Coronavirus

[Eddie]

3 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Climate and demographics count now? Haven't you been comparing the UK to different climates and demographics the whole time? 

I've been comparing the UK to every other country in the entire world.

We have performed appallingly, and yet people still try to sugar-coat it, trying to fabricate excuses.

It's pathetic.

[Andicis]

13 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I've been comparing the UK to every other country in the entire world.

We have performed appallingly, and yet people still try to sugar-coat it, trying to fabricate excuses.

It's pathetic.

I mean you can do so if you like, it isn't a sensible thing to do though. Comparing countries without context is silly. 

[Albert]

4 hours ago, Andicis said:

Climate and demographics count now? Haven't you been comparing the UK to different climates and demographics the whole time? 

It's almost like you don't bother reading:

8 hours ago, Albert said:

The point with comparing the UK and Australia isn't about similar climates, etc, but rather, that the UK did demonstrate that they had effective tools for keeping the R number below 1. This alone is enough to justify that elimination was possible. Beyond that, it was a question about what the philosophy behind it was, and the UK chose not to go down that path, and you were entirely against that path. 

To me, the climate and demographics argument is moot in that point, as again, we know the UK could have kept the R number below 1. Whether it would have been more challenging or not is the real question there. The UK made many mistakes in its response though (as did Sweden), which have been discussed to death at this point. 

At least the vaccine is a ray of sunshine for the UK. 

The reason I answered the point about climate and demographics was because, you know, they were wrong about calling them very similar. I also pointed out the issue of how it was inconsistent with their previous arguments. As I've previous noted, such as the above, I don't think the point about demographics and climate is a major one, as long as a country has demonstrated that restrictions can bring the R number below 1, which the UK has demonstrated. 

[maxjam]

6 hours ago, Albert said:

It's not 'warped maths', it's literally the whole point. The source you've provided had 5% of people who caught Covid-19 having severe disease. This percentage is a key one, as you've attempted to argue that once people are vaccinated, reopening should just happen, regardless of the R number during or afterwards. This, however, shows that it remains a key measure, as if it goes back above 1, the vaccine isn't actually preventing severe disease, but rather, preventing people getting it in most cases. Now, this of course means that it's extremely likely that the R number will go well below 1 once the vaccination program is finished, even without restrictions, but that it should still be a focus during that process of reopening. 

You are correct, it is literally the whole point - we're finally on the same page ?

5% of people that caught covid after being vaccinated  in Israel did indeed end up in hospital. 

Or to put it another way only 0.004% in total caught covid after being vaccinated.

Or to put it another way only 0.002% of people were hospitalized after being vaccinated.

Or to put it another way 16 people out of over 700,000.

If we assume the UK has 70m people and scale that up, the total number of people that would end up in hospital would be less 1600.  Not 1600 today, 1600 tomorrow, 1600 the next day.  Just 1600 people total.

[Gone]

8 hours ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Here you go buddy...

Hope this helps! 

Can you add the UK to the chart? 

[Archied]

We can argue lockdown v no lockdown across different countries and even USA states and make what we will of the numbers and factors,

I live in this country, lockdown and restrictions as we know it / them in this country are not an attack on the virus ,they’re  an attack on people and people’s lives 

Protecting mine and my families lives and health from this virus has been way down the government s priorities , high risk no life

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, maxjam said:

You are correct, it is literally the whole point - we're finally on the same page ?

5% of people that caught covid after being vaccinated  in Israel did indeed end up in hospital. 

Or to put it another way only 0.004% in total caught covid after being vaccinated.

Or to put it another way only 0.002% of people were hospitalized after being vaccinated.

Or to put it another way 16 people out of over 700,000.

If we assume the UK has 70m people and scale that up, the total number of people that would end up in hospital would be less 1600.  Not 1600 today, 1600 tomorrow, 1600 the next day.  Just 1600 people total.

That's assuming everyone can be vaccinated. Does anyone have the figures for those who can't, and what the relevant hospitalisation numbers would be if Covid was left to burn through the entire population?

[Albert]

58 minutes ago, maxjam said:

You are correct, it is literally the whole point - we're finally on the same page ?

