Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread

[crodonilson]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/c...-elimination-strategy-here-are-16-reasons-why

Hear hear, another 16 reasons why we need a much stricter and longer lockdown to try and actually beat off this virus instead of trying to (badly) manage it. Within 12-18 months we can finally win this battle and move towards a new normal.

 

[loz]

Hear hear, another 16 reasons why we need a much stricter and longer lockdown to try and actually beat off this virus instead of trying to (badly) manage it. Within 12-18 months we can finally win this battle and move towards a new normal.

I take it this post is tongue in cheek ?

 

[dazzer6666]

Hear hear, another 16 reasons why we need a much stricter and longer lockdown to try and actually beat off this virus instead of trying to (badly) manage it. Within 12-18 months we can finally win this battle and move towards a new normal.

Not happening. Almost zero chance 12-18 months of restrictions will either be applied or work in the UK. Lockdown will start to ease within the next couple of months as the vacc programme deepens and the vast majority of us get protected and can get back to increasing levels of normality.

 

[RossyG]

Hear hear, another 16 reasons why we need a much stricter and longer lockdown to try and actually beat off this virus instead of trying to (badly) manage it. Within 12-18 months we can finally win this battle and move towards a new normal.

Here's your new signature tune.

 

[crodonilson]

Not happening. Almost zero chance 12-18 months of restrictions will either be applied or work in the UK. Lockdown will start to ease within the next couple of months as the vacc programme deepens and the vast majority of us get protected and can get back to increasing levels of normality.

If this is the case it is with the acknowledgement that there will still be many thousands of cases circulating and the threat of virus mutation becomes almost a probability which means this lockdown will not be the last one to try and keep containment. At the very least with the government's haphazard approwch we will need to be accustomed to a new normality with so e measures staying in place for months and probably years to come.

 

[dazzer6666]

If this is the case it is with the acknowledgement that there will still be many thousands of cases circulating and the threat of virus mutation becomes almost a probability which means this lockdown will not be the last one to try and keep containment. At the very least with the government's haphazard approwch we will need to be accustomed to a new normality with so e measures staying in place for months and probably years to come.

Of course there will be cases circulating - but with the vulnerable already protected when restrictions start to be removed very few (relatively) will get seriously ill from it. 30% of infected people are already asymptomatic, let alone getting seriously ill. Hospitalisations are currently running at about 10% of infection rates, and seem to be falling as the vacc programme takes effect.

Why does a ‘threat become a probability’ and why do you not think the vaccinations either protect against serious illness from the virus or it’s mutations (already looks to be the case for the UK and SA variants based on published research) ?

Measures may indeed come and go from time to time - but I suspect they will be mild and localised once we have a fully vaccinated and largely protected population. We don’t lock down because of flu and doubt we will because of Covid in due course.

 

[Sussexscots]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55863841

A reminder that Lockdowns are causing very real harms. And why they must start to be eased in step with the vaccination programme's progress.

Both the Zoe Covid app and the BBC Covid case look up show cases dropping quickly. If the vaccination programme proceeds as planned we need to be reducing then eliminating restrictions. And repealing the Coronavirus Act.

 

[dsr-burnley]

I take it this post is tongue in cheek ?

Sadly, no. CrodoNilson is quite happy with the idea that even if coronavirus kills 10,000 per year it would be better to make a million people live their last 18 months in misery than let 10,000 die a couple of years before their time.

If you work on the motto that "life is everything", understanding that that means a year in a top security jail would be better than 51 weeks of normal life, then you'll be somewhere near. Bear in mind that when he says "new normal" he doesn't mean normal. He means that under "new normal" we might be able to meet together in groups of not less than 6, outdoors. And also for the extra 18 months of lockdown, wearing masks in your own home will be compulsory - it's only when "new normal" starts that you will be allowed to take them off in your own, sterilised, unvisited, lonely home.

Hugging grandchildren will be an absolute no-no.

 

[crodonilson]

Sadly, no. CrodoNilson is quite happy with the idea that even if coronavirus kills 10,000 per year it would be better to make a million people live their last 18 months in misery than let 10,000 die a couple of years before their time.

If you work on the motto that "life is everything", understanding that that means a year in a top security jail would be better than 51 weeks of normal life, then you'll be somewhere near. Bear in mind that when he says "new normal" he doesn't mean normal. He means that under "new normal" we might be able to meet together in groups of not less than 6, outdoors. And also for the extra 18 months of lockdown, wearing masks in your own home will be compulsory - it's only when "new normal" starts that you will be allowed to take them off in your own, sterilised, unvisited, lonely home.

