|
|
Post by jib on Dec 22, 2021 22:14:55 GMT
I understand the latest Welsh lockdown rules are stricter than those in England, which begs the question what is the point? It can only be political. I don't believe the Welsh border is to be closed and there are many people who cross the border on a daily basis for work or other reasons. Therefore Welsh measures can do almost nothing to protect their population. Hopefully the new variant is a damp squib. As a supporter of Welsh devolution, I do think it's best to be precautionary, it is hardly Draconian! |
|
|
|
Post by charles on Dec 22, 2021 22:16:22 GMT
Given that, it seems to me that we should wear masks, have cond passports and do anything sensible that will not harm the economy but will tend ot keep us safer. This might involve closing the pubs and restaurants, but if we do that we have to compensate them properly. What we should not do is scare the pants off people, tell them not to go to parties etc and use the fact that this is only advisory to avoid giving adequate compensation to the pubs etc. Labour should go for the inequity of this and not the fact that the government has not got a plan, which to be fair to them. it now more or less has. The only justification at this point for restrictions is to prevent hospital overload. If we have evidence that isn't going to happen, then they are a restriction of liberty bankrupting cituzens and the state for nothing. As to encouraging labour to push for useless restrictions harming voters... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thought I had replied but this but seems not. It is generally agreed (by you as well it seems( that there is a serious risk of the NHS been very severely stretched if not overwhelmed. Most experts seem to agree on the type of action that would miniise this risk, but not on how effective it is likely to be. The actions also vary in how restrictive they are and damaging they are likely to be to the economy. The sensible approach is surely to do those actions which have a reasonable chance of mitigating the risk and a minmal chance of damaging the economy or severely restricting liberty. in my book mandatory mask-wearing is sensibleand proportionate. It may be that closing down bars and restaurants would be as well. But if it is it is only fair to compensate those who suffer. What is not fair is to dodge responsibility for compensation by giving advice that damages the industry but puts the onus for doing it on individuals. In my view Labour should go wih the need create a society that benefits all and where there is not one rule for them and another for us. We got through tehe pandemic because of the efforts of essential workeres who were ill paid, initially not propertly protected, not adequately compensated for taking time off work, and denied pay rises at the end. they were far more likely to get sick than better off workers who could use their computers from home. This is not the sort of society Labour should be going along with., |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Dec 22, 2021 22:17:30 GMT
I understand the latest Welsh lockdown rules are stricter than those in England, which begs the question what is the point? It can only be political. I don't believe the Welsh border is to be closed and there are many people who cross the border on a daily basis for work or other reasons. Therefore Welsh measures can do almost nothing to protect their population. I don't think that follows - we're not talking about trying to keep a virus out of the country, simply to limit the rate of spread. Closing nightclubs in Cardiff should lead to decreased exposure as very few people are going to go to the expense and hassle of going to eg Bristol for a night out instead - likewise enforcing WFH is not materially affected by having different rules in England. Whether these measures are necessary and how much impact they will have is a separate question but one that I think would apply equally if the same measures were in force in England as well. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2021 22:21:03 GMT
jib@"it is hardly Draconian!" No-it's Drakefordian. Draco was a Greek relative of his. 
