Coronavirus

[Abu Derby]

1 hour ago, Sith Happens said:

I hope they are ok

Yes, they are ok thank you. 

[EtoileSportiveDeDerby]

2 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Unfortunately, it's not a simple as looking at current rates. These are the measures taken into account:

Coronavirus case numbers across all age groups - particularly among the over 60s

How quickly Covid-19 case rates are rising or falling

The percentage of positive tests in the general population

Pressure on the local NHS – including current and projected NHS capacity based on data around admissions, general/acute/ICU bed occupancy, staff absences

Local context and exceptional circumstances such as a local but contained outbreaks

Thx, Understand and never assumed that it was all down to cases per 100k, but take Derbyshire dales, 155 per 100k, not exactly high concentration or highly populated either, moved to tier 4. This is where I would like to see the reasoning behind it. My guess is it is not published as it would very easy to unpick and show that some of those decisions are arbitrary without enough science to back them up. 

[EtoileSportiveDeDerby]

6 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

So what are the parameters for the 5 different categories?

Exactly!!!!

[Tamworthram]

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

So what are the parameters for the 5 different categories?

I have no idea, I don't think they've published them. There might not even be specific numbers - just a statement that they will take all of these into account when determining what tier each area should be in.

I may well be wrong but I don't think I've seen much call from politicians (of any persuasion) or medical/scientific experts for the specific criteria to be published.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I have no idea, I don't think they've published them. There might not even be specific numbers - just a statement that they will take all of these into account when determining what tier each area should be in.

I may well be wrong but I don't think I've seen much call from politicians (of any persuasion) or medical/scientific experts for the specific criteria to be published.

But its not politicians and medical/scientific 'experts' that they need to get on side to ensure compliance with the rules.

When it comes down to limiting people's freedom, then there needs to be set parameters that are open to debate and challenge.

You simply cannot have politicians making these decisions based on a whim.

Think it was clear to most that they let London stay in a lower tier when their numbers were comparable with other areas in higher tiers and look how that has ended up.

[Eddie]

57 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Not sure as it has existed for every other year that I have been alive. 

I had swine flu in 2009.

It absolutely ravaged my lungs to the extent that the damage is still visible when I have a CT scan, and is the primary reason that I am on the 'extremely vulnerable' list with respect to Covid-19. I had never really suffered from any respiratory illness before (although I was a smoker in earlier years) but luckily (or unluckily, dependent upon your viewpoint) I pulled through. Thanks, NHS and machine that goes "Pinggg".

It perhaps, at least a bit, explains why I come down so hard on those who are so willing to make light of Covid-19, those who argue for opening everything up and especially those who quote statistics citing the number who die without previously known underlying health conditions or the most pointless, most misleading, most stupid statistic of them all - the one stating that the average age of those dying of Covid-19 is older than the average age of those dying, because that is just saying "They have had their time, they would have died anyway".

[BIllyD]

41 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Which takes us back to the point, why would a completely overwhelmed health service, on the apparent brink of collapse, be wasting time telling people to get the flu vaccine?

Come on, I get you dont believe some of the claims from the government, but I've seen your posts, there not of someone who believes in conspiracy theory's and can see the logic in this ?

Do you believe the person who administers the flu jab is the same person working on the ICU ward ? Do you not believe that getting a flu jab will help reduce the number of people in ICU ?

Need I go on...

[SSD]

Roll on Easter. If I grit my teeth anymore at idiots taking the pee out of these rules, I'll need dentures. I knew we had selfish folks in society, when I go around Asda and see a family of six going around I think what's the point. Why do you all need to go out and pick food? What happened to only having one person per trolley? I can understand single parents needing to take children. When I see the whole clan, I think it's needless. The little things like that have added up to so many people catching this virus. And that's down to the higher ups not being decisive and trusting too many muppets. 

Anyway, roll on 2022 ?

[Eddie]

18 minutes ago, EtoileSportiveDeDerby said:

Thx, Understand and never assumed that it was all down to cases per 100k, but take Derbyshire dales, 155 per 100k, not exactly high concentration or highly populated either, moved to tier 4. This is where I would like to see the reasoning behind it. My guess is it is not published as it would very easy to unpick and show that some of those decisions are arbitrary without enough science to back them up. 

