Coronavirus

[Shuff264]

13 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

AZ vaccine 10% effective against South African variant. 

 

It's obviously not good news, but it is a very small trial.

It states no reduction in infections but nothing about hospitalisations or deaths? If it has a significant impact on that then it's still good enough

Shows how important it is to prevent importing new strains

[alexxxxx]

8 minutes ago, Rev said:

How much effect will that have?

As of the 23rd of January, 39m people in wealthy countries had been vaccinated, compared to 25 people in Africa.

That's not a typo, either.

Well it is more about what does it mean for our vaccination programme. We've let thousands of people in from South Africa since December... 

[i-Ram]

1 hour ago, alexxxxx said:

Well it is more about what does it mean for our vaccination programme. We've let thousands of people in from South Africa since December... 

Yeah. Sod them Africans. They don’t even know when it’s Christmas time.

[Eddie]

Typical.

I support a crap football team and a crap cricket team, so it's pretty standard form that I now have the crap vaccine coursing through my body.

/just kidding

[Tamworthram]

9 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Well from data I have seen (obviously this will be followed by the usual posters saying Im just making it up and its data not available) hospital admissions are in line with normal years. 

Hospital staff are nearly all vaccinated.

Numbers in hospital remain high but will obviously start falling and are clearly manageable. 

Come Easter there should be very few excuses left not to re-open.

If the only excuse is that the vaccine is not working on such and such a strain then its clear we need to learn to live with the virus.

 

Replace the word “excuses” with “reasons” and I by and large agree with you.

[Albert]

11 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Its equally interesting that you advocating the lockdown which has equal knock on effects that you are pretending to be worried about.

As noted, lock or no lockdown, such issues are occurring, as shown. The benefit of the lockdown is allows the case loads to drop, and hence allows for such to return sooner. Used properly, lockdowns shouldn't be used for more than a few weeks, sadly the UK's government handled this crisis appallingly. 

11 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Nah, just using a commonly seen tactic in this thread.

Avoid a question, ask a question back, then when asked why the question hasnt been answered, just say its been dealth with and move on.

If you feel I haven't answer a question, shown me where, and I am happy to answer it. You have a tendency to do this, claim a question hasn't been answered, then suddenly become unable to actually say what it was. I guess it's because you're just doing it to spread doubt, and don't actually want an answer to such 'questions'. 

11 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

And no, I won't go back through the thread looking for examples before you ask.

Oh, what do you know... 

11 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

And yes if you think that means there aren't any examples then good for you.

(Just pre-empting the, by now, predictable responses)

It's predictable because it's your standard tactic. If you feel this is something I do, you should have literally no trouble giving the questions, even one example. Again, it seems you're aim is to spread doubt though, so of course you won't. 

[Albert]

9 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Well from data I have seen (obviously this will be followed by the usual posters saying Im just making it up and its data not available) hospital admissions are in line with normal years. 

Define 'in line with normal years', because this year has been anything but normal. You're deluded if you're claiming otherwise. A lot of other care has been shelved, as the NHS has a finite capacity, particularly with the changes due to how you have to handle such a pandemic. If what you're doing is comparing patient numbers alone, rather than comparing with admissions for respiratory disease, then that'll be your issue. 

If you have the data for flu and pneumonia admissions over the last few years, that would be interesting. 

9 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Hospital staff are nearly all vaccinated.

Numbers in hospital remain high but will obviously start falling and are clearly manageable. 

Come Easter there should be very few excuses left not to re-open.

If the only excuse is that the vaccine is not working on such and such a strain then its clear we need to learn to live with the virus.

The 'excuse' would be as discussed, wanting to keep the reproduction number above 1, ie not cause a third/fourth wave when the virus should be on the way out of the country. 

[Bob The Badger]

11 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

What expert advice is this please?

The people who run the NHS, the people who work in the NHS and the people who advise the NHS.

And also the people who run the country and the people who advise the people who run the country.

I allow experts to interpret the data because ya know, they're experts.

They may get it wrong on occasions, but I hold their opinions in slightly higher regard than I do yours.

I also don't think there is/was some worldwide conspiracy by Governments to suggest health services are/were close to the brink of collapse when you believe they clearly were not.

[Bob The Badger]

25 minutes ago, Albert said:

A lot of other care has been shelved, as the NHS has a finite capacity.

This gets missed (or ignored) a LOT by people like @G STAR RAM who want to twist stats to fit an argument rather than looking at the big picture.

I know in the US the biggest problem was ICU beds. Hospitals usually don't like to go above (I think) 60% because that removes the ability to offer 1 to 1 care which is the point of intensive care.

