When will this shit end?

[Fuzzy Afro]

4 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

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.

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)

The link still exists, just at a much, much lower % than it was before.

 

Better?

[DeanoL]

2 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

The link still exists, just at a much, much lower % than it was before.

 

Better?

Absolutely! That's exactly what I think - but like I say I don't think the term "broken" fits that personally. Because it's making people think things that aren't true - like that case numbers don't matter any more, when they're still actually our best way of predicting hospitalisations.

[Havors]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

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.

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)

You think 100% of people could get infected and they all had the same chance of going to hospital. Everything else you said after that becomes irrelevant and nonsense. 

Don't expect me not to keep pulling you up when you continue saying things that make no sense. 

Like this post you've made about the link is back for over 60's. You are just talking nonsense and you need to stop thinking in absolutes. 

[incident]

10 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

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)

The over 60s have not all been double jabbed.

While the takeup in that group is excellent, it's not universal and more importantly it's not consistent - some communities have a measurably lower rate and it's noticeable that the places that are of concern right now heavily overlap with the ones where there's been vaccine hesitancy.

Edited June 7, 2021 by incident

[efcfanwirral]

If the delay is inevitable, proper leadership would be to announce it in the next couple of days. Forget all this will they won't they nonsense, we know they're going to delay so just tell us 

[DeanoL]

Just now, Havors said:

Like this post you've made about the link is back for over 60's. You are just talking nonsense and you need to stop thinking in absolutes. 

Okay. Explain to me why ratio of hospitalisations to infections for over 60s will be different today to in a month's time?

[Ayrshire Chris]

[Fuzzy Afro]

8 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Okay. Explain to me why ratio of hospitalisations to infections for over 60s will be different today to in a month's time?

No one is claiming that that are they? (unless it’s < 3 weeks since all over 60’s were offered their second dose. I’ve lost track of where are at with the second dose rollout)

 

Instead, they are claiming that the ratio of hospitalisations to infections has dropped very significantly since the turn of the year. And also that the overall % of cases coming from over 60’s is also a lot lower than it used to be. 

[Havors]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

Okay. Explain to me why ratio of hospitalisations to infections for over 60s will be different today to in a month's time?

Why would I explain that to you? I have never claimed it would or wouldnt be different. 

The vaccine works or it doesnt. Almost all over 60's have been double jabbed. (any who haven't then its their own responsibility) 

One jab reduced the risk of hospitalisation by 85-94% thats with one jab! Never mind 2.  The reduced risk of hospitalisation is completely independent from how many cases there are you cant catch covid twice at the same time. So a increase in cases is irrelevant in this regard.

An increase is cases is a concern for other reasons and should not be overlooked. 

[steviewevie]

28 minutes ago, zahidf said:

 

ugh, can you not post pictures of that cockhead please.

[steviewevie]

37 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

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.

ok...I guess it's not whether link is broken completely...but as we go through another wave of cases this summer whether link is weakened enough to not have to have lockdown restrictions anymore.

[DeanoL]

 

6 minutes ago, Havors said:

Why would I explain that to you? I have never claimed it would or wouldnt be different. 

The vaccine works or it doesnt. Almost all over 60's have been double jabbed. (any who haven't then its their own responsibility) 

One jab reduced the risk of hospitalisation by 85-94% thats with one jab! Never mind 2.  The reduced risk of hospitalisation is completely independent from how many cases there are you cant catch covid twice at the same time. So a increase in cases is irrelevant in this regard.

An increase is cases is a concern for other reasons and should not be overlooked. 

If 1% of people over 60 that get COVID today end up in hospital, and 1% of people over 60 in a months time that get COVID end up in hospital, there is clearly a link between infections and hospitalisations.

You literally just told me:

"Like this post you've made about the link is back for over 60's. You are just talking nonsense and you need to stop thinking in absolutes. "

Then you're agreeing that link exists.

[Copperface]

26 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

The link still exists, just at a much, much lower % than it was before.

 

Better?

Nah, the Health Secretary makes it very clear............................................not.

"Health Secretary Matt Hancock says the link between rising coronavirus cases and hospitalisations is "severed but not broken".        

What the hell does that mean?

They were always going to wait until about 70-80% had been fully vaccinated. This is just the drip, drip salami slicing way of getting there. The so called 'vaccinate the vulnerable and open up' approach, was never an option.

 

[Leyrulion]

Sunday times yesterday had a piece suggesting we'd need 83% of the population with the equivalent of two dose immunity to get to herd immunity threshold as the natural R of the delta variant is 6.

Edited June 7, 2021 by Leyrulion
83% Immunity made up of vaccine and infection

[zahidf]

Just now, Leyrulion said:

Sunday times yesterday had a piece suggesting we'd need 83% of the population with two dose immunity to get to herd immunity threshold as the natural R of the delta variant is 6.

