Coronavirus

[Grays_1890]

So based on this lets see if the number of deaths match the same trend as cases, if they dont then the theory of old and vulnerable being the unfortunate victims of this causing the original spike will in my opinion hold water.

I hope then IF and that is a big IF, if that is the cases I hope we proceed in a sensible fashion and not lockdown again

 

[Grays_1890]

In April, if we had the testing capability, we were likely running at 80k+ new infections daily.

As I said in a previous post we have not had the testing capacity or data collection to show what a full cycle graph looks like.

It also proves though that even if 200k people had it they were not sick enough to go to the Dr and could isolate at home, this is all part of the same point regardless.

 

[Diamond Lights]

What do you want? A total second lockdown?

A competent government

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

So based on this lets see if the number of deaths match the same trend as cases, if they dont then the theory of old and vulnerable being the unfortunate victims of this causing the original spike will in my opinion hold water.

I hope then IF and that is a big IF, if that is the cases I hope we proceed in a sensible fashion and not lockdown again

That graph would never look like that with massive testing capacity.

I'm surprised you've got a blind spot with this?

 

[Gazza Dazzla]

during peak there was 100k cases a day.

It was 100k tests per day I think you are thinking of?

 

[Legohamster]

In April, if we had the testing capability, we were likely running at 80k+ new infections daily.

As I said in a previous post we have not had the testing capacity or data collection to show what a full cycle graph looks like.

If we had eg 200k tests a day from Jan 1st, the graph would look a lot different. A long slope up to a big peak.(circa 80k pd) The figure today could be akin to maybe mid Feb first time round.

That's also why it's risky to say we are not seeing the hospitalisation s as positive cases go up...that's because we are just in the foothills.

Realistically we've done nothing but hide from the virus, so as we show our faces again it can find new hosts. The only thing that might help is if the virus has weakened itself for some reason or many more people have had it or a resistant to it than we think., so hindering its ability to spread.

I think we are at such a fragmented, multi layered complex approach that they are better off insisting that the vulnerable and those needing to shield be protected and then present everyone else with a series of data compiled so far (the simple to understand stuff) and let the people make their own minds up about the risk (just as many people already think they know best) and be accepting of any consequences that may come to pass if they want to carry on life as close to normal. (but still insisting they do the basics...wash hands, mask etc)

Glad I didn’t imagine that figure- it’s seems unreal when you write it down.

It adds fuel to the shielding plans that There was that many cases and “only” 320 deaths of people under 60 without a serious illness

 

[Grays_1890]

That graph would never look like that with massive testing capacity.

I'm surprised you've got a blind spot with this?

I dont have a blind spot with it, tests or no tests people who were severe enough with the illness reported to where they needed to be in order for us to have the figures in April which meant 95k were no sick enough to have to leave the house and could self isolate and recover.

Also the argument would be, if the cases were rife in April, worse than reported. we were right to lockdown. We have have more testing now and the figure is nowhere near 100k and you are saying more accurate, so based on that we are nowhere near the risk levels of the start and should not lockdown????

2million cancer patients missing their appointments should be our biggest concern now, thats the biggest death toll rising potentially than Covid19

Regardless the data points towards over panic

If you are fit and healthy and under 45 you can go to work, you can get on with your life, you can shield your loved ones and vulnerable but we can do so and stave off long term potential for poverty, mental illness including suicide and the worst unemployment this country has seen in modern times

 

[Grays_1890]

Glad I didn’t imagine that figure- it’s seems unreal when you write it down.

It adds fuel to the shielding plans that There was that many cases and “only” 320 deaths of people under 60 without a serious illness

Average age is 82

 

[glorygloryeze]

It's totally crazy. But surely not worse than the virus in the UK? We've had 854 deaths; the UK 41,788.

Our numbers are/were certainly high.

However, you do have a much smaller population and a wider geographical area than we do. That has to be taken into consideration as well imo (plus the inconsistencies around the world with the testing methodologies, for example fair few scientists are saying that the PCR test commonly being used is picking up a lot of false positives and 'dead virus' material).

Either way, i'm sure what's going on with you guys is on it's way here (our Government just wants us to scream for it instead of imposing it...)

