Jump to content
Fuzzar

Corona Virus main thread

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Your point was racist in one point and tosh in another. 

Ok, my woke friend ūü§ó

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, paul moy said:

Ok, my woke friend ūü§ó

Instead of constantly blaming everyone except those that you want to protect, why don’t you report on or even acknowledge posts with good news such as treatments and vaccine rollouts. Let me tell you some news you will hate, there were 2 proper new treatments approved for use last week, The Serum Institute of India is on target to produce their first 2 billion doses within the timescales anticipated, The EU took delivery of 12.5 million doses Saturday and are now cracking on, on their live vaccine counter ( which records doses in real time ) they have administered 256,000 doses between midnight and 11 am. 
And please don’t refer to me as your friend, racists and liars are the scum of the earth.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some more good news today, The W.H.O. Via Covax have confirmed that vaccines have now commenced moving on mass to Africa. The current vaccines are being mass produced for Covax in South Korea and the Serum Institute India.

The world begins to move forward.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an update on the world today with regards vaccines.

Currently at least 78 Countries have begun vaccination, and as at yesterday 176 million have been vaccinated. We are currently going at an estimated 5.99 million doses per day. The trackers clearly show the vaccine supplies beginning to increase and use a 75% of population to be vaccinated. 
There is one negative all the Countries you would expect to be at the top, US, U.K, China, EU and other rich Countries are all on track to vaccinate at current rates between June and end of September ( there will be a couple of countries that finish prior to this Israel and UAE ). So where is the negative in that ? Unfortunately the poorer Countries estimated dates are 5 years, let’s hope that changes and those that made commitments in June will at least keep to their words long term, if not short term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some June to September at current rates is an incredibly optimistic suggestion.  Germany, for instance, had acheived just 3.2% of population with at least one jab yesterday. But there is plenty of reason to be optimistic about the potential to ramp up so hopefully you willl be proved correct.

Domestically things are looking good.  ONS study today said thst 20% of England's population had antibodies in the 28 days to 1 feb.  Obviously in the month since the mid point we have had lots of vaccinations and natural spread so current figures likely to be much much higher.  Good news also in this study is that the immunity (done the hard way) in the young was significantly above average (almost 1 in 3 16-24 year olds in Wales) so we have good levels of immunity in two key groups, the vulnerable and the mixers.

The more i think about this the more i see the future being determined by variants and how much we can reduce their spread until vaccines are reformulated.

Edited by Barbe bleu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Not sure what your issue was Aggy but the only place I 'disagreed' with you was in ignoring prevalence if it jumped back up when the kids return or other relaxations. We need to see continual downward pressure to open up. I then went on to explain and provide stats to show that most in ICU were not nor had been in the over 65 group.

As per Johnson it seems  - it is indeed prevalence that will determine the rate of opening up. Everything else is a lag factor over this lead figure. Vaccines may well indeed help to depress prevalence but 20 million people vaccinated with 90% efficacy wouldn't want to be freely exposed to another 20M people with rampant Covid (all variants). You might then expect 2 million 'vaccinated' cases and no doubt a few % mortality in that too.

You said we needed fewer than 1000 cases to open up, which is just an arbitrary nonsensical number (I’m well aware Hancock referred to it, and he’s clueless as well).

Prevalence is not a target. Controlling it is one way of achieving a target.

Do we always have fewer than 1,000 cases of flu in normal winters? Do we lockdown when we do have over 1,000 cases of flu in a normal winter? Do you think we should lockdown or have restrictions when we have over 1,000 cases of flu in a normal winter?

If your answer to those three is ‚Äėno‚Äô, then ask why. Because they don‚Äôt result in the nhs being overwhelmed. So prevalence there is irrelevant.

If we had every adult vaccinated , nobody in hospital with covid, but 1,001 cases amongst kids would we lockdown? No. Why? Because it won’t overwhelm the nhs. 

So yes we need to keep an eye on prevalence, but if hospitals don’t become overwhelmed, or don’t look like they’re about to be overwhelmed, then that’s all that matters.

And as for Boris, all I can see online is that he and Whitty have said currently the effect of vaccines hasn’t caught up, so we need to reduce cases to reduce hospitalisation - we don’t want to start coming out of lockdown when we have high hospitalisation in the first place.

‚ÄúUltimately, what matters is whether it is preventing death and preventing the kind of illness that puts pressure on the NHS, because those are the things that lead to the introduction or prolonging of lockdowns,‚ÄĚ a Department of¬†Health¬†and Social Care source said.‚ÄĚ Guardian article from yesterday.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Germany are 4.99 doses per 100 people you are missing their second doses it is 3.2 had one dose 1.7 had 2 doses.

 

Edited by Well b back
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Aggy said:

You said we needed fewer than 1000 cases to open up, which is just an arbitrary nonsensical number (I’m well aware Hancock referred to it, and he’s clueless as well).

Prevalence is not a target. Controlling it is one way of achieving a target.

