Coronavirus - the killer flu that will wipe us out? (Vol. 8)

[croyde]

I had a heart attack years ago. Rushed to hospital, straight into resus.

Finally a cardiac doc looked at me and just said this isn't a heart attack.

I was wheeled into a corridor with a monitor attached to me and left there for hours.

My heartbeat kept dropping below 40 and the monitor would make an alarming sound.

Finally a nurse came and said that's annoying isn't it and switched it off. Meanwhile I was terrified.

I was finally admitted to a ward and in the morning told that I had indeed had a heart attack and that I would have an angiogram later.

The surgeon performing it was the guy who had seen me the day before and had said that this was no heart attack.

He looked at me surprised and said 'Oh it's you'.

Yes, sadly waiting in corridors in NHS hospitals with serious conditions really is nothing new.

[markyb_lcy]

MOTORVATOR said:

witko999 said:

Alucidnation said:

witko999 said:

Until the 'hospitalisations' data is sensibly recorded and presented, this is nothing more than fearmongering.

How many of those inpatients caught it in hospital?

How many were admitted to hospital specifically for it?

How many are in hospital for something else and just happen to have tested positive?

How many need treatment for it?

As is always the case with statistics, crap in = crap out.

What does it matter where they caught it?

They have, and are now in hospital with it.

How many did they infect before they were admitted?

It is deliberately misleading. I don't like being lied to. Perhaps you do.

If I am hospitalised by a football injury, it means I need hospital treatment for an injury I sustained while playing football. If I present to hospital for a routine blood sample and the nurse notices I have a bruise on my leg from football, I am not a football hospitalisation.

The NHS/government/media is reporting Covid hospitalisations knowing that most people think they were specifically admitted to hospital for Covid treatment.

I think it may actually be you that is making the deliberately misleading statements.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wuhan-n...

Of course if you already have a positive test you should not be playing football.

Nor should you be presenting for your non urgent hospital appointment with a positive test as that is why they asked you have the test in the first place - to keep you out.

Crap in - Crap out as you say, just maybe not from PHE.

Some football injuries require urgent medical attention too motorvator, which I think was the point.... people are going into hospital for a variety of reasons. Some are testing positive for sars-cov-2 infection as part of admission (therefor they didn’t know they were positive before playing football, or whatever). These are going down on the numbers (or rather being presented to us as) “covid-19 hospitalisations”. Many of these will be completely asymptomatic and could barely be described as a “case” imo. Some of them will be false positives and some of them will be detection of dead virus matter, long after they’ve ceased to be infectious.

These numbers are then used to paint the NHS is as on the brink (which it generally is at this time of year anyway) “due to Covid hospitalisations”.

Edited by markyb_lcy on Wednesday 28th October 07:57

[MOTORVATOR]

markyb_lcy said:

MOTORVATOR said:

witko999 said:

Alucidnation said:

witko999 said:

Until the 'hospitalisations' data is sensibly recorded and presented, this is nothing more than fearmongering.

How many of those inpatients caught it in hospital?

How many were admitted to hospital specifically for it?

How many are in hospital for something else and just happen to have tested positive?

How many need treatment for it?

As is always the case with statistics, crap in = crap out.

What does it matter where they caught it?

They have, and are now in hospital with it.

How many did they infect before they were admitted?

It is deliberately misleading. I don't like being lied to. Perhaps you do.

If I am hospitalised by a football injury, it means I need hospital treatment for an injury I sustained while playing football. If I present to hospital for a routine blood sample and the nurse notices I have a bruise on my leg from football, I am not a football hospitalisation.

The NHS/government/media is reporting Covid hospitalisations knowing that most people think they were specifically admitted to hospital for Covid treatment.

I think it may actually be you that is making the deliberately misleading statements.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wuhan-n...

Of course if you already have a positive test you should not be playing football.

Nor should you be presenting for your non urgent hospital appointment with a positive test as that is why they asked you have the test in the first place - to keep you out.

Crap in - Crap out as you say, just maybe not from PHE.

Some football injuries require urgent medical attention too motorvator, which I think was the point.... people are going into hospital for a variety of reasons. Some are testing positive for sars-cov-2 infection as part of admission (therefor they didn’t know they were positive before playing football, or whatever). These are going down on the numbers (or rather being presented to us as) “covid-19 hospitalisations”. Many of these will be completely asymptomatic and could barely be described as a “case” imo. Some of them will be false positives and some of them will be detection of dead virus matter, long after they’ve ceased to be infectious.

