Jump to content

Aggy

Members
  • Content Count

    3,887
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Aggy

  1. The media I expect it from - everything is sensationalist nowadays. A completely innocuous comment on anything is turned into “click bait”. What’s strange with this strand though is that even actual scientists (including a member of sage) have come out and said some of their colleagues and other scientists ought to get a grip and stop blowing it out of proportion without sufficient data.
  2. I suspect Upo isn’t panicking and is instead fishing. Blocked a long time ago.
  3. From your posts yesterday, I’d definitely get off Twitter if you find this thread doing your head in! At least on here there are only about five people who would enjoy living in perpetual lockdown - on Twitter there’s whole groups of them! Usually arguing with anti vaxxers who reckon the vaccine gave their elderly grandma (who has smoked since the age of 15) lung cancer or something similar…
  4. You’d imagine there will be panic around this one, but if (hopefully, ‘when’) it is shown to be more infectious but actually no more or even less deadly, then next time something similar comes along there won’t be the same panic for this reason. We find new variants of shed loads of infectious diseases all the time - when covid becomes just another one it will soon quieten down.
  5. Assuming this is the one I saw earlier interviewing the doctor who first noticed the new variant, pretty sure she said she hadn’t admitted anyone out of all the patients she’d seen with the new variant.
  6. More to it because of the fairly rapid …. requirement to wear masks? It’s about the least intrusive thing they could have done. Nothing “more to it” than has been quite clearly stated by pretty much everyone - seems to spread very quickly and we don’t know enough about it yet to know whether it’s more deadly. Really no need for conspiracy theory nonsense.
  7. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59442141 The Omicron Covid variant is "not a disaster" and some people may be "hugely overstating the situation", a scientist advising the government says. Prof Semple - who sits on the UK government's Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies - told BBC Breakfast: "This is not a disaster, and the headlines from some of my colleagues saying 'this is horrendous' I think are hugely overstating the situation. "Immunity from the vaccination is still likely to protect you from severe disease. You might get a snuffle or a headache or a filthy cold but your chance of coming into hospital or intensive care or sadly dying are greatly diminished by the vaccine and still will be going into the future." Like Prof Semple, Prof Sir Andrew Pollard, the director of the Oxford Vaccine Group, expressed cautious optimism that existing vaccines could be effective at preventing serious disease from the Omicron variant. He told the Today programme that while it would still be weeks until scientists properly understood the effects of Omicron's mutations, most of them were similar to those seen in other variants. "Despite those mutations existing in other variants, the vaccines have continued to prevent serious disease as we've moved through Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Delta," he said. "At least from a speculative point of view, we have some optimism that the vaccine should still work against a new variant for serious disease but really we need to wait several weeks to have that confirmed. "It's extremely unlikely that a reboot of a pandemic in a vaccinated population like we saw last year is going to happen." Asked whether it was possible to update the vaccines if deemed necessary, Prof Pollard added: "The processes of how one goes about developing a new vaccine are increasingly well oiled. So, if it's needed, that is something that could be moved very rapidly."
  8. I don’t smoke or drink so I wouldn’t know. How about obese people? Or people who break their legs doing activities - could have chosen to stay home instead. And while everyone ignored the chart I posted up last week (I can only guess why), covid cases were a very small proportion of people in hospital beds. So regardless of how much you tax cigarettes and alcohol does it really “pay” for the fact there aren’t enough beds for other people to get treatment? Picking and choosing what gets free treatment is a slippery slope. Fine when it’s anti vaxxers, but don’t whinge when it’s something closer to home… We saw on here how certain posters mocked 20 year olds for whinging about ‘civil liberties’ but literally called potential restrictions for over 50s “undemocratic”…
  9. Hmm again though, if you’re going to say that, why should smokers not have to pay for lung cancer treatment? They could have said no to smoking. Same with diseases related to alcohol, obesity etc. edit : posted before reading the rest of the thread!
  10. To ensure I’m reading correct (as these graphs start to hurt my head)…. Total patients today 6374. Max number of covid patients during the pandemic was 33,594, on 22 Jan 21? Anyone got a chart showing the rises leading up to that many patients in Jan 21 from, say, October 2020?