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 22, 2021 22:26:13 GMT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thought I had replied but this but seems not. Possibly because you post your reply inside the quote you are replying to, your post gets overlooked. I've noticed one or two folks do this. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Dec 22, 2021 22:26:26 GMT
bantams - "The data has been backed up by some Scottish figures which suggest a big drop in hospitalisations with Omicron. Neil Ferguson has just backed this view on't tele." Have just caught up with those studies. It is now starting to look like there is a genuine reduction in severity, but as all the experts are saying, it's not as simple as some are suggesting. The ICL figures show that for those neither previously infected or vaccinated, Omicron is around 11% less severe than Delta, so probably back to the pre Delta days. However, the numbersinvolved are small. The studies also focus more on younger age groups, as these are where Omicron is more prevalent, and the data on impacts in vulnerable groups is not yet available. Also worth noting that the gains in severity will be offset by the greater infectivity, so Ferguson says that the data is still consistent with 3000 admissions a day. So yes, it is better news, tentatively, but still far too soon to suggest this is a damp squib.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Dec 22, 2021 22:32:40 GMT
On this site, is there a way to bookmark the last post you read, so that refreshing the screen brings you back to that point? It does just that for me automatically. The last post read at the top of the screen and the first unread in the middle after a refresh. Surprised to hear that it's not doing that your end. I'm on a desktop using Firefox. |
|
bantams
Member
Known as Bantams on UKPR
Posts: 196 
|
Post by bantams on Dec 22, 2021 22:51:30 GMT
On this site, is there a way to bookmark the last post you read, so that refreshing the screen brings you back to that point? It does just that for me automatically. The last post read at the top of the screen and the first unread in the middle after a refresh. Surprised to hear that it's not doing that your end. I'm on a desktop using Firefox. I think OldNat's still on Windows 3.1 which might explain the problem. 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Dec 22, 2021 22:58:44 GMT
The only justification at this point for restrictions is to prevent hospital overload. If we have evidence that isn't going to happen, then they are a restriction of liberty bankrupting cituzens and the state for nothing. As to encouraging labour to push for useless restrictions harming voters... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thought I had replied but this but seems not. It is generally agreed (by you as well it seems( that there is a serious risk of the NHS been very severely stretched if not overwhelmed. Most experts seem to agree on the type of action that would miniise this risk, but not on how effective it is likely to be. The actions also vary in how restrictive they are and damaging they are likely to be to the economy. The sensible approach is surely to do those actions which have a reasonable chance of mitigating the risk and a minmal chance of damaging the economy or severely restricting liberty. in my book mandatory mask-wearing is sensibleand proportionate. It may be that closing down bars and restaurants would be as well. But if it is it is only fair to compensate those who suffer. What is not fair is to dodge responsibility for compensation by giving advice that damages the industry but puts the onus for doing it on individuals. In my view Labour should go wih the need create a society that benefits all and where there is not one rule for them and another for us. We got through tehe pandemic because of the efforts of essential workeres who were ill paid, initially not propertly protected, not adequately compensated for taking time off work, and denied pay rises at the end. they were far more likely to get sick than better off workers who could use their computers from home. This is not the sort of society Labour should be going along with., Hi Charles, good to get your thoughts on here :-) I agree with most of your post above - tho I do think you're perhaps melding different things together in your characterisation of "essential workers". You list six characteristics/effects, and I doubt all of them apply to almost anyone - lorry drivers were often ill paid and not properly compensated for taking time off, but overall have done very well out of pay rises and from the data I've worked with were no more likely to get sick than other groups including office workers who were switched to working from home. Front-line healthcare staff would tick not properly protected and far more likely to get sick, but also on default full pay for sick periods unlike many in the private sector. Social workers would tick ill paid and denied pay rises, but were often able to work from home, and so on. Essentially I'd see it more as a large venn diagram. As for compensation for advice - as with other things there will be limits. When very bad weather is forecast people are advised to stay home, and there's no expectation that businesses who suffer a drop in trade as a result will be compensated for that. The sheer scale of the initial lockdown impacts in 2020 made complete sense for creating Furlough and the other support measures, as otherwise the economic contagion from so many businesses being so severely impacted at the same time would have been catastrophic. But if fewer people go out this week because they can see there's a lot more COVID around and they don't want to catch it, is that so different to fewer people going out this week because it's snowing? But I agree with your central political point - it will likely be negative for Labour to be seen as consistently seeking restrictions that make their more affluent voters a little safer whilst the risks to their poorer voters remain unchanged. |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Dec 22, 2021 23:05:03 GMT
It does just that for me automatically. The last post read at the top of the screen and the first unread in the middle after a refresh. Surprised to hear that it's not doing that your end. I'm on a desktop using Firefox. I think OldNat's still on Windows 3.1 which might explain the problem. 😉 Oldnat of all people is surely using a Mac?  |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Dec 22, 2021 23:20:23 GMT