It may be down to recognition that local area authority boundaries are not borders, and that a low or medium infection rate in a lower tier is just going to invite visitors from a neighbouring higher tier with a higher infection rate and therefore more restrictions. In other words, these things are temporary. It's the same where I live. NWLDC has a much lower Covid-19 rate than (some) neighbouring areas yet, conversely, a neighbour from a couple of doors away from my house was rushed into hospital earlier today with suspected you-know-what.

[sage]

54 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Which takes us back to the point, why would a completely overwhelmed health service, on the apparent brink of collapse, be wasting time telling people to get the flu vaccine?

Because they also don't want hospitals clogged up with flu victims?

Because I imagine if you are ill with flu and get Covid, things would get dicey?

Because you still don't want people to be ill generally?

[rammieib]

39 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Doesn't that kind of imply though that elections could drive wrong behaviours? i.e. taking a particular line, that you may not think is the right,  simply because you think it is popular and will get you elected?

No I think if there was an election tomorrow their decisions would be more in line with what their constituents are feeling and thinking.

My guess, and I don’t have facts to back this up except Polls on twitter (which are always biased based on who the person is submitting the poll) is that more people now do not want a lockdown but to continue with Tiers and allow people slightly more freedom and Employment.

Maybe in EU terms it’s like saying that given the choice between voting for the Agreed Deal or a No deal, most people would go with the deal. However a number of MP’s are rejecting to play politics.

[EtoileSportiveDeDerby]

17 minutes ago, Eddie said:

It may be down to recognition that local area authority boundaries are not borders, and that a low or medium infection rate in a lower tier is just going to invite visitors from a neighbouring higher tier with a higher infection rate and therefore more restrictions. In other words, these things are temporary. It's the same where I live. NWLDC has a much lower Covid-19 rate than (some) neighbouring areas yet, conversely, a neighbour from a couple of doors away from my house was rushed into hospital earlier today with suspected you-know-what.

Fine and I understand. So, on that basis if someone explained in layman terms something like T3 areas next to T4 area with x cases and an R rate > 1.1 will move to T4 then it is clear, else T3. I agree with @G STAR RAMthey do not want to publish anything to  restrict scrutiny. We all know that Boris and detail do not go hand in hand, he's been winging it from day 1 and will carry on until the vaccine gets out of this mess.

[Eddie]

3 minutes ago, EtoileSportiveDeDerby said:

Fine and I understand. So, on that basis if someone explained in layman terms something like T3 areas next to T4 area with x cases and an R rate > 1.1 will move to T4 then it is clear, else T3. I agree with @G STAR RAMthey do not want to publish anything to  restrict scrutiny. We all know that Boris and detail do not go hand in hand, he's been winging it from day 1 and will carry on until the vaccine gets out of this mess.

Yes, I'm only guessing, as we all are.

I have no idea what the rules are any more. My son, who lives alone, has been staying with us for a week (he's in our 'support bubble') and I was planning on driving him back to his home on Friday - a nice little 300 mile round trip with a cup of coffee at half time. I don't think I'm breaking any laws or rules, but there is a 'D' in a day of more than 23 hours, so I wouldn't put money on it.

[BIllyD]

51 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I had swine flu in 2009.

It absolutely ravaged my lungs to the extent that the damage is still visible when I have a CT scan, and is the primary reason that I am on the 'extremely vulnerable' list with respect to Covid-19. I had never really suffered from any respiratory illness before (although I was a smoker in earlier years) but luckily (or unluckily, dependent upon your viewpoint) I pulled through. Thanks, NHS and machine that goes "Pinggg".

It perhaps, at least a bit, explains why I come down so hard on those who are so willing to make light of Covid-19, those who argue for opening everything up and especially those who quote statistics citing the number who die without previously known underlying health conditions or the most pointless, most misleading, most stupid statistic of them all - the one stating that the average age of those dying of Covid-19 is older than the average age of those dying, because that is just saying "They have had their time, they would have died anyway".

