D
Deleted member 18243
Pretty close yes, which is my point exactly, in that all our (UK) lockdowns, masks and such have had no discernible effect. I'm glad I've finally convinced you, Happy New Year.
New Covid rules for the UK coming into effect for...
- Thread starter Mottie
- Start date
Pretty close yes, which is my point exactly, in that all our (UK) lockdowns, masks and such have had no discernible effect. I'm glad I've finally convinced you, Happy New Year.
Sponsored Links
D
Deleted member 18243
I'll just take this opportunity to remind one and all that:
- Positive test numbers aren’t people that are all ILL.
- A Covid hospitalisation isn’t necessarily someone being treated FOR Covid.
- A reported Covid death is someone dying from ANY cause within 28 days of a positive test.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 16,838
- Reaction score
- 2,357
- Country
Dishonestly taking quotes out of context yet again. Well done you.
The other way of looking at that is Swedish deaths could be a lot lower. Actually they have mentioned that. They also have an enviable health system.
The demographics of Sweden are entirely different to the UK. 450km^2, population 10.4m. Uk 242km^2 population 67m where a high proportion of people live in England 139km^2. Rumour suggests that if Scotland does go independent the UK becomes the most densely populated country in Europe. Yes we are still in Europe as it's a bit difficult to move the country.
I also notice your latest case of clutching straws - people in hospital with covid as against being treated for covid. Fact of life. People due routine hospital work, surgery and all sorts are being told to stay away. People who turn up with covid but are ok are sent home. Staff sickness levels are running at twice the rate they usually are this time of year and flu may crop up in coming months but you probably haven't had that jab either. Masks help with that too.
LOL You have also been presented with the number of people who have had covid. Surprisingly low isn't it. Even at current rates it will take some time to grow to a majority and there are reasons that is unlikely to happen to 100% levels anyway.
Reinfections have similar problems. Low levels based on a rather limited number of people.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,800
- Reaction score
- 709
- Country
"People who have had it" looks pretty speculative. Around a year ago, here and US were estimates of 20% virus antibody (not vaccine) prevalence. Some figs for November here. 4 out of 5 kids, is encouraging.
The "exposed to it" must be enormous by now - a big chunk of the population. All having some immune response building up. HALF the population wouldn't be a silly estimate - or wait a few days and it will be.
Local (eg London) case numbers peaking would/do support that.
My chrimbo exp was interesting. We were about a dozen in the house. One brought it (we think delta judging by incubation preriods) by plane. Now there are 2 more caught it from him, plus now others outside the group. We would certainly all have been exposed to it. So that's about 5x as many exposed, as developed/detectably caught it. (According to LFTs, + PCR for the victims)
The raw R for delta seems to be around 5 from what I have heard. Populations and behaviour result in a lower average. The mathemetician on the lecture for 10year olds mentioned that large gatherings at say sports events do not have as much effect as people might expect as it only effects them 
adding it isn't wise to go to them - their problem though. She also mentioned a more subtle effect. eg There are some people around here that will spend long periods of talking to each other on the streets. Other people may just nod and say hello to people they know - some would run away from "talkers" even in normal times as have better things to do. Regular pub goers are likely to mix with similar. They can break people down into groups this way.
Your crimbo thing is down to the circumstances. It doesn't relate to a population as a whole where a whole variety of things will be going on.
Another circumstance has been mentioned - winter so more time spent indoors. An odd comment. I spent some time in Turkey late in the year prior to covid. Temperature mid 20's. The Turks thought it was cold. Suppose they just wrap up more but who knows.
One thing I am sure of is that if there was a reliable antibody test available that they could use for all they would send one to everybody in the country. They use other things such as blood donors and various surveillance projects. These are what are used to estimate population antibody levels. They even have to use a different test for natural and jab induced antibodies. General testing is another factor.
Both of the links I posted are updated frequently. That means recent figures may not be up to date. As they mention but they still indicate trends that the modellers can use to get some idea of the outcome even if it results in a range of them. That as it always has improves as more info come in.
adding it isn't wise to go to them - their problem though. She also mentioned a more subtle effect. eg There are some people around here that will spend long periods of talking to each other on the streets. Other people may just nod and say hello to people they know - some would run away from "talkers" even in normal times as have better things to do. Regular pub goers are likely to mix with similar. They can break people down into groups this way.Your crimbo thing is down to the circumstances. It doesn't relate to a population as a whole where a whole variety of things will be going on.
Another circumstance has been mentioned - winter so more time spent indoors.
An odd comment. I spent some time in Turkey late in the year prior to covid. Temperature mid 20's. The Turks thought it was cold. Suppose they just wrap up more but who knows.One thing I am sure of is that if there was a reliable antibody test available that they could use for all they would send one to everybody in the country. They use other things such as blood donors and various surveillance projects. These are what are used to estimate population antibody levels. They even have to use a different test for natural and jab induced antibodies. General testing is another factor.