 

[glorygloryeze]

You know how I feel about this government. And if there was an unsafe vaccine being pushed the outcry would be deafening and many people would not take it making it useless.

With the proposals from that consultation, i think we can see that whatever 'outcry' there may be about not taking an unlicensed/unsafe vaccine will be irrelevant.

 

[Mikey10]

A friend of mine had a note from his school last week saying a child in his kids bubble has symptoms and had been sent home and will be tested.

Almost a week later they have not been able to get a test, if that doesn’t change by tomorrow the whole bubble will have to self isolate for 14 days.

School have also changed their guidance as to when children should stay home, from now on they don’t want children showing any cold like symptoms to come in at all.

Unraveling fast.

Who could have guessed it would go so wrong? (Apart from the teachers and their unions.)

Too much flip flapping

Too much listening to joe public over things and reacting when they should have ignored alot of it and been strong enough to give the country consistency.

As soon as we went into Lockdown this level of flopping about was always going to happen.

Things like Pubs and Dine out to Help out came because the hospitality industry cried about them dying under the strain of lockdown, the same was from the public. So they gave incentives to go out to aid mental health and industry, but because we had been in lockdown and the numbers had gone down the X and have now risen to Y that looks like a mistake because everything is now going to be comparable to the death or infection rate we had at the end of lockdown. This means we wont be able to do anything till a vaccine comes which is going to be the new year.

What would have been better would have been not go into a lockdown and managed the shielding etc alot better and not allowed the country to descend into a situation where we now have a gun to our heads.

Yip. Your post highlights the true problem; the absence of any sort of plan.

 

[Grays_1890]

Yip. Your post highlights the true problem; the absence of any sort of plan.

Easy really

Continue with Covid safe environments including social distancing, numbers and mask

Get people back to work under these restrictions and protect the vulnerable and elderly

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

I dont have a blind spot with it, tests or no tests people who were severe enough with the illness reported to where they needed to be in order for us to have the figures in April which meant 95k were no sick enough to have to leave the house and could self isolate and recover.

The amount of people testing positive in April was limited by the testing...we were doing eff all tests compared to now.

If I done 100k tests today and got 6k positive results and I did 10k tests on April 1st and got 6k positive results. Would we be running at the same rate of infection?

Also the argument would be, if the cases were rife in April, worse than reported. we were right to lockdown. We have have more testing now and the figure is nowhere near 100k and you are saying more accurate, so based on that we are nowhere near the risk levels of the start and should not lockdown????

To say we shouldn't of gone into lockdown at that stage is brutal. I don't necessarily agree with the path we are now taking BUT in that first peak hospitals were at and over their limit, we had to do something in case (very possible) things turned uglier. Everyone, no matter how dire their situation should always be served the best care and opportunity possible. A quite simple way to reason this is to think of your mother,father,son, daughter in that situation. If people start dying in hallways, in ambulances, at home thru lack of capacity, staff, beds etc...it's a bad look. A brake had to put on it as we had little clue what we were dealing with.

We are not near the (real) numbers from April. I think they are worried that we are heading that way.

As a sidenote. If we are at 6k a day now as in April, we were also at 800,900,1000 deaths a day in April. Not now? Obviously because the number of infections were much more than testing allowed us to know then. A % of infected people would be serious enough to end up in hospital, so from a big pool. Now testing is giving us a more accurate picture of how many have got it and that pool is not so big hence hospitalisation s/deaths nowhere near previously.

 

[Grays_1890]

The amount of people testing positive in April was limited by the testing...we were doing eff all tests compared to now.

If I done 100k tests today and got 6k positive results and I did 10k tests on April 1st and got 6k positive results. Would we be running at the same rate of infection?



To say we shouldn't of gone into lockdown at that stage is brutal. I don't necessarily agree with the path we are now taking BUT in that first peak hospitals were at and over their limit, we had to do something in case (very possible) things turned uglier. Everyone, no matter how dire their situation should always be served the best care and opportunity possible. A quite simple way to reason this is to think of your mother,father,son, daughter in that situation. If people start dying in hallways, in ambulances, at home thru lack of capacity, staff, beds etc...it's a bad look. A brake had to put on it as we had little clue what we were dealing with.

We are not near the (real) numbers from April. I think they are worried that we are heading that way.