These numbers are then used to paint the NHS is as on the brink (which it generally is at this time of year anyway) “due to Covid hospitalisations”.

Edited by markyb_lcy on Wednesday 28th October 07:57

Which part of that clinical assessment criteria did you not read? Nobody is meant to be testing footballers that turn up with a sprained ankle not that you would expect them to need an overnight bed either.

In any case even if they did test every single person presenting that needed a bed it would only be say 1 in 200 of those that test positive as that is the community prevalence.

Seriously take half a percent off the hospital beds / admissions figures if it really makes you feel better but stop spouting cobblers in order to decry the statistics available, it just makes you look extremely desperate to find something to support your own arguments.

• The collective you, not you you.

[MOTORVATOR]

survivalist said:

MOTORVATOR said:

survivalist said:

MOTORVATOR said:

No interventions at all? I think it is a no brainer we would be seeing higher numbers than we are today but it maybe debatable as to how much by. Whether that would be sustainable is anyones guess but if you guess wrong the damage could make everyones eyes water a bit more than not being able to get a pint or having to wear a mask to go shopping etc.

In don’t think you can evidence your ‘no brainer’ point any more than mark can evidence his point that measures don’t work.

It’s also not just about enjoying a pint or wearing a mask. It’s about the impact that those things and many other similar activities have on the economy, people’s livelihoods etc

It’s easy to imply that people are being selfish in demanding such things, but in our society that’s how wealth is distributed. People spend their wages on stuff, so people earn a living and, in turn, spend their wages on stuff.

Firstly, are you going to deny that opening back up did not increase prevalence? That is fairly well evidenced I would have thought, hence measures do work.

Secondly, please don't preach to me about economies and peoples livelihoods not having earned a sausage myself since April or taken a single penny in benefit from the state, something the chap I was responding to knows as he is in the same boat.

And here's one for you, I come from an era when it was actually quite normal for pubs to shut at 10.30 and indeed during the afternoon, you know before we became a service heavy country. So thanks for your attempted education on wealth creation but the last sentence may give you a clue how much credence I am going to give it.

Pubs, bars and restaurants have been open for a lot longer than schools and universities, so if we’re using the ‘no brainer’ approach we are targeting the wrong areas.

Regardless of whether you like or dislike our services heavy economy, many people rely on the hospitality industry. An industry that the government seems to view as an easy target for restrictions because it’s easy to claim that holidays, nights out etc are a selfish luxury we don’t need during a pandemic.

All of the pubs, bars and restaurants are open round my way as is the Airport, Schools and University. Exception to that being the theatre, nightclubs and casinos most of which were about to go bust before this virus was ever even heard about.

The local football club being served a winding up order by HMRC. Sorry but that was on it's way as well.

If the prevalence gets out of hand I would fully expect and support our local authority bringing in further restrictions to licenced premises beyond the 10 o'clock closing.

That's not selfish that's a community that understands the long term benefit of keeping prevalence low so that it can sustain as much activity as possible.

[scrubchub]

MOTORVATOR said:

Well let's just brush over the fact that there were no major familial support or human contact restrictions as you call it until those that refused to be educated and sensible started taking the piss. We were in a relatively good place just six weeks ago.

As for beds and deaths again unevidenced claims. We are only just coming in to Flu season about now. Seasonal Pneumonia instead of Covid? Yes please mate, Course of antibiotics and I should be good to go as long as I don't get Covid on top of it I guess!

I don't understand how someone can be so passionate (almost obsessed judging by the numbers of posts you make on the subject) about people belittling the severity of Co-vid, yet in the same paragraph belittle the severity of pneumonia. Why is it ok for you to dismiss one disease that kills thousands every single year but then attack those who do, literally, exactly the same thing about co-vid? What a hypocrite.

For what it's worth, I've had both, and from my experience anyone saying that they would swap co-vid for pneumonia must have the intelligence of a farmyard animal.

And if you don't like 'unevidenced claims' then do you have any evidence to prove that people 'taking the piss' (whatever that means) have directly caused the rising numbers of cases now? Again, what a hypocrite.

