit end?

[Ozanne]

3 minutes ago, MrBarry465 said:

Mortality risk is one thing, but need hospital numbers to come down dramatically.

Saw someone post a statistic a little while back around 80,000 + people still being in hospital since March who were between 18-60.

Over 80 was about 100,000.

Many people can survive COVID with hospital treatment.

That’s true, the majority of people in hospitals with COVID are under 70 so we need to take that into account when looking at things too. 

[MrBarry465]

2 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

That’s true, the majority of people in hospitals with COVID are under 70 so we need to take that into account when looking at things too. 

Yup, this was never solely about 'death rate' alone.

[fraybentos1]

6 minutes ago, MrBarry465 said:

Mortality risk is one thing, but need hospital numbers to come down dramatically.

Saw someone post a statistic a little while back around 80,000 + people still being in hospital since March who were between 18-60.

Many people can survive COVID with hospital treatment.

Yeah mortality defo not the only factor, ICU capacity and general hospitalisation also a factor of course. More people that get the vaccine plus the people that have already had it = increasing immunity too.

[Ozanne]

2 minutes ago, MrBarry465 said:

Yup, this was never solely about 'death rate' alone.

I think this will be a big driver in them slowly loosening restrictions as the lower age groups will be further down the vaccination list. Which makes sense to me. 

[MrBarry465]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

I think this will be a big driver in them slowly loosening restrictions as the lower age groups will be further down the vaccination list. Which makes sense to me. 

Personally I think hospital capacity will be the driving factor in the lowering of restrictions. We had 14 deaths a day in summer at points and still had restrictions in place.

Anyway, we have a long way to go to get out of this now and the focus should just be on getting vaccine rollout done properly before making rash decisions on lowering resctrictions. 

[Ozanne]

1 minute ago, MrBarry465 said:

Personally I think hospital capacity will be the driving factor in the lowering of restrictions. We had 14 deaths a day in summer at points and still had restrictions in place.

Anyway, we have a long way to go to get out of this now and the focus should just be on getting vaccine rollout done properly before making rash decisions on lowering resctrictions. 

I think you might be right, although large levels of cases feed into that so it could be a mixture of them both?

Maybe they’ll also have more data on long-COVID too so might incorporate any of that into their decision. 

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

That’s true, the majority of people in hospitals with COVID are under 70 

because they won't currently admit covid patients aged 80+.

It's that age because covid is raging and the hospitals are full, not because there's a sudden increase in mortality of the under-70s.

Edited January 11, 2021 by eFestivals

[Ozanne]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

because they won't currently admit covid patients aged 80+.

It's that age because covid is raging and the hospitals are full, not because there's a sudden increase in mortality of the under-70s.

Oh yeah I agree, I didn’t mean that mortality would be up in that demographic.

[Fuzzy Afro]

 

Calling it now... I think the R number has sneaked below 1 

[Crazyfool01]

5 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

 

Calling it now... I think the R number has sneaked below 1 

In which case would we need further restrictions ? 

[Fuzzy Afro]

1 minute ago, crazyfool1 said:

In which case would we need further restrictions ? 

Probably still would yes. Because the decline would be so slow that the NHS would still be overwhelmed. 

[Ozanne]

2 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

In which case would we need further restrictions ? 

It seems like we’ll get something more, the amount it’s being spoken about normally is an indication something is coming. 

[Homer]

Largely been out of the news cycle for the weekend, which has been nice, but just got this. Any truth to the idea that shelves are now starting to empty? Do I need to start panic buying yet?!
 

 

[Homer]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

It seems like we’ll get something more, the amount it’s being spoken about normally is an indication something is coming. 

What would they likely clamp down on? I can basically go for a walk and meet my mate who lives on his own. That's it!

[DeanoL]

On 1/10/2021 at 11:50 AM, Ozanne said:

Then instead of end lockdown it should’ve been tightened. But my point is that just because January is quieter month for some that doesn’t mean it’s the best month for one. 

The lockdown timing isn't entirely driven by cases though. There's the economic issue. For retail January is a far better time for lockdown than December. Many retails stores can do 50% of their annual business in December. The government were gambling on being able to have retail open and lockdown after. In retrospect it was clearly the wrong choice, but had retail been shut in December we would be seeing far more retail companies going bankrupt right now, much like Paperchase.

23 hours ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

I think they could do with popping some support bubbles - childcare bubble or support bubble not both for example. Some folks seem to have more bubbles than the champagne region and there about as exclusive a swingers party. 

Just making people register their bubble on a website would help. The currently issue is that it's impossible to get caught until you get stopped once. You'd have to be stopped, the police ask where you're going, you tell them your bubble and now you've got to be careful because if you're stopped again and say your bubble is someone else, you are at risk. Small risk, but it's a risk. Whereas if you've not been stopped at all, it's literally zero risk. You could see a different person every day, and it can't be proved that the person you're seeing that day isn't your bubble. If you had to record somewhere who that bubble is, people would be far more cautious. Doesn't matter if you never use the database, just the fact that you're having to make the statement will make people more uncomfortable.

