Coronavirus

[Sith Happens]

51 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I agree. 

My wife has her first jab tomorrow, so that's the first step as far as we are concerned. I'm still holding out hope that we can see some cricket this Spring.

if there was a reason to keep us in lockdown forever its bloody cricket ???

[FindernRam]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

I agree. 

My wife has her first jab tomorrow, so that's the first step as far as we are concerned. I'm still holding out hope that we can see some cricket this Spring.

plenty of social distancing there in normal times.

[G STAR RAM]

3 hours ago, BIllyD said:

Unfortunately a lot of those with underlying health issues don't make it out of hospital. The figures given are in the main without underlying health issues, ICU slightly different with the percentage being a bit higher.

If you want to carry on with the myth it only impacts the elderly and those with underlying health issues, then I don't think there will be anything that changes your mind, no surprise really.

60k admitted since January in this age group, the majority of these not in the priority vaccinated groups, of all those in ICU, 1 in 4 not in these groups...no risk here to the under 50s though ?

So how many without any underlying health issues, you dont seem to have answered the question ?

[BIllyD]

8 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

So how many without any underlying health issues, you dont seem to have answered the question ?

The majority, did you not read that bit ??

[G STAR RAM]

1 minute ago, BIllyD said:

The majority, did you not read that bit ??

I did but it seemed like a bit of a throw away comment.

You've obviously researched it and was just wondering what the number or percentage is?

[BIllyD]

1 minute ago, G STAR RAM said:

I did but it seemed like a bit of a throw away comment.

You've obviously researched it and was just wondering what the number or percentage is?

Why is it a throwaway comment ?

I wasn't the one saying that the young without underlying health problems aren't impacted that was you. If it's 5% or 95% of the 60k in this age group that have been admitted to hospital, the fact is that you are wrong, dont you agree ? Or is this another one where you make an unfounded  claim and then when it's challenged you expect them to provide stats to prove it otherwise ?

Oh and another couple of articles for you

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-tayside-central-56034499

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/covid-patients-younger-sicker-first-23329994.amp

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.eveningexpress.co.uk/news/uk/25-of-covid-19-admissions-to-hospital-are-under-the-age-of-55-mps-told/amp/
 

There is plenty more, including the latest from Israel where the latest data shows the only group that is on the increase for hospital admissions is this age group, which hasn't been vaccinated yet. I'm going to hedge my bets though and guess who that you have lots of information that shows that this isn't the case based on YOUR claims ?

 

[G STAR RAM]

3 minutes ago, BIllyD said:

Why is it a throwaway comment ?

I wasn't the one saying that the young without underlying health problems aren't impacted that was you. If it's 5% or 95% of the 60k in this age group that have been admitted to hospital, the fact is that you are wrong, dont you agree ? Or is this another one where you make an unfounded  claim and then when it's challenged you expect them to provide stats to prove it otherwise ?

Oh and another couple of articles for you

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-tayside-central-56034499

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/covid-patients-younger-sicker-first-23329994.amp

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.eveningexpress.co.uk/news/uk/25-of-covid-19-admissions-to-hospital-are-under-the-age-of-55-mps-told/amp/
 

There is plenty more, including the latest from Israel where the latest data shows the only group that is on the increase for hospital admissions is this age group, which hasn't been vaccinated yet. I'm going to hedge my bets though and guess who that you have lots of information that shows that this isn't the case based on YOUR claims ?

 

Sorry, I missed it, what was the figure or percentage that did not havr underlying health conditions.

Obviously if it is 5% this would not substantiate it being the majority, so perhaps you would just be kind enough to confirm the number/percentage of the 60,000 that had no underlying health conditions please?

I'll repeat my comment from last night, as of 7 December 192 people under the age of 50 have died, so yes I still believe that the risk for this age group is minimal. 

[BIllyD]

4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Sorry, I missed it, what was the figure or percentage that did not havr underlying health conditions.