EOR On the subject of precipitous change. The precipitous decline in case numbers in South Africa continues. The seven day average case rate is now down 17%.The three day fall is 45% Which on the face of it is good news if omicron rises peaks and then steeply declines all within 5 weeks , without major changes in restrictions and a mortality rate that's now highly likely to remain significantly below that in the UK now , then it's reasonable to assume that those restrictions weren't necessary to change the outcome. While of course there's something to be said for a precautionary response it can also appear alarmist when it's proved the thing you were responding to.really wasn't a major problem in the first place but rather a extremely rapid way of acquiring additional covid immunity. The South African authorities assertion that international response was disproportionate appears to have significant justification. Yes I agree the indicators we have are consistently positive, which is obviously to be welcomed! As regards your latter point, I disagree - statistically any particular instance of unprotected sex is unlikely to result in unwanted pregnancy or an STD. But we'd view all the cases where all is fine as having got away with it rather than the advice to take precautions being unnecessary and alarmist. Various SA authorities said this was going to be ok, or at least said that there was no evidence yet that it was definitely going to go badly - subsequent data arising weeks later showing that has indeed been the case doesn't mean everyone else was wrong to be cautious while we waited to find out if they were right. |
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Dec 22, 2021 23:34:24 GMT
jib @"it is hardly Draconian!" No-it's Drakefordian. Draco was a Greek relative of his. And a distant relative of a Harry Potter villain. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Dec 22, 2021 23:57:57 GMT
I think OldNat's still on Windows 3.1 which might explain the problem. 😉 Oldnat of all people is surely using a Mac?  Windows 10 on a laptop. When I refresh, it goes back to the last comment that I made. My laptop may have the narcissist bug. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2021 0:10:26 GMT
Britain Elects @britainelects · 3m Westminster voting intention: LAB: 41% (-) CON: 34% (+1) LDEM: 9% (+2) GRN: 4% (-2) via @focaldatahq , 20 - 21 Dec Chgs. w/ 09 Dec The bounce-back begins! 😄 Will it be a 'chat mort' bounce though? With +ve (or at least less -ve) news on Omicron then by not shatting themselves and over reacting[1] as many 'others' have then into Jan we could see some CON'19 DKs move back CON VI and could see CON back into high 30%s (and with less DKs from CON'19 then everyone else nudged gets down in headline numbers). Optimistically for CON then they could get back to close to 'tie' between CON+LAB but that would mean Boris gets to limps on. [1] Gove the only known lockdown fanatic in cabinet with most of the others 'neutral' or leaning towards the longer term view of minimising the socio-economic damage of lockdown and being 'aware' that many folks are taking 'voluntary measures' (see YG article posted on the Covid thread, not that many folks bother to use it) and that boosters (anyone posting 'league tables' on vaccines or does that only happen when England/UK looks 'bad'?), massive testing (again on league tables) and new drugs (thankfully we have MHRA who are fast fast to act) are likely to ensure the Omicron wave peaks well below the Alpha-Delta wave (ie NHS is severely stretched (as it always is in Winter) but doesn't collapse). I personally wouldn't give Boris a personal boost for 'indecision' from fear of more cabinet resignations, back bench rebellion and a potential VoNC BUT I would give credit to the Blue team (Rishi+co) for not shatting themselves and over reacting (as many others have) |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 23, 2021 0:48:51 GMT
The bounce-back begins! 😄 Will it be a 'chat mort' bounce though? With +ve (or at least less -ve) news on Omicron then by not shatting themselves and over reacting[1] as many 'others' have then into Jan we could see some CON'19 DKs move back CON VI and could see CON back into high 30%s (and with less DKs from CON'19 then everyone else nudged gets down in headline numbers). Optimistically for CON then they could get back to close to 'tie' between CON+LAB but that would mean Boris gets to limps on. It was a joke. It's clearly within the MoE, but does perhaps show what the Tory base support is. |
|
|
|
Post by moby on Dec 23, 2021 4:40:41 GMT
I understand the latest Welsh lockdown rules are stricter than those in England, which begs the question what is the point? It can only be political. I don't believe the Welsh border is to be closed and there are many people who cross the border on a daily basis for work or other reasons. Therefore Welsh measures can do almost nothing to protect their population. Its about slowing the rate of spread and reducing stress on services going into the New Year. I for one feel better protected and so do all my neighbours, especially since I have a direct comparison having lived in N London until five months ago. None of us really care about pantomimes and can manage without nightclubs for a few weeks. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,331
|
Post by Danny on Dec 23, 2021 6:57:18 GMT
Charles,
There is a risk of the NHS being overwhelmed, but I am not sure that is any worse than in a normal winter. Its part of its design that the expected winter surge in pneumonias and similar respiratory diseases is managed by closing down its normal services. I do not believe this will end up being worse than a normal bad year. Hopefully it will be a lot better. It is true though that we seem to have more bad years recently than I recall when I was younger, so the NHS has probably been run down over that time making its margin to cope with overload smaller. We all know it has far fewer beds now than it once did and relies to maintain throughput on patients staying in hospital for much shorter times for just about anything. In any wave of illness, staff will be off sick and not having a margin for this is another aspect of running it down. It came into covid in a position of unfilled vacancies and has had this too for years. I noticed a proposal to make care assisitants a priority category to allow immigration once again, and allow assylum seekers to work in health care instead of being barred any paid work. It would be funny if it wasnt serious.