Do we always have fewer than 1,000 cases of flu in normal winters? Do we lockdown when we do have over 1,000 cases of flu in a normal winter? Do you think we should lockdown or have restrictions when we have over 1,000 cases of flu in a normal winter?

If your answer to those three is ‚Äėno‚Äô, then ask why. Because they don‚Äôt result in the nhs being overwhelmed. So prevalence there is irrelevant.

If we had every adult vaccinated , nobody in hospital with covid, but 1,001 cases amongst kids would we lockdown? No. Why? Because it won’t overwhelm the nhs. 

So yes we need to keep an eye on prevalence, but if hospitals don’t become overwhelmed, or don’t look like they’re about to be overwhelmed, then that’s all that matters.

And as for Boris, all I can see online is that he and Whitty have said currently the effect of vaccines hasn’t caught up, so we need to reduce cases to reduce hospitalisation - we don’t want to start coming out of lockdown when we have high hospitalisation in the first place.

‚ÄúUltimately, what matters is whether it is preventing death and preventing the kind of illness that puts pressure on the NHS, because those are the things that lead to the introduction or prolonging of lockdowns,‚ÄĚ a Department of¬†Health¬†and Social Care source said.‚ÄĚ Guardian article from yesterday.

Aggy - I don't need to argue with you - and certainly not on pedantic points.

However - the 1000 'prevalence before we fully open up is Hunt's number not mine or Hancock's. It was a number I suspect where we could be confident that TT could successfully manage/cope/operate. If it's 100 or 2,000 per day is one for the experts to choose. It's the concept that matters to control a notifiable dangerous potentially mutating vaccine busting disease.

Don't equate flu and covid - that's a comparison which is deeply flawed on all sorts of levels and only used by deniers and belittlers. I'm not even going to humour you there.

However - nearly all the points I made where discussed ad-nauseum on the TV last night - young clinically at risk Covid suffers not yet vaccinated (Group 6) and various 'Sage' professors (i.e Newsnight comes to mind) with very similar comments on prevalences and mortality even amongst the vaccinated if we open up too fast before prevalence is significantly down.

Over the last year you have consistently argued for 'locking up' the 'at risk' and then let covid largely run it's course through the rest of the population despite all the evidence of covid in the younger cohorts and long covid. The ICU numbers and hospitalization numbers vs age (ergo pressure the NHS)  just illuminate that overlooked fact. Your latest plot is just the same except relying on the vaccine to do the same. Vaccines will certainly help reduce prevalence hand in hand with various lockdowns but the best prevention is not to get it at all. I rather like the analogous idea of a vaccine as a safety belt and air-bag when you crash your car into a wall at 70 mph. The best prevention is not to crash the car at all. The vaccine is to stop you getting seriously ill if you are unfortunate enough to be exposed to Covid.

Lastly - as to kids - if they have high prevalence why wouldn't it spread to their unvaccinated at present parents? It's an absurd notion.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Germany are 4.99 doses per 100 people you are missing their second doses.

 

5 doses per 100 people would.equate to around 4.1 million doses which is very roughly what the federal government claims.

But, inthink, only 3.3 ish % have had a jab of any sort. And 1.7% have had both.

I get 1.7 +1.7 + (3.3-1.7) or 1.7+1.7+ 1.6 = 5 

You are getting 1.7+1.7 + 3.3 =6.7  which eould.require  5.5 million doses...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BREAKINGA further 1.7m added to shielding list in England

An extra 1.7 million people will be asked to shield in England, the government has announced.

There are already 2.3 million on the shielding list and for some it will also mean they are now prioritised for vaccination.

The move comes after a new model was developed that takes into extra factors rather than just someone's health condition as the original list does.

This calculation includes things like ethnicity, deprivation and weight to work out a person's risk of becoming seriously ill if they were to catch Covid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Well b back said:

BREAKINGA further 1.7m added to shielding list in England

An extra 1.7 million people will be asked to shield in England, the government has announced.

There are already 2.3 million on the shielding list and for some it will also mean they are now prioritised for vaccination.

The move comes after a new model was developed that takes into extra factors rather than just someone's health condition as the original list does.

This calculation includes things like ethnicity, deprivation and weight to work out a person's risk of becoming seriously ill if they were to catch Covid. 

That sounds pretty sensible and essentially good news but like so much of the Government's response to this crisis, why on earth has it taken so long?

Granted those risk factors highlighted weren't known about, or at least their full significance not understood, at the start of the crisis but they emerged pretty quickly last year and there has been a steady stream of info re-inforcing them ever since so this seems rather like another case of closing the stable door............

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Well b back said:

BREAKINGA further 1.7m added to shielding list in England

An extra 1.7 million people will be asked to shield in England, the government has announced.

There are already 2.3 million on the shielding list and for some it will also mean they are now prioritised for vaccination.

The move comes after a new model was developed that takes into extra factors rather than just someone's health condition as the original list does.

This calculation includes things like ethnicity, deprivation and weight to work out a person's risk of becoming seriously ill if they were to catch Covid. 

