|
Post by starkiller on Oct 29, 2020 9:36:04 GMT
It isn't though. The media has done it's job on you. All part of the hyperbole. When the U.K. passes 100,000 deaths , how will you describe it ? Misleading. How would describe the same number of lockdown deaths without treatment, care home deaths and those who have mysteriously died at home? Currently more than actual covid deaths.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 29, 2020 9:36:13 GMT
Data from researchers and official bodies showed that Covid-19 death rates among the young were low when the pandemic first hit in the spring, and that they are lower still despite concern over pub-goers, holidaymakers and protesters spreading infection over the summer.
The latest daily NHS figures show that of the 2,677 patients who have died with the virus in English hospitals between September 1 and this Tuesday, only 14 – half of 1 per cent – were aged under 40.
By contrast, 52 per cent were over 80. More detailed ONS figures tell the same story.
Including deaths in private homes as well as hospitals, only 17 people under 40 died with Covid between the weeks ending August 28 and October 16, just 0.8 per cent of the 2,061 total across England and Wales. The over-70s accounted for 1,701 deaths – 82 per cent of the total.
Statistician Professor David Spiegelhalter, of Cambridge University, said: 'Age is the overwhelmingly most important factor when it comes to the risk of dying from Covid.
'Young people have always got the virus more than older people, but that hasn't translated into hospitalisations and death.' Which makes the fact that they STILL aren't recommending that the elderly and people in the shielding group should shield again, even more bizarre. I was watching an interview on Channel 4 last night and there was a tenuous suggestion that it might be to do with keeping the schools open. What do you do with kids who have parents in the shielding group and what do you do with kids who live with their grandparents? Neither question was an issue last time because the schools were closed whilst shielding was taking place.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Oct 29, 2020 9:37:14 GMT
Lose - Lose isn't it? I mean will cancer treatment get back to normal anyway if the virus is left to run and our hospitals are rammed full of highly contagious, wheezing covid patients about to spark.
|
|
|
Post by Gob Bluth on Oct 29, 2020 9:39:00 GMT
I don't see any other outcome apart from another full lockdown very soon. If anybody thinks the last one was depressing, wait until we spend the next 10 weeks or so through the dark nights and Christmas period in Lockdown. I suspect now other European countries have done similar or at least according to the media have locked down the British government will start to entertain the idea.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Oct 29, 2020 9:43:55 GMT
Who the fuck in their right mind would follow that tosser. Yet another multi millionaire calling for a lockdown while he picks up another six figure monthly payslip.
|
|
|
Post by butlerstbob on Oct 29, 2020 9:44:52 GMT
Lose - Lose isn't it? I mean will cancer treatment get back to normal anyway if the virus is left to run and our hospitals are rammed full of highly contagious, wheezing covid patients about to spark. Its a tough one God's that's for sure, do you treat the people who are dying at this minute or push them to one side and gear up for more possible covid deaths? My worry is the knock on effect of pushing these treatments to one side and I think once covid subsides the death rates from cancer, suicide etc will rocket! Like you say its lose - lose
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Oct 29, 2020 9:45:30 GMT
With those numbers, you'd think the drive in testing centres would be bringing cities and towns to a standstill instead of being empty every day wouldn't you? And you'd think there'd be more than an average of 6 deaths per day in London if the 'R' rate was so high. You have to show a little more patience with this virus Dave. There are a sequence of events which must happen first before it obliges with the dead bodies If the 'R' rate in London is indeed close to 3, do you think it's magically happened overnight?
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Oct 29, 2020 9:47:20 GMT
Who the fuck in their right mind would follow that tosser. Yet another multi millionaire calling for a lockdown while he picks up another six figure monthly payslip. 7.6 million apparently
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Oct 29, 2020 9:49:39 GMT
What do we put this increase down to then? There is another pandemic of depression everywhere, even people who are not directly or indirectly affected by the virus, restrictions, lock-down ...etc. have also lower mood than their normal. I noticed it on Saturday night when I got back from Greece. The mood of the country is at an all time low. Everyone at work seems down in the dumps and then I was in gridlocked traffic on the m42 on Sunday night after a bloke chucked himself from a bridge. These are scary times and the pandemic itself isn't remotely scary. It's the consequences of a shut down of society that are so horrifying. I find it amazing that people still can't use a bit of foresight and see the damage that lockdown culture is doing and will do to a generation.