So the problem faced now is a shortage of standing capacity and not specific to covid. Its about willingness to spend on the NHS. This whole thing has been going on for two years, and by now government could have announced a general plan to permanently increase capacity which could already have had some effect. It hasnt. Instead what has really happened is capacity cram has become worse. I recall last summer one London hospital fast tracked an extension block they had already planned to get it into service, but another year has gone by and we could have done more of this had we actually wanted to. Obviously we didnt want to, but that was the real solution. Locally, there used to be a functional hospital building in Bexhill, which has been downgraded to outpatients and offices. It could have been upgraded again to take real patients, and some new offices found somewhere. We really have had time to permanently increases capacity had we wished to.
The bottom line of the management plan for epidemics before covid and apparently still now, is if the NHS becomes overloaded we just leave people untreated. That is equivalent to saying the Government has decided the nation cannot afford to increase its net level of health care. It isnt cost effective to expand the NHS. But it follows therefore it isnt cost effective to do anything else as an alternative which would be even less cost effective. Such as this massive program of test and trace, or restricting people's movements, or forcing symptomless people to stay home.
At the moment government has told people to isolate more. I agree with you this will impose serious costs on some which is deeply unfair on them. It obvious the government believes the nation cannot afford to compensate for this, otherwise it would have done so. Sweden for example has far milder measures in place -and most of them are voluntary and always have been- but it has a mandatory compensation scheme operating. So yes, I agree with you Labour could legitimately attack the government on grounds of failing to compensate. But would it in the end benefit politically by giving money to small business owners? Or indeed, big business owners. In the nature of the economy, this may bankrupt some, but if the business model was formerly viable, someone else will come along and run that restauarant or shop or whatever once this is finally over. Larger concerns not visited by the public are not currently prevented from operating. So government has essentially decided to allow public facing businesses to fail because they will be replaced automatically at no cost to the exchequer.
Conservatives are in government precisely because they chose not to try to create a united nation. At the time we left the EU, public support had swung pretty clearly towards no longer wishing to do so, yet we did. Government chose to go against the wishes of the nation, and it did so to please the minority who had supported it because it espoused brexit. This will kill people too, because overall there will be less money to go around and health will lose out too. In the long run political parties have and do suffer loss of support because time after time they take action which benefits only a minority, but the minority which supports them. While short term they boost support amongst their minority, longer term they manage to offend almost everyone. Between them they tell the public every policy is wrong and all parties are not worth your vote. Well very many believe them! But if you can demotivate your opponents voters from doing so, or at least do no worse than your opponent, what does it matter if 90% of people are alienated by any party likely to form a government? Its obvious why SNP is so popular even amongst unionists!
In the UK ther are some aspects of the situation which ought to mitigate the situation compared to SA, rather than as doomsayers suggest risk a worse outcome here. If vaccination works, then its already been done twice over and we can go back to normal. If it doesnt, then there isnt anything else we can do except go back to normal anyway and put this all behind us. There is no evidence nations which imposed fewer restrictions did worse than those who did more, in the end.
Anyone who wants one has been offered a vaccination. Its a fact most of those who have not had one have always been in low risk categories. The evidence is they get as few infections or reinfections as vacinated people (at least, a few months after vaccination) so ultimately the vaccination program will not reduce the total number of cases. If its correct there are more unvaccinated people in hospital with covid than unvaccinated, it will be because of the subset of unvaccinated high risk people, not the majority of obviously low risk younger people or anyone who has already had covid. No one should by now ignore the fact that many high risk people are long since dead so the proportion of very high risk is now lower than at the start of the epidemic. They're gone already, so if we re-ran the whole thing again without those people, second time around the death toll would be lower, possibly much lower. Government keeps ascribing to vaccines all the gains in reducing ongoing mortality which have already been made through infection induced immunity, improvements in treatment and culling the vulnerable. All these things happened anyway.