Not necessarily as there is also previous infection to take into account. 

[Havors]

4 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

 

If 1% of people over 60 that get COVID today end up in hospital, and 1% of people over 60 in a months time that get COVID end up in hospital, there is clearly a link between infections and hospitalisations.

You literally just told me:

"Like this post you've made about the link is back for over 60's. You are just talking nonsense and you need to stop thinking in absolutes. "

Then you're agreeing that link exists.

OMFG im losing my patience now! I said stop thinking in absolutes.

There will always be a link as you cant go to hospital with covid without catching covid! If you want to be pedantic and use semantics, and think the term "broken" shouldn't be used because that means nobody goes to hospital then go for it.... we can just accept that you struggle with nuance. 

The same way you struggle with the maths and dont understand that a rise in cases does not mean you have a greater chance of going to hospital. A person will always have the same chance of going to hospital with covid no matter how many cases there are. The vaccine reduces that MASSIVELY, enough to not have to worry... and thus its our route back to normality. If this was not  the case the vaccine is a waste of time and we are all doomed. 


 

[Leyrulion]

5 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Not necessarily as there is also previous infection to take into account. 

*Equivalent of

[Zacko]

20 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

ugh, can you not post pictures of that cockhead please.

It's his constant half smirk for me...utter cockwomble 

[efcfanwirral]

 

[efcfanwirral]

20 minutes ago, Copperface said:

Nah, the Health Secretary makes it very clear............................................not.

"Health Secretary Matt Hancock says the link between rising coronavirus cases and hospitalisations is "severed but not broken".        

What the hell does that mean?

They were always going to wait until about 70-80% had been fully vaccinated. This is just the drip, drip salami slicing way of getting there. The so called 'vaccinate the vulnerable and open up' approach, was never an option.

 

I agree- I hate the psychological manipulation so much 

Despite the plan clearly being as you said, I guarantee they'll turn people on each other way before that time and blame people who haven't taken the vaccine for the delay. Even though we never had a hope of opening up fully before majority have had two doses. 

Mark drakeford will be shown to be the most honest of the leaders when 2021 is done

[DeanoL]

11 minutes ago, Havors said:

The same way you struggle with the maths and dont understand that a rise in cases does not mean you have a greater chance of going to hospital. A person will always have the same chance of going to hospital with covid no matter how many cases there are. 

Okay I see where you're coming from now. You're right I'm looking at from a population perspective rather than an individual perspective. Yes, for an individual, the vaccine either works or not.

However before that kicks in, you actually have to catch COVID. And the more cases there are, the more likely you are to catch COVID. So yeah, if the vaccine works in you, you have a 0% chance of going to hospital if you don't catch COVID and still have a 0% chance if you do. So yeah, in those cases the infection rate isn't relevant.

But if the vaccine doesn't work for you, you'll end up in hospital if you get COVID. And if the cases are lower, you're much less likely to get COVID and up in hospital than if the cases are high.

But given that we can't identify who the vaccine does and doesn't work in ahead of time, at a population level that distinction is irrelevant. As those people won't behave any differently because no-one knows. So it's not like the 5% or whatever of people the vaccine doesn't work for can take extra precautions. 

So the more cases there are, the more likely those people catch it, the more likely they end up in hospital, so the more hospitalisations you get. Hence the number of infections still matters.

[incident]

38 minutes ago, Copperface said:

Nah, the Health Secretary makes it very clear............................................not.

"Health Secretary Matt Hancock says the link between rising coronavirus cases and hospitalisations is "severed but not broken".        

What the hell does that mean?

It could actually be argued to make some sense if he'd said it the other way around - as in a Broken Arm is still connected but heavily damaged, whereas a Severed Arm is gone entirely.

[Zoo Music Girl]

Seems like they should maybe do a presser soon? Just to let people know what the current thinking is. Probably too much to ask.

Just checked on the NHS app and my Saturday jab is showing already but it does still say the barcode will expire by 20 June. Wondering what the significance of that date is, being that it's the day before supposedly the end of restrictions? Do other double-jabbed peeps show the same?

[incident]

10 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

Seems like they should maybe do a presser soon? Just to let people know what the current thinking is. Probably too much to ask.

Just checked on the NHS app and my Saturday jab is showing already but it does still say the barcode will expire by 20 June. Wondering what the significance of that date is, being that it's the day before supposedly the end of restrictions? Do other double-jabbed peeps show the same?

Think it's just that barcodes are valid for 2 weeks from generation, and if you check tomorrow it'll say 21st.

[Zoo Music Girl]

Just now, incident said:

Think it's just that barcodes are valid for 2 weeks from generation, and if you check tomorrow it'll say 21st.

Ah right okay! I thought it said he same date for the first one but maybe not.