Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread

[Weststander]

Doubt the compulsive doomers are going to care about this.

Getting pretty sick of people in social media constantly wanting to drag people into their own hysteria when there is currently no or little reason. Hundreds of thousands of people crying wolf every day is also unlikely to help when or if that wolf comes.

In the UK there’s also throughout been an element of:
- grumpy old sods not wanting young adults to have a life, to party.
- not giving a care for business owners.
- hate going to work, hoping for a full blown lockdown with ££££ furlough.
- not giving a care about other peoples kids missing out on real education and friends.
- people sitting pretty on fixed income who aren’t into overseas travel.

 

[Swansman]

You're in control of who you follow, read and listen to on social media, mainstream media and pretty much everywhere else.

I don't see or read anything that I'd categorise in the way you are describing there. Most of my Covid reading comes from a carefully-curated list of epidemiologists, virologists, public healthcare professionals, statisticians, mathematicians and the like. They come from a broad spectrum of backgrounds. The key thing is I read what they have to say, directly, and not as interpreted, spun or cherry-picked by a media organisation with an agenda to push.

Some control yes, but in case I want to follow other news it's quite difficult to ignore it.

Here it is usually reasonably balanced - crodos weekly "we're all gonna die", your carefully curated list of bearded men with gloomy models, dsr-burnleys and the kinksters "we'll see" and some "meh its probably all a bit overhyped" people. But in general news commentary I see more "why did they ever let us out?!?! The end is near!" type of comments than the opposite.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

This could all change

Some of the misreporting Is putting people of getting vaccinated and boosted and coming over as anti vax

This is true.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Bozza]

Some control yes, but in case I want to follow other news it's quite difficult to ignore it.

Here it is usually reasonably balanced - crodos weekly "we're all gonna die", your carefully curated list of bearded men with gloomy models, dsr-burnleys and the kinksters "we'll see" and some "meh its probably all a bit overhyped" people. But in general news commentary I see more "why did they ever let us out?!?! The end is near!" type of comments than the opposite.

Gloomy models?

It was me who first posted on here some positive indicators from South African hospitals.
it was me who posted on the GNT today that the "conversion rate" of infections to hospitalisations in the UK is now the lowest (ie the best) it's been over the course of the entire pandemic.
I've said that we were beating this ******* thing, primarily with vaccines - and those third shots are kinda magic - but Omicron may have changed the game and not in a good way.

Simply, I post stuff that both seems interesting and doesn't appear to be completely whacko. What I won't do is continually seek to downplay valid concern - and the simple maths involved in Omicron's transmissibility qualify it as such.

It means I don't get those all-important thumbs-up from the denialists, but c'est la vie. I've received threats to my son because I own and run this forum - I'll get by with a low thumbs up count because some people struggle with the thought that it might not be all rainbows and unicorns from here.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Gloomy models?

I've received threats to my son because I own and run this forum -

For goodness sake, what is wrong with some people. Your posts always come over as well thought and balanced, without agenda.



Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Bozza]

For goodness sake, what is wrong with some people. Your posts always come over as well thought and balanced, without agenda.



Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Sorry, just to be clear, this was years ago when Covid-19 was but a twinkle in a Chinese bat's dad's eye.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Sorry, just to be clear, this was years ago when Covid-19 was but a twinkle in a Chinese bat's dad's eye.

Okay, thanks. But completely messed up and unacceptable nonetheless.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

 

[n1 gull]

For goodness sake, what is wrong with some people. Your posts always come over as well thought and balanced, without agenda.



Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

"Denialists believing in rainbows and unicorns" not sure that's100% balanced?

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Sorry, just to be clear, this was years ago when Covid-19 was but a twinkle in a Chinese bat's dad's eye.

He would be proud of his sons achievements.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

"Denialists believing in rainbows and unicorns" not sure that's100% balanced?

If you are being serious, then yes it is balanced.

Anyone in denial, whatever they believe, is by nature basing their belief on a wish that whatever is true, is in fact not.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Swansman]

Gloomy models?

It was me who first posted on here some positive indicators from South African hospitals.
it was me who posted on the GNT today that the "conversion rate" of infections to hospitalisations in the UK is now the lowest (ie the best) it's been over the course of the entire pandemic.
I've said that we were beating this ******* thing, primarily with vaccines - and those third shots are kinda magic - but Omicron may have changed the game and not in a good way.

Simply, I post stuff that both seems interesting and doesn't appear to be completely whacko. What I won't do is continually seek to downplay valid concern - and the simple maths involved in Omicron's transmissibility qualify it as such.

It means I don't get those all-important thumbs-up from the denialists, but c'est la vie. I've received threats to my son because I own and run this forum - I'll get by with a low thumbs up count because some people struggle with the thought that it might not be all rainbows and unicorns from here.