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Oct 29, 2020 9:57:21 GMT
Lose - Lose isn't it? I mean will cancer treatment get back to normal anyway if the virus is left to run and our hospitals are rammed full of highly contagious, wheezing covid patients about to spark. Its a tough one God's that's for sure, do you treat the people who are dying at this minute or push them to one side and gear up for more possible covid deaths? My worry is the knock on effect of pushing these treatments to one side and I think once covid subsides the death rates from cancer, suicide etc will rocket! Like you say its lose - lose The biggest problem was a trimmed down health service already on its knees. We had very limited capacity to seperate these issues, even if the resources were found quickly, the staff couldnt be. I know 3 parents of friends who have gone in for other things and ended up dying of the virus. And I'm sure various factions on here would like to argue over how their death should be counted as one had cancer and another was recovering from pneumonia. It's a shit show alright. Whether we will be able to agree how it informs future policy will be dependant on how the conversations look now. It's not pretty.
|
|
|
Post by neckender78 on Oct 29, 2020 10:08:51 GMT
Who the fuck in their right mind would follow that tosser. Yet another multi millionaire calling for a lockdown while he picks up another six figure monthly payslip. Morgans a bellend of the highest order. Been given a platform for scaremongering daily rants to the nation whilst being hypocritical to discrepancies that suit him. Lock us down, keep all other medical procedures open and support every single person/business. That's easy things to say for a shouting buffoon sat in his luxury mansion whilst not having any pressure of making decisions on how that can be possible without mental health going through the roof and an economic depression for a decade or more paying this back.
|
|
|
Post by bgreen13 on Oct 29, 2020 10:13:06 GMT
When these poor souls do eventually die of neglect by the NHS and the government they'll just pin covid on them anyway.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 29, 2020 10:28:30 GMT
Data from researchers and official bodies showed that Covid-19 death rates among the young were low when the pandemic first hit in the spring, and that they are lower still despite concern over pub-goers, holidaymakers and protesters spreading infection over the summer.
The latest daily NHS figures show that of the 2,677 patients who have died with the virus in English hospitals between September 1 and this Tuesday, only 14 – half of 1 per cent – were aged under 40.
By contrast, 52 per cent were over 80. More detailed ONS figures tell the same story.
Including deaths in private homes as well as hospitals, only 17 people under 40 died with Covid between the weeks ending August 28 and October 16, just 0.8 per cent of the 2,061 total across England and Wales. The over-70s accounted for 1,701 deaths – 82 per cent of the total.
Statistician Professor David Spiegelhalter, of Cambridge University, said: 'Age is the overwhelmingly most important factor when it comes to the risk of dying from Covid.
'Young people have always got the virus more than older people, but that hasn't translated into hospitalisations and death.' Which makes the fact that they STILL aren't recommending that the elderly and people in the shielding group should shield again, even more bizarre. I was watching an interview on Channel 4 last night and there was a tenuous suggestion that it might be to do with keeping the schools open. What do you do with kids who have parents in the shielding group and what do you do with kids who live with their grandparents? Neither question was an issue last time because the schools were closed whilst shielding was taking place. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's the schools that are a big driver of this as long as they're open or not socially distancing then this will be a problem. Well that's what I think anyway
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 29, 2020 10:37:32 GMT
Which makes the fact that they STILL aren't recommending that the elderly and people in the shielding group should shield again, even more bizarre. I was watching an interview on Channel 4 last night and there was a tenuous suggestion that it might be to do with keeping the schools open. What do you do with kids who have parents in the shielding group and what do you do with kids who live with their grandparents? Neither question was an issue last time because the schools were closed whilst shielding was taking place. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's the schools that are a big driver of this as long as they're open or not socially distancing then this will be a problem. Well that's what I think anyway I was looking at the figures again yesterday and yes, there was a tiny increase in the stats when non essential shops and hospitality reopened but then when the schools and Uni's went back, it was like somebody had flicked a switch and the numbers across every metric started to rocket.