  11. I expect that will be the case. I would say though that I don’t think even excess deaths are an absolute way of comparing which countries responded “better” than others. Even if two governments reacted to covid in absolutely “the best” ways possible for their respective countries, but one of those countries had a health and social care system that was on the brink pre-covid and the other had one that was in far better shape, guess which is going to have more excess deaths. Or if two governments reacted to covid in absolutely “the best” ways possible for their respective countries, but one of them was a sparsely populated, fairly wealthy island nation, 600 miles away from anywhere else, and the other was a country with extreme poverty and incredibly densely packed cities, guess which is going to have more excess deaths. Or if one country’s citizens had a median average age of 45 and the other only 28, guess which is going to have more excess deaths even if both governments reacted in “the best” way possible for their country. As I’ve said on here before, there are so many factors affecting the death numbers for different countries that it really isn’t worth trying to seriously compare or rank. If people want to hold the government to account, or whatever, far better (and far more persuasive) to focus on what happened here. Was the track and trace system managed properly? Were contracts awarded to the best people/companies for the job? Did they do everything the could, quickly enough, to get proper ppe etc. etc. etc. Did unlocking in July lead to the wave of deaths some on here were adamant there would be? Has the vaccine programme been rolled out well and quickly?
  12. I’m not sure that is exactly right when it comes to cases. Hospitalisations / serious illness yes that does look pretty much how it is - the sooner your elderly and vulnerable were jabbed, the sooner their immunity started to wane, the sooner they started to be hospitalised in higher numbers again until (if) they got more boosters. Cases though have fluctuated more and the Netherlands, as Mark and YF point out, does probably suggest to me that boosters aren’t the main part of case numbers. Our booster numbers are some of the best in Europe but our case numbers aren’t. To be honest though, as I’m sure you know, I’m of the view that case numbers are pretty irrelevant on their own and it’s really all about the hospitalisations.
  13. Numbers perhaps not, but undoubtedly hospitalisations are driven by lack of vaccines (56 per cent of covid hospitalisations) and waning immunity in the over 70s who were jabbed over 6 months ago (most of the other 44 per cent of covid hospitalisations).
  14. Having re-read your post mark, I should specify that it’s the majority of those vaccinated in hospital who are over 70. So 44 per cent of hospitalisations in the Netherlands are people who are vaccinated, and of those the majority are over 70 (with waning immunity as were vaccinated over 6 months ago). The other 56 per cent are not vaccinated. Difficult to argue against vaccines (and boosters) on that evidence!
  15. So over 70s would have been vaccinated over 7 months ago? Which then ties in with your other post above saying the majority in hospital are over 70. Probably not a coincidence that the majority in hospital are the most vulnerable group, who were vaccinated over 7 months ago, and who haven’t yet had a booster.
  16. I’m not sure it’s even as complicated as prior infection BB. Look at the status of boosters and it’s seemingly a lot more straight forward. Not surprising the likes of Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria are seeing a need for lockdowns, because their vaccination rates for first two vaccines are very low. Netherlands has high vax, but hasn’t even started boosters. If all the 65 year olds were vaccinated nearly a year ago now, they’re going to be seeing issues. Which they are. Same story with Belgium - high vax for the first two, but barely started boosters. Spain, Portugal, Italy all well on with boosters (struggling to find figures other than when they started though). France - around half of the vulnerable / over 65s groups in France have already had a booster and of course they’ve announced anyone 65 and over without a booster is going to be banned from public indoor spaces in December. My guess is we’ll soon see a few more places start that sort of thing - if you’re in a group most likely to need hospitalisation if you catch it, and you refuse to get vaccinated/booster jab, then you’ll have to lock down. Was mooted on here many many months ago and we’re now seeing it start across Europe.
  17. Just revisited Ricardo’s graph from yesterday - almost a quarter of the uk (presumably adult rather than total?) population have had a third jab. If the Dutch haven’t even started then might go some way to explaining what looks like a discrepancy. edit: Belgium also lagging on boosters (only a quarter of over 65s there compared to 1/4 of the whole (adult?) population here): https://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium/194011/booster-dose-rollout-slow-in-belgium-flanders-lagging-behind/
  18. Thanks. Netherlands the only thing I can think is that they haven’t yet started boosters (Reuters report on 15th that they were due to start administering boosters at the end of this week). When it comes to hospitalisations that’s going to have a big impact you’d have thought, one which I think we are ahead of given that many already have boosters. Are there any graphs re boosters per population? Edit: link and quote: ”Around 85% of the Dutch adult population has been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, and the country will start to administer booster shots to health workers and the elderly at the end of this week.” https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/pressure-dutch-hospitals-mounts-covid-cases-break-records-2021-11-15/
  19. Making it law comes back to the point I made previously - why is it legal for people to choose to risk their lives and risk putting pressure on the health system by smoking, drinking, becoming obese (etc.) but they can’t choose whether or not to have a vaccine? And if it’s because smoking, drinking etc only have an indirect effect on other people (ie overwhelming hospitals and perhaps passive smoking, being hit by drunk drivers etc.) then what about things like flu? Compulsory to get the flu jab?