Vaccines have failed to meet their stated objective of ending the epidemic. In the absence of this there is no other choice except to revert to the original pandemic plan of managed infection, which Sweden followed from the outset. Given vaccination has failed, departing from the managed infection plan was a clear mistake, and Sweden has proven it to have been so by attaining better outcomes based on some fundamental, simple, voluntary, rules. Stay home if you have symptoms and think about distancing. Older people take more care, special precautions. Restrict crowds. But generally aimed at keeping cases at a manageable level, not preventing them happening for the majority of the population. Closing borders has been pointless and usually imposed way too late to do anything anyway.
It was always right to follow the Swedish approach. Whatever benefit has been achievd thus far through vaccination, infection or treatment thus far, its even more correct to follow the swedish approach now. There is no gain in reducing the total of cases amongst the majority of people. There is only any gain in preventing overload, and preventing overload does not mean trying to run the NHS less loaded than its normal winter design.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Dec 23, 2021 7:30:33 GMT
Given that all the data from the two UK studies into Omicron severity remain consistent with a surge of hospital admissions to 3000 per day, and a consequent swamping of the NHS, I'm not convinced the reporting of the data is very helpful or comprehensive. As stated last night, the direct comparison of severity between the two in unvaccinated people without any previous infections showed a modest 11% reduction severity of Omicron compared to Delta, which means Omicron is about the same as the original strains pre Delta - although the numbers here are small.
It is better news, but the sheer scale of cases, and the fact that they are now moving up the age range, means that we still face a potential crisis.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,331
|
Post by Danny on Dec 23, 2021 7:42:55 GMT
.I don't think that follows - we're not talking about trying to keep a virus out of the country, simply to limit the rate of spread. Closing nightclubs in Cardiff should lead to decreased exposure as very few people are going to go to the expense and hassle of going to eg Bristol for a night out instead - likewise enforcing WFH is not materially affected by having different rules in England. Whether these measures are necessary and how much impact they will have is a separate question but one that I think would apply equally if the same measures were in force in England as well. Indeed...just wht is the point of slowing down spread amongst actually young nightclubbers and covid young workers who wont get seriously ill and will catch it eventually anyway? |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,331
|
Post by Danny on Dec 23, 2021 7:46:33 GMT
Given that all the data from the two UK studies into Omicron severity remain consistent with a surge of hospital admissions to 3000 per day, and a consequent swamping of the NHS, I'm not convinced the reporting of the data is very helpful or comprehensive. As stated last night, the direct comparison of severity between the two in unvaccinated people without any previous infections showed a modest 11% reduction severity of Omicron compared to Delta, which means Omicron is about the same as the original strains pre Delta - although the numbers here are small. It is better news, but the sheer scale of cases, and the fact that they are now moving up the age range, means that we still face a potential crisis. Which two studies? Dont forget that if omicron produces only 1/3 as many hospitalisation, then you can afford to have 3x as many cases for the same number in hospital. And we started with more than a million cases of delta. So replacing that with 3 million omicron means we are no worse off than before omicron arrived and delta had been chugging along seemingly generating new cases about as fast as vaccines wore off after 3 months. So endlessly. |
|
|
|
Post by jib on Dec 23, 2021 7:48:09 GMT
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,361
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Dec 23, 2021 7:54:19 GMT
Danny re Sweden, they are imposing more restrictions, which seems to me to be at least equivalent restrictions in England, indeed they go further www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.eu/article/sweden-face-new-social-restriction-coronavirus-cases-rise/amp/The Nordic country is introducing a raft of measures in a bid to stall accelerating COVID-19 infections... The measures prevent crowded dancefloors, for example, by requiring people to remain seated at events with at least 20 guests. People must demonstrate proof of vaccination to attend events with 500 people or more, and seated groups of no more than eight must be spaced out.. Restaurants can remain open, but tables are limited to eight people and must be at least 1 meter apart. Shops and markets will have to limit customers to one for every 10 square meters of floor space to limit crowding. The same goes for gyms and museums. The new rules come into effect from Thursday. Sweden will also reimpose a work-from-home rule. A government meeting on Wednesday will decide on a strengthened mandate for the state authorities, the ministry said. This will mean that from January 31, people must work from home unless it’s impossible to do so' Edit, beaten to it by Jib |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,331
|
Post by Danny on Dec 23, 2021 7:56:12 GMT
