Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread

[Poojah]

15%, to answer your question.

85% of vaccines that pass Phase II pass Phase III.

We are very likely to have numerous working vaccines within the next 1-3 months.

Wow, what an encouraging statistic and post that is. The most positive thing I’ve read in quite some time - you really ought to post that in the slightly beleaguered good news thread.

 

[Mellotron]

Wow, what an encouraging statistic and post that is. The most positive thing I’ve read in quite some time - you really ought to post that in the slightly beleaguered good news thread.

Sure - just looked it up to confirm - it’s in a peer-reviewed paper.

85.4% of vaccines that make it to Phase III are approved.

 

[clapham_gull]

Whitty suggesting that he doesn’t think tier 3 will work.

He quite clearly did not say that.

I am not confident - and nor is anybody confident - that the Tier 3 proposals for the highest rates, if we did the absolute base case and nothing more, would be enough to get on top of it, and that is why there's a lot of flexibility in the Tier 3 level for local authorities... to actually go up that range, so that they can do significantly more than the absolute base.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Whitty suggesting that he doesn’t think tier 3 will work.

No, no he did not.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

He quite clearly did not say that.

I am not confident - and nor is anybody confident - that the Tier 3 proposals for the highest rates, if we did the absolute base case and nothing more, would be enough to get on top of it, and that is why there's a lot of flexibility in the Tier 3 level for local authorities... to actually go up that range, so that they can do significantly more than the absolute base.

Rolls out tier 3
Says need more restrictions for it to work as isn’t confident

Yes. Yes he clearly did say that tier 3 on its own wouldn’t work.

Or is this another prediction/ not prediction?

 

[e77]

Rolls out tier 3
Says need more restrictions for it to work as isn’t confident

Yes. Yes he clearly did say that tier 3 on its own wouldn’t work.

Or is this another prediction/ not prediction?

He said the base case might not but there is flexibility to bring in stricter measures. In other words he didn't say Tier 3 wouldn't work.

 

[Poojah]

Sure - just looked it up to confirm - it’s in a peer-reviewed paper.

85.4% of vaccines that make it to Phase III are approved.

That's really exciting. In theory then, based on that kind of ratio if we have 11 vaccines in stage 3 trials, at least 9 should make it past the post. I know it's not that simple, but I hadn't realised quite how well the odds were stacked in our favour on this.

I'm absolutely staggered at the science behind getting us so close to potentially multiple viable vaccines, so quickly. I'm rather regretting that I spent most of my science lessons at school sliding little bits of paper into the inside of those funny orange stop clocks, jamming in a wooden taper and then setting it on fire with a bunsen burner before casually putting it back on the side whilst the flames took hold.

I wonder how many Nobel Prizes I may have indadvertently put paid to through the constant interuption of our teacher having to halt the lesson to go and tend to a box of smouldering, molten plastic. Thank Christ the scientists of Oxford University had more mature classmates than 13 year old me.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

He said the base case might not but there is flexibility to bring in stricter measures. In other words he didn't say Tier 3 wouldn't work.

So he said tier 3 would only work with extras, which isn’t tier 3 as published by the Gov.

Considering they pushed for a full lock down 3 weeks ago - you see why

 

[e77]

So he said tier 3 would only work with extras, which isn’t tier 3 as published by the Gov.

Considering they pushed for a full lock down 3 weeks ago - you see why

Ok then, more restrictions then.

 

[Machiavelli]

It’s a nonsense comparison a qualified scientist should not be making, it’s clear and blatant twisting of figures in order to scare the public. It’s like saying we have double the number of cases now as we did at the peak, whilst this is true, there’s no context to what is being said and it’s clearly just being used to scare people.

Look at the rate of increase, comparing where we were the day we went into lockdown, packed offices, nobody wearing masks, busy public transport, nightclubs, no masks etc to now is a comparison a qualified scientist should not make, we are not anywhere near where we were then. The rate of increase is what matters in a pandemic and whether our health care system can cope and you can clearly see by the numbers I posted, it’s nearly 5x as slow as the original wave.

No, no it isn't a nonsense comparison
There are no twisting of figures
Yes, I think the intention was to induce behaviour change in the public, although I wouldn't use the word scare
I don't understand your analogy
Yes, you're right on this point at least: the rate of increase currently is far lower than it was at the point of lockdown (I think it's doubling every two weeks now, whereas it was every three days then).
No, you're wrong on this: the numbers that you posted indicate that we are near where we were then.
While the rate of increase (R-rate) is what matters in a pandemic, it's not the only thing, the point at which it's rising from is important too.
Yes, the health care system being able to cope is vital, which is why the severe rise in hospital admissions of late is extremely alarming.

Van Tam has done well during this pandemic, providing clear and early advice.

 

[clapham_gull]

Yes. Yes he clearly did say that tier 3 on its own wouldn’t work.

