When will this shit end?

[DeanoL]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

Point is the growth is a lot slower with vaccines so eventually, it wont be exponential to the same degree. 

It's slower but still exponential, which is why it's still a concern.

[Crazyfool01]

clear as day to me too ...

[Havors]

Just now, DeanoL said:

I think the key point is the tolerance for cases is much higher. We can deal with them being loads higher than before. But we can't deal with them being say, 100x what they are now. But the scary thing with exponential growth is you can get there very quickly if you have no controls at all.

And y'know, that's the only reason we're still talking about extending this phase of lockdown at all - concern over the load on the NHS if we get that sort of growth. 

Sorry mate I didn't have a time to develop a full working model for you. But good luck with your fictional job.

Haha bless ye cotton socks 

[efcfanwirral]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

Well its because the source seems a bit nuts and what he is saying its completely OTT...

I think this because of his words, not despite them!

Problem is the person rushing to give us that life back is Boris Johnson who is also a bit nuts 😂

[steviewevie]

9 minutes ago, zahidf said:

lol that guy is a moron. He assumes the vaccines are worthless on a first dose (when,, they aren't, even against the Delta variant) and is just doom mongering rubbish about how the third wave is going to be even worse than Jan. Nothing about how we will be getting more and more treatments and amended vaccines as well.

He wants us to go all the way back to Step 1 NOW as well. 

I assume that wasn't posted as an example of a realistic way forward?

I don't know about being a moron...but that thread is way too long.

[BobWillis2]

5 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Maybe, to be fair in the context that I originally said it, it really didn't matter, but I feel like that was a week ago.

The context is irrelevant, the only 2 outcomes aren’t;

1) catch covid and the vaccine keeps you out of hospital 

2) catch covid, the vaccine doesn’t work and you end up in hospital. 

[Havors]

2 minutes ago, jimmillen said:

Well, I must be on that planet too, 'cos it was very obvious DeanoL was making some massive assumptions for the sake of simplifying what he was trying to explain. 

Of course, I was reading it without immediately assuming he was "on the other side", which might explain it. 🙄

More likely he didn't understand.... because he kept trying to defend the math. 😄 

Why make massive wrong assumptions to try and make a point? A wrong assumption makes what you are saying wrong by default. 

[Havors]

1 minute ago, BobWillis2 said:

The context is irrelevant, the only 2 outcomes aren’t;

1) catch covid and the vaccine keeps you out of hospital 

2) catch covid, the vaccine doesn’t work and you end up in hospital. 

3) catch covid, the vaccine works and you only go to hospital instead of dying 

That ones a stretch haha but technically may be the case on a very rare occasion. 

Edited June 7, 2021 by Havors

[BobWillis2]

6 minutes ago, Havors said:

3) catch covid, the vaccine works and you only go to hospital instead of dying 

That ones a stretch haha but technically may be the case on a very rare occasion. 

Or the most common one. 

Catch covid, feel crap for a few days and then recover and go on with your life. 

[DeanoL]

4 minutes ago, BobWillis2 said:

The context is irrelevant, the only 2 outcomes aren’t;

1) catch covid and the vaccine keeps you out of hospital 

2) catch covid, the vaccine doesn’t work and you end up in hospital. 

Context is never irrelevant in a discussion. It's only irrelevant if you want to take things people have said and score points. I'm not normally interested in the latter though I've probably ended up there with Havors today to the point I'm not even sure what we're disagreeing on any more.

What matters is there are two types of people: those who are currently susceptible to being hospitalised if they get COVID, and those who aren't. Whether they're in the first group because of the vaccine, natural immunity or just being young isn't really important. What is is how many people are in the second group. The vaccine massively moves people from the second group to the first, but there are still people left in the second.

The more prevalent the virus is, the more of those in the second group get exposed to it, and so the more end up in hospital.

Right now, the number in the second group is not so low that if the virus just whips around the population, we'll still be fine. Variant permitting, we will get there though.

[FakeEmpire]

10 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

 

 

Yeah I agree those parts are pretty mad at this point, that said I think we'll get there in winter.   Posted more around the bigger picture psychological bit which I find interesting and is a different perspective and way of thinking than we normally have on here. - we are all very very defensive of our old way of life, and we get a bit angry if it's suggested that it might not be coming back as we knew it. A discussion point, but the immediate attacks on the source and not the words were interesting to see as they were my own reaction too.

I think this issue largely comes from England's (lack of) leadership and terrible press. We have a government with a short term focus on daily polling and the next day's press coverage. It's "turn the tide by Easter", "over by Christmas", "back to normal by Spring", "Freedom Day "etc. rather than honest, nuanced messaging to let the public know that there will never be a sudden return to life as we remember it. There will be restrictions and caution for probably several years but this doesn't mean that we cannot ease those restrictions. We can return to almost all aspects of our life in a careful, managed way.

I think most people would tolerate working from home, mask wearing on busy public transport or in busy shops and lateral flow testing for mass events for the foreseeable future if it meant we could unlock more. But the messaging around this needs to be clear and honest.