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Oct 29, 2020 10:39:33 GMT
We should have gone for Zero Covid at the back end of summer just before kids went back to school, closed the borders and localised test track and trace. Most businesses and people would be working now and people who need treatments for other diseases wouldn't have any issues getting into hospitals.
It's not even hindsight, all these issues we are facing was predicted. You either tackle this virus one of two ways and that's either Zero Covid approach or you just open everything up with just hands, face space. Most place are in a semi lockdown now and it looks like we are heading for a full one soon. The lack of leadership is pathetic, Boris needs to choose a path because being stuck in a loop all winter suits nobody and these ridiculous half measures are causing more harm than good to everyone.
Why aren't countries communicating and coming to a consensus on how to deal with this virus? There should be a plan with all developed countries involved on how to tackle this virus. At the very least we should have a coordinated plan with the rest of Europe, it's just bonkers how everyone is going it alone.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 29, 2020 10:42:21 GMT
I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's the schools that are a big driver of this as long as they're open or not socially distancing then this will be a problem. Well that's what I think anyway I was looking at the figures again yesterday and yes, there was a tiny increase in the stats when non essential shops and hospitality reopened but then when the schools and Uni's went back, it was like somebody had flicked a switch and the numbers across every metric started to rocket. Yup and with uni's keeping away from the older generation should in theory be easier with how it works (people moving away from family) and a lot of it being online. Schools are wholly in, there's no social distancing, wholly exposing teachers, you have the child care issues you mentioned etc etc. It's a lot harder to control.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Oct 29, 2020 10:43:08 GMT
Hi Mate, as Dave has said I posted a couple of comments about it a few pages back. Briefly, if they decline over time it’s not unusual at all, some viruses generate antibodies that last a long time, others can be quite transient, lasting a few months or to a year. It’s not as important as the generation of memory B cells and the effect is has on cellular based immunity moderated by t-cells. If you have B-cell memory, you will generate a faster, larger antibody response second time around. The reinfection that occurred in Hong Kong was a perfect example of this, he didn’t have detectable antibodies after his first infection and then a day or so after testing positive again he had a massive spike, demonstrating a memory driven response. Textbook immune function. We need data on that memory generated by infection, and more importantly by vaccination. Often, because a vaccine simulates a severe infection without actual illness the immune response and memory generated can be much better. Classic case is tetanus, actual infection barely confers any immunity because the toxin is so potent only a small amount is present and the immune system can’t grab hold. With the tetanus vaccine, immunity lasts a lot longer.
|
|
|
Post by Clem Fandango on Oct 29, 2020 10:47:15 GMT
We should have gone for Zero Covid at the back end of summer just before kids went back to school, closed the borders and localised test track and trace. Most businesses and people would be working now and people who need treatments for other diseases wouldn't have any issues getting into hospitals. It's not even hindsight, all these issues we are facing was predicted. You either tackle this virus one of two ways and that's either Zero Covid approach or you just open everything up with just hands, face space. Most place are in a semi lockdown now and it looks like we are heading for a full one soon. The lack of leadership is pathetic, Boris needs to choose a path because being stuck in a loop all winter suits nobody and these ridiculous half measures are causing more harm than good to everyone. Why aren't countries communicating and coming to a consensus on how to deal with this virus? There should be a plan with all developed countries involved on how to tackle this virus. At the very least we should have a coordinated plan with the rest of Europe, it's just bonkers how everyone is going it alone. Not sure Zero Covid is even possible without a vaccine.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 29, 2020 10:49:15 GMT
Looking at those stats makes me wonder how come there are more positive cases in 0-4 year olds than there are in the 75-79, 80-84, 85-89 and over 90 age groups? And how many 0-4 year olds did we have to test in order to get that many positives. Indeed why are we even having to test so many 0-4 year olds? It must be an horrific experience for a child of that age? I guess the question is just as relevant, when comparing the 5-9 age range with the 75-79 group and the 10-14 age range with every group over 65.