EOR On the subject of precipitous change. The precipitous decline in case numbers in South Africa continues. The seven day average case rate is now down 17%.The three day fall is 45% Which on the face of it is good news if omicron rises peaks and then steeply declines all within 5 weeks , without major changes in restrictions and a mortality rate that's now highly likely to remain significantly below that in the UK now , then it's reasonable to assume that those restrictions weren't necessary to change the outcome. While of course there's something to be said for a precautionary response it can also appear alarmist when it's proved the thing you were responding to.really wasn't a major problem in the first place but rather a extremely rapid way of acquiring additional covid immunity. The South African authorities assertion that international response was disproportionate appears to have significant justification. Yes I agree the indicators we have are consistently positive, which is obviously to be welcomed! As regards your latter point, I disagree - statistically any particular instance of unprotected sex is unlikely to result in unwanted pregnancy or an STD. But we'd view all the cases where all is fine as having got away with it rather than the advice to take precautions being unnecessary and alarmist. Various SA authorities said this was going to be ok, or at least said that there was no evidence yet that it was definitely going to go badly - subsequent data arising weeks later showing that has indeed been the case doesn't mean everyone else was wrong to be cautious while we waited to find out if they were right. Er...people do get pregnant after sex and do catch diseases. Your analogy rather fails in that from SA there is no bad news thus far. While the good news may not be conclusive, based upon experience as in your example, ther has never been a bad outcome from omicron. |
|
|
|
Post by jib on Dec 23, 2021 7:58:11 GMT
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,361
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Dec 23, 2021 8:01:43 GMT
The latest study, while still relatively good news, 'found that the risk of any attendance at hospital was 20% to 25% lower with Omicron versus Delta, and 40%-45% lower when the visit resulted in admission for at least one night. For the small percentage of people who had neither been previously infected with Covid nor vaccinated, the risk of hospitalisation was about 11% lower for Omicron versus Delta.' So around 55% to 60% will still end up in hospital. Much higher numbers for the unvaccinated or not previously infected www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/22/risk-of-hospital-stay-40-lower-with-omicron-than-delta-uk-data-suggests |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,331
|
Post by Danny on Dec 23, 2021 8:09:33 GMT
Given that all the data from the two UK studies into Omicron severity remain consistent with a surge of hospital admissions to 3000 per day, and a consequent swamping of the NHS, ... Didnt SA report a considerble shortening of time spent in hospital by omicron cases, as well as only needing milder treatment? Wasnt it just 3-5 days average stay?
5 days stay at 3000 cases a day would only leave 15,000 in hospital, which isnt much more than now. At 3 days it would be much the same as now.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,331
|
Post by Danny on Dec 23, 2021 8:12:51 GMT
For the small percentage of people who had neither been previously infected with Covid nor vaccinated, the risk of hospitalisation was about 11% lower for Omicron versus Delta.' Just how many are there left neither vaccinated nor infected? Not many? And cut that further by discounting people who are anyway young, just how many at risk are left?
Vaccine passports or closing nightclubs isnt going to reach the at risk group.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,618
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Dec 23, 2021 8:23:27 GMT
EOR
I didn't say a precautionary approach was wrong,other than international travel bans which are bound to prove ineffective if a condition is already present locally.
I said the South African authorities case was that it was disproportionate to the actual risk.
And they appear to be correct in that assumption.
The std/pregnancy analogy isn't strictly relevant as the risk is already normally a known factor and the reasons for disregarding it are normally choice based on gratification of desire or some religious nonsense.
The exception recently being HIV/aids, the worst pandemic of the last fifty years, which while not exclusively a std was an unknown risk when it first appeared in the gay community.
It's possible that earlier identification may well have saved millions of lives.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,618
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Dec 23, 2021 8:34:12 GMT
Danny
You are correct about the shorter stays in hospital, South African data suggests the average time in hospital reduced from 8.1 days with previous variants to 2.8 days with omicron.
While this doesn't necessarily reduce pressure on paramedic and accident and emergency departments,it does to some extent as admissions from a and e to a ward are clearly delayed if the hospital is full , and it should prevent the NHS becoming " overwhelmed ".
Dr Fauci recently reiterated the irrelevance of case numbers and restated the significance of severity.
If we have a million people a day getting a virus that produces 0.1 % hospitalization o f people who on average stay in hospital for eight days and are therefore more likely to be severely ill, there's clearly a worse outcome than if the same number of admissions happen where on average people are less ill and are discharged in a third of the time.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,361
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Dec 23, 2021 8:47:33 GMT
In comparisons with South Africa you need to take into account the much younger population and the fact it is the middle of summer there. Does anyone think if we had the omicron outbreak in the middle of our summer as opposed to winter, we would have the same level of hospital admissions?
|
|