As a sidenote. If we are at 6k a day now as in April, we were also at 800,900,1000 deaths a day in April. Not now? Obviously because the number of infections were much more than testing allowed us to know then. A % of infected people would be serious enough to end up in hospital, so from a big pool. Now testing is giving us a more accurate picture of how many have got it and that pool is not so big hence hospitalisation s/deaths nowhere near previously.

I said we were right to go into lockdown based on those number if we were at 100,000 although lockdown is not my thing.

Point I am making on the numbers is if 100,000 were infected per day and we were only reporting 6k then that was the 6,000 who were being recorded, how or why were they being recorded? Because they were too ill to self isolate at home and went to get medical help. Which points to the fact that the idea you can get the infection and not need serious medical help. With the average age of death in the UK at 82 its clear where the biggest threat of death sits.

The point I am making overall is that yes the threat of infections are high but if you shield those who are most at threat, which we have the data to identify then we can get closer to normality than we are now.

My biggest problem with all this is people are making the wrong sacrifices. People wont take 3/4 months away from seeing their parents in a home, they would rather take 6 months off work to stay safe so they can, we had this debate before on here about people going back into care homes when it was the clearest threat, the only way you can do that is an almost self isolated bubble which includes retracting from life. THen you have those that will wisk th e pub *officially 6.5m a weekend but wont go back to work.

Kids going back to school and people going back to work safely with shielding of care homes and elderly and the vulnerable would 100% be my route back now.

 

[Legohamster]

Who would have thought a man with a history of lying, bluster, laziness and false promises is now doing all 4 as PM

 

[P.D.]

So much for seeing it off in 12 weeks then eh BoJo!!! I fail to see how pubs closing at 10 is going to do much, if you're with someone for 2/3 hours rather than 4/5 hours you'll still likely catch it. It may reduce it a tiny amount if it puts people off going to the pub but in the grand scheme of it the main effect is to slowly starve the pubs until even more of them shut down whilst not reducing the virus spread - in other words the worst of both worlds.

 

[Grays_1890]

So much for seeing it off in 12 weeks then eh BoJo!!! I fail to see how pubs closing at 10 is going to do much, if you're with someone for 2/3 hours rather than 4/5 hours you'll still likely catch it. It may reduce it a tiny amount if it puts people off going to the pub but in the grand scheme of it the main effect is to slowly starve the pubs until even more of them shut down whilst not reducing the virus spread - in other words the worst of both worlds.

Someone said it was his way of saying use it properly or lose it permanent. I get that TBH because if he closed I down the uproar would be tenfold

Goes back to the point I made earlier the pubs a glaring issue based on the fact its different from anywhere else in terms of masks etc. So people who use them are getting a leg up on people wanting to actually go to work which is odd, is what it is so use it properly or lose it. Its on the public to decide with their actions.

Its also saying to pub enforce the rules better or lose your business which I get. Pubs have been supported more than most time they tightened up so other industries might get a chance to get on

 

[Legohamster]

Someone said it was his way of saying use it properly or lose it permanent. I get that TBH because if he closed I down the uproar would be tenfold

Goes back to the point I made earlier the pubs a glaring issue based on the fact its different from anywhere else in terms of masks etc. So people who use them are getting a leg up on people wanting to actually go to work which is off, so use it properly or lose it. Its on the public to decide with their actions.

The stats don’t back up pubs and restaurants being an issue - it’s care homes /hospitals mainly

 

[glorygloryeze]

I actually think there are elements of the government split on this. I think Handc0ck and his crew are up for a full, blanket, checkpoint-charlie type lockdown, whilst Johnson and his posse are against any such things.

I think the former crew are pushing things slowly towards full lockdown with Boris trying to drag his heels.

This is the only thing to me (apart from everything else) that can explain one time being told to "get back to the office" and "eat out to help out" to now "stay at home or you might die" house-arrest messages.

Let's not even talk about the economic effects..

 

[nayenezgani]

The stats don’t back up pubs and restaurants being an issue - it’s care homes /hospitals mainly

Care homes/hospitals are an issue for increased mortality risk maybe, yes.. But pubs and restauarants are still a big problem for transmission.

Greater transmission then equals a greater chance of the virus appearing in care homes and among those more vulnerable. Surely you get that?