When will this shit end?

[efcfanwirral]

1 minute ago, philipsteak said:

Could well be the case. The range of ages being jabbed now are likely to have kids at school so could be on holiday somewhere

That's actually very true. Also maybe not wanting to risk side effects, even just tiredness but with the chance you could just be laid up for a couple of days, when they've got the kids full time for those few days? 

[Zoo Music Girl]

3 hours ago, JoeyT said:

Has anyone in their 30’s managed to cancel their original 2nd dose appointment and rebook for the 8 week gap? Or is that only something 40+ can do?

My partner is in his 30s and rescheduled his appointment earlier today (because we are now planning to be away when it was booked for). It didn't give him the option of eight weeks, only a few days either side of his original appointment at 11 weeks. So would guess it's only over 40s at the moment.

Edited June 6, 2021 by Zoo Music Girl

[mcshed]

12 hours ago, kalifire said:

Is that thumbnail real? Did Johnson literally just steal Biden’s campaign slogan? 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/biden-boris-johnson-build-back-better-b1613419.html

Boris used it first, neither of them came up with it.

[Havors]

8 hours ago, efcfanwirral said:

He's openly taking the piss now. He's for some reason untouchable so seems to be saying demonstratably untrue things to show he can get away with it. The health sec mocking the nation during a pandemic 

They are hanging on to him because they need someone to sack following the inquiry that they are doing on themselves. 

 

[Fuzzy Afro]

Both James Ward and Andrew Lilico models are showing a delay is needed but that a short delay of 2-3 weeks will allow us to flatten the curve of the exit wave whereas a longer delay until September does not reduce the size of the exit wave but does risk pushing it into winter.

 

I think we will probably see a short delay only to allow all over 50’s to be offered a second dose (+ 3 weeks) and the vast majority of under 50’s to get the first dose. I don’t see a delay until everyone’s been offered the second at this juncture. 

[zahidf]

Yup. Get an exit wave over and done with this summer

 

[efcfanwirral]

18 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Yup. Get an exit wave over and done with this summer

 

Yeah with a 6 week delay. 

One thing predictions like that can't take into account is the cancellation of a lot of the things that would be allowed if we go past 21st June. If we delay by a few weeks, the knock on effect is that most events won't be able to happen, weddings would get moved etc. Might help make the exit wave smaller, so a way to have a lot fewer mass gatherings without officially cancelling them, so presumably less spread? 

Edited June 7, 2021 by efcfanwirral

[zahidf]

Zero covidians out in force on the media this morning. Fake SAGE ( David King) arguing we need a lockdown until Covid is completely eliminated. 

 

Mental....

 

[steviewevie]

32 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Yup. Get an exit wave over and done with this summer

 

so a lot comes down to whether transmissibility closer to 40% or 70%.

[Havors]

9 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

so a lot comes down to whether transmissibility closer to 40% or 70%.

Yeah could have big effect. I just wonder about his doubling the hospitalisation ratio. Has he doubled the ratio of the Alpha variant with no vaccine or with vaccine? The difference could be huge. 

[steviewevie]

Just now, Havors said:

Yeah could have big effect. I just wonder about his doubling the hospitalisation ratio. Has he doubled the ratio of the Alpha variant with no vaccine or with vaccine? The difference could be huge. 

thing is, will they have all the data to accurately determine this stuff by next Monday?

[Fuzzy Afro]

26 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

Yeah with a 6 week delay. 

One thing predictions like that can't take into account is the cancellation of a lot of the things that would be allowed if we go past 21st June. If we delay by a few weeks, the knock on effect is that most events won't be able to happen, weddings would get moved etc. Might help make the exit wave smaller, so a way to have a lot fewer mass gatherings without officially cancelling them, so presumably less spread? 

The 6 week delay is only needed if the transmission advantage is as high as 70%. If it’s closer to 40% then  we are good to go from the 21st (or perhaps with a 2 week technical extension in order for us to better understand what the true delay actually is)

 

It’s important to note that even a 5-6 week delay up to the last week in July or first week in August is much better than last week’s doomsday prediction of a delay into the autumn until all adults have been offered two vaccines (and possibly later as they may not want to unlock entering the winter).