I had pneumonia around 7 years ago, got diagnosed with the big C beginning of last year and had a 6 hour op to remove the tumour and a lot of my internal organs to go with it.
 

Everyone has their own story, I don't judge anyone by it, they have their own risk parameters and I have mine, what's important to you and me is not to them, doesn't mean they are wrong, just that they have different priorities. Whilst I don't agree with opening everything up, for some it makes perfect sense, nothing wrong with that, they probably have more to lose with a lockdown, it's a forum, by all means challenge the numbers but for some they don't really matter.

[Eddie]

6 minutes ago, BIllyD said:

I had pneumonia around 7 years ago, got diagnosed with the big C beginning of last year and had a 6 hour op to remove the tumour and a lot of my internal organs to go with it.
 

Everyone has their own story, I don't judge anyone by it, they have their own risk parameters and I have mine, what's important to you and me is not to them, doesn't mean they are wrong, just that they have different priorities. Whilst I don't agree with opening everything up, for some it makes perfect sense, nothing wrong with that, they probably have more to lose with a lockdown, it's a forum, by all means challenge the numbers but for some they don't really matter.

So long as they wear a mask and socially distance, I have no problem with that either.

The problem, as far as I am concerned, comes when people's 'rights' to exercise their risk parameters infringe upon common sense.

[sage]

37 minutes ago, EtoileSportiveDeDerby said:

Fine and I understand. So, on that basis if someone explained in layman terms something like T3 areas next to T4 area with x cases and an R rate > 1.1 will move to T4 then it is clear, else T3. I agree with @G STAR RAMthey do not want to publish anything to  restrict scrutiny. We all know that Boris and detail do not go hand in hand, he's been winging it from day 1 and will carry on until the vaccine gets out of this mess.

Whilst I agree Boris is an idiot of the highest order, this is a moving feast and the Tiers (not drawn up my ministers) take in a range of factors. The weighting of which may change as we know more.

Most of the data is in the public sphere. Cases and deaths on a daily basis are published by country, county, district and if you look closely enough by parish.

As you can see these figures, I don't really see why you expect the government to start publishing its calculations. Arent we already drowning in data?

[BIllyD]

5 minutes ago, Eddie said:

So long as they wear a mask and socially distance, I have no problem with that either.

The problem, as far as I am concerned, comes when people's 'rights' to exercise their risk parameters infringe upon common sense.

Once again whilst I see where you are coming from, some people just won't comply. I'm on the vulnerable list and therefore am advised to shield, in the main I have taken this advice but there are times when I have ventured to the shops or coached / watched my son play football for example, if someone doesn't wear a mask and I catch COVID then I would say that I would be the one to blame not them.

Don't get me wrong, I still think the person not wearing a mask is an idiot ?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, BIllyD said:

Come on, I get you dont believe some of the claims from the government, but I've seen your posts, there not of someone who believes in conspiracy theory's and can see the logic in this ?

Do you believe the person who administers the flu jab is the same person working on the ICU ward ? Do you not believe that getting a flu jab will help reduce the number of people in ICU ?

Need I go on...

I cant see the logic of pushing the vaccine for a virus with an r rate of 1, before vaccinating everyone against a virus with an r rate of 3, no.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, sage said:

Because they also don't want hospitals clogged up with flu victims?

Because I imagine if you are ill with flu and get Covid, things would get dicey?

Because you still don't want people to be ill generally?

In which case you'd think that they would not have cancelled cancer screening for so many people also?

[BIllyD]

1 minute ago, G STAR RAM said:

I cant see the logic of pushing the vaccine for a virus with an r rate of 1, before vaccinating everyone against a virus with an r rate of 3, no.

As I said, the flu vaccine has reached its highest levels this year, we have had to bring in a vaccine from America because for the first time we run out of our normal supplies.
 

We have a total of just over 500k vaccines to give out starting next week, if pushing the flu jab was going to impact this, then I would see your point, but it's not, so I don't.