Hugging grandchildren will be an absolute no-no.

Absolute tosh, it might be your interpretation of what I've said but not actually true. So do you believe really with stil so many cases circulating and the virus on the route of vaccine escape and with hospitals still at nearly double the original cases and with over a thousand people a day dying now is the time, or indeed anytime soon to come out of lockdown

 

[dazzer6666]

Absolute tosh, it might be your interpretation of what I've said but not actually true. So do you believe really with stil so many cases circulating and the virus on the route of vaccine escape and with hospitals still at nearly double the original cases and with over a thousand people a day dying now is the time, or indeed anytime soon to come out of lockdown

You want a stricter and longer lockdown........(‘ Hear hear, another 16 reasons why we need a much stricter and longer lockdown to try and actually beat off this virus instead of trying to (badly) manage it. Within 12-18 months we can finally win this battle and move towards a new normal’).

We won’t NEED a stricter and longer lockdown. We need to get people vaccinated, get the hospitals under control and start removing restrictions as soon as feasibly possible.

The vaccinations are happening, infection rates are falling rapidly (30% in the last week), hospitalisations are now starting to follow and thankfully even the deaths are now showing signs of falling (down 6% in the last 7 day period, naturally following first the infection rates and then the hospitalisation rates).

I don’t think anyone is suggesting we come out of lockdown today, but in a few weeks time, if current trends continue, the data will absolutely support the removal of current restrictions on a gradual basis. 90% of those likely to die or get seriously ill will have been protected, infections will be much lower and hospitals will have capacity - and can start using that to focus on all the other illnesses and cancelled operations that will be a much bigger problem then Covid.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Whilst he’s sitting at home, money rolling in and the rest of us lose our jobs & livelihoods.

Once the 15m are vaccinated by mid February, the age groups and vulnerable that equal 90%+ of fatalities there is simply no excuse for not easing restrictions slowly, obviously a few weeks after that so say early March, whilst continuing the vaccination program.

They’ll probably have discovered the new Pluto variant by then that renders vaccines useless or something.

There are 9 priority categories for a reason. Need to get all 9 groups done, not just the top 4 or 5, otherwise you are leaving groups 5 - 9 in a terrible position.

 

[dazzer6666]

There are 9 priority categories for a reason. Need to get all 9 groups done, not just the top 4 or 5, otherwise you are leaving groups 5 - 9 in a terrible position.

It’ll overlap to some degree I suspect.......with vaccs running at 3m per week we’ll get through those 9 groups quite quickly, with restrictions being cautiously eased at the same time providing the data supports doing so.

 

[crodonilson]

You want a stricter and longer lockdown........(‘ Hear hear, another 16 reasons why we need a much stricter and longer lockdown to try and actually beat off this virus instead of trying to (badly) manage it. Within 12-18 months we can finally win this battle and move towards a new normal’).

We won’t NEED a stricter and longer lockdown. We need to get people vaccinated, get the hospitals under control and start removing restrictions as soon as feasibly possible.

The vaccinations are happening, infection rates are falling rapidly (30% in the last week), hospitalisations are now starting to follow and thankfully even the deaths are now showing signs of falling (down 6% in the last 7 day period, naturally following first the infection rates and then the hospitalisation rates).

I don’t think anyone is suggesting we come out of lockdown today, but in a few weeks time, if current trends continue, the data will absolutely support the removal of current restrictions on a gradual basis. 90% of those likely to die or get seriously ill will have been protected, infections will be much lower and hospitals will have capacity - and can start using that to focus on all the other illnesses and cancelled operations that will be a much bigger problem then Covid.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/covid-social-distancing-lockdown-rules-vaccine-transmission-b1795301.html

The SAGE modelling seems to suggest we will need a lockdown until the end of May and that is in a best case scenario and social distancing will need to remain in place into next year. This is even with a high success rate in take up of the vaccine band high success in stopping transmission (and their early estimates are that it will stop some transmission but not the amount needed to stop the R rate going above 1 and leading to another surge in deaths of 1,000+ per day.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Absolute tosh, it might be your interpretation of what I've said but not actually true. So do you believe really with stil so many cases circulating and the virus on the route of vaccine escape and with hospitals still at nearly double the original cases and with over a thousand people a day dying now is the time, or indeed anytime soon to come out of lockdown

I really don't see what relevance the number of cases now has on whether we should still be in lockdown in May. Would you genuinely make that decision now? And then suppose May comes round and there are few cases and no illnesses and no deaths, you would still say that the decision has been made and lockdown continues?

