Coronavirus- new spike coming?

[Cardiffjack]

Schools should reopen next week, people who disagree are very selfish

Decisions have to be based on the scientific information available at the time and the impact opening schools will have across society. If sending kids back to school creates a spiralling infection rate which overwhelms the NHS, then we should absolutely not reopen schools, lessons should be delivered virtually and where there are families who don’t have the ability to support virtual lessons, then consideration must be given to allowing those children to continue to attend school. Reduced numbers on site can allow better social distancing measures etc. A number of schools in our area have sent entire year groups home at various stages over the last few months and the frequency with which that has happened has increased over the last few weeks.

Talking about science - Sweden has achieved only 5,000 extra deaths out of a population of 10,000,000.
That’s 0.05 btw

And if you correct for aging demographics and soft prior seasons, it would effectively disappear.

That’s what a no-lockdown, following WHO 2019 pandemic guidelines epidemic looks like.
Ivor Cummins.

 

[Cardiffjack]

Decisions have to be based on the scientific information available at the time and the impact opening schools will have across society. If sending kids back to school creates a spiralling infection rate which overwhelms the NHS, then we should absolutely not reopen schools, lessons should be delivered virtually and where there are families who don’t have the ability to support virtual lessons, then consideration must be given to allowing those children to continue to attend school. Reduced numbers on site can allow better social distancing measures etc. A number of schools in our area have sent entire year groups home at various stages over the last few months and the frequency with which that has happened has increased over the last few weeks.

Don't waste your time trying to talk sense to CardiffJack, he'll pick holes and argue with you all day about nothing.

Well if you didn’t have holes in your argument, I wouldn’t be able too , would I

As the saying goes, you could drive a “ coach & horses” through your argument.

 

[Monty]

Don't waste your time trying to talk sense to CardiffJack, he'll pick holes and argue with you all day about nothing.

Well if you didn’t have holes in your argument, I wouldn’t be able too , would I

As the saying goes, you could drive a “ coach & horses” through your argument.

He will also cherry pick and if he can't refute something you've said he will just pretend he didn't see it

 

[Cardiffjack]

Well if you didn’t have holes in your argument, I wouldn’t be able too , would I

As the saying goes, you could drive a “ coach & horses” through your argument.

He will also cherry pick and if he can't refute something you've said he will just pretend he didn't see it

Your advice is , don’t waste your time yet that’s exactly what you just done.....

 

[MajorR]

Decisions have to be based on the scientific information available at the time and the impact opening schools will have across society. If sending kids back to school creates a spiralling infection rate which overwhelms the NHS, then we should absolutely not reopen schools, lessons should be delivered virtually and where there are families who don’t have the ability to support virtual lessons, then consideration must be given to allowing those children to continue to attend school. Reduced numbers on site can allow better social distancing measures etc. A number of schools in our area have sent entire year groups home at various stages over the last few months and the frequency with which that has happened has increased over the last few weeks.

Talking about science - Sweden has achieved only 5,000 extra deaths out of a population of 10,000,000.
That’s 0.05 btw

And if you correct for aging demographics and soft prior seasons, it would effectively disappear.

That’s what a no-lockdown, following WHO 2019 pandemic guidelines epidemic looks like.
Ivor Cummins.

Effectively disappear FFS.
5,000 more people have died in comparison to the average number who died in preceding years, maybe if we correct for ageing demographics and soft prior seasons we could adjust our way out of the 81,000 excess deaths this country has experienced since March.

 

[Monty]

He will also cherry pick and if he can't refute something you've said he will just pretend he didn't see it

Your advice is , don’t waste your time yet that’s exactly what you just done.....

I have time to waste, I couldn't care less. Just warning others that you're a twat.

 

[Cardiffjack]

Talking about science - Sweden has achieved only 5,000 extra deaths out of a population of 10,000,000.
That’s 0.05 btw

And if you correct for aging demographics and soft prior seasons, it would effectively disappear.

That’s what a no-lockdown, following WHO 2019 pandemic guidelines epidemic looks like.
Ivor Cummins.

Effectively disappear FFS.
5,000 more people have died in comparison to the average number who died in preceding years, maybe if we correct for ageing demographics and soft prior seasons we could adjust our way out of the 81,000 excess deaths this country has experienced since March.

You are the one saying to follow the science.
Tell me why won’t the government release the findings from the impact assessment , regarding live saved from going into lockdown and lives lost from going into lockdown ?
I’d imagine because those findings would destroy their narrative.

The only impact assessment that has been released is by professor Phil Thomas from Bristol university and he has concluded that 560,000 people will die as the result of lockdown, with the prolonged recession that will follow, as opposed to 56,000 dying if no lockdown was in place......

 

[Cardiffjack]

Your advice is , don’t waste your time yet that’s exactly what you just done.....

I have time to waste, I couldn't care less. Just warning others that you're a twat.

Oh you don’t have to tell me, because I know you have

 

[Professor]

Effectively disappear FFS.
5,000 more people have died in comparison to the average number who died in preceding years, maybe if we correct for ageing demographics and soft prior seasons we could adjust our way out of the 81,000 excess deaths this country has experienced since March.