 

No coincidence that everyone’s favourite twitter doomster takes a few weeks off and the general morale seems to improve. I think we should start a crowdfunder for Christina’s next wild camping trip. 

[Havors]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

thing is, will they have all the data to accurately determine this stuff by next Monday?

I dont think so. I think the half term may distort some of the data also. 

I can understand them delaying things. What I don't want though is for them to say we will review this in 5 weeks... erm no piss off. Keep it under constant review and lift the restrictions as soon as you see the data support it. 2 weeks from now we may see everything drop again and spend weeks sat on our thumbs waiting for a date they pulled out of their ass. 

[Fuzzy Afro]

Fwiw I think they’ll extend by 2 weeks to better understand the data with an option of a further 4 weeks if that data turns out to be unfavourable. I do think we might get some token concession on the 21st though, perhaps the rule of 6/2 households will become the rule of 10/3 households just to keep morale up for one final push. 

[JoeyT]

2 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Fwiw I think they’ll extend by 2 weeks to better understand the data with an option of a further 4 weeks if that data turns out to be unfavourable. I do think we might get some token concession on the 21st though, perhaps the rule of 6/2 households will become the rule of 10/3 households just to keep morale up for one final push. 

I think we're heading that way and to be honest given the amount of uncertainty this makes the most sense as an approach.

[zahidf]

5 minutes ago, Havors said:

I dont think so. I think the half term may distort some of the data also. 

I can understand them delaying things. What I don't want though is for them to say we will review this in 5 weeks... erm no piss off. Keep it under constant review and lift the restrictions as soon as you see the data support it. 2 weeks from now we may see everything drop again and spend weeks sat on our thumbs waiting for a date they pulled out of their ass. 

YUp, always data not dates when they want to extend things, not when it supports it coming forward

[DeanoL]

On 6/4/2021 at 7:11 PM, Ozanne said:

‘Hopefully we get some civil unrest’.

That’s a bit over the top, go take a look at what civil unrest can lead too. Calm down. 

Yeah - that's what these struggling businesses need most if not allowed to fully reopen: people smashing their windows and nicking their stuff.

22 hours ago, Ryan1984 said:

My parents who don’t/can’t/won’t use smartphones have been told by a couple of pubs that they ‘won’t be allowed in again’ unless they use the app. Their phones can’t handle it though - I tried downloading it onto them.

Feels a bit discriminatory and unfair? They’re not the only people who don’t have smartphones.

Places can still take details manually - just all the arguments over business, capacity etc. - most would rather people just use the app as it's easier and less time consuming for staff.

[DeanoL]

On 6/6/2021 at 12:17 AM, zahidf said:

Didn't you see the NHS guy says was broken? Or do you disagree with him now?

Yeah! I disagree with the NHS guy - the link between cases and hospitalisations is not "broken". It's crazy to say that. He's just saying it to get more press coverage for himself so he can have a better career after this. The silly bint. I feel sorry for his wife. 

(Did I do that right? That's how we're meant to treat high qualified scientists when we disagree with them on this thread, right?)

But seriously, you have to catch COVID before you can end up hospitalised with it. So there will always exist a link. If cases go up, hospitalisations will go up. The best case, and what we're hoping for over summer, is they go up by a more smaller proportion than they used to. 

That proportion will keep falling as we vaccinate people, so it's not static at the moment (but will be again, once we're done vaxxing) and if it falls low enough there will be no problem at all. 

But I'm genuinely baffled at how some people seem to think that more cases won't lead to more hospitalisations. What do these people think does lead to hospitalisations then?!

[DeanoL]

Finished this book over the weekend - highly recommended if you're interseted in an overview of what the government got wrong at various points: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Failures-State-Inside-Britains-Coronavirus/dp/0008430527/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2LDSCJ4381IMB&dchild=1&keywords=failures+of+state&qid=1623058968&sprefix=failures+of%2Caps%2C225&sr=8-1

Trigger warning: contains some horrible depictions of the way people were treated in hospital and also two quotes from Christina Pagel where she was later proven to be right. 

I think the big thing to come out the enquiry will be how the government fudged the NHS "not being overwhelmed" in the first wave. Basically, it was. Just they told ambulance drivers not to bring in people over 70 or those that were particularly "frail" during the peak. So people weren't dying in hospital corridors, they were dying at home. And even in hospitals, ventilation and other intensive care was being prioritised for those under 70, when it could actually have saved older people. Some trusts were rationing to the point of having empty ICU beds when there were older patients that were suffering because they didn't want to get caught out should younger ones come in.