You start to see the level of care that hospitals expect to offer collapse a long time before beds run out in the ICU

Plus, if they are close to capacity they cannot cope with any other disaster that may happen. 

Imagine 9/11 or the Vegas shootings happening when the US was spiking (or even now in California), or a natural disaster like Katrina,  Sandy or the Loma Prieta earthquake.

Government ministers are not putting their careers on the line and crying wolf for fun, they're doing it because they're scared of a nightmare scenario happening when they are at the wheel.

 

[G STAR RAM]

13 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

The people who run the NHS, the people who work in the NHS and the people who advise the NHS.

And also the people who run the country and the people who advise the people who run the country.

I allow experts to interpret the data because ya know, they're experts.

They may get it wrong on occasions, but I hold their opinions in slightly higher regard than I do yours.

I also don't think there is/was some worldwide conspiracy by Governments to suggest health services are/were close to the brink of collapse when you believe they clearly were not.

Wow you've spoken to all of them have you? And they all gave you exactly the same opinion? Ok fair play then I back down on the point because you clearly have got first hand expert opinion. 

I've never said anything about a worldwide conspiracy, there were some health services that collapsed under pressure but ours was not one of them nor do I think it was ever going to.

 

[G STAR RAM]

7 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

This gets missed (or ignored) a LOT by people like @G STAR RAM who want to twist stats to fit an argument rather than looking at the big picture.

No it doesn't get missed, or ignored, at all.

I'm aware that this happens, what a lot of people like you are missing is that this happens every year in winter.

Do we say the NHS is on the verge of collapse every year?

No, we say it is under pressure and treatments are being cut to cope with this pressure.

[Albert]

2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

No it doesn't get missed, or ignored, at all.

I'm aware that this happens, what a lot of people like you are missing is that this happens every year in winter.

Do we say the NHS is on the verge of collapse every year?

No, we say it is under pressure and treatments are being cut to cope with this pressure.

You really are wedded to this concept that it wasn't at risk of collapse. I'd love to see some stats to back your position on this one. As above, do you have statistics to suggest that the number of hospitalisations for respiratory illness this year are in any way normal? 

[G STAR RAM]

54 minutes ago, Albert said:

As noted, lock or no lockdown, such issues are occurring, as shown. The benefit of the lockdown is allows the case loads to drop, and hence allows for such to return sooner. Used properly, lockdowns shouldn't be used for more than a few weeks, sadly the UK's government handled this crisis appallingly. 

As noted, you are focusing purely on Covid and forgetting about other things.

Serious mental health issues are not occuring in young peoples lives, lockdown or no lockdown, to the extent that they appear to be now.

51 minutes ago, Albert said:

Define 'in line with normal years', because this year has been anything but normal. You're deluded if you're claiming otherwise. 

Well pretty much any other year, where there is no major anomaly.

If you think admission numbers are wildly different for this time of year you're deluded.

53 minutes ago, Albert said:

The 'excuse' would be as discussed, wanting to keep the reproduction number above 1, ie not cause a third/fourth wave when the virus should be on the way out of the country. 

The R number should be pretty irrelevant if all of the vulnerable people have been vaccinated and hospital admissions consequently cut by circa 75%.

[G STAR RAM]

3 minutes ago, Albert said:

You really are wedded to this concept that it wasn't at risk of collapse. I'd love to see some stats to back your position on this one. As above, do you have statistics to suggest that the number of hospitalisations for respiratory illness this year are in any way normal? 

I'd love to see some stats to back up your position that it was at risk of collapse.

Why are you only bothered about respiratory illness only? Total numbers are what matter.

Yes it means some other treatments have been cancelled/delayed but as already discussed that happens every year. 

[Bob The Badger]

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Do we say the NHS is on the verge of collapse every year?

No, because it isn't.

Yearly fluctuations are accounted for because they are highly predictable.

Do you know how planning is undertaken and how it heavily relies on statistics and models made from those statistics?

Everything is down from elective to non-elective procedures as well as A & E visits for non-covid issues and still the Government is terrified.  

To think the Government and the NHS is making this up or massively exaggerating the danger would suggest an entire tin foil wardrobe is called for.
 

[Albert]

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

As noted, you are focusing purely on Covid and forgetting about other things.

Serious mental health issues are not occuring in young peoples lives, lockdown or no lockdown, to the extent that they appear to be now.

The case loads are impacting this, not just the lockdowns. If you cared about mental health, you'd have advocated for the elimination strategy a long time ago, rather than basically going with the 'harden up lads' line of 'we have to learn to live with the virus'.

Elimination would have removed the strain, and the lack of case load would have allowed for proper support for people. Unfortunately, failures in management have led to this. 

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Well pretty much any other year, where there is no major anomaly.

