When will this shit end?

[jimmillen]

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

It's in your first point. Exponential growth. If the virus triples in two weeks sure, that's fine. But that means in 2 more weeks it will triple again so now it's 9 times more cases (and hence hospitalisations). In 8 weeks it's 729 times more and in 10 weeks it's 2187 times more. That's the data. 

IMO one of the biggest challenges through this whole thing has been that neither politicians, nor media, nor the public really get the principle of exponential growth on any kind of intuitive level. Human nature is to look at things as they are, and think that's the way they'll continue - or that change will be gradual. 🤷‍♂️

 

[steviewevie]

14 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Its not the same as last year. Fully vaxed people will be a lot less likely to go along with a lockdown

yeah, you may well be right...but they can still legally stop nightclubs etc from opening.

[zahidf]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

yeah, you may well be right...but they can still legally stop nightclubs etc from opening.

oh, they can do stuff like that, but as i said, people will be restless and wll just have mssive house parties instead 

[squirrelarmy]

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

oh, they can do stuff like that, but as i said, people will be restless and wll just have mssive house parties instead 

In the highly unlikely event of England getting past the group stage of the Euros there is no way they are going to stop people gathering to watch the games. 
 

I wonder if Southgate is deliberately picking a bad team to make it easier to  enforce the social distancing rules 🤔

[Hannibal Schmitt]

17 minutes ago, Ayrshire Chris said:

Looking at todays decision on Portugal it’s becoming increasingly obvious that the government really don’t want folk travelling abroad on holiday this summer without actually banning them outright. The airlines will be under extreme pressure

Yeah and it`s a weird situation as Europe has opened up travel completely including some other places outer Europe but excluding the UK first because not being a member state and then because of the variant concerns. Some countries like Germany see the UK as a danger because fears how the situation could develop in autumn in Europe. The green pass will certainly help to make travel during summer more easier for us, but I am not sure if the UK will be included in this one which makes it even more complicate. So I guess its not even a decision for health issues it also has become some sort of political decision.

[DeanoL]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

Close the pubs, we have a bad flu strain....

I dont really buy them doing that. Maybe masks over the autumn to mitigate spread in public transport settings and more WFH. But no closed businesses. 

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.

[steviewevie]

9 minutes ago, zahidf said:

oh, they can do stuff like that, but as i said, people will be restless and wll just have mssive house parties instead 

yeah, sure...can't stop some of that stuff happening...and they'll know that.

[steviewevie]

4 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.

yeah...this...it's a blunt tool when there's no alternative.

[DeanoL]

11 minutes ago, zahidf said:

yup. I posted earlier the poll about people expecting things being reopened June 21st fully. Good luck getting public to go along with anything this winter to the same degree as before. 

Okay. Let's follow that thinking through. There's no way a public will accept a winter lockdown. There's a worry that we might have a very bad flu season and the NHS might still be stretched from the remaining COVID cases (the vaccine is not 100% effective, the need for treatment will remain).

So a winter lockdown is impossible. People will just ignore it. Zahidf said so and he knows. 

So you're facing a situation where the NHS could be overwhelmed during the winter and a lockdown won't work. What do you do? You extend the current lockdown as long as you can, because more people will go along with that than will in the winter, because of momentum. Drive down numbers as much as possible now, while you can, because you won't be able to in winter because of the Zahidf-effect.

If what you're saying is true and those in Westminster agree these are the conversations they'll be having right now. And I'm guessing they're not the ones you want them to be having!

[zahidf]

Saw a great thread in twitter (which I can't link to as it private) linking to the thoughts under 30s. Who basically have been treated like cral during the pandemic and are now being told all the stuff they love doing is subject to indefinite delay.

They know they aren't at a massive individual risk from covid despite what fake SAGE say. So are beginning to feel what's the point of a Vax)

From the thread

Not only is media and Twitter messaging that the roadmap simply *must* be delayed, dampening the incentive for young people to chip in, young people are increasingly being lectured at for not taking a vaccine most haven't even been offered yet

Now, you might think "just two more weeks" (lol) to get more people vaxxed shouldn't put people off. However, I suspect a couple of key factors increasing hesitancy in the young are being ignored, that government ignore at their peril if they want to keep enthusiasm high. 

 

Secondly, and more insidiously, Fake SAGE and the various celebrity academics on here have spent the last 12 months telling any young person who wants their basic human needs met to fuck off, and that viewing themselves as anything but a plague vector is a horrid murderer. 

Many of them have joined in the chorus of loudly insisting that young people get vaccinated. This is where I think the failure to understand vaccine motivation really becomes apparent. As with everything Covid, Indie SAGE believe that simply shouting "long Covid"

...and "every 25-year-old who gets asymptomatically infected will suffer multiple organ damage" will be enough to every young person to altruistically fall in line. Now, to be clear, young people *can* suffer these things: that's not in doubt. 

But like it or not, this doesn't reflect what most young people have seen this past year. I personally know several people aged 18-30 who've caught COVID-19: all of them are now absolutely fine, the worst case being someone who spent a week in bed.