Which isn't what you posted, although it makes a good headline.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Which isn't what you posted, although it makes a good headline.

Whitty suggesting that he doesn’t think tier 3 will work.

Is what i said

He is suggesting more will needed and isn’t confident - that is suggesting tier 3 won’t work.

 

[e77]

Whitty suggesting that he doesn’t think tier 3 will work.

Is what i said

He is suggesting more will needed and isn’t confident - that is suggesting tier 3 won’t work.

Is this really worth dancing on a pinhead over? If it doesn't work it is fairly obvious they will bring in more stringent restrictions.

 

[A1X]

Sigh.

The point is, if you’re going to lockdown EVERYONE, why not just lockdown those vulnerable and try something different? Locking up an entire population of 16-30 year olds when the virus has a near 0.01% death rate in that age group is beyond illogical.

Of course shielding the vulnerable wouldn’t be easy, but essentially that’s what we are heading for with a full lockdown anyway isn’t it? Treating age groups who have vastly different outcomes health wise exactly the same is nonsensical, so as soon as they loosen restrictions again, there will be no immunity amongst the young and so the virus will spread again.

Thanks to the current housing market a significant proportion of 16-30 year olds still live with their parents, many of whom will be at or approaching lockdown age. Are they free to go out but not come home? Are they "locked up" too?

And since when does "locked up" mean "can go outside freely but can't do a few small things"?

 

[The Wizard]

Over 100 more people dying at home than usual EVERY. SINGLE. DAY.

And still, nobody cares or explains this in government.

 

[beorhthelm]

Over 100 more people dying at home than usual EVERY. SINGLE. DAY.

And still, nobody cares or explains this in government.

point well made, you believe there should be change of policy so more people die in hospital.

 

[The Wizard]

point well made, you believe there should be change of policy so more people die in hospital.

I guess you only care about people with COVID. Brainwashed. If that happens every week for a year that’s 36000+ deaths more than usual at home

Being so frivolous about 100 people more than normal per day dying at home shows just how closed minded some people have become. I speak from experience that getting a doctors appointment at the minute is like trying to get a meeting with the pope.

 

[e77]

I guess you only care about people with COVID. Brainwashed. If that happens every week for a year that’s 36000+ deaths more than usual at home

Being so frivolous about 100 people more than normal per day dying at home shows just how closed minded some people have become. I speak from experience that getting a doctors appointment at the minute is like trying to get a meeting with the pope.

So everyone who disagrees with you in brainwashed?

I would like to see some information behind the figures. So far as I gather up until recently - and even now only in some areas - hospitals haven't been placed under undue pressure from Covid-19 admissions so why are people not seeking medical treatment (which I assume is your point)?

However if you are implying we should remove Covid-19 restrictions then more people will get it, the hospitals will become overrun and more people will die - both with Covid-19 and other reasons.

 

[beorhthelm]

I guess you only care about people with COVID. Brainwashed. If that happens every week for a year that’s 36000+ deaths more than usual at home

Being so frivolous about 100 people more than normal per day dying at home shows just how closed minded some people have become. I speak from experience that getting a doctors appointment at the minute is like trying to get a meeting with the pope.

your data shows fewer deaths at hospital and more at home. im making the inference, possibly incorrect (i know its not 1:1) that the setting has changed.

as for closed mind, you are completly dismissing the possibility alternative policy will lead to more overall excess deaths. just have everything go back to normal?

 

[The Wizard]

So everyone who disagrees with you in brainwashed?

I would like to see some information behind the figures. So far as I gather up until recently - and even now only in some areas - hospitals haven't been placed under undue pressure from Covid-19 admissions so why are people not seeking medical treatment (which I assume is your point)?

However if you are implying we should remove Covid-19 restrictions then more people will get it, the hospitals will become overrun and more people will die - both with Covid-19 and other reasons.

It’s not disagreeing with an opinion though is it he made a sarcastic comment, which as someone who advocated lockdown to save lives, seems hypocritical. And this is not being addressed you tell me how 100 more people a day are dying in their homes than usual?

Maybe there is an explanation from the government, the question doesn’t seem to be asked and government officials go on about 100 people a day dying of COVID as a possibility in the near future like a doomsday prediction, yet this has literally been happening for months and continues to happen.

That’s exactly my point, hospitals are much quieter than usual according to people who work in them (not northern hotspots), yet we don’t see any decrease in excess at home mortality over the entire summer, when COVID was well in retreat.


^ [MENTION=599]beorhthelm[/MENTION] I don’t advocate just releasing all restrictions and going back to normal, I haven’t said that. Lockdowns aren’t the answer, just yesterday we had Hancock saying restrictions will be in place until there is a vaccine, the next sentence Boris seemed quite downbeat about the vaccine.