|
|
|
Post by chad on Oct 29, 2020 10:57:00 GMT
Who the fuck in their right mind would follow that tosser. Yet another multi millionaire calling for a lockdown while he picks up another six figure monthly payslip. Morgans a bellend of the highest order. Been given a platform for scaremongering daily rants to the nation whilst being hypocritical to discrepancies that suit him. Lock us down, keep all other medical procedures open and support every single person/business. That's easy things to say for a shouting buffoon sat in his luxury mansion whilst not having any pressure of making decisions on how that can be possible without mental health going through the roof and an economic depression for a decade or more paying this back. And now the wankers got a book out about it Nice one Piers. You tell everyone what to do while you make money from it What an absolute tosspot Morgan is
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Oct 29, 2020 11:01:26 GMT
We should have gone for Zero Covid at the back end of summer just before kids went back to school, closed the borders and localised test track and trace. Most businesses and people would be working now and people who need treatments for other diseases wouldn't have any issues getting into hospitals. It's not even hindsight, all these issues we are facing was predicted. You either tackle this virus one of two ways and that's either Zero Covid approach or you just open everything up with just hands, face space. Most place are in a semi lockdown now and it looks like we are heading for a full one soon. The lack of leadership is pathetic, Boris needs to choose a path because being stuck in a loop all winter suits nobody and these ridiculous half measures are causing more harm than good to everyone. Why aren't countries communicating and coming to a consensus on how to deal with this virus? There should be a plan with all developed countries involved on how to tackle this virus. At the very least we should have a coordinated plan with the rest of Europe, it's just bonkers how everyone is going it alone. Not sure Zero Covid is even possible without a vaccine. The way to tackle Zero Covid is to clear all cases initially then use test track and trace to get on top of any cases that pop up. You may need to lock down towns to keep control of it at times but it is best way to keep people working without as many restrictions and as close to normal as you can get whilst not doing as much damage to the economy. It should be easier being an island nation. It's about managing the virus until a vaccine comes along. If this was done with other neighbouring countries it would be even more effective.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Oct 29, 2020 11:07:51 GMT
Data from researchers and official bodies showed that Covid-19 death rates among the young were low when the pandemic first hit in the spring, and that they are lower still despite concern over pub-goers, holidaymakers and protesters spreading infection over the summer.
The latest daily NHS figures show that of the 2,677 patients who have died with the virus in English hospitals between September 1 and this Tuesday, only 14 – half of 1 per cent – were aged under 40.
By contrast, 52 per cent were over 80. More detailed ONS figures tell the same story.
Including deaths in private homes as well as hospitals, only 17 people under 40 died with Covid between the weeks ending August 28 and October 16, just 0.8 per cent of the 2,061 total across England and Wales. The over-70s accounted for 1,701 deaths – 82 per cent of the total.
Statistician Professor David Spiegelhalter, of Cambridge University, said: 'Age is the overwhelmingly most important factor when it comes to the risk of dying from Covid.
'Young people have always got the virus more than older people, but that hasn't translated into hospitalisations and death.' Which makes the fact that they STILL aren't recommending that the elderly and people in the shielding group should shield again, even more bizarre. I was watching an interview on Channel 4 last night and there was a tenuous suggestion that it might be to do with keeping the schools open. What do you do with kids who have parents in the shielding group and what do you do with kids who live with their grandparents? Neither question was an issue last time because the schools were closed whilst shielding was taking place. That would make sense wouldn't it.
