(10-16-2020, 02:27 PM)billybassett Wrote:

(10-16-2020, 01:02 PM)baggy1 Wrote:

(10-16-2020, 11:55 AM)billybassett Wrote:

(10-16-2020, 11:32 AM)baggy1 Wrote:

(10-16-2020, 11:27 AM)billybassett Wrote: For the love of god I really hope not. You'll be killing so many more people that the ones you think you're saving.

The rising number of cases and deaths is proceeding 4x more slowly now than in the spring. Whilst this means in some areas it will continue to rise in others it will not. Plus if they keep adding in the 28% of people who catch covid when they're in hospital (they go in with non-covid issues). Plus the death rate is much much lower.

Based on pure numbers carrying on for the next 2 weeks in the way they have for the last 5 weeks we will have 10k in hospital by the end of the month. I agree it isn't increasing as fast as the spring which is good, but the maximum number in hospital in England in the spring was just over 17k. If we carry on without changing and the numbers increase in the same way then we will reach that figure in a month.

What is the alternative?

We could have that many in hospital by the end of the month. I very much doubt it mind as the curves of other nations ahead of us are already flattening. You're also equating the spring with now which is basically apples and pears. The classification of covid patients, the treatments, the demographic profile of those being admitted, those nosocomial admissions, influenza tested as covid (see PCR test fallacy) and mainly the current nationwide susceptibility rate which is falling.

I mean this is where SAGE need to be shot or charged with manslaughter. The models they used started from a point that it was a completely new virus and  0% base of the population have initial immunity. Absolutely bonkers. So they predicted that 90+% were susceptible. Pity they didn't have a clinical immunologist helping build the model as opposed to a maths/physicist because as anyone working in respiratory immunology would have told them covid has 70%+ same sequencing of a range of other covid variants we've had as flu over recent years: OC43, HKU1, 229E and NL63. Thus roughly 3 in every 10 people would already have had T-cells able to provide immunity to covid and thus the modelling of future susceptible people/thus cases from ZERO is/was a mile off.

How does that relate to your numbers? If there's already 30% immune, and if we use the WHO 0.2% Infection rate mortality index to determine infections to date then that would take care of another 30% of the population. If you were then to take account of the young and maybe very comorbid then that probably only leaves 20-30% of the population left to infect. Thus we will see numbers flatten over the next few weeks.

And tbh even if they did rise higher than that we should still definitely not lockdown -see my previous post to Shabby

OK, I'm not disagreeing with anything you say because, let's be honest, none of us are experts, but what happens if next week we are are the 6.75k figure following the pattern for the previous few weeks, do we lock down then? I'm taking a simple approach to a complex subject but the numbers are increasing in a steady pattern from the beginning of September, but you expect that to flatten out based on we'll follow the same pattern as other european countries.

Trust me, I don't want to lockdown and can see the damage that would cause, but if our hospitals fill up again then they will close to all other non-covid treatments. What pisses me off is that they had one job which was to get an effective track and trace system in place, with that we could have identified these problems early and dealt with them better - I'm not talking about locking down the whole of Birmingham, i'm talking about locking down smaller areas, postcodes, streets or even buildings to stop the spread. We're currently that shit at doing this we are locking down a country whilst letting everyone get on as normal basically and wondering why it isn't working.

Look at the pattern:


So it's going to flatten and deaths thankfully are low. The rates of increase are so much slower than in April.
If we lockdown we have another round of slow growing numbers and another "panic" as soon as we open up again. Lockdowns don't work.

baggy1 do you think lockdowns have worked?

Also for reference WHO's own guidance for pandemics was NOT to contact trace:



No idea why we thought any system would work as they've been proven to be slow and ineffective. At a cost of 12bn and counting they are slow ineffective and lining the pockets of partners in Deloitte Serco Amazon etc...

---

Oh and by the way seems like we know what the price of future poverty, death, reduced education, business dying, young people's prospects in Lancashire is. £42m

What a joke.

(10-16-2020, 02:39 PM)baggy1 Wrote: I will disagree with you on a couple of key points, lockdowns do work and clearly so after the 1st lockdown unless of course you think the 1st lockdown made no difference. And there is a marked difference with a circuit breaker and a lockdown in that it is for a short period of time to bring the rate down to manageable levels again. Don't get me wrong, it will rise again after that but from a lower base.

And i'm not certain where you get the idea that WHO's guidance was not to contact trace as this is from their website: "WHO has outlined detailed guidance on how to find and test cases during different phases of the pandemic. In addition to case finding, contact tracing is essential in tracking and breaking chains of transmission of COVID-19. WHO provides technical guidance on contact tracing explains what constitutes a contact, how to identify contacts and how best to monitor contacts in quarantine."

(10-16-2020, 04:28 PM)baggy1 Wrote: Fair do's billy, you have a good weekend mate and try not to switch the news on. I'm off into my covid-suit and moving the cans of beans to my bunker.  

I think it's time for a beer 

(10-16-2020, 06:23 PM)Tom Joad Wrote: Bloody Hell! That's not the way arguments usually end on this bored.

(10-20-2020, 11:52 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: It’s clearly not just a seasonal flu. How many young(ish) healthy people suffer from long flu? Don’t at this point play semantics. I also don’t recall any of my friends and associates getting the flu and ending up on a ventilator or dying which has happened. Those talking about sensationalising the problem seem to think they are the voices of reason which is clearly open to debate.