If you think admission numbers are wildly different for this time of year you're deluded.

Well, give us the numbers. We're waiting. 

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

The R number should be pretty irrelevant if all of the vulnerable people have been vaccinated and hospital admissions consequently cut by circa 75%.

So the lives of younger people are irrelevant? Aren't those that still get sick, get permanently injured or even die simply not important? Given the risks of long term impacts, you'd not want a third/fourth wave of this, unless you just want to burden the next generations with the cost of that. 

2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I'd love to see some stats to back up your position that it was at risk of collapse.

You'll find that I'm not the one challenging the 'official narrative' as you would put it. I've believed what those within the system and elsewhere have argued, as they are the ones with the data to hand. You're the one challenging their position on it, and hence should have some reason to have done so. I'll wait. 

2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Why are you only bothered about respiratory illness only? Total numbers are what matter.

Because that's what we are looking at right now. Admissions are down in other areas as they have been forced down, that's the entire issue. If this level of hospitalisation is normal, the stats should show that pretty clearly. 

2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Yes it means some other treatments have been cancelled/delayed but as already discussed that happens every year. 

To the same extent? Where are these numbers mate? You allude to a lot but don't seem to want to provide anything. 

[G STAR RAM]

2 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

No, because it isn't.

Yearly fluctuations are accounted for because they are highly predictable.

Do you know how planning is undertaken and how it heavily relies on statistics and models made from those statistics?

Everything is down from elective to non-elective procedures as well as A & E visits for non-covid issues and still the Government is terrified.  

To think the Government and the NHS is making this up or massively exaggerating the danger would suggest an entire tin foil wardrobe is called for.
 

Well everything else would be down because people arent allowed out of their houses.

And guess what the NHS has adapted to utilise this extra capacity to cope with Covid admissions.

And lets not forget around 1 in 4 or 5 of people in hospital with Covid have actually caught Covid in the hospital when there for something else. 

I'm not suggesting that there wasn't danger (mainly because staff were off ill rather than hospital capacity) but I don't believe it was any more at risk of collapse than any normal year.

I'm sure if it is as bad as you say then there will be some stats that you can easily lay your hands on to prove it.

[Albert]

1 minute ago, G STAR RAM said:

Well everything else would be down because people arent allowed out of their houses.

And guess what the NHS has adapted to utilise this extra capacity to cope with Covid admissions.

And lets not forget around 1 in 4 or 5 of people in hospital with Covid have actually caught Covid in the hospital when there for something else. 

I'm not suggesting that there wasn't danger (mainly because staff were off ill rather than hospital capacity) but I don't believe it was any more at risk of collapse than any normal year.

I'm sure if it is as bad as you say then there will be some stats that you can easily lay your hands on to prove it.

Given you're the one refuting the official accounts, you're the one who should be able to provide said statistics. You're arguing that what we're being fed about the NHS is lies, but if you're basing this just off what the NHS has been saying, random anecdotes, etc, then you're doing so with flimsy at best basis. If you have an actual reason to challenge this idea that the NHS was at risk, then you should be able to provide evidence of such. Not doing so is just proving that you formed your opinion based on nothing substantial. 

[G STAR RAM]

6 minutes ago, Albert said:

The case loads are impacting this, not just the lockdowns. If you cared about mental health, you'd have advocated for the elimination strategy a long time ago, rather than basically going with the 'harden up lads' line of 'we have to learn to live with the virus'.

Elimination would have removed the strain, and the lack of case load would have allowed for proper support for people. Unfortunately, failures in management have led to this. 

Yes in retrospect elimination would have been better strategy to go for.

We didn't go for it and we are where we are.

If you cared about mental health you would not be advocating extending the lockdown once all of the vulnerable people have been vaccinated.

8 minutes ago, Albert said:

Well, give us the numbers. We're waiting. 

I'm sure you know how to use Google. 

You're always using data in your responses to back your point up, the fact that you are pretending that the data for this is not available in the public domain is very telling.

[G STAR RAM]

10 minutes ago, Albert said:

Given you're the one refuting the official accounts, you're the one who should be able to provide said statistics. You're arguing that what we're being fed about the NHS is lies, but if you're basing this just off what the NHS has been saying, random anecdotes, etc, then you're doing so with flimsy at best basis. If you have an actual reason to challenge this idea that the NHS was at risk, then you should be able to provide evidence of such. Not doing so is just proving that you formed your opinion based on nothing substantial. 

Would you like to define official accounts?

Do you mean the ones the media could find that would give them what they wanted to hear.

I've looked at the admission stats and am comfortable with my position thanks.

I'd suggest you do your research and come to your own conclusion rather than just listen to what the media tell you.