[markyb_lcy]

scrubchub said:

And if you don't like 'unevidenced claims' then do you have any evidence to prove that people 'taking the piss' (whatever that means) have directly caused the rising numbers of cases now? Again, what a hypocrite.

Of course he doesn’t, as doesn’t anybody when challenged to evidence that non-compliance with rules is the cause of the increase in “covid cases”, “covid hospitalisations” or “covid deaths”.

The best anyone can ever offer is anecdotal examples of non-compliance, but there are as many of those in low tier areas as there are in high tier ones.

[Sophisticated Sarah]

shakindog said:

Half the time when you attend a&e they send you down covid possible side.
They did with me 4 times over 2 weeks despite one of the days having had test results back negative. Suffice to say I sit here typing this for a covid ward with a chest drain in lucky me only too nearly 2 weeks.
From what has been said the standard of testing is absolutely dire.
False negative false positive all sorts.
But to all the neig sayers in here trust me it’s coming mostly from what I’ve seen for 50+ unhealthy folk. I’m under 50 and fairly healthy so should be ok.
But what I’ve seen with my own eyes in here is absolutely shocking for the staff just trying to deal with it day in day out I really feel for them.
Folk sat in ambulance waiting hand over for 2-3 hours then in a chair for 2-3 more then with a bit of luck a bed for few hours till they find you a spot. I’m in a ward with 6 folk all covid positive they have been in ranging from 2 days to 2 weeks some worse symptoms than other

A&E should be fun over Winter. They’re no longer allowed to put patients on beds in the corridors due to lack of capacity, need to test every patient before admittance, and until space frees up patients have to stay in the ambulances. Winter last year before ‘new normal’ nonsense they’d run out of space in A&E corridors so were expanding onto neighbouring wards. I can see death rates further increasing due to these restrictions.

[MOTORVATOR]

markyb_lcy said:

scrubchub said:

And if you don't like 'unevidenced claims' then do you have any evidence to prove that people 'taking the piss' (whatever that means) have directly caused the rising numbers of cases now? Again, what a hypocrite.

Of course he doesn’t, as doesn’t anybody when challenged to evidence that non-compliance with rules is the cause of the increase in “covid cases”, “covid hospitalisations” or “covid deaths”.

The best anyone can ever offer is anecdotal examples of non-compliance, but there are as many of those in low tier areas as there are in high tier ones.

The hypocritical are those that continually whine and complain about restrictions to their lives because they know best and when the prevalence does rise after reduction of those restrictions, resulting in a bit of an issue, then look for every possible argument to say prevalence doesn't result in increased deaths and health care load.

You wanted a reduction in restrictions as you were confident that infections were the way forward to provide HI, you got a reduction in restrictions and the infections have risen as you wanted. Now own the outcome and stop deflecting and blaming everyone else.

The numbers of deaths I am looking at are not footballers and if they were I really would have expected a ban on kicking a ball about as it seems to be more dangerous than cancer according to you lot.

[Jordan210]

From Diane Abbot on twitter....

"Reports of a 2nd lockdown in many papers, clearly a Number 10 briefing.

Current policy clearly doesn't work. 327 people died in the latest daily data. SAGE now expects thousands more lives to be lost.

We need a full lockdown for 6-8 weeks & proper NHS testing and tracing"

[witko999]

MOTORVATOR said:

Which part of that clinical assessment criteria did you not read? Nobody is meant to be testing footballers that turn up with a sprained ankle not that you would expect them to need an overnight bed either.

In any case even if they did test every single person presenting that needed a bed it would only be say 1 in 200 of those that test positive as that is the community prevalence.

Seriously take half a percent off the hospital beds / admissions figures if it really makes you feel better but stop spouting cobblers in order to decry the statistics available, it just makes you look extremely desperate to find something to support your own arguments.

• The collective you, not you you.

You're quite good at missing the point. The point wasn't about injured footballers turning up to hospital. It was about the misuse and misrepresentation of the 'hospitalisations' statistics to monger fear.

Is every one of those in the Leeds hospitals mentioned above in hospital specifically for Covid treatment? Or are they in fact in hospital with something completely unrelated, and happen to have returned a positive test at some point, for which they need no treatment? If we only have fuzzy data which doesn't differentiate between anything, then we can't make sensible decisions.

