When will covid end ? Please be nice and respectful to others

[steviewevie]

12 minutes ago, lost said:

Makes sense I guess. Was it 60k excess deaths in 2018 when the NHS was overloaded from aussie flu? Therefore i'm guessing 50k is the ball park number the NHS can handle.

if evenly spread throughout year then I expect NHS can cope ok...only problem is if becomes seasonal and we get a bad winter with flu and covid and all the other stuff.

[lost]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

if evenly spread throughout year then I expect NHS can cope ok...only problem is if becomes seasonal and we get a bad winter with flu and covid and all the other stuff.

Yes that's my thinking. I believe those 60k excess deaths were all concentrated around the same 8 week period. Sadly its one of the bad things about living in this country. We are far enough north where is impossible to get enough vitamin D from the sun in winter and yet bang smack in the middle of the gulf stream meaning temperatures normally stay low single digits which respiratory viruses love.

Everyone I know who's had lung cancer has gone between the last two weeks of December and the first two in February.

[5co77ie]

1 hour ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

WTF are you talking about? I know plenty of people with cancer who’ve had the jab. 

Oh god - obviously not any cancers but those who are having severely immunosuppressive treatments such as stem cell transplant (bone marrow transplant) or  B-cells treatment directed against antibody-producing immune cells  - you know any of them?

 

I'll quit whilst I'm behind - and leave the petri dish of accusation and recrimination so well fostered - /me flounces off for the weekend.

Edited August 27, 2021 by 5co77ie

[zahidf]

Seems sensible

 

[5co77ie]

Seems even more acceptable:

”The Government’s cost-benefit analysis on Covid measures is believed to set not only the acceptable level of cost to save the life of a Covid patient at up to £30,000, but also how much each life lost costs the UK economy.

It is understood the analysis shows that the cost of keeping the annual death rate below 50,000 would outweigh the cost to the UK economy of allowing it to rise above this level.”

https://inews.co.uk/news/boris-johnson-privately-accepts-up-to-50000-annual-covid-deaths-as-an-acceptable-level-1170069

 

[steviewevie]

58 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Seems sensible

 

why the government has been working hard all summer on improving ventilation in schools, public transport etc.

Not.

[lost]

Since right at the beginning of this when Seamus Milne took the virus into a cross party meeting on covid and gave it to everyone (very likely to include 71 year old Jeremy Corbyn who would of been with him before and after and probably sat next to during the meeting) and only 18 stone Boris ended up in hospital we've been aware that excess weight is the number 1 factor in covid turning into severe covid and yet we've done sod all about that too. Do we still have the most obese population in Europe?

[steviewevie]

From Guardian live feed.

[lost]

That study also says if you've had covid the risk of side effects from the vaccine probably outweigh the very slight benefit of getting it. That's going to piss off alot of people.

If its right I guess its good news for countries like say Sweden who I guess will have alot of natural immunity whilst places like New Zealand and Australia are completely screwed

Edited August 27, 2021 by lost

[zahidf]

16 minutes ago, lost said:

That study also says if you've had covid the risk of side effects from the vaccine probably outweigh the very slight benefit of getting it. That's going to piss off alot of people.

If its right I guess its good news for countries like say Sweden who I guess will have alot of natural immunity whilst places like New Zealand and Australia are completed screwed

No it doesnt

 

 

 

 

[lost]

Quote

No it doesnt

Yes it does you've linked to something completely different there. We are talking about people who have had AND recovered completely from covid. For them any extra anti-body boost from the vaccine within the time period mentioned is next to useless. Nobody is suggesting people who have not had covid are better off going out and catching it.

Edited August 27, 2021 by lost

[zahidf]

England going down again. Seems like we are in some sort of equilibrium at the moment.

[Fuzzy Afro]

5 hours ago, 5co77ie said:

Oh god - obviously not any cancers but those who are having severely immunosuppressive treatments such as stem cell transplant (bone marrow transplant) or  B-cells treatment directed against antibody-producing immune cells  - you know any of them?

 

I'll quit whilst I'm behind - and leave the petri dish of accusation and recrimination so well fostered - /me flounces off for the weekend.

So why didn’t you say that the first time then?

 

It’s INCREDIBLY offensive to label all cancer patients as being vulnerable. Plenty of cancers don’t affect the immune system and area treated by either surgery or radiotherapy rather than chemo. Those two treatment options don’t suppress your immune system like chemo does. 

[Guest]

Vaccination update:

[5co77ie]

16 hours ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

So why didn’t you say that the first time then?

 

It’s INCREDIBLY offensive to label all cancer patients as being vulnerable. Plenty of cancers don’t affect the immune system and area treated by either surgery or radiotherapy rather than chemo. Those two treatment options don’t suppress your immune system like chemo does. 