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Oct 29, 2020 11:14:20 GMT
Looking at those stats makes me wonder how come there are more positive cases in 0-4 year olds than there are in the 75-79, 80-84, 85-89 and over 90 age groups? And how many 0-4 year olds did we have to test in order to get that many positives. Indeed why are we even having to test so many 0-4 year olds? It must be an horrific experience for a child of that age? I guess the question is just as relevant, when comparing the 5-9 age range with the 75-79 group and the 10-14 age range with every group over 65. If my kids get ill I would be by their bedside still even if it puts me at risk. I think most parents will do the same. It would be a tricky situation if you child is ill, would have to find a way to divide the house up I suppose and that wouldn't be that easy. Kids must be getting ill or they wouldn't be having tests and those numbers seem pretty high for that age group given we are told they don't get symptoms.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 29, 2020 11:16:05 GMT
Which makes the fact that they STILL aren't recommending that the elderly and people in the shielding group should shield again, even more bizarre. I was watching an interview on Channel 4 last night and there was a tenuous suggestion that it might be to do with keeping the schools open. What do you do with kids who have parents in the shielding group and what do you do with kids who live with their grandparents? Neither question was an issue last time because the schools were closed whilst shielding was taking place. That would make sense wouldn't it. Oh absolutely it would mate. And it's an incredibly tricky circle to square, politically it's a nightmare. Looking at those stats above and the stats posted on the previous page, then the elderly and the people in the at risk groups really should be shielding right now. It appears that very few people over 65 are actually testing positive for the virus but a huge proportion of those that do test positive are dying from it. But what do you do with those children involved ... do you close schools completely, probably not, or do those specific kids have to stay home? Or do you not tell people to shield at all and just hope for the best?
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Oct 29, 2020 11:24:31 GMT
That would make sense wouldn't it. Oh absolutely it would mate. And it's an incredibly tricky circle to square, politically it's a nightmare. Looking at those stats above and the stats posted on the previous page, then the elderly and the people in the at risk groups really should be shielding right now. It appears that very few people over 65 are actually testing positive for the virus but a huge proportion of those that do test positive are dying from it. But what do you do with those children involved ... do you close schools completely, probably not, or do those specific kids have to stay home? Or do you not tell people to shield at all and just hope for the best? Well as you say you can't close schools for months again which is the reason I was calling for a circuit break around the half term period, we could have had a 3 week circuit break without too much disruption to schools. As it is we've now missed a golden opportunity and everything will be much worse with more disruption when we finally go into the inevitable lockdown. This is what I've been trying to say for weeks.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 29, 2020 11:49:50 GMT
Oh absolutely it would mate. And it's an incredibly tricky circle to square, politically it's a nightmare. Looking at those stats above and the stats posted on the previous page, then the elderly and the people in the at risk groups really should be shielding right now. It appears that very few people over 65 are actually testing positive for the virus but a huge proportion of those that do test positive are dying from it. But what do you do with those children involved ... do you close schools completely, probably not, or do those specific kids have to stay home? Or do you not tell people to shield at all and just hope for the best? Well as you say you can't close schools for months again which is the reason I was calling for a circuit break around the half term period, we could have had a 3 week circuit break without too much disruption to schools. As it is we've now missed a golden opportunity and everything will be much worse with more disruption when we finally go into the inevitable lockdown. This is what I've been trying to say for weeks. Thing is, it's not just the kids. If they tell everybody in the shielding group to shield again (and if the stats are to be taken at face value, then they should do) just think how many teachers that will effect. Even if you had a national circuit break for three weeks and everybody in the shielding group shielded for those three weeks, you couldn't then tell those people it was now safe for them not to do so. They'd STILL be at risk and you'd have the teachers unions up in arms if those specific teachers were forced back into the work place. The knock on effect being that schools wouldn't have enough staff to function properly. I suspect the government know that it's going to be very hard to reintroduce shielding, all the while the schools remain open.