[shakindog]

Alucidnation said:

Out of interest, what were you admitted for?

Originally 5 weeks ago as a day case for some minor surgery.
Since then and multiple different negative covid test and at least 4 a&e visits as my symptoms got worse till finally on Monday after admission on Friday I suddenly have a positive test result.

ETA
Everyone else in the room came with something non covid related.
They fetched a guy in fresh from 2 weeks in icu who came in with loss of balance.
He says it’s like the pits of hell in icu. Not seen in myself so can’t comment

Edited by shakindog on Wednesday 28th October 12:13

[markyb_lcy]

MOTORVATOR said:

markyb_lcy said:

scrubchub said:

And if you don't like 'unevidenced claims' then do you have any evidence to prove that people 'taking the piss' (whatever that means) have directly caused the rising numbers of cases now? Again, what a hypocrite.

Of course he doesn’t, as doesn’t anybody when challenged to evidence that non-compliance with rules is the cause of the increase in “covid cases”, “covid hospitalisations” or “covid deaths”.

The best anyone can ever offer is anecdotal examples of non-compliance, but there are as many of those in low tier areas as there are in high tier ones.

The hypocritical are those that continually whine and complain about restrictions to their lives because they know best and when the prevalence does rise after reduction of those restrictions, resulting in a bit of an issue, then look for every possible argument to say prevalence doesn't result in increased deaths and health care load.

You wanted a reduction in restrictions as you were confident that infections were the way forward to provide HI, you got a reduction in restrictions and the infections have risen as you wanted. Now own the outcome and stop deflecting and blaming everyone else.

The numbers of deaths I am looking at are not footballers and if they were I really would have expected a ban on kicking a ball about as it seems to be more dangerous than cancer according to you lot.

The change in direction of prevalence (from downward to upward) has occurred one single time after restrictions had been loosened. In actual fact, the change in direction happened a fairly significant time after those restrictions had been loosened a number of times. The closest “restriction” to the change in directional trend that was loosened happens to be allowing children to return to schools and universities going back. Should we hold that one responsible? Or a previous one? Or the whole lot?

I think you’ll struggle to objectively prove that the loosening of the restrictions directly changed the course from a downward to an upward trend especially as it also coincided with the usual seasonal increase in respiratory diseases.

This, of course, is completely ignoring that the original point was about non-compliance, not compliance with loosening restrictions. Certainly people following loosening restrictions cannot be characterised as “taking the piss”. In fact, with the likes of “Eat Out to Help Out”, it would be more fair to characterise those following that loosening restriction as doing their duty as per the governmental diktat.

So which is it? The loosening of restrictions or the non-compliance with restrictions?

Edited by markyb_lcy on Wednesday 28th October 12:09

[MOTORVATOR]

witko999 said:

MOTORVATOR said:

Which part of that clinical assessment criteria did you not read? Nobody is meant to be testing footballers that turn up with a sprained ankle not that you would expect them to need an overnight bed either.

In any case even if they did test every single person presenting that needed a bed it would only be say 1 in 200 of those that test positive as that is the community prevalence.

Seriously take half a percent off the hospital beds / admissions figures if it really makes you feel better but stop spouting cobblers in order to decry the statistics available, it just makes you look extremely desperate to find something to support your own arguments.

• The collective you, not you you.

You're quite good at missing the point. The point wasn't about injured footballers turning up to hospital. It was about the misuse and misrepresentation of the 'hospitalisations' statistics to monger fear.

Is every one of those in the Leeds hospitals mentioned above in hospital specifically for Covid treatment? Or are they in fact in hospital with something completely unrelated, and happen to have returned a positive test at some point, for which they need no treatment? If we only have fuzzy data which doesn't differentiate between anything, then we can't make sensible decisions.

You came up with a huge list of reasons why 'apparently' someone is intentionally misrepresenting numbers.

Fact - All electives are screened to ensure they have a negative test before turning up so they are not part of this imaginary problem you believe exists. (That includes my Mum for her chemo infusion today)

Fact - If you turn up for emergency procedure you really do not want Covid on top of whatever your issue is as the outcome is as the outcomes are evidenced to be not very good at all.

Fact - As with emergency admissions an elective really does not need Covid on top as again the outcomes are very poor.