To you, you are probably a "centrist" on the matter, following other "centrists". But each ones "center" is anothers "too pessimistic" or "too optimistic". From my p.o.v. - which I also find rational and "centrist" (like most people percieve their own views), you are generally on the pessimistic side regarding this subject. The "simple maths" are not so simple when a lot of the numbers and values are currently unknown.

I remember very clearly how both you and I were impressed with the "math and models" and continously referred to the paper from the Imperial College team back in March 2020 which turned out to be... wild, because it was based on limited data.

And here we are again. There's limited data and gloomy models. Even most of the Bearded Math Men of Darkness that you are continously referring to are saying "well there's a lot of unknowns, BUT...". It is basically: "We dont know how transmissible it is, we dont know how dangerous it is, we dont know how much the vaccines protect - but based on some guesswork, here is some ****ing guesstimate showing that lots and lots of you will end up in the hospital." That is not some kind of objective reality to put down us "denialists" who are saying "we dont know and we're not going to guess either". Rather, it is pessimistic fear-mongering based on insufficient information.

I'm not saying there won't be a day when there is valid concern but endless models pointing in all kinds of directions are not valid concern or valid relief. There's been math based estimates where we would have a 100 million Covid deaths by now. There's been math based estimates where the virus would be virtually extinct by now.

My conclusion, and it could be taken as advice for those who worry to much: ignore these models. Ignore these math geniuses basing their (pessimistic) guesses on insufficient information. Dont need it. Imo, the only statistic that can truly be trusted and used as a basis to worry/feel relief is the number of hospitalisations in your respective countries.

 

[Weststander]

To you, you are probably a "centrist" on the matter, following other "centrists". But each ones "center" is anothers "too pessimistic" or "too optimistic". From my p.o.v. - which I also find rational and "centrist" (like most people percieve their own views), you are generally on the pessimistic side regarding this subject. The "simple maths" are not so simple when a lot of the numbers and values are currently unknown.

I remember very clearly how both you and I were impressed with the "math and models" and continously referred to the paper from the Imperial College team back in March 2020 which turned out to be... wild, because it was based on limited data.

And here we are again. There's limited data and gloomy models. Even most of the Bearded Math Men of Darkness that you are continously referring to are saying "well there's a lot of unknowns, BUT...". It is basically: "We dont know how transmissible it is, we dont know how dangerous it is, we dont know how much the vaccines protect - but based on some guesswork, here is some ****ing guesstimate showing that lots and lots of you will end up in the hospital." That is not some kind of objective reality to put down us "denialists" who are saying "we dont know and we're not going to guess either". Rather, it is pessimistic fear-mongering based on insufficient information.

I'm not saying there won't be a day when there is valid concern but endless models pointing in all kinds of directions are not valid concern or valid relief. There's been math based estimates where we would have a 100 million Covid deaths by now. There's been math based estimates where the virus would be virtually extinct by now.

My conclusion, and it could be taken as advice for those who worry to much: ignore these models. Ignore these math geniuses basing their (pessimistic) guesses on insufficient information. Dont need it. Imo, the only statistic that can truly be trusted and used as a basis to worry/feel relief is the number of hospitalisations in your respective countries.

Excellent post.

 

[Weststander]

I notice that the media is going beyond scary headlines and making their supporting graphics all the more menacing. This is from an Onicron article on The Guardian today - I mean Christ, this doesn’t look like something you want a couple of billion of inside you, does it?

View attachment 142575

Wolverhampton Wanderers send their first satellite into orbit.

 

[e77]

Wolverhampton Wanderers send their first satellite into orbit.

Funnily enough the last game I saw pre original lockdown.

 

[e77]

Thing is about models (not the Naomi Campbell type) is they are an attempt to make an estimate with the data and knowledge available at the time and should always be open to refining as understanding evolves.

However we all pay our taxes to a government who I expect to sift through the data available and respond accordingly, balancing public safety with other elements like the economy and mental health and come to the least worse decision (I am not sue there is a good decision to be had anymore). They also have access to the best experts in the field.

Can only speak for myself but I can't wait for this whole thing to be over or, more likely, become a background thing every winter. However that might not be achieved by just sticking your fingers in your ears, accusing everyone else of being pessimistic of addicted to lockdown and having no minor restrictions now to stop major ones later.

 

[Bozza]

To you, you are probably a "centrist" on the matter, following other "centrists". But each ones "center" is anothers "too pessimistic" or "too optimistic". From my p.o.v. - which I also find rational and "centrist" (like most people percieve their own views), you are generally on the pessimistic side regarding this subject. The "simple maths" are not so simple when a lot of the numbers and values are currently unknown.

I remember very clearly how both you and I were impressed with the "math and models" and continously referred to the paper from the Imperial College team back in March 2020 which turned out to be... wild, because it was based on limited data.