You are the one saying to follow the science.
Tell me why won’t the government release the findings from the impact assessment , regarding live saved from going into lockdown and lives lost from going into lockdown ?
I’d imagine because those findings would destroy their narrative.

The only impact assessment that has been released is by professor Phil Thomas from Bristol university and he has concluded that 560,000 people will die as the result of lockdown, with the prolonged recession that will follow, as opposed to 56,000 dying if no lockdown was in place......

Good Old Sweden eh?
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/22/sweden-coronavirus-covid-response/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55347021

Economically has done much better than the UK and much of Europe, but no better than its Scandi neighbours who locked down with 10-25% of the mortality. Given its a rich country, with low population density, few major cities and high standards of health and social care, its a complete disaster, even compared to the more densely populated Denmark.


And Phil Thomas-a specialist in Risk Management in Civil Engineering. Hardly related to Public Health Risk?

If you want to be selective there are models saying the 1st lockdown saved 400,000 lives. I don't believe that either.

What you fail to get, is uncontrolled infection will be so debilitating to a country like the UK, there will be little economy left to rescue. We could easily reach a state where health and social care along with basic infrastructure collapses. Remember even if most people survive, a lot will be too ill to work and therein lies another problem. The focus on mortality loses the impact of morbidity and the impact on QALYs, or given Long Covid DALYs. The economic significance of these never seems to be factored in Denier claims.

That's not to decry any impacts on mental health. Clearly there are, though often stated without real evidence. The best hope is really get this level controlled sufficiently to get enough vaccination in place to protect people. The idea of shielding the 15 million people who have underlying conditions and the over 60s is a non-starter.

 

[Cardiffjack]

You are the one saying to follow the science.
Tell me why won’t the government release the findings from the impact assessment , regarding live saved from going into lockdown and lives lost from going into lockdown ?
I’d imagine because those findings would destroy their narrative.

The only impact assessment that has been released is by professor Phil Thomas from Bristol university and he has concluded that 560,000 people will die as the result of lockdown, with the prolonged recession that will follow, as opposed to 56,000 dying if no lockdown was in place......

Good Old Sweden eh?
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/22/sweden-coronavirus-covid-response/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55347021

Economically has done much better than the UK and much of Europe, but no better than its Scandi neighbours who locked down with 10-25% of the mortality. Given its a rich country, with low population density, few major cities and high standards of health and social care, its a complete disaster, even compared to the more densely populated Denmark.


And Phil Thomas-a specialist in Risk Management in Civil Engineering. Hardly related to Public Health Risk?

If you want to be selective there are models saying the 1st lockdown saved 400,000 lives. I don't believe that either.

What you fail to get, is uncontrolled infection will be so debilitating to a country like the UK, there will be little economy left to rescue. We could easily reach a state where health and social care along with basic infrastructure collapses. Remember even if most people survive, a lot will be too ill to work and therein lies another problem. The focus on mortality loses the impact of morbidity and the impact on QALYs, or given Long Covid DALYs. The economic significance of these never seems to be factored in Denier claims.

That's not to decry any impacts on mental health. Clearly there are, though often stated without real evidence. The best hope is really get this level controlled sufficiently to get enough vaccination in place to protect people. The idea of shielding the 15 million people who have underlying conditions and the over 60s is a non-starter.

To ill to work , where is the evidence to support that claim. The vast, vast majority will have a mild illness.

As for Phil Thomas and the assessment statement, I believe the governments own assessment statement probably arrives at the same conclusion as Thomas’s, why else wouldn’t they publish it ?

Also Sweden hasn’t had a disaster at all. One of their senior doctors was on the tv a few months ago , stating that last year Sweden had a mild flu season, meaning lots of people who may have died from seasonal flu last winter survived, but unfortunately were easy pickings for the coronavirus, plus Sweden got the care homes situation wrong, but for the general population, have had a very easy time.

 

[Darran]

The biggest thing in this thread for me is not Corona virus it’s why so many people keep replying to the total twat DGT.

 

[Cardiffjack]

The biggest thing in this thread for me is not Corona virus it’s why so many people keep replying to the total twat DGT.

Oh I see someone has lost her crayons

 

[Professor]

Good Old Sweden eh?
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/22/sweden-coronavirus-covid-response/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55347021

Economically has done much better than the UK and much of Europe, but no better than its Scandi neighbours who locked down with 10-25% of the mortality. Given its a rich country, with low population density, few major cities and high standards of health and social care, its a complete disaster, even compared to the more densely populated Denmark.


And Phil Thomas-a specialist in Risk Management in Civil Engineering. Hardly related to Public Health Risk?

If you want to be selective there are models saying the 1st lockdown saved 400,000 lives. I don't believe that either.

What you fail to get, is uncontrolled infection will be so debilitating to a country like the UK, there will be little economy left to rescue. We could easily reach a state where health and social care along with basic infrastructure collapses. Remember even if most people survive, a lot will be too ill to work and therein lies another problem. The focus on mortality loses the impact of morbidity and the impact on QALYs, or given Long Covid DALYs. The economic significance of these never seems to be factored in Denier claims.