5% of people that caught covid after being vaccinated  in Israel did indeed end up in hospital. 

Or to put it another way only 0.004% in total caught covid after being vaccinated.

Or to put it another way only 0.002% of people were hospitalized after being vaccinated.

Or to put it another way 16 people out of over 700,000.

If we assume the UK has 70m people and scale that up, the total number of people that would end up in hospital would be less 1600.  Not 1600 today, 1600 tomorrow, 1600 the next day.  Just 1600 people total.

I'm not sure how repeating figures we both agree on is changing anything here. 

Scaling the figure isn't really helpful though, as the concern isn't if the infection rates remain the same, but rather, if rates of vaccination, or long term effectiveness, isn't enough to keep the under number under 1. As we know from the numbers we've just posted, people do still get seriously ill (around 5% on that sample), so if the R number isn't maintained below 1, then the numbers remaining low in Israel for this set is rather moot. 

That's the thing though, you've never really given a good reason why there shouldn't be a staged opening, with a requirement that the R number remain below 1. 

43 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Can you add the UK to the chart? 

I can't add it to that particular one, but I can give you a quick rundown of deaths per million people for the discussed countries:

UK: 1,782.91 per million. 

Sweden: 1,224.84 per million.

Denmark: 398.38 per million.

Finland: 131.33 per million. 

Norway: 113.5 per million. 

Iceland: 81.23 per million.

For reference, Australia is 35.84 per million, while New Zealand is 5.29 per million people. 

The UK does come out looking worse compared to Sweden, which is appalling given how badly Sweden's response went. Not really a surprise though, for the reasons discussed. The UK went with a worst of all World's style policy, trying to appease those opposed to lockdowns, despite public health advice. This meant they repeatedly undid the good that previous lockdowns did. Sweden's response, which still included fairly far reaching restrictions, was at least somewhat consistent. In the end, nobody is happy with how the UK handled it, as ultimately people had to suffer through wasted lockdowns, inconsistent messaging, and the UK still ended up in one of the worst positions in Europe. 

15 minutes ago, Archied said:

We can argue lockdown v no lockdown across different countries and even USA states and make what we will of the numbers and factors,

I live in this country, lockdown and restrictions as we know it / them in this country are not an attack on the virus ,they’re  an attack on people and people’s lives 

Protecting mine and my families lives and health from this virus has been way down the government s priorities , high risk no life

What's ruined so many lives was all the anti-lockdown rhetoric. If the government followed the advise back in September, the situation would not have been such a shambles. They were all too keen to appease certain groups, and the impact will be felt on the economy for decades. 

[Albert]

9 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

That's assuming everyone can be vaccinated. Does anyone have the figures for those who can't, and what the relevant hospitalisation numbers would be if Covid was left to burn through the entire population?

It's hard to quantify at this time. It depends on demographic factors, as well as whether the vaccine has an equal response across age groups. We also aren't sure how long the vaccines actually work for yet, though the vaccine coupled with continued restrictions for a time should make that concern less of an issue. 

[maxjam]

8 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

That's assuming everyone can be vaccinated. Does anyone have the figures for those who can't, and what the relevant hospitalisation numbers would be if Covid was left to burn through the entire population?

Don't know the numbers of people that can't be vaccinated but the Govt was hoping for 75% vaccine take up.  When they announced the figures from the top 4 elderly/vulnerable groups the other week (the 4 groups that make up 99% of all hospitalizations and deaths) take up of mid 90% was mentioned ? 

Add to that the fact that there is increasing evidence that those that have been vaccinated are also indirectly protecting those around them there is every reason to start feeling optimistic about returning to normal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55913913

[Albert]

8 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Don't know the numbers of people that can't be vaccinated but the Govt was hoping for 75% vaccine take up.  When they announced the figures from the top 4 elderly/vulnerable groups the other week (the 4 groups that make up 99% of all hospitalizations and deaths) take up of mid 90% was mentioned ? 