[aj6658]

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

It's in your first point. Exponential growth. If the virus triples in two weeks sure, that's fine. But that means in 2 more weeks it will triple again so now it's 9 times more cases (and hence hospitalisations). In 8 weeks it's 729 times more and in 10 weeks it's 2187 times more. That's the data. 

We *will* get to a point with vaccinations where even if all of the UK got infected, the number of hospitalisations would still be manageable.  But what we can't do is get to a point where a majority of the country are infect before we have that level of vaccination.

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. 

[JoeyT]

 

[zahidf]

1 minute ago, JoeyT said:

 

Doesn't sound like an overwhelmed NHS

[st dan]

3 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

 

Almost as if the press don’t want us to hear that!

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

 

so there you go...link broken?

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

Edited June 3, 2021 by steviewevie

[DeanoL]

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. 

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. 

[steviewevie]

7 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Saw a great thread in twitter (which I can't link to as it private) linking to the thoughts under 30s. Who basically have been treated like cral during the pandemic and are now being told all the stuff they love doing is subject to indefinite delay.

They know they aren't at a massive individual risk from covid despite what fake SAGE say. So are beginning to feel what's the point of a Vax)

From the thread

Not only is media and Twitter messaging that the roadmap simply *must* be delayed, dampening the incentive for young people to chip in, young people are increasingly being lectured at for not taking a vaccine most haven't even been offered yet

Now, you might think "just two more weeks" (lol) to get more people vaxxed shouldn't put people off. However, I suspect a couple of key factors increasing hesitancy in the young are being ignored, that government ignore at their peril if they want to keep enthusiasm high. 

 

Secondly, and more insidiously, Fake SAGE and the various celebrity academics on here have spent the last 12 months telling any young person who wants their basic human needs met to fuck off, and that viewing themselves as anything but a plague vector is a horrid murderer. 

Many of them have joined in the chorus of loudly insisting that young people get vaccinated. This is where I think the failure to understand vaccine motivation really becomes apparent. As with everything Covid, Indie SAGE believe that simply shouting "long Covid"

...and "every 25-year-old who gets asymptomatically infected will suffer multiple organ damage" will be enough to every young person to altruistically fall in line. Now, to be clear, young people *can* suffer these things: that's not in doubt. 

But like it or not, this doesn't reflect what most young people have seen this past year. I personally know several people aged 18-30 who've caught COVID-19: all of them are now absolutely fine, the worst case being someone who spent a week in bed.

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

[Hannibal Schmitt]

16 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

In the highly unlikely event of England getting past the group stage of the Euros there is no way they are going to stop people gathering to watch the games. 
 

I wonder if Southgate is deliberately picking a bad team to make it easier to  enforce the social distancing rules 🤔

Our public viewing in our city for the Euro got cancelled. Its always been great fun, even with the performance of our team. Like yesterday, you have some beer with some friends and forget what shitty performance it has been. so many beers needed for the Euro.

[JoeyT]

4 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Doesn't sound like an overwhelmed NHS

[zahidf]

9 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Okay. Let's follow that thinking through. There's no way a public will accept a winter lockdown. There's a worry that we might have a very bad flu season and the NHS might still be stretched from the remaining COVID cases (the vaccine is not 100% effective, the need for treatment will remain).

So a winter lockdown is impossible. People will just ignore it. Zahidf said so and he knows. 

So you're facing a situation where the NHS could be overwhelmed during the winter and a lockdown won't work. What do you do? You extend the current lockdown as long as you can, because more people will go along with that than will in the winter, because of momentum. Drive down numbers as much as possible now, while you can, because you won't be able to in winter because of the Zahidf-effect.

If what you're saying is true and those in Westminster agree these are the conversations they'll be having right now. And I'm guessing they're not the ones you want them to be having!

I assume thats why the initial road map was so ridiculously conservative. for them to say they need EVEN more time for winter would be ridiclous.

 

Anyway, this is going around in circles and i think subjective. Im happy going out even before the vaccine and you werent so much! so its probably influencing our respective views of lockdown. 

[zahidf]

1 minute 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. 

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

[steviewevie]

Going to be a rollercoaster ride on here till 14th....and then bedlam if a certain decision goes a certain way...

[DeanoL]

Just now, zahidf said:

I assume thats why the initial road map was so ridiculously conservative. for them to say they need EVEN more time for winter would be ridiclous.

 

Anyway, this is going around in circles and i think subjective. Im happy going out even before the vaccine and you werent so much! so its probably influencing our respective views of lockdown. 

I think we mostly agree that there won't be another lockdown! It's just I think it's because we won't need one and you think it's because it'll be politically/socially untenable to have one. The reality is there won't be another one and we'll never know who was right!

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

I think we mostly agree that there won't be another lockdown! It's just I think it's because we won't need one and you think it's because it'll be politically/socially untenable to have one. The reality is there won't be another one and we'll never know who was right!

maybe you're both right.

[zahidf]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

I think we mostly agree that there won't be another lockdown! It's just I think it's because we won't need one and you think it's because it'll be politically/socially untenable to have one. The reality is there won't be another one and we'll never know who was right!

Ha fingers crossed!