That's not to decry any impacts on mental health. Clearly there are, though often stated without real evidence. The best hope is really get this level controlled sufficiently to get enough vaccination in place to protect people. The idea of shielding the 15 million people who have underlying conditions and the over 60s is a non-starter.

To ill to work , where is the evidence to support that claim. The vast, vast majority will have a mild illness.

As for Phil Thomas and the assessment statement, I believe the governments own assessment statement probably arrives at the same conclusion as Thomas’s, why else wouldn’t they publish it ?

Also Sweden hasn’t had a disaster at all. One of their senior doctors was on the tv a few months ago , stating that last year Sweden had a mild flu season, meaning lots of people who may have died from seasonal flu last winter survived, but unfortunately were easy pickings for the coronavirus, plus Sweden got the care homes situation wrong, but for the general population, have had a very easy time.

Around 8,500 dead. Rate of mortality only beaten by the UK. Compare apples to apples and it is an absolute disaster.
'Mild' is just defined as not needing hospitalisation. Most people I know who have been ill would not of been capable of work for around a week.
Some people will have a milder infection others worse. This will be around 80% of cases I agree, but say the average is 5 days off work and 20 million were affected, that's a big loss in productivity. Worth bearing in mind England as around 15% of hospital capacity given to Covid- that's total, not ICU or critical care. That leaves a shortfall when capacity would be around 95% this time of year.

Stop kidding yourself. This is a serious infection-far worse than influenza. If we follow your lead we will be burying hundreds of thousands. Now go find more denier BS. All I'm saying is to repeat what my colleague says(who is a coronavirus expert)-unless you want a tube down your throat and another up your arse, take this seriously.

 

[Cardiffjack]

To ill to work , where is the evidence to support that claim. The vast, vast majority will have a mild illness.

As for Phil Thomas and the assessment statement, I believe the governments own assessment statement probably arrives at the same conclusion as Thomas’s, why else wouldn’t they publish it ?

Also Sweden hasn’t had a disaster at all. One of their senior doctors was on the tv a few months ago , stating that last year Sweden had a mild flu season, meaning lots of people who may have died from seasonal flu last winter survived, but unfortunately were easy pickings for the coronavirus, plus Sweden got the care homes situation wrong, but for the general population, have had a very easy time.

Around 8,500 dead. Rate of mortality only beaten by the UK. Compare apples to apples and it is an absolute disaster.
'Mild' is just defined as not needing hospitalisation. Most people I know who have been ill would not of been capable of work for around a week.
Some people will have a milder infection others worse. This will be around 80% of cases I agree, but say the average is 5 days off work and 20 million were affected, that's a big loss in productivity. Worth bearing in mind England as around 15% of hospital capacity given to Covid- that's total, not ICU or critical care. That leaves a shortfall when capacity would be around 95% this time of year.

Stop kidding yourself. This is a serious infection-far worse than influenza. If we follow your lead we will be burying hundreds of thousands. Now go find more denier BS. All I'm saying is to repeat what my colleague says(who is a coronavirus expert)-unless you want a tube down your throat and another up your arse, take this seriously.

Why do you think I’ll end up with a tube down my throat. Do you say that to everyone who smokes, or to everyone who is overweight ? Keep things in perspective ffs.

 

[Professor]

Around 8,500 dead. Rate of mortality only beaten by the UK. Compare apples to apples and it is an absolute disaster.
'Mild' is just defined as not needing hospitalisation. Most people I know who have been ill would not of been capable of work for around a week.
Some people will have a milder infection others worse. This will be around 80% of cases I agree, but say the average is 5 days off work and 20 million were affected, that's a big loss in productivity. Worth bearing in mind England as around 15% of hospital capacity given to Covid- that's total, not ICU or critical care. That leaves a shortfall when capacity would be around 95% this time of year.

Stop kidding yourself. This is a serious infection-far worse than influenza. If we follow your lead we will be burying hundreds of thousands. Now go find more denier BS. All I'm saying is to repeat what my colleague says(who is a coronavirus expert)-unless you want a tube down your throat and another up your arse, take this seriously.

Why do you think I’ll end up with a tube down my throat. Do you say that to everyone who smokes, or to everyone who is overweight ? Keep things in perspective ffs.

No you Pratt. There are 15 million people with underlying health conditions in the UK. An awful lot of these are not lifestyle related including autoimmune conditions, immunodeficiency, genetic conditions like cystic fibrosis and those with unseen disability that prevent them protecting themselves fully. Over 5 million people have asthma (including me and have never smoked), 1 million moderate asthma and over 200,000 severe asthma. Who are you, or anyone else, to judge their lives and what they contribute to society.

Why do you feel you can pronounce over others health?

I am not saying you will end up intubated. But you could, or someone you care about. It's not 'just flu" get that. Get that mortality is 4-10 times greater than flu. Get that we don't even know longer term effects and sequelae-these clearly a range from reproductive to neurological issues including massive increase of risk of stroke. Its too early to fully know. That's why I prefer caution.