Fact - If you are testing a random that turns up from community for emergency treatment, not as a result of their covid symptoms, then the expectation would be that you are no more likely to test positive than the general community prevalence of say 1 in 200 so are not making a major statistical difference to the numbers.

You want it to be fuzzy as it doesn't suit you but truth is the numbers being presented are not being massaged to monger fear as you accuse from what I can see.

[shakindog]

MOTORVATOR said:

witko999 said:

MOTORVATOR said:

Which part of that clinical assessment criteria did you not read? Nobody is meant to be testing footballers that turn up with a sprained ankle not that you would expect them to need an overnight bed either.

In any case even if they did test every single person presenting that needed a bed it would only be say 1 in 200 of those that test positive as that is the community prevalence.

Seriously take half a percent off the hospital beds / admissions figures if it really makes you feel better but stop spouting cobblers in order to decry the statistics available, it just makes you look extremely desperate to find something to support your own arguments.

• The collective you, not you you.

You're quite good at missing the point. The point wasn't about injured footballers turning up to hospital. It was about the misuse and misrepresentation of the 'hospitalisations' statistics to monger fear.

Is every one of those in the Leeds hospitals mentioned above in hospital specifically for Covid treatment? Or are they in fact in hospital with something completely unrelated, and happen to have returned a positive test at some point, for which they need no treatment? If we only have fuzzy data which doesn't differentiate between anything, then we can't make sensible decisions.

You came up with a huge list of reasons why 'apparently' someone is intentionally misrepresenting numbers.

Fact - All electives are screened to ensure they have a negative test before turning up so they are not part of this imaginary problem you believe exists. (That includes my Mum for her chemo infusion today)

Fact - If you turn up for emergency procedure you really do not want Covid on top of whatever your issue is as the outcome is as the outcomes are evidenced to be not very good at all.

Fact - As with emergency admissions an elective really does not need Covid on top as again the outcomes are very poor.

Fact - If you are testing a random that turns up from community for emergency treatment, not as a result of their covid symptoms, then the expectation would be that you are no more likely to test positive than the general community prevalence of say 1 in 200 so are not making a major statistical difference to the numbers.

You want it to be fuzzy as it doesn't suit you but truth is the numbers being presented are not being massaged to monger fear as you accuse from what I can see.

Just to add my two penny

Needed ct scan wouldn’t let me have one till covid test results back.
Came back negative all good appointment for 12:00 happy days.
Returning to a&e 12 hours later down the covid route please.
I truly believe I picked it up at hospital as had been nowhere else except the local doctors not anywhere as you say I didn’t want it thanks

[witko999]

MOTORVATOR said:

witko999 said:

MOTORVATOR said:

Which part of that clinical assessment criteria did you not read? Nobody is meant to be testing footballers that turn up with a sprained ankle not that you would expect them to need an overnight bed either.

In any case even if they did test every single person presenting that needed a bed it would only be say 1 in 200 of those that test positive as that is the community prevalence.

Seriously take half a percent off the hospital beds / admissions figures if it really makes you feel better but stop spouting cobblers in order to decry the statistics available, it just makes you look extremely desperate to find something to support your own arguments.

• The collective you, not you you.

You're quite good at missing the point. The point wasn't about injured footballers turning up to hospital. It was about the misuse and misrepresentation of the 'hospitalisations' statistics to monger fear.

Is every one of those in the Leeds hospitals mentioned above in hospital specifically for Covid treatment? Or are they in fact in hospital with something completely unrelated, and happen to have returned a positive test at some point, for which they need no treatment? If we only have fuzzy data which doesn't differentiate between anything, then we can't make sensible decisions.

You came up with a huge list of reasons why 'apparently' someone is intentionally misrepresenting numbers.

Fact - All electives are screened to ensure they have a negative test before turning up so they are not part of this imaginary problem you believe exists. (That includes my Mum for her chemo infusion today)

Fact - If you turn up for emergency procedure you really do not want Covid on top of whatever your issue is as the outcome is as the outcomes are evidenced to be not very good at all.

Fact - As with emergency admissions an elective really does not need Covid on top as again the outcomes are very poor.

Fact - If you are testing a random that turns up from community for emergency treatment, not as a result of their covid symptoms, then the expectation would be that you are no more likely to test positive than the general community prevalence of say 1 in 200 so are not making a major statistical difference to the numbers.