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I had a quick read of this earlier:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/30/exclusive-social-distancing-may-have-remain-place-year/

But sage seem to be suggesting deaths in the thousands in July/Aug?

It’s all merging into one, but we had a handful of deaths without vaccinations last year?

How have they got to this conclusion ?


It is understood that SPI-M's other modelling groups – including Imperial College London - there it is.

 

[Icy Gull]

Blimey that is very quick action in Perth!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-55877150

 

[dazzer6666]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/covid-social-distancing-lockdown-rules-vaccine-transmission-b1795301.html

The SAGE modelling seems to suggest we will need a lockdown until the end of May and that is in a best case scenario and social distancing will need to remain in place into next year. This is even with a high success rate in take up of the vaccine band high success in stopping transmission (and their early estimates are that it will stop some transmission but not the amount needed to stop the R rate going above 1 and leading to another surge in deaths of 1,000+ per day.

Modelling based on efficacy of vaccinations. It's presenting pretty much a worst-case scenario by the look of it. As most of the more positive of us have been saying, vaccine success is critical to releasing restrictions - but not in stopping transmission (very little evidence so far the vaccines do this), but in stopping people getting seriously ill and either dying or needing hospital treatment. If there is a cohort that decide not to get vaccinated, the rest of the country isn't going to remain locked down to protect them. bear in mid kids transmit the virus and aren't going to be vaccinated at all (yet, anyway) - they just don't get ill. Transmission can't be stopped, serious illness can be.

People are going to continue to carry the virus - but they aren't (in most cases) going to get seriously ill. When we reach that point - ie a 'reasonable' (minimal) level of serious illnesses, there will be no reason to maintain the vast majority of current restrictions.

This quote caught my eye in particular :

"The vaccines are not going be 100 per cent effective at stopping serious disease. So if you manage to get, say, 85 per cent of people to take it and it turns out to be 90 per cent effective, that's still 25 per cent of people who could die from it, which is a lot of people."

It doesn't add up frankly - the 'could die' is scaremongering manipulation of the numbers IMO and using vague assumptions................and in the same way, saying we all 'could' die from it, but a very high % of us are unlikely to. Of the '25%' (it's not even 25% - the maths are wrong), how many of those are genuinely likely to die ? Very, very few (given those most at risk will have been protected)

 

[beorhthelm]

It doesn't add up frankly - the 'could die' is scaremongering manipulation of the numbers IMO and using vague assumptions................and in the same way, saying we all 'could' die from it, but a very high % of us are unlikely to. Of the '25%' (it's not even 25% - the maths are wrong), how many of those are genuinely likely to die ? Very, very few (given those most at risk will have been protected)

we know this, an upper estimate is about 1.7% of infected. but we also know that death rates are heavily biased to elderly and those with underlying health issues. so need to focus on vaccination uptake in those groups. we also know vaccination leads dramatically reduced transmission (even if not perventing entirely) and serious cases. so yes, its scaremongering by those that want us to be in perma-lockdown until there are zero cases, which there will never be.

 

[Billy the Fish]

I had a quick read of this earlier:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/30/exclusive-social-distancing-may-have-remain-place-year/

But sage seem to be suggesting deaths in the thousands in July/Aug?

It’s all merging into one, but we had a handful of deaths without vaccinations last year?

How have they got to this conclusion ?


It is understood that SPI-M's other modelling groups – including Imperial College London - there it is.

Exactly what I thought when I read @crodo's link.

We've already lived through the scenario that they're modeling.

Last year restrictions were lifted in the summer and there were very few deaths. When their model predicts 1000 deaths in the summer how do they not instantly think "our model might be a bit wrong".

Very difficult to take Ferguson's mob seriously, have they ever been right about anything

 

[The Wizard]

Why anyone still tries to reason with Crodo still I don’t know, just let him get on with it, he said earlier in the thread he’s an obese gentleman with vulnerable family members, it’s not his fault he’s scared and I don’t mean this in a condescending way towards him I really don’t, but people who have been fed fear since day one from all angles can you really blame them for being nervous wrecks? These people are a product of what the world has become, I genuinely feel sympathy for the guy alongside finding his posts fairly amusing as they do read as though they are being posted by someone living in a nuclear bunker.

Everyone has their own reasons and mind, he’s certainly not alone judging by social media, there are millions out there who don’t seem to comprehend that COVID isn’t this ruthless killer of all ages, as the chart I showed earlier in the thread proved, over 60’s account for 92% of deaths, but honestly, is it these peoples faults? Maybe ignorance for some but for many it’s just what is drummed into them every day.