 

[BobWillis2]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

Context is never irrelevant in a discussion. It's only irrelevant if you want to take things people have said and score points. I'm not normally interested in the latter though I've probably ended up there with Havors today to the point I'm not even sure what we're disagreeing on any more.

What matters is there are two types of people: those who are currently susceptible to being hospitalised if they get COVID, and those who aren't. Whether they're in the first group because of the vaccine, natural immunity or just being young isn't really important. What is is how many people are in the second group. The vaccine massively moves people from the second group to the first, but there are still people left in the second.

The more prevalent the virus is, the more of those in the second group get exposed to it, and so the more end up in hospital.

Right now, the number in the second group is not so low that if the virus just whips around the population, we'll still be fine. Variant permitting, we will get there though.

You’re either terrible at conveying what you want to say or you just make it up as you go along. 

[jimmillen]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Context is never irrelevant in a discussion. It's only irrelevant if you want to take things people have said and score points. I'm not normally interested in the latter though I've probably ended up there with Havors today to the point I'm not even sure what we're disagreeing on any more.

What matters is there are two types of people: those who are currently susceptible to being hospitalised if they get COVID, and those who aren't. Whether they're in the first group because of the vaccine, natural immunity or just being young isn't really important. What is is how many people are in the second group. The vaccine massively moves people from the second group to the first, but there are still people left in the second.

The more prevalent the virus is, the more of those in the second group get exposed to it, and so the more end up in hospital.

Right now, the number in the second group is not so low that if the virus just whips around the population, we'll still be fine. Variant permitting, we will get there though.

Before certain posters can seize on this as an example of how horribly, horribly wrong you are, can I just point out you've mixed up your group 1 & group 2 there. Otherwise I entirely agree. 😉

[JoeyT]

This will be well and truly like trying to get festival tickets! Good luck to all this applies to...

 

[DeanoL]

4 minutes ago, BobWillis2 said:

You’re either terrible at conveying what you want to say or you just make it up as you go along. 

I listen to what people say or write and that sometimes changes my point of view, so then I may say a different thing, yes. I guess you could see that as "making it up as I go along". I don't feel the need to just be on one side or another and just fight a corner for the sake of it.

And some times it's just a case of expressing the same stuff in a different way in the hope that'll be the thing that triggers the lightbulb moment for someone. But if people aren't open to listening and just want a fight there's no point to any of that. 

[Chapple12345]

1 minute ago, JoeyT said:

This will be well and truly like trying to get festival tickets! Good luck to all this applies to...

 

If this is the case I think they'll meet their target of all over 18s by end of July 

[tigger123]

 

[Crazyfool01]

Plot twist 🙂 was Matt Hancock prepping us for bad news,  so  they can look  good when they say things will continue as planned ? 

Edited June 7, 2021 by crazyfool1

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, tigger123 said:

 

wooo

[FakeEmpire]

1 minute ago, crazyfool1 said:

Plot twist 🙂 was Matt Hancock prepping us for bad news,  so  they can look  good when they say things will continue as planned ? 

This is what happened before the roadmap announcement. Some of the plans leaked to the press were heartbreakingly pessimistic and so when the actual roadmap was announced, it was welcomed even by people desperate to move faster.

[Ozanne]

Cases only really started to rise a week ago so in theory we wouldn’t expected to see any impacts on hospitalisations till the end of this week.

Plus that data looks promising but it highlights that it’s important to have 2 doses. 

[kalifire]

23 minutes ago, BobWillis2 said:

You’re either terrible at conveying what you want to say or you just make it up as you go along. 

Posted like a true troll. I've yet to see you make an informed contribution here.

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, FakeEmpire said:

This is what happened before the roadmap announcement. Some of the plans leaked to the press were heartbreakingly pessimistic and so when the actual roadmap was announced, it was welcomed even by people desperate to move faster.

yep bad news sells papers .... good news wins voters ...

[BobWillis2]

Just now, kalifire said:

Posted like a true troll. I've yet to see you make an informed contribution here.

I’ve yet to see you do anything other than dig people out you hypocrite. 

[Havors]

17 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Context is never irrelevant in a discussion. It's only irrelevant if you want to take things people have said and score points. I'm not normally interested in the latter though I've probably ended up there with Havors today to the point I'm not even sure what we're disagreeing on any more.

What matters is there are two types of people: those who are currently susceptible to being hospitalised if they get COVID, and those who aren't. Whether they're in the first group because of the vaccine, natural immunity or just being young isn't really important. What is is how many people are in the second group. The vaccine massively moves people from the second group to the first, but there are still people left in the second.

The more prevalent the virus is, the more of those in the second group get exposed to it, and so the more end up in hospital.

Right now, the number in the second group is not so low that if the virus just whips around the population, we'll still be fine. Variant permitting, we will get there though.

I people may be misunderstanding how efficacy works. 95% efficacy does not mean 5% of will become ill or are at risk of becoming ill.

As ive said previously the math is not just X minus Y = Z 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00075-X/fulltext