Obviously if it is 5% this would not substantiate it being the majority, so perhaps you would just be kind enough to confirm the number/percentage of the 60,000 that had no underlying health conditions please?

I'll repeat my comment from last night, as of 7 December 192 people under the age of 50 have died, so yes I still believe that the risk for this age group is minimal. 

Given you are the one making the claim, I'll ask you the same question, what is the percentage of this 60k that you see that gives evidence that it's minimal ? I'm guessing you have this as you are the one stating it doesn't really impact the young ?

I have already said ICU is at least 25% that do not have underlying conditions for this age group, the majority would equate to over 50%, these are groups 1-5, as pointed out earlier in the thread other conditions in groups lower than this such as diabetes, BMI etc make it difficult to put an exact percentage against it.

Another article for you

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/coronavirus-variant-in-u-k-probed-for-increased-risk-to-younger-people-11611661304

 

[G STAR RAM]

4 minutes ago, BIllyD said:

Given you are the one making the claim, I'll ask you the same question, what is the percentage of this 60k that you see that gives evidence that it's minimal ? I'm guessing you have this as you are the one stating it doesn't really impact the young ?

I have already said ICU is at least 25% that do not have underlying conditions for this age group, the majority would equate to over 50%, these are groups 1-5, as pointed out earlier in the thread other conditions in groups lower than this such as diabetes, BMI etc make it difficult to put an exact percentage against it.

Another article for you

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/coronavirus-variant-in-u-k-probed-for-increased-risk-to-younger-people-11611661304

 

Ive given you the figure that my claim is based on.

So out of this 60,000 admitted since 1 January, how many were under 50 and had no underlying health conditions?

Surely its easy just to give me the number isnt it?

If you dont know its probably easier just to say rather than going round in circles and posting links that don't answer the question that I have asked.

[BIllyD]

4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Ive given you the figure that my claim is based on.

So out of this 60,000 admitted since 1 January, how many were under 50 and had no underlying health conditions?

Surely its easy just to give me the number isnt it?

If you dont know its probably easier just to say rather than going round in circles and posting links that don't answer the question that I have asked.

Maybe you can't read, just based on the  ICU over 25% or 1 in 4 if that helps. This is the minimum number which equates to 15,000, given that you'll want the actual percentage rather than the estimated figure which is "majority" - just in case your struggling on that again, this is over 50%, we shall stick to the confirmed number just from ICU.
 

You gave a figure related to deaths, how is that proving that the young are impacted, I have just provided countless links showing that these people need hospital treatment, unless you are saying this doesn't count ?

[maxjam]

55 minutes ago, BIllyD said:

There is plenty more, including the latest from Israel where the latest data shows the only group that is on the increase for hospital admissions is this age group, which hasn't been vaccinated yet. I'm going to hedge my bets though and guess who that you have lots of information that shows that this isn't the case based on YOUR claims ?

Surely thats more likely down to the fact the vaccinated group are no longer getting seriously ill - give it a few months you would expect near 100% of admissions to be in the under 50s group.

[BIllyD]

Just now, maxjam said:

Surely thats more likely down to the fact the vaccinated group are no longer getting seriously ill - give it a few months you would expect near 100% of admissions to be in the under 50s group.

Yes you are correct. It was highlighting that the young without any underlying issues are at risk from the virus until as you say they are vaccinated.

[maxjam]

37 minutes ago, BIllyD said:

Yes you are correct. It was highlighting that the young without any underlying issues are at risk from the virus until as you say they are vaccinated.

True, I don't think anyone is saying they don't?  But they do only make up a tiny fraction of hospital admissions - furthermore, if you can lower the R rate, either by lockdown or vaccinating an increasingly large percentage of the population the younger generations risk will automatically lower progressively until its their turn to get jabbed;

Various age related data here;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55586994

The only really area of concern for me is 'a steep rise in the numbers of people in their mid-40s to mid-60s becoming seriously ill with Covid and being admitted to intensive care units' - although I would hope that the Govt chose to prioritise everyone over 50 because most of that rise would be in the 50-65 age group and not the 45-50 group. 