  20. Could you run the chart again with Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia as well pls?They’re all going into either full or partial lockdowns and I think they’re all well below our c.70 per cent. There aren’t many places with a higher percentage of people vaccinated than here - agree the vaccination roll out here is one thing we can’t moan too much about. Is this chart also including everyone (children too) do you know?
  21. Bbc - 18 jan 21 vs a fortnight ago. Also some fairly anecdotal (albeit from people working in hospitals rather than random people down the pub) comments in the article about wider effects of lockdowns on health. Mental health, alcohol abuse, inactivity worsening health. ”Alongside Covid cases, they are seeing more frail elderly people being admitted as well as significant numbers of people with alcohol and mental health-related problems.” ”With support and care disrupted and Covid making people more isolated and less active, their health has suffered.” “The service was struggling before the pandemic hit, with targets routinely missed in all parts of the UK. The NHS was being run "at its limit", Chris Hopson, of NHS Providers, which represents hospital trusts, says.”
  22. Putting aside the rather large assumption that I haven’t been to a covid ward, you’ve rather missed the point. Alcohol and tobacco cause huge problems for the nhs. There are risks to the individual associated with their usage both in the short term and the long term. They are a burden on the nhs in the short and the long term. Government policy in Austria is currently that a vaccinated person can choose to put a burden on their health systems by drinking and smoking, but an unvaccinated person can’t choose to put a burden on their health system by not having a vaccine. Let me put it another way, if I was a 20 or 30 year old who doesn’t smoke and doesn’t drink, I’d be wondering why we don’t also ban alcohol and tobacco outright given that both have no advantage to me whatsoever and both risk hospitals being too busy to care for me in an emergency (both now and in the long run). My risk from covid is minimal, but I might get lung cancer from passive smoke, hit by a drunk driver or just not get treatment because hospitals are too busy with people who have developed lung cancer from smoking. Banning people from smoking and drinking is far less of an ‘imposition’ than banning unvaccinated people from leaving their home. The current Austrian lockdown might only be short term, but we all know the NHS was virtually overwhelmed most winters even before covid. Why should people not get treatment or have to suffer huge delays, just so someone can have a glass of wine with their dinner and a smoke after? If you’re happy to ban unvaccinated people from leaving their home, how can you not support banning alcohol and cigarettes? Well if we’re swapping “follow the science” for “my mate at work says…”, I’m in my early 30s have had covid and know lots of other people my age who have. One lost his sense of smell for a week (but was otherwise fine), and nobody else had anything more than a day in bed feeling a bit washed out. Not really relevant to anything though is it.
  23. The whole of Austria now locking down unvaccinated people. I’m not sure on this one. If it stops hospitals being overwhelmed, I can see it as a good idea. It raises wider questions though. Are people being locked down to protect themselves or to stop hospitals being overwhelmed? If the former, surely you don’t want to be in a position where governments are banning people from leaving their own homes “for their own good”. The whole justification for lockdowns has always been to stop hospitals being overwhelmed not to take away people’s ability to weigh up their own risks. If the latter, if I were an unvaccinated 30 year old (I’m double jabbed just for the record) I’d be querying why the best choice for saving hospitals is locking me down because I haven’t been vaccinated against a virus that is likely to give me little more than a bad cough while people are, for instance, still able to buy cigarettes and alcohol. Cigarettes and alcohol not infectious diseases but are a humongous burden on health systems.
  24. Given we’ve had 18 months of people telling us we should “follow the science” and also 18 months of how badly the uk is doing, I just found it slightly ridiculous that a poster who has been pro-lockdown throughout was now saying we should abandon “the science” because it is too much like “gloating” when it doesn’t suit him. I havent actually commented on the validity or accuracy of ricardo’s charts, nor have I suggested KG’s opinion is wrong. As much as KG has a chip on his shoulder about the same, it’s nothing to do with “fights”. Arguing that people shouldn’t use charts because it is gloating (having never called out any other charts which he liked previously) is quite clearly nonsense. The fact he’s had to weasel backwards to try and make out a very clear statement was in fact a question rather proves the point. I’ve called out other people posting nonsense before and others have done the same to me when I may have been wrong (although I don’t recall that being very often ).
  25. Is that a question or a statement?
×
×
  • Create New...