#COVID19 | Page 965 | Vital Football

#COVID19

Calvin Plummer said:
It's scenario planning and is clearly modelled for a worst case. It's an important thing to do, if we'd paid attention before we'd have far less deaths and possibly no Kent variant.

They're not saying it's going to come to pass.
Click to expand...

Is this done by the same modellers who predicted 4000 deaths/day in October?
Or was it the ones who use Fortran to model it last year, which was old news 20 years ago?
Or the one which predicted that by October 2020, more than 500,000 people in Great Britain would have died of Covid?
Or the one in 2005 stating that 150 million worldwide could be killed from bird flu?
Or the "reasonable worst-case scenario" that Swine Flu would kill 65,000 in the UK?

I am of the opinion they should publically STFU and leave the elected ministers to live and die by their decisions and not hide behind 'Worst Case Scenario' modelling.
 
Pope John XXIII said:
Does it?

Evidence please.

Not sure we've even heard one from the scientists.

Does the worst case encourage anything other than 'fuck it'?
Click to expand...

This is the current situation and to quote 'A Few Good Men', These are the facts of the case and they are undisputed...

Deaths are down below 30 per day.
Hospitalisations are down below 300 per day.
Cases are below 3,000 per day.
R is 0.7-0.8 and dropping.
Around 94 per cent of adults are agreeing to be vaccinated.
The vaccines prevent nearly 100 per cent of serious cases and up to 90 per cent of any kind of case.
Vaccinated or previously infected people who become infected only pass on the disease some 55-70 per cent as much (so even if the vaccines completely failed to prevent infection – which they don't – they'd still cut R heavily).
The vaccines work on all current variants, and it’s recently been proved that it’s mathematically implausible that future escape variants can escape the serious disease protection of the vaccines (and hence the onwards transmission reduction).

There needs to be some fucking good reasons why we are still hostage to this, as I am struggling to see any!
 
Strett said:
This is the current situation and to quote 'A Few Good Men', These are the facts of the case and they are undisputed...

Deaths are down below 30 per day.
Hospitalisations are down below 300 per day.
Cases are below 3,000 per day.
R is 0.7-0.8 and dropping.
Around 94 per cent of adults are agreeing to be vaccinated.
The vaccines prevent nearly 100 per cent of serious cases and up to 90 per cent of any kind of case.
Vaccinated or previously infected people who become infected only pass on the disease some 55-70 per cent as much (so even if the vaccines completely failed to prevent infection – which they don't – they'd still cut R heavily).
The vaccines work on all current variants, and it’s recently been proved that it’s mathematically implausible that future escape variants can escape the serious disease protection of the vaccines (and hence the onwards transmission reduction).

There needs to be some fucking good reasons why we are still hostage to this, as I am struggling to see any!
Click to expand...
Don’t disagree with any of that but there are two variants creeping into the country which we don’t know if we can deal with and our inept Government is showing no sign of even restricting our borders so that those and any other variant can be contained.

Most people thought we had things under control last Autumn but stupid decisions and the Kent variant proved that we were tragically wrong.
 
Strett said:
Is this done by the same modellers who predicted 4000 deaths/day in October?
Or was it the ones who use Fortran to model it last year, which was old news 20 years ago?
Or the one which predicted that by October 2020, more than 500,000 people in Great Britain would have died of Covid?
Or the one in 2005 stating that 150 million worldwide could be killed from bird flu?
Or the "reasonable worst-case scenario" that Swine Flu would kill 65,000 in the UK?

I am of the opinion they should publically STFU and leave the elected ministers to live and die by their decisions and not hide behind 'Worst Case Scenario' modelling.
Click to expand...

It's not just the ministers who live and die by their decisions is it?

You spouted the same shite previously and tens of thousands more died and we had a prolonged damaging lockdown.
 
Last edited:
Calvin Plummer said:
It's not just the ministers who live and die by their decisions is it?

You spouted the same shite previously and tens of thousands more died and we had a prolonged damaging lockdown.
Click to expand...

So are you saying comprehensively that locking down late was a mistake?
 
Basha73 said:
Which time? The first or the second? Either way an awful lot of people died following those decisions.
Click to expand...

Maybe, or maybe not. Delaying the first lockdown may have inadvertently saved more lives than it cost
A Cambridge University expert argues that countries that locked down early delayed part of their first wave, resulting in higher overall mortality.

Dr Raghib Ali, a senior clinical research associate at the university's MRC Epidemiology Unit, said Britain's relatively late lockdown meant more people were infected in the spring, when underlying pressure on the NHS was relatively light, meaning they were protected by antibodies come winter – when the service traditionally struggles to cope.

He said that, in the absence of a vaccine, lockdowns postpone infections rather than prevent them, suggesting that March and April was a better period in which to catch the virus.
 
NHS England today reports 12 COVID-19 hospital deaths occurring over 6 dates.
40 were reported last Tuesday, 98 two weeks ago & 101 three weeks ago.

Looking very good.
 
Last edited:
I'd be interested as to how the figures look after any consequences of last Tuesday (?) when it was hot and everyone went to drink, hug and fight in parks.
 
Strett said:
So are you saying comprehensively that locking down late was a mistake?
Click to expand...

Yes. On two separate occasions. Less deaths, less damage to the economy, shorter lockdowns.

I get the instinct to abandon science and pretend everything is OK. During the first wave I was definitely dubious at times if the cost was going to be greater but it's clear now that we need to proceed with caution and just where being reckless took us.

Hopefully we avoid lockdowns in the future, if we open sensibly and gradually and tighten borders etc then I'm hopeful we can keep rates at a low enough level that modified vaccines will be available before mutations take hold.

We've gambled twice and lost twice.
 
Calvin Plummer said:
Yes. On two separate occasions. Less deaths, less damage to the economy, shorter lockdowns.

I get the instinct to abandon science and pretend everything is OK. During the first wave I was definitely dubious at times if the cost was going to be greater but it's clear now that we need to proceed with caution and just where being reckless took us.

Hopefully we avoid lockdowns in the future, if we open sensibly and gradually and tighten borders etc then I'm hopeful we can keep rates at a low enough level that modified vaccines will be available before mutations take hold.

We've gambled twice and lost twice.
Click to expand...

Delaying the first lockdown may have inadvertently saved more lives than it cost
A Cambridge University expert argues that countries that locked down early delayed part of their first wave, resulting in higher overall mortality.

Dr Raghib Ali, a senior clinical research associate at the university's MRC Epidemiology Unit, said Britain's relatively late lockdown meant more people were infected in the spring, when underlying pressure on the NHS was relatively light, meaning they were protected by antibodies come winter – when the service traditionally struggles to cope.

He said that, in the absence of a vaccine, lockdowns postpone infections rather than prevent them, suggesting that March and April was a better period in which to catch the virus.
 
Strett said:
Delaying the first lockdown may have inadvertently saved more lives than it cost
A Cambridge University expert argues that countries that locked down early delayed part of their first wave, resulting in higher overall mortality.

Dr Raghib Ali, a senior clinical research associate at the university's MRC Epidemiology Unit, said Britain's relatively late lockdown meant more people were infected in the spring, when underlying pressure on the NHS was relatively light, meaning they were protected by antibodies come winter – when the service traditionally struggles to cope.

He said that, in the absence of a vaccine, lockdowns postpone infections rather than prevent them, suggesting that March and April was a better period in which to catch the virus.
Click to expand...

And how did that work out this winter?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.