[maxjam]

I'll be honest and say I didn't think we had a cat in hells chance when it was first announced.  

 

[Gone]

33 minutes ago, BIllyD said:

Yes you are correct. It was highlighting that the young without any underlying issues are at risk from the virus until as you say they are vaccinated.

I’m in the under 50s gang, I’m more than happy to take the risk. Please Boris and co don’t wait for us guys and girls to be vaccinated (which I will, but probably won’t get my turn until September time) once all the vulnerable and elderly have been jabbed open up everything do not wait for my age group. 

[BIllyD]

2 minutes ago, maxjam said:

True, I don't think anyone is saying they don't?  But they do only make up a tiny fraction of hospital admissions - furthermore, if you can lower the R rate, either by lockdown or vaccinating an increasingly large percentage of the population the younger generations risk will automatically lower progressively until its their turn to get jabbed;

Various agre related data here;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55586994

The only really area of concern for me is 'a steep rise in the numbers of people in their mid-40s to mid-60s becoming seriously ill with Covid and being admitted to intensive care units' - although I would hope that the Govt chose to prioritise everyone over 50 because most of that rise would be in the 50-65 age group and not the 45-50 group. 

You hit the nail on the head in what I'm implying. This group is indeed the lowest and even all the total hospital  admissions combined only comes to something like 0.2% of the population of this age group. To say though that the risk to this age group based on the deaths is minimal is a myth based on inaccuracies. Aa you say, control that R rate and you haven't got a problem. However lift all restrictions thinking the risk to this age group is almost non existent and you increase that R rate and the knock on effects that come with it.

For me it's about control, do that and we return to normal pretty quickly.

[BIllyD]

3 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

I’m in the under 50s gang, I’m more than happy to take the risk. Please Boris and co don’t wait for us guys and girls to be vaccinated (which I will, but probably won’t get my turn until September time) once all the vulnerable and elderly have been jabbed open up everything do not wait for my age group. 

That's great, I don't care about your risk (I mean the nicest possible way ?) though. I am however concerned that if you do get it and end up in hospital then you would take a bed, so hopefully Boris takes your kind offer into consideration but looks at it a bit more scientifically ?

[maxjam]

9 minutes ago, BIllyD said:

You hit the nail on the head in what I'm implying. This group is indeed the lowest and even all the total hospital  admissions combined only comes to something like 0.2% of the population of this age group. To say though that the risk to this age group based on the deaths is minimal is a myth based on inaccuracies. Aa you say, control that R rate and you haven't got a problem. However lift all restrictions thinking the risk to this age group is almost non existent and you increase that R rate and the knock on effects that come with it.

For me it's about control, do that and we return to normal pretty quickly.

I think we're probably almost on the same page.  

The only difference I can see is I'd be more inclined to lift all restrictions in the Spring once all the over 50s have been jabbed and allow people to judge their own level of risk whilst the vaccination program continues to progress over the summer - no one would force you to go to the pub, the shops, Pride Park or wherever but if you wanted to, you should be allowed to go.

[BIllyD]

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

I think we're probably almost on the same page.  

The only difference I can see is I'd be more inclined to lift all restrictions in the Spring once all the over 50s have been jabbed and allow people to judge their own level of risk whilst the vaccination program continues to progress over the summer - no one would force you to go to the pub, the shops, Pride Park or wherever but if you wanted to, you should be allowed to go.

I expect we are. To be honest it's not the risk to me that I'm overly worried about, it's giving the government an option to go into another lockdown. 

[maxjam]

3 minutes ago, BIllyD said:

I expect we are. To be honest it's not the risk to me that I'm overly worried about, it's giving the government an option to go into another lockdown. 

TBH I don't think we'll see another lockdown unless there is a particularly nasty mutation.  I think its more a case of optics and finances. 

The Govt will have to work out what number of deaths the twitterati and media are happy with and the cost to the NHS treating those still waiting for a vaccine after the spring against the benefits of opening up the economy fully again.