Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread

[Blue Valkyrie]

Politics For All
@PoliticsForAlI
Police cars revolving light | NEW: The majority of patients recently admitted to Bolton Hospital with coronavirus were eligible for the vaccine, but hadn’t had one

Via
@Independent


If true, we shouldn’t slow down anything for this

Coincidentally the only anti-vaxx nutter I know lives in Bolton.

Maybe there is a dodgy local Dr Facebook group up there.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Politics For All
@PoliticsForAlI
Police cars revolving light | NEW: The majority of patients recently admitted to Bolton Hospital with coronavirus were eligible for the vaccine, but hadn’t had one

Via
@Independent


If true, we shouldn’t slow down anything for this

I'm also reading that some people hospitalised in Glasgow who have this new variant,also had the vaccine. I suppose we just have to wait and see.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I'm also reading that some people hospitalised in Glasgow who have this new variant,also had the vaccine. I suppose we just have to wait and see.

It’s a shame they left the ages out the report.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

It’s a shame they left the ages out the report.

Yes, it would be helpful to know. If nothing changes in the next few weeks, I would say we are safe. The country really can't be doing another lockdown.

 

[A1X]

[tweet]1393537300416667653[/tweet]

 

[crodonilson]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/15/johnson-must-think-again-on-plans-to-relax-covid-rules

Mounting pressure now from the scientific community to scrap Mondays relaxations, I fear BJ has learned nothing from the previous waves though.



4 tests, only 3 met

 

[dsr-burnley]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/15/johnson-must-think-again-on-plans-to-relax-covid-rules

Mounting pressure now from the scientific community to scrap Mondays relaxations, I fear BJ has learned nothing from the previous waves though.



4 tests, only 3 met

At present there are about 16 million people unvaccinated, if opening up is delayed another two weeks it will be 14 million. It's quite obvious that this proposed delay isn't because they think 14m at risk is OK while 16m isn't; it's because they want lockdown to carry on for as long as possible, whatever the cost may be.

Numbers again. I'm going since October 2020 since that was roughly when there was enough testing to give a reasonably reliable number of cases. Though obviously a lot of cases would have been missed, especially among the asymptomatic young.

Since October 2020, approximately 2 million people in the age group 15-44 have tested positive for coronavirus. Of those 2 million, 984 have died. I do not know how many of those 984 were already on the vulnerable list, but anecdotal evidence suggests about half.

But even ignoring the already-vulnerable from this calculation, if every single one of the remaining 16m unvaccinated people gets coronavirus, and since most of them are in the 15-44 age group we can assume the total deaths at the same rate would be 4,000-8,000. IF literally everyone gets it. Obviously not everyone is going to get it, partly because viruses don't work that way, partly because the vaccination programme is still going on.

Is there any level at which the cure can be said to be worse than the disease? I think we are already at the "cars-kill-2000-per-year-so-let's-abolish-cars" level. Introducing new lockdowns just because some scientists don't know what is going to happen, will do more harm than good.

 

[A1X]

At present there are about 16 million people unvaccinated, if opening up is delayed another two weeks it will be 14 million. It's quite obvious that this proposed delay isn't because they think 14m at risk is OK while 16m isn't; it's because they want lockdown to carry on for as long as possible, whatever the cost may be.

The mental gymnastics some people go to to try and portray those whose primary concern is the welfare of the general public as being somehow bad guys with evil intent is utterly extraordinary. If the people who understand this issue properly think opening up is not safe then they should be listened to and heeded, Either you're "listening to the science" or you're careering on without giving it any credence and putting people's lives at risk.

 

[crodonilson]

At present there are about 16 million people unvaccinated, if opening up is delayed another two weeks it will be 14 million. It's quite obvious that this proposed delay isn't because they think 14m at risk is OK while 16m isn't; it's because they want lockdown to carry on for as long as possible, whatever the cost may be.

Numbers again. I'm going since October 2020 since that was roughly when there was enough testing to give a reasonably reliable number of cases. Though obviously a lot of cases would have been missed, especially among the asymptomatic young.

Since October 2020, approximately 2 million people in the age group 15-44 have tested positive for coronavirus. Of those 2 million, 984 have died. I do not know how many of those 984 were already on the vulnerable list, but anecdotal evidence suggests about half.

But even ignoring the already-vulnerable from this calculation, if every single one of the remaining 16m unvaccinated people gets coronavirus, and since most of them are in the 15-44 age group we can assume the total deaths at the same rate would be 4,000-8,000. IF literally everyone gets it. Obviously not everyone is going to get it, partly because viruses don't work that way, partly because the vaccination programme is still going on.