I hope my GP knows how much weight i have put on over lockdown...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had an email today asking me as one if the clinically extremely vulnerable, to continue shielding until 31st March.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

New variant detected. 38 cases identified.

I saw that to, similar characteristics to the South African one apparently. Usual lab tests and things now I think it said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

New variant detected. 38 cases identified.

It has a number KG it’s B.1.525.

Scientists have identified another new variant of coronavirus in the UK with some potentially troubling mutations.

B.1.525 appears similar to the South African variant which prompted door-to-door tests in areas where it has been found.

Researchers from Edinburgh University have found 33 cases so far in samples dating back to December.

It has been seen in other countries too, including Denmark, Nigeria and the US.

UK experts are studying it to understand what risk it poses.

It is too soon to say if it should be added to the UK's list of "variants of concern" and whether mass testing for it should happen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

National

10625 - 799

Local

Everything dropping around 40% over the last week

image.png.29acbf2fea4f18dbb17a797347c870e0.png

image.thumb.png.83403ecbf9e6cb3edde0d2069744d345.png

Same pattern two lowish days followed by 5 higher reporting days.

Are we seeing first signs of second dose stepping up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ricardo said:

I've had an email today asking me as one if the clinically extremely vulnerable, to continue shielding until 31st March.

ūü§® sounds like lockdowns being extended then... they want all 9 groups done before any proper relaxations... dont they

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tetteys Jig said:

ūü§® sounds like lockdowns being extended then... they want all 9 groups done before any proper relaxations... dont they

Possibly, maybe they want the extremely vulnerable to have their second dose before lifting.

I'm in group 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

I think you’ve missed the point on every sentence. 

I¬†didn‚Äôt equate flu and covid. In fact I¬†did the exact opposite.¬†If prevalence is the ‚Äútarget‚ÄĚ then you treat everything the same. 1,000 cases of covid, 1,000 cases of flu, 1,000 chesty coughs. The prevalence all the same. If¬†prevalence is the ‚Äútarget‚ÄĚ then you react the same when the prevalence is the same.

The reason we don’t/won’t/shouldn’t react the same is because covid kills and hospitalises more. So it’s the outcome (hospitalisations and deaths) that needs to be the target, not the mere fact we have 1,000 cases of any particular thing. 

[As an aside - Hunt actually referred to new daily instances, not prevalence. 1000 new cases a day.]

Kids - again, point missed. You will no doubt have seen the hypothetical scenario I mentioned, where I referred to adults being vaccinated. The point was that if you hypothetically have every adult vaccinated, but 1,001 low risk kids were infected and were pretty much fine, then you wouldn’t have restrictions. Again, the point was that prevalence isn’t the thing to use as the target.

I have said that we need to ease restrictions slowly to ensure prevalence doesn’t get too high - it’s one of many things that needs to be monitored and one of many things that will help to keep hospitalisations down. But prevalence as a goal is pointless. The goal is avoiding the nhs being overwhelmed. Monitoring/managing prevalence is one thing that can help that - especially until more people are vaccinated. But the more people are vaccinated, the less prevalence matters - the goal is to stop the nhs being overwhelmed, not to have zero covid. 

It sounds as though the five targets highlighted at the start of lockdown last year won’t change. Prevalence will be monitored as one of many things to achieve the five targets, but prevalence itself won’t be a target (see guardian post referred to in my previous post). So keeping an eye on prevalence will help us keep hospitalisations low until we have enough vaccines to pick up the slack , but the target is to keep hospitalisations and deaths down, not to have fewer than an arbitrary number of infections.

As to locking people up, I think you may have misread a few of those posts too. All I have suggested is that we should have various measures, one of which could be the most vulnerable shielding. That the most vulnerable according to Ricardo have been asked to shield for longer rather suggests other people think shielding is helpful too. Not the only answer, but helps. And the example I’ve used previously is that having high risk 80 year olds mingling at church on a Sunday whilst 19 year olds can’t go to work is scandalous.

As to long covid and young people not being vaccinated - are we talking about zero covid or stopping the nhs from being overwhelmed? 

 

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Tetteys Jig said:

ūü§® sounds like lockdowns being extended then... they want all 9 groups done before any proper relaxations... dont they

Yes I think so, wanting numbers down under 1000 a day which is going to be mid April I suspect. Maybe some additional concern about variants coming into the considerations as well. 

Edited by Van wink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 million worldwide yesterday, with the supplies going up enormously. Daily rate now up to 6.19 million

The biggest vaccination campaign in history is underway. More than 181 million doses have been administered across 79 countries, according to data collected by Bloomberg. The latest rate was roughly 6.19 milliondoses a day.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did someone post a link to a charity on here to contribute to vaccines world wide. Having had my jab, I thought it would be a good thing to participate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add to your encouraging post @Well b back Burn-Murdoch who gathers data on the pandemic has tweeted this update (useful clickable link / thread with comments too....including a table in follow up replies indicating projected supply numbers ahead)

 

 

Edited by sonyc
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...