You want it to be fuzzy as it doesn't suit you but truth is the numbers being presented are not being massaged to monger fear as you accuse from what I can see.

This is the last I'll say on the matter as you don't seem to grasp what I'm saying.

I don't disagree with any of your facts above.

However, when the general public are told that, for example, today there has been 1500 hospitalisations, it suggests that 1500 people have been admitted to hospital today because they need Covid treatment. This is what the news is stating daily.
The truth could be that 1400 of them were already in hospital and just happened to give a positive test (false or otherwise), for which they need no intervention. Yet nobody is attempting to explain this. Only the hospitalisations headline is being used.

Apparently up to 85% of the population worldwide have the HSV1 virus. If everyone currently in hospital was repeatedly tested for HSV1, you could suddenly claim that we have an onslaught of Herpes hospitalisations. It would be very misleading though, wouldn't it?

[MOTORVATOR]

markyb_lcy said:

MOTORVATOR said:

markyb_lcy said:

scrubchub said:

And if you don't like 'unevidenced claims' then do you have any evidence to prove that people 'taking the piss' (whatever that means) have directly caused the rising numbers of cases now? Again, what a hypocrite.

Of course he doesn’t, as doesn’t anybody when challenged to evidence that non-compliance with rules is the cause of the increase in “covid cases”, “covid hospitalisations” or “covid deaths”.

The best anyone can ever offer is anecdotal examples of non-compliance, but there are as many of those in low tier areas as there are in high tier ones.

The hypocritical are those that continually whine and complain about restrictions to their lives because they know best and when the prevalence does rise after reduction of those restrictions, resulting in a bit of an issue, then look for every possible argument to say prevalence doesn't result in increased deaths and health care load.

You wanted a reduction in restrictions as you were confident that infections were the way forward to provide HI, you got a reduction in restrictions and the infections have risen as you wanted. Now own the outcome and stop deflecting and blaming everyone else.

The numbers of deaths I am looking at are not footballers and if they were I really would have expected a ban on kicking a ball about as it seems to be more dangerous than cancer according to you lot.

The change in direction of prevalence (from downward to upward) has occurred one single time after restrictions had been loosened. In actual fact, the change in direction happened a fairly significant time after those restrictions had been loosened a number of times. The closest “restriction” to the change in directional trend that was loosened happens to be allowing children to return to schools and universities going back. Should we hold that one responsible? Or a previous one? Or the whole lot?

I think you’ll struggle to objectively prove that the loosening of the restrictions directly changed the course from a downward to an upward trend especially as it also coincided with the usual seasonal increase in respiratory diseases.

This, of course, is completely ignoring that the original point was about non-compliance, not compliance with loosening restrictions.

So which is it?

Sorry you are losing me now. You started out with restrictions made no difference and hence were not worth bothering with.

If you now accept that restrictions do have an effect on controlling prevalence then the muppets praising the student parties etc and breaking those restrictions six weeks ago are exactly that - Muppets.

As you know I have always been supportive of going either down the route of suppression or unencumbered life. There is a price to pay with either but what you have to do is one or the other or both prices will still be paid for no real benefit.

I could never see unencumbered life being acceptable to the population, our government or indeed other governments so we were stuck with suppression.

As it is I suspect the lack of hard and rapid intervention a few weeks back for likely a short time will now result in a long drawn out period of half arsed interventions that everyone can whine about for months to come and You and I will not have a clue what may or may not be feasible to run as an event.in the near future.

[MOTORVATOR]

witko999 said:

This is the last I'll say on the matter as you don't seem to grasp what I'm saying.

I don't disagree with any of your facts above.

However, when the general public are told that, for example, today there has been 1500 hospitalisations, it suggests that 1500 people have been admitted to hospital today because they need Covid treatment. This is what the news is stating daily.
The truth could be that 1400 of them were already in hospital and just happened to give a positive test (false or otherwise), for which they need no intervention. Yet nobody is attempting to explain this. Only the hospitalisations headline is being used.

Apparently up to 85% of the population worldwide have the HSV1 virus. If everyone currently in hospital was repeatedly tested for HSV1, you could suddenly claim that we have an onslaught of Herpes hospitalisations. It would be very misleading though, wouldn't it?