I never labelled all cancer patients as vulnerable - i don't think anyone thinks that, I was talking within the remit of the people I provide assistance for in South Devon. I wholly apologize if anyone took it the wrong way.

[philipsteak]

9 hours ago, 5co77ie said:

I never labelled all cancer patients as vulnerable - i don't think anyone thinks that, I was talking within the remit of the people I provide assistance for in South Devon. I wholly apologize if anyone took it the wrong way.

I wouldn't worry about it. Seemed obvious to me. 

[Guest]

Vaccination update:

[efcfanwirral]

 

On 8/27/2021 at 11:22 AM, zahidf said:

Tbh, if this was the death toll predicted last year from Covid, we would have done sod all restrictions wise

That's an average of 137 per day and 961 per week. The past 7 days of reporting have us at 674. Over the summer, and it's hard to imagine it getting much better. If that's down to an economic calculation as the article seems to say, and it's imperative we keep it below that level, surpassing those numbers is almost inevitable for the entire winter months. 

As much as it's a vilified way of looking at things, are all of those REALLY caused by covid? It's clearly labelled as "within 28 days of a positive test", and fair enough if it is indeed down to that but some sort of breakdown is clearly needed if we're going to use deaths as an indicator. With 30k per day and people catching it in hospitals its not inconceivable that those numbers aren't 100% down to genuine covid deaths. And if we're working to a rigid number, the data has to be spot on. If even a quarter aren't really suitable to be called covid deaths, then that could be the difference between say 6 months of damaging restrictions and maybe 3 months of them

Edited August 29, 2021 by efcfanwirral

[lost]

26 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

As much as it's a vilified way of looking at things, are all of those REALLY caused by covid? It's clearly labelled as "within 28 days of a positive test", and fair enough if it is indeed down to that but some sort of breakdown is clearly needed if we're going to use deaths as an indicator. With 30k per day and people catching it in hospitals its not inconceivable that those numbers aren't 100% down to genuine covid deaths. 

The number I quoted for 2018 only I think around 10 - 12k went down as flu deaths but unless all the underlying health conditions suddenly miraculously get much worse, what normally happens is you catch what ever the virus is for that years respiratory virus season, it weakens your body enough that you then succumb to your health conditions in the weeks proceeding it. This is why we have more deaths over winter.

There is definitely alot of cross over there, right at the start I think Prof Ferguson put it as 75% of deaths generally had weeks or months to live. I haven't a clue if that number has changed but saying all that if everyone in the country who had say lung cancer and emphysema caught covid on the same day the NHS would still have a massive problem even if those people generally didn't have long to live.

Edited August 29, 2021 by lost

[zahidf]

52 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

 

That's an average of 137 per day and 961 per week. The past 7 days of reporting have us at 674. Over the summer, and it's hard to imagine it getting much better. If that's down to an economic calculation as the article seems to say, and it's imperative we keep it below that level, surpassing those numbers is almost inevitable for the entire winter months. 

As much as it's a vilified way of looking at things, are all of those REALLY caused by covid? It's clearly labelled as "within 28 days of a positive test", and fair enough if it is indeed down to that but some sort of breakdown is clearly needed if we're going to use deaths as an indicator. With 30k per day and people catching it in hospitals its not inconceivable that those numbers aren't 100% down to genuine covid deaths. And if we're working to a rigid number, the data has to be spot on. If even a quarter aren't really suitable to be called covid deaths, then that could be the difference between say 6 months of damaging restrictions and maybe 3 months of them

Tbh I don't think it's a set figure they'll be doing. If it's a few thousand more here and there they won't care.

 

[zahidf]

So we still on course for 100k infections a day and that step 4 was a 'dangerous and unethical experiment'? We still going to arrest Boris for genocide?

[steviewevie]

20 minutes ago, zahidf said:

So we still on course for 100k infections a day and that step 4 was a 'dangerous and unethical experiment'? We still going to arrest Boris for genocide?

It was an experiment but fortunately worse predictions have not come true.

 

[zahidf]

 

[zahidf]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

It was an experiment but fortunately worse predictions have not come true.

 

Yup. The doom mongering nerds were wrong and the 'enough is enough' crowd were right 

I'm sure fake SAGE are writing their articles for the guardian now saying how we need to lockdown now 'just in case' we get 200k cases a day in a week or so

[steviewevie]

3 hours ago, zahidf said:

Yup. The doom mongering nerds were wrong and the 'enough is enough' crowd were right 

I'm sure fake SAGE are writing their articles for the guardian now saying how we need to lockdown now 'just in case' we get 200k cases a day in a week or so

enough is enough crowd?! lol. That really is some petty bollocks Zahid, but I guess you just want a reaction, which is exactly what you're getting.