Add to that the fact that there is increasing evidence that those that have been vaccinated are also indirectly protecting those around them there is every reason to start feeling optimistic about returning to normal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55913913

...you know herd immunity is the whole point of a nationwide immunisation program right. 

The numbers are looking good though. Seems the government saved all their competence for the vaccine rollout. Won't save the hundred thousand who are already lost, but might just save the country long term. Just have to keep that R number below 1, and things could well start returning to normal in the coming months. 

[maxjam]

5 minutes ago, Albert said:

I'm not sure how repeating figures we both agree on is changing anything here. 

Scaling the figure isn't really helpful though, as the concern isn't if the infection rates remain the same, but rather, if rates of vaccination, or long term effectiveness, isn't enough to keep the under number under 1. As we know from the numbers we've just posted, people do still get seriously ill (around 5% on that sample), so if the R number isn't maintained below 1, then the numbers remaining low in Israel for this set is rather moot. 

So we're changing the parameters of the discussion now?

And I repeat whilst '5% of the sample' are hospitalized, it is only 5% of those that catch it after being vaccinated.  The figure is more accurately 0.002% as virtually no one is catching covid after being vaccinated. 

Continuing to drop 5% into the discussion is an attempt to mislead those that can't be bothered to keep up with the thread.

For the sake of clarity I hope we both agree on the data that in Israel of the 700k+ people vaccinated only 0.004% went on to then catch covid in total and only 0.002% of people in total ended up in hospital? A huge success by anyones standard ? 

[Albert]

15 minutes ago, Albert said:

I'm not sure how repeating figures we both agree on is changing anything here. 

Scaling the figure isn't really helpful though, as the concern isn't if the infection rates remain the same, but rather, if rates of vaccination, or long term effectiveness, isn't enough to keep the under number under 1. As we know from the numbers we've just posted, people do still get seriously ill (around 5% on that sample), so if the R number isn't maintained below 1, then the numbers remaining low in Israel for this set is rather moot. 

That's the thing though, you've never really given a good reason why there shouldn't be a staged opening, with a requirement that the R number remain below 1. 

I can't add it to that particular one, but I can give you a quick rundown of deaths per million people for the discussed countries:

UK: 1,782.91 per million. 

Sweden: 1,224.84 per million.

Denmark: 398.38 per million.

Finland: 131.33 per million. 

Norway: 113.5 per million. 

Iceland: 81.23 per million.

For reference, Australia is 35.84 per million, while New Zealand is 5.29 per million people. 

The UK does come out looking worse compared to Sweden, which is appalling given how badly Sweden's response went. Not really a surprise though, for the reasons discussed. The UK went with a worst of all World's style policy, trying to appease those opposed to lockdowns, despite public health advice. This meant they repeatedly undid the good that previous lockdowns did. Sweden's response, which still included fairly far reaching restrictions, was at least somewhat consistent. In the end, nobody is happy with how the UK handled it, as ultimately people had to suffer through wasted lockdowns, inconsistent messaging, and the UK still ended up in one of the worst positions in Europe. 

What's ruined so many lives was all the anti-lockdown rhetoric. If the government followed the advise back in September, the situation would not have been such a shambles. They were all too keen to appease certain groups, and the impact will be felt on the economy for decades. 

Post discussing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. 

@Archied: *Laughs*

[maxjam]

1 minute ago, Albert said:

...you know herd immunity is the whole point of a nationwide immunisation program right. 

The numbers are looking good though. Seems the government saved all their competence for the vaccine rollout. Won't save the hundred thousand who are already lost, but might just save the country long term. Just have to keep that R number below 1, and things could well start returning to normal in the coming months. 

Yes, which is why the 0.004% Pfizer data from Israel is extremely good news.

[Albert]

Just now, maxjam said:

So we're changing the parameters of the discussion now?

And I repeat whilst '5% of the sample' are hospitalized, it is only 5% of those that catch it after being vaccinated.  The figure is more accurately 0.002% as virtually no one is catching covid after being vaccinated. 

Continuing to drop 5% into the discussion is an attempt to mislead those that can't be bothered to keep up with the thread.