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Oct 29, 2020 11:51:43 GMT
Oh absolutely it would mate. And it's an incredibly tricky circle to square, politically it's a nightmare. Looking at those stats above and the stats posted on the previous page, then the elderly and the people in the at risk groups really should be shielding right now. It appears that very few people over 65 are actually testing positive for the virus but a huge proportion of those that do test positive are dying from it. But what do you do with those children involved ... do you close schools completely, probably not, or do those specific kids have to stay home? Or do you not tell people to shield at all and just hope for the best? Well as you say you can't close schools for months again which is the reason I was calling for a circuit break around the half term period, we could have had a 3 week circuit break without too much disruption to schools. As it is we've now missed a golden opportunity and everything will be much worse with more disruption when we finally go into the inevitable lockdown. This is what I've been trying to say for weeks. Am I missing something here 'cos for me, lockdowns are the exact opposite of what we should be doing? It's clear that in retired pensioners this virus can be quite deadly (What virus isn't?) but to the working age population the virus is basically harmless. Tell the retired folk to stay at home as much as they possibly can, and get the working age folk back to life as normal. Pubs open, clubs open, music venues open, football stadiums open etc... The virus can then 'run wild' among the people who are in basically no danger (Sure there'll be the odd exceptions, just like there is to anything) but this would help to build up a huge level of immunity, it gives the virus less avenues to go down, which in turn helps to protect the elderly. Lockdowns are preventing the people who will be fine from catching it building up immunity in the community.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Oct 29, 2020 12:11:27 GMT
Well as you say you can't close schools for months again which is the reason I was calling for a circuit break around the half term period, we could have had a 3 week circuit break without too much disruption to schools. As it is we've now missed a golden opportunity and everything will be much worse with more disruption when we finally go into the inevitable lockdown. This is what I've been trying to say for weeks. Am I missing something here 'cos for me, lockdowns are the exact opposite of what we should be doing? It's clear that in retired pensioners this virus can be quite deadly (What virus isn't?) but to the working age population the virus is basically harmless. Tell the retired folk to stay at home as much as they possibly can, and get the working age folk back to life as normal. Pubs open, clubs open, music venues open, football stadiums open etc... The virus can then 'run wild' among the people who are in basically no danger (Sure there'll be the odd exceptions, just like there is to anything) but this would help to build up a huge level of immunity, it gives the virus less avenues to go down, which in turn helps to protect the elderly. Lockdowns are preventing the people who will be fine from catching it building up immunity in the community. Sorry mate I just don't agree with any form of allowing the virus to 'run wild'. Eventually it filters into the vulnerable and elderly no matter what you do. It just doesn't work as we're now seeing again.
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Oct 29, 2020 12:27:23 GMT
Oh absolutely it would mate. And it's an incredibly tricky circle to square, politically it's a nightmare. Looking at those stats above and the stats posted on the previous page, then the elderly and the people in the at risk groups really should be shielding right now. It appears that very few people over 65 are actually testing positive for the virus but a huge proportion of those that do test positive are dying from it. But what do you do with those children involved ... do you close schools completely, probably not, or do those specific kids have to stay home? Or do you not tell people to shield at all and just hope for the best? Well as you say you can't close schools for months again which is the reason I was calling for a circuit break around the half term period, we could have had a 3 week circuit break without too much disruption to schools. As it is we've now missed a golden opportunity and everything will be much worse with more disruption when we finally go into the inevitable lockdown. This is what I've been trying to say for weeks. Apologies if this has already been posted but the answer to schools seems to be to open the windows: english.elpais.com/society/2020-10-28/a-room-a-bar-and-a-class-how-the-coronavirus-is-spread-through-the-air.html?ssm=TW_CC
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Oct 29, 2020 12:31:43 GMT
Well as you say you can't close schools for months again which is the reason I was calling for a circuit break around the half term period, we could have had a 3 week circuit break without too much disruption to schools. As it is we've now missed a golden opportunity and everything will be much worse with more disruption when we finally go into the inevitable lockdown. This is what I've been trying to say for weeks. Am I missing something here 'cos for me, lockdowns are the exact opposite of what we should be doing? It's clear that in retired pensioners this virus can be quite deadly (What virus isn't?) but to the working age population the virus is basically harmless. Tell the retired folk to stay at home as much as they possibly can, and get the working age folk back to life as normal. Pubs open, clubs open, music venues open, football stadiums open etc... The virus can then 'run wild' among the people who are in basically no danger (Sure there'll be the odd exceptions, just like there is to anything) but this would help to build up a huge level of immunity, it gives the virus less avenues to go down, which in turn helps to protect the elderly. Lockdowns are preventing the people who will be fine from catching it building up immunity in the community. My gran went into a care home during the summer and only one nominated person was allowed to visit a month plus had to stay outside. With the virus on the up in October and old folk being so vulnerable these restrictions have now been relaxed whilst the outside world gets more restrictive - makes absolute zero sense for me!
|
|