Both of the links I posted are updated frequently. That means recent figures may not be up to date. As they mention but they still indicate trends that the modellers can use to get some idea of the outcome even if it results in a range of them. That as it always has improves as more info come in.
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,800
- Reaction score
- 709
- Country
INteresting reading ( though I haven't read every word)
The figure for "attending"/"admission to" hospital can be misleading.
It says risk of presentation to emergency care or hospital admission with Omicron was approximately half of that for Delta.
So they're all counted, but were they all counted as "hospitalisations"??
We know there are many "worried well" who go home soon. (Mum and daughter neighbours went to hospital and were sent home, having beed advised to stay away!)
In SA, a corresponding figure was reported as 80% fewer for omicron, (I can find it if you don't believe me) but I saw in one of their their newpapers that - some at least - people there were checked and told to go home. Whether they were counted in the figures or not, wasn't reported.
In other words, "cases" is a poor measure unless you have "how bad". There's no doubt that omicron cases are less bad than delta cases generally. SA early on, reported average hospital stays were 2.8 days for omi versus 8 for delta iirc.
Compare 100 delta hospitalisations, 8 days = 800 hospital days
with 20 omicron hospitalisations, 2.8 days = 56 hospital days
Heck of a difference. You can have 7-8 times the number of cases and only half the hospital load.
Sadly the same doesn't work for staff vacancies - 100% still go home even if there's nothing much wrong with them. 7 days vs 10 only helps a bit.
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,800
- Reaction score
- 709
- Country
Do you have a link for that?
Certainly, The same thing happens in local populations where more people are likely to have been exposed already. A good reason to not use "R" as a predictor.mentioned that large gatherings at say sports events do not have as much effect as people might expect as it only effects them
OBVIOUSLY, Nobody is suggesting it's extrapolatable to the country, but it illustrates an effect that would be common.
If you read the modeller's publications, there are several such influencing parameters. You hope the multipliers bettween communities are all close to 1, otherwise the comparison goes títs up.Another circumstance has been mentioned - winter so more time spent indoors.
That's why I wrote "virus antibody (not vaccine {intending to imply not vaccine-induced}) prevalence". The test is OK, but it's expensive and slow.
Yes, with the caveat that figures only compare eg if the policy/procedure for "bothering to go to hospital" or "being sending straight home" doesn't change. Someone saying something on telly could influence behaviour on things like that significantly.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,800
- Reaction score
- 709
- Country
Only if YOU miss the point.
Vaccine means fewer cases, less transmission, fewer people testing positive.
Unvaccinated means more nurses off work, more cases in hospital, more people dying directly, and more pathology of other diseases due to through hospitals being overwhelmed.
Even if you only accept partial amelioration of one parameter, the effect is the same - so better to have vaccinations.
LOL I take no notice of people who look for smoking guns especially in language used. It's essentially not a sensible thing to do. It assume the people who did it have no idea what they are doing and the criticiser knows more than they do. That will invariably be incorrect. Conspiracy theories. The figures are there and that is enough really to currently get a feel for what is going on but currently lacking details in some areas.
On the other hand 2 announcement during news broadcasts by a cabinet member. 1st one dusting off the Nightingales some of which are tents. 2nd today. This wave will stretch the NHS to the limit but we are going to have to learn to live with covid etc. Only time will tell what that means. There could be various reason why the statements have been made only one of which may happen - ie exactly what he said. Hospitals and "Nightingales" totally full.
Couple that with a Boris comment on the last TV'sed brief. "I think that in the new year we are going to have to have a chat about how to help these people". Afraid that made me laugh.
On the other hand 2 announcement during news broadcasts by a cabinet member. 1st one dusting off the Nightingales some of which are tents. 2nd today. This wave will stretch the NHS to the limit but we are going to have to learn to live with covid etc. Only time will tell what that means. There could be various reason why the statements have been made only one of which may happen - ie exactly what he said. Hospitals and "Nightingales" totally full.
Couple that with a Boris comment on the last TV'sed brief. "I think that in the new year we are going to have to have a chat about how to help these people". Afraid that made me laugh.
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,800
- Reaction score
- 709
- Country
What are you on about, You gave no reference?
No "looking for smoking guns", no conspiracy theories, in the above.
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,800
- Reaction score
- 709
- Country
Here's a country with a proper policy for antvaxxers:
"In the southern province of Guangxi, people who broke Covid laws were recently publicly shamed by being paraded through the streets in hazmat suits with placards round their necks."
"In the southern province of Guangxi, people who broke Covid laws were recently publicly shamed by being paraded through the streets in hazmat suits with placards round their necks."
Sponsored Links