And here we are again. There's limited data and gloomy models. Even most of the Bearded Math Men of Darkness that you are continously referring to are saying "well there's a lot of unknowns, BUT...". It is basically: "We dont know how transmissible it is, we dont know how dangerous it is, we dont know how much the vaccines protect - but based on some guesswork, here is some ****ing guesstimate showing that lots and lots of you will end up in the hospital." That is not some kind of objective reality to put down us "denialists" who are saying "we dont know and we're not going to guess either". Rather, it is pessimistic fear-mongering based on insufficient information.

I'm not saying there won't be a day when there is valid concern but endless models pointing in all kinds of directions are not valid concern or valid relief. There's been math based estimates where we would have a 100 million Covid deaths by now. There's been math based estimates where the virus would be virtually extinct by now.

My conclusion, and it could be taken as advice for those who worry to much: ignore these models. Ignore these math geniuses basing their (pessimistic) guesses on insufficient information. Dont need it. Imo, the only statistic that can truly be trusted and used as a basis to worry/feel relief is the number of hospitalisations in your respective countries.

Jesus, so much to reply to.

1. I wouldn't describe myself as a "Covid centrist". I'd not describe myself as a Covid anything. As I've said I post and share all manner of bits and pieces if I feel it has merit, both positive and less than positive. You've ignored, again, all the positive things I've posted - doesn't fit your narrative, I guess.

2. Yes, there are a whole heap of unknowns around Omicron, but things are becoming clearer every day, particularly around transmissibility and the simple maths (although delving back to the beginning of this thread will reveal a lot of people don't really understand what I'd consider simple exponential growth curves) of that is going to mean a bad Omicron wave is only likely to not happen if severity of disease is markedly milder than anything that has gone before.

That's my current interpretation, anyway, but I'll readily confess I know about as much about epidemiology as my Labrador does, although I'm significantly better at maths than he is. Maths is very much my thing. Large sticks are very much his thing.

3. So we wait until hospitals are having people die in their car parks, and then it's the time to start worrying?

Note: I'm not saying people are going to be dying in hospital car parks.

Unfortunately when you have the wellbeing of 66m people as one of your responsibilities then you probably have to be concerned a little bit before that point. Sadly, thus far during this pandemic, our hapless government have always reacted too late, meaning they've had to act harder and longer than would have been the case had they the balls to act sooner.

I don't have such a responsibility, and for that I am thankful. I do have an interest though.

4. Models aren't predictions. You know that and I know that. Some people don't get this point however, and then try to use the models as a stick to beat the modellers with. It's all a bit sad to watch.

5. I'd like unicorns and rainbows please. Around three weeks ago I'd have told you they were about to start falling from the sky, cos boosters > Delta. Right now, I'm not sure we're getting them any time soon.

 

[Rodney Thomas]

I am asking this questions without prejudice (well, except for bring a concerned father):

Anyone have any views (positive, negative or neutral) about the rise in covid hospitalisations among children in South Africa that's linked to the omicron variant? And what this might mean for future of the pandemic and how we handle it?

 

[Swansman]

I am asking this questions without prejudice (well, except for bring a concerned father):

Anyone have any views (positive, negative or neutral) about the rise in covid hospitalisations among children in South Africa that's linked to the omicron variant? And what this might mean for future of the pandemic and how we handle it?

From what I've read South Africa authorities are currently investigating it. It only appears to be in some provinces and they are not yet sure if the kids are hospitalised for different reasons and picking up Covid, if it is precaution in areas where they have a lot of available hospital beds or if Omicron is indeed causing sickness in kiddos. We'll know more in a week or two.

 

[The Clamp]

Not even in the top ten headlines in The G or on the BBC. Hopefully people are starting to calm down a little and get a grip. Perhaps they could now start clearing the backlog of operations. 13,000 cancelled in the last two months. Perhaps those who refused vaccinations who are now in hospital, could be wheeled out to the car park and let the surgeons get on with treating people who had no choice about their ailment

Edit; perhaps open up Nightingale, direct as many Covid patients in the south there as is practical and free up some hospital beds? I thought that was the point of it?

 

[dsr-burnley]

I am asking this questions without prejudice (well, except for bring a concerned father):

Anyone have any views (positive, negative or neutral) about the rise in covid hospitalisations among children in South Africa that's linked to the omicron variant? And what this might mean for future of the pandemic and how we handle it?

I haven't seen anyone quote any numbers. It may be that just 1 or 2 extra children turn up in hospital with coronavirs - and they might well be turning up with a broken leg and not know they have coronavirus - would probably skew the stats and raise flag.

As a comparison, the number of cases of hospital admission of children under 17 with coronavirus, in the UK for the last four weeks, is about 2,500, which is 2 per hospital trust per week. That's a very low base to count from, and remember it includes admissions for all reasons including those where covid is incidental or irrelevant. It's a low enough number that if any one area doubles or trebles, it is likely to be random rather than have a particular cause. They need more data before deciding if this particular issue even exists.

(As an aside, the majority of UK hospital trusts have literally not seen a child death from or with coronavirus, because there have been 104 deaths age under 20 and there are 223 hospital trusts.)