It throws the current situation into sharp relief, as it's easy to look at the figures from the first peak and say "hospitalisations won't get anywhere near that, so we'll be fine" but the reality is 1000s of people died who wouldn't have died if they had got a better quality of care, which would have been available if the NHS wasn't overwhelmed.

That's what we need to make sure we get right over the coming months - young people not yet vaccinated and older people the vaccine doesn't work on are going to end up in hospital. But while we may have to accept that, I think it's owed to them to ensure they have the highest quality of care possible. While some COVID deaths are "acceptable" as they're mostly inevitable, I personally don't think we should be accepting even COVID death that could have been prevented by better care. Not now we have vaccines and so should be able to trickle the remaining folk who get sick through the system at a manageable pace using other interventions.

[Havors]

6 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Yeah! I disagree with the NHS guy - the link between cases and hospitalisations is not "broken". It's crazy to say that. He's just saying it to get more press coverage for himself so he can have a better career after this. The silly bint. I feel sorry for his wife. 

(Did I do that right? That's how we're meant to treat high qualified scientists when we disagree with them on this thread, right?)

But seriously, you have to catch COVID before you can end up hospitalised with it. So there will always exist a link. If cases go up, hospitalisations will go up. The best case, and what we're hoping for over summer, is they go up by a more smaller proportion than they used to. 

That proportion will keep falling as we vaccinate people, so it's not static at the moment (but will be again, once we're done vaxxing) and if it falls low enough there will be no problem at all. 

But I'm genuinely baffled at how some people seem to think that more cases won't lead to more hospitalisations. What do these people think does lead to hospitalisations then?!

Nobody said it wont lead to more. Its just how much more... 

I will trust the NHS chief knows more than you... especially after your mental attempts at probability/maths in previous posts. 

[incident]

5 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

But I'm genuinely baffled at how some people seem to think that more cases won't lead to more hospitalisations. What do these people think does lead to hospitalisations then?!

Nobody thinks that, and nobody is using "breaking the link" to imply that. You're being more than a little disingenuous here.

In simple terms, breaking the link means (or should do) that X cases can no longer be predictably scaled to X divided by Y hospitalisations within an age group. Instead, there's other factors at play - Vaccination rates being pretty key amongst those.

[efcfanwirral]

30 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

No coincidence that everyone’s favourite twitter doomster takes a few weeks off and the general morale seems to improve. I think we should start a crowdfunder for Christina’s next wild camping trip. 

Where are you thinking of sending her 😂 

[zahidf]

 

[Fuzzy Afro]

1 minute ago, efcfanwirral said:

Where are you thinking of sending her 😂 

Wherever she likes* - it’s important that our beloved Mrs Pagel can be sent on a wonderful wild camping holiday at a location of her choosing to thank her for her tireless work over the past year.

 

 

* - must be somewhere without WiFi or phone signal 

[DeanoL]

7 minutes ago, Havors said:

Nobody said it wont lead to more. Its just how much more... 

I will trust the NHS chief knows more than you... especially after your mental attempts at probability/maths in previous posts. 

Sure, and I'll trust the director of the Clinical Operational Research Unit at UCL knows more than most on this thread.

Look, we clearly both believe the other is just not smart enough to understand the maths behind this, and I don't think either of us is going to shift from that position, so I don't really see the point in continuing to engage with you.

6 minutes ago, incident said:

Nobody thinks that, and nobody is using "breaking the link" to imply that. You're being more than a little disingenuous here.

In simple terms, breaking the link means (or should do) that X cases can no longer be predictably scaled to X divided by Y hospitalisations within an age group. Instead, there's other factors at play - Vaccination rates being pretty key amongst those.

They can though. For the over 60s, they've all been double jabbed, so the link is back, surely? Albeit at a much lower figure for Y.

The link only doesn't exist in groups where folk are currently being vaccinated, if you interpret it that way. 

(And I'm not being disingenuous, people are literally saying "the infection number doesn't matter because we've broken the link" multiple times on this thread alone)

Edited June 7, 2021 by DeanoL