For the sake of clarity I hope we both agree on the data that in Israel of the 700k+ people vaccinated only 0.004% went on to then catch covid in total and only 0.002% of people in total ended up in hospital? A huge success by anyones standard ? 

I'm not sure why you keep repeating data that is not being disputed. Again, the results for the vaccine are very promising, which is a good thing. What you keep ignoring though is that these infection rates are for a country still trying to control the virus, which is helping suppress spread. The issue with opening up is that we need to be sure that the vaccines are enough to keep that trend going, and for it not to reverse. It is very unlikely to reverse on current numbers, but a staged reopening. 

To put that another way, the 'only 0.004% people people caught Covid' point is moot for that discussion, what matters is the relative drop in rate of infections, and whether it's enough to keep the R number below 1 with reopening. The best way to assure that's the case is a staged reopening as: 1) case numbers drop to a low level, 2) the majority of people are vaccinated. 

[Archied]

12 minutes ago, Albert said:

 

What's ruined so many lives was all the anti-lockdown rhetoric. If the government followed the advise back in September, the situation would not have been such a shambles. They were all too keen to appease certain groups, and the impact will be felt on the economy for decades. 

Do me a favour , September my backside

myself and my family have had to and have go out and circulate every day since day one , I’m talking lockdown and restrictions in THIS country, you live on the other side of the world,

even now the slightest proper look at border restrictions introduced and how they work in real terms shows they are not an attack on the virus , they are an attack on people ,

why do you consider yourself the authority on living through this in the U.K. when you don’t even live within a thousand miles of our shores ?

[Archied]

8 minutes ago, Albert said:

Post discussing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. 

@Archied: *Laughs*

As always I laugh at you and your unswerving I’m right on any and every subject ?, drop the desperation tactic it’s sad and boring 

[maxjam]

12 minutes ago, Albert said:

I'm not sure why you keep repeating data that is not being disputed.

To emphasise the fact that those that catch covid after being vaccinated is a tiny, tiny fraction of a percent. 

Not everyone keeps up with the thread (oh how I envy them ?) and they may inadvertently see 5% and assume their risk is still 1 in 20.

 

12 minutes ago, Albert said:

What you keep ignoring though is that these infection rates are for a country still trying to control the virus, which is helping suppress spread. The issue with opening up is that we need to be sure that the vaccines are enough to keep that trend going, and for it not to reverse. It is very unlikely to reverse on current numbers, but a staged reopening. 

I'm not ignoring anything, my argument has always been that we should open up in the spring - after all of the vulnerable and over 50s have had their jabs.  This group makes up 99% of all hospitalizations and deaths.  We then continue to vaccinate the rest of the population over the wamer months in time for the next potential winter peak.

[Archied]

6 minutes ago, Albert said:

I'm not sure why you keep repeating data that is not being disputed. Again, the results for the vaccine are very promising, which is a good thing. What you keep ignoring though is that these infection rates are for a country still trying to control the virus, which is helping suppress spread. The issue with opening up is that we need to be sure that the vaccines are enough to keep that trend going, and for it not to reverse. It is very unlikely to reverse on current numbers, but a staged reopening. 

To put that another way, the 'only 0.004% people people caught Covid' point is moot for that discussion, what matters is the relative drop in rate of infections, and whether it's enough to keep the R number below 1 with reopening. The best way to assure that's the case is a staged reopening as: 1) case numbers drop to a low level, 2) the majority of people are vaccinated. 

Re opening the U.K. or not has NO repeat NO effect on your life so perhaps you need to stop preaching to us

[ariotofmyown]

59 minutes ago, Archied said:

We can argue lockdown v no lockdown across different countries and even USA states and make what we will of the numbers and factors,

I live in this country, lockdown and restrictions as we know it / them in this country are not an attack on the virus ,they’re  an attack on people and people’s lives 

Protecting mine and my families lives and health from this virus has been way down the government s priorities , high risk no life

Thanks for posting that. It's important that everyone understands this is what you think when reading your multiple posts per day on all things Covid. It's a useful reference point when you claim people are just accusing you of conspiracy theories when the disagree with you. Thankfully the people who agree with you are about 0.001%.