21 hours ago, efcfanwirral said:

That's what I mean though - its unfair that they aren't getting 100% in those industries and aren't really allowed to find new jobs. It's not that they can stay at home they're sort of being forced to without enough money. 

Was about to suggest a socialist policy of taking further % amounts off people who can afford it and topping up those on 80% who can't but it couldn't be easily managed 

There's already a cap on furlough - you get 80% if you're on up to £38k gross. Anything more you don't get. There's a maximum in place, implementing a minimum would be trivial. Everyone gets minimum wage.

[Chapple12345]

3 minutes ago, Homer said:

What would they likely clamp down on? I can basically go for a walk and meet my mate who lives on his own. That's it!

Next step is being banned from even leaving the room you're currently in, only be able to go shopping if you have a goldfish and you'll only be able to wake up at 7:30 am but only if its Wednesday and theres a full moon 

[Ozanne]

5 minutes ago, Homer said:

What would they likely clamp down on? I can basically go for a walk and meet my mate who lives on his own. That's it!

The talk at the moment in the media is potentially ending some or all of the bubbles (support/childcare), making masks mandatory outside, a curfew and limiting exercise.

Some might happen or they might not depending on how things go. However given the about of talk it’s normally a sign they are at least thinking about it. 

[Homer]

Using the totally scientific method of what my wife just shouted at me from the kitchen, there's an announcement at 5pm but they have ruled out ending support bubbles.

[Ozanne]

Just now, Homer said:

Using the totally scientific method of what my wife just shouted at me from the kitchen, there's an announcement at 5pm but they have ruled out ending support bubbles.

Good for your mate then!

[Obiginnaw]

6 minutes ago, Homer said:

Largely been out of the news cycle for the weekend, which has been nice, but just got this. Any truth to the idea that shelves are now starting to empty? Do I need to start panic buying yet?!
 

 

I’ve seen nothing wrong with the Tesco I work at, certainly not on the level of the photo on the right (I’d suggest that might’ve been taken Christmas Eve as that’s the only time I usually see shelves like that, but that’s just speculating)

There’s some people saying that supermarkets will have to crack down on their restrictions, so putting out something like this will give an extra boost of panic buying to the stores if the amount of people they get in is reduced by a lot - granted it’s a bit tinfoil hat but usually something like this precedes the stores being very busy 

 

[DeanoL]

 

3 hours ago, JoeyT said:

Being able to leave the house for a walk for over an hour is our last remaining freedom bar going to work or shopping for food so it’s not hyperbolic at all.

Unless I’ve missed that there’s something else we can do without the risk of being harassed by police?

Literally anything you want as long as you stay at home. With online shopping you can also have pretty much any good made anywhere in the world delivered to your doorstep. You can communicate with anyone over the internet.

You're boiling freedom down to being able to leave your house. It's not. It's a very old-fashioned sort of view. I would argue, for example, that if for some reason the government turned around tomorrow and said they were removing internet access from everyone, that would be a far bigger infringement of our freedom than if they told us we could no longer leave our homes.

1 hour ago, st dan said:

The worst thing about imposing tougher restrictions if that they are only going to penalise those who are complying with the current rules. 
Those who are breaking them will continue to do so unless we have armed guards on every street corner (which wouldn’t surprise me at this rate!!!)

Perhaps, but there's that whole nudge thing. People will tend to break the rules a little bit. Very few will completely ignore the rules entirely. They'll make small transgressions that they can justify to themselves as reasonable. You have tighter rules, those people might then start obeying the previous set of rules, which they weren't before.

[zahidf]

 

[st dan]

Anybody know the average timeframe for patients admitted to hospital vs them being discharged? 
My wife who works on the wards said she thinks it’s probably around 2/3 weeks on average (obviously some will be longer but not too many shorter). 

[Copperface]

35 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

because they won't currently admit covid patients aged 80+.

 

Without trying to be argumentative, where has that stat come from?

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

5 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

 

Literally anything you want as long as you stay at home. With online shopping you can also have pretty much any good made anywhere in the world delivered to your doorstep. You can communicate with anyone over the internet.

You're boiling freedom down to being able to leave your house. It's not. It's a very old-fashioned sort of view. I would argue, for example, that if for some reason the government turned around tomorrow and said they were removing internet access from everyone, that would be a far bigger infringement of our freedom than if they told us we could no longer leave our homes.

Perhaps, but there's that whole nudge thing. People will tend to break the rules a little bit. Very few will completely ignore the rules entirely. They'll make small transgressions that they can justify to themselves as reasonable. You have tighter rules, those people might then start obeying the previous set of rules, which they weren't before.

Sadly that first parts not true - I can't get some things I want from Germany post brexit.