Is there any level at which the cure can be said to be worse than the disease? I think we are already at the "cars-kill-2000-per-year-so-let's-abolish-cars" level. Introducing new lockdowns just because some scientists don't know what is going to happen, will do more harm than good.

It's not just deaths though, it's hospitalisations. If as suspected this variant is 40-50% more transmissible than the Kent variant (which itself is 50% more transmissible than the original) then the virus will spread like wildfire through the unvaccinated, especially now we are making the mistake of allowing people to mix indoors. Young people don't often die from this but they do get sick and many will require medical treatment, putting further strain on the NHS, something we just cannot afford again. Also at the end of these chains of transmission will often be a vulnerable, unvaccinated person so deaths will sadly rise again also.

 

[dazzer6666]

It's not just deaths though, it's hospitalisations. If as suspected this variant is 40-50% more transmissible than the Kent variant (which itself is 50% more transmissible than the original) then the virus will spread like wildfire through the unvaccinated, especially now we are making the mistake of allowing people to mix indoors. Young people don't often die from this but they do get sick and many will require medical treatment, putting further strain on the NHS, something we just cannot afford again. Also at the end of these chains of transmission will often be a vulnerable, unvaccinated person so deaths will sadly rise again also.

Based on all the data so far, what is the % of, say, U35s that end up in hospital as a result of catching Covid ?

Why will there 'often' be a vulnerable, unvaccinated person at the end of the chain ? What % of the vulnerable haven't been vaccinated ?

Back up your use of 'often' and 'many' with supporting stats.

 

[crodonilson]

Based on all the data so far, what is the % of, say, U35s that end up in hospital as a result of catching Covid ?

Why will there 'often' be a vulnerable, unvaccinated person at the end of the chain ? What % of the vulnerable haven't been vaccinated ?

Back up your use of 'often' and 'many' with supporting stats.

30m in groups 1-9 who were to be vaccinated first because they would be vulnerable if they were to get infected and approx 95% take up so still 1.5m vulnerable people and only just over half have received both doses so 12-14m still have some vulnerability (not to mention even full vaccination doesn't offer 100% protection).

 

[atomised]

30m in groups 1-9 who were to be vaccinated first because they would be vulnerable if they were to get infected and approx 95% take up so still 1.5m vulnerable people and only just over half have received both doses so 12-14m still have some vulnerability (not to mention even full vaccination doesn't offer 100% protection).

So to clarify your key closing point full vaccination doesn't offer 100% protection so we should stay locked up forever.

 

[dazzer6666]

30m in groups 1-9 who were to be vaccinated first because they would be vulnerable if they were to get infected and approx 95% take up so still 1.5m vulnerable people and only just over half have received both doses so 12-14m still have some vulnerability (not to mention even full vaccination doesn't offer 100% protection).

So 1 in 20, who - knowing they are vulnerable and at risk if they contract the virus - then risk contact with the 1 in 1,250 who have the virus and where the transmission rate ‘might’ be 40% means we stay locked down ?

Most at risk of catching/transmitting will be the U35s when we open up next week. I’ll try again - what is the statistical likelihood of people in that group going into hospital if they are unlucky enough to catch it ?

 

[beorhthelm]

there is nothing to suggest the Indian variant, while more transmissible, is more virulent. combined with the low risk of the remaining unvaccinated groups, it means the increase infection should have small effect on serious cases or hospitalisation.

lets get to the nub, its normal for respiratory virus to have some harder affect on some small number of the population, some will go to hospital some die. we do not stop the world for the thousands that die from flu and pneumonia every year. at some point we have to treat this as normal.

 

[Notters]

It’s a shame they left the ages out the report.

And how recently they had the vaccine.

 

[dsr-burnley]

The mental gymnastics some people go to to try and portray those whose primary concern is the welfare of the general public as being somehow bad guys with evil intent is utterly extraordinary. If the people who understand this issue properly think opening up is not safe then they should be listened to and heeded, Either you're "listening to the science" or you're careering on without giving it any credence and putting people's lives at risk.

Can we please stop with the "my opinion is right because I am clever" attitude? And I don't think anyone is portraying the people who agree with your point of view as having evil intent. They may be portrayed as being wrong and that their ambition will do more harm than good, but that is by no means the same.