I grasp exactly what you are saying. Admissions are not the important number as someone in and out the same day and sent home with a box of tissues and told to isolate is a great result. In fact you might even question the need for them to have gone to hospital in the first place.

Those taking up a bed though are obviously impacted as I'm pretty sure NHS hospitals are not being used a hotel any longer. And if you are retained in a hospital bed for anything the last thing you want is Covid as you no doubt have one of those comorbidity things.

Now what the news is stating has been fearmongering all the way through as they live and breath hysteria by false interpretation and I agree that is crap but that is not the fault of the numbers themselves.

[red_slr]

Anyone been keeping an eye on the health data projections?

They have been pretty accurate so far.

Not looking promising from mid December through to Feb.



Looks like they are predicting lock down from mid December.

[Dr Z]

red_slr said:

Anyone been keeping an eye on the health data projections?

They have been pretty accurate so far.

Not looking promising from mid December through to Feb.



Looks like they are predicting lock down from mid December.

I'm looking at this one:



The epidemic is tracking faster and at the worser range of the forecast at the moment. It's not sustainable.

From a report in July:

https://acmedsci.ac.uk/file-download/51353957

[markyb_lcy]

MOTORVATOR said:

markyb_lcy said:

MOTORVATOR said:

markyb_lcy said:

scrubchub said:

And if you don't like 'unevidenced claims' then do you have any evidence to prove that people 'taking the piss' (whatever that means) have directly caused the rising numbers of cases now? Again, what a hypocrite.

Of course he doesn’t, as doesn’t anybody when challenged to evidence that non-compliance with rules is the cause of the increase in “covid cases”, “covid hospitalisations” or “covid deaths”.

The best anyone can ever offer is anecdotal examples of non-compliance, but there are as many of those in low tier areas as there are in high tier ones.

The hypocritical are those that continually whine and complain about restrictions to their lives because they know best and when the prevalence does rise after reduction of those restrictions, resulting in a bit of an issue, then look for every possible argument to say prevalence doesn't result in increased deaths and health care load.

You wanted a reduction in restrictions as you were confident that infections were the way forward to provide HI, you got a reduction in restrictions and the infections have risen as you wanted. Now own the outcome and stop deflecting and blaming everyone else.

The numbers of deaths I am looking at are not footballers and if they were I really would have expected a ban on kicking a ball about as it seems to be more dangerous than cancer according to you lot.

The change in direction of prevalence (from downward to upward) has occurred one single time after restrictions had been loosened. In actual fact, the change in direction happened a fairly significant time after those restrictions had been loosened a number of times. The closest “restriction” to the change in directional trend that was loosened happens to be allowing children to return to schools and universities going back. Should we hold that one responsible? Or a previous one? Or the whole lot?

I think you’ll struggle to objectively prove that the loosening of the restrictions directly changed the course from a downward to an upward trend especially as it also coincided with the usual seasonal increase in respiratory diseases.

This, of course, is completely ignoring that the original point was about non-compliance, not compliance with loosening restrictions.

So which is it?

Sorry you are losing me now. You started out with restrictions made no difference and hence were not worth bothering with.

If you now accept that restrictions do have an effect on controlling prevalence then the muppets praising the student parties etc and breaking those restrictions six weeks ago are exactly that - Muppets.

As you know I have always been supportive of going either down the route of suppression or unencumbered life. There is a price to pay with either but what you have to do is one or the other or both prices will still be paid for no real benefit.

I could never see unencumbered life being acceptable to the population, our government or indeed other governments so we were stuck with suppression.

As it is I suspect the lack of hard and rapid intervention a few weeks back for likely a short time will now result in a long drawn out period of half arsed interventions that everyone can whine about for months to come and You and I will not have a clue what may or may not be feasible to run as an event.in the near future.

I’m losing you? You were losing me, which is why I was trying to clarify whether your point was that a) people “taking the piss” or b) the loosening of restrictions was responsible for moving from decreasing prevalence to increasing prevalence. You appeared to originally assert a) but then quickly switched to b)

I haven’t accepted (in these few comments) that either one has.

You really need to come down off that fence mate. We are 8 months into this. You can’t go on supporting two opposing strategies forever. That said, I do agree that we have to pursue one or the other. The current balancing act of trying to do both appears to result in the worst of both worlds.