I am interested in how you, or they, define "safe". Are they saying that if we continue lockdown we will be safer from coronavirus and all of life's other dangers will be unaffected? Or are they saying that if we continue with lockdown we will be safer from coronavirus and a fair assessment of all life's other dangers suggest that on balance we will be better? Or are they saying that if we continue lockdown we will be safer from coronavirus and none of life's other dangers are relevant to their conclusion?

 

[A1X]

Can we please stop with the "my opinion is right because I am clever" attitude?

When it comes to maters of science, I'll listen to the experts rather than you if it's all the same. In the same way if I had an unusual pain somewhere I'd consult a doctor, not have a show of hands in a pub what they thought was wrong with me.

And I don't think anyone is portraying the people who agree with your point of view as having evil intent. They may be portrayed as being wrong and that their ambition will do more harm than good, but that is by no means the same.

You portray continuing lockdown as both being a negative and an ambition. How would you refer to people with negative intentions? It is, after all, your assertion.

I am interested in how you, or they, define "safe". Are they saying that if we continue lockdown we will be safer from coronavirus and all of life's other dangers will be unaffected? Or are they saying that if we continue with lockdown we will be safer from coronavirus and a fair assessment of all life's other dangers suggest that on balance we will be better? Or are they saying that if we continue lockdown we will be safer from coronavirus and none of life's other dangers are relevant to their conclusion?

I define safe as being of the least risk to the general population. That includes the millions who have not been vaccinated through no fault of their own, especially now we have a variant in the country which spreads more quickly than any previously and which appears to be more dangerous to the under 40s than previous variants (as evidenced in India where they've seen a big spike of hospitalisations and deaths among the under 40s during their current wave). I'm unsure what you mean by these "other dangers" but it strikes me you won't be able to do much about them if you swamp the NHS again.

 

[beorhthelm]

When it comes to maters of science, I'll listen to the experts rather than you if it's all the same. ...

which experts though? there are many saying different things.

I define safe as being of the least risk to the general population. That includes the millions who have not been vaccinated through no fault of their own, especially now we have a variant in the country which spreads more quickly than any previously and which appears to be more dangerous to the under 40s than previous variants (as evidenced in India where they've seen a big spike of hospitalisations and deaths among the under 40s during their current wave). I'm unsure what you mean by these "other dangers" but it strikes me you won't be able to do much about them if you swamp the NHS again.

the evidence from India is that they have higher portion of 30-40yo admitted to hospital (about 30%) than we've seen here, but this was similar in previous waves. we can look to socio-economic reasons for that. the evidence across Europe is that in younger age groups, we are more concerned with 1:500000 chance of life endangering blood clots from vaccination, than death from the virus.

 

[dsr-burnley]

You portray continuing lockdown as both being a negative and an ambition. How would you refer to people with negative intentions? It is, after all, your assertion.

I don't see how this can be misinterpreted, but you seem to have done so. What it means is that (1) some people have an ambition to continue lockdown, and (2) I believe that will have negative net results. That does NOT mean that I think they are evil. It does NOT mean that I think they have negative intentions. If a doctor misdiagnoses an illness, it does not mean he is an evil man.

I define safe as being of the least risk to the general population. That includes the millions who have not been vaccinated through no fault of their own, especially now we have a variant in the country which spreads more quickly than any previously and which appears to be more dangerous to the under 40s than previous variants (as evidenced in India where they've seen a big spike of hospitalisations and deaths among the under 40s during their current wave). I'm unsure what you mean by these "other dangers" but it strikes me you won't be able to do much about them if you swamp the NHS again.

I am sorry that your understanding of dementia is so slight that you cannot see how people who suffer from it are being harmed. I am sorry that your understanding of old age is such that you cannot see how people who are old and infirm are suffering harm.

And I note that when you propose to follow the science, those scientists who tell us that the Indian variant is no more virulent than any other are being ignored. you seem to prefer anecdotal news from India on that one. For you, it isn't a matter of "a scientist says it so I will agree with it" - it is a matter of "a scientist says what I agree with, so he must be a reliable source". Maybe it is so with me as well. But I'm not claiming the moral high ground for agreeing with scientists who agree with me.

 

[dsr-burnley]

the evidence from India is that they have higher portion of 30-40yo admitted to hospital (about 30%) than we've seen here, but this was similar in previous waves. we can look to socio-economic reasons for that. the evidence across Europe is that in younger age groups, we are more concerned with 1:500000 chance of life endangering blood clots from vaccination, than death from the virus.

A large part of that may be that India has a higher percentage of 30-40 year olds. There are far fewer over 85's in India than here, and if the proportion of old